The various religions are like different roads converging on the same point.
What difference does it make if we follow different routes,
provided we arrive at the same destination.
Mahatma Gandhi
Mixing Investments and Politics: Thumbs DOWN!
The board of Calpers, the largest US pension fund (roughly a quarter trillion in assets), voted to divest $5M in stock of two major firearms manufacturers, Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. and Sturm Ruger & Co. To put that into context probably $32M of SWHC stock alone trades hands daily. So it's clear this has more to do with scoring ideological points at the expense of the state's pensioners.:
The Calpers board’s vote was 9-3. Board member Dan Dunmoyer, who opposed the proposal, said Calpers invests in other companies that make products that are prohibited under state law, such as certain types of gasoline available in other states, some acne medications and even automobiles that don’t meet California’s clean-air standards. “The premise under which we are taking this motion is fraught with peril,” he said. “The intent of this is noble and if I thought it would prevent future shootings, I would carry this motion myself.”I'm more principled in opposition than Dunmoyer: there are many ways that people are killed yearly: do we ban the sale of GM trucks if a drunk driver kills a pedestrian? Did we ban the manufacture or sale of box cutters after 9/11? And I'm not any more in favor of anti-consumer state infringements on economic liberty than I am of federal intrusions. When governments unduly restrict open commerce (e.g., alcohol, prostitution, drugs), they simply expand the black market.
The two manufacturers produce products that address a household's need/right to defend itself. If anything, progressives' obsession with trying to manipulate the behavior of other people is sending gun sales through the roof! I have a bit of a contrarian streak; familiar readers may recall I made a point of gassing up at local BP stations during the oil spill crisis. Local dealers had nothing to do with the spill but they paid a stiff price due to various boycotts. The big problem with boycotts, divestments, embargoes, etc. is they often hurt the little guy: workers, suppliers, small investors, etc..
During my years in academia the key issue of the day was disinvestment from South Africa. I have always been a skeptic of these moves, including the unintended consequences of hurting black South Africans for their own good. The libertarian Rothbard noted (my edits):
Free-market capitalism is a marvelous antidote for racism. In a free market, employers who refuse to hire productive black workers are hurting their own profits and the competitive position of their own company. It is only when the state steps in that the government can socialize the costs of racism and establish an apartheid system. During the days of the national grape boycott, the economist Angus Black wrote that the only way for consumers to help the California grape workers was to buy as many grapes as they possibly could, thereby increasing the demand for grapes and raising the wage rate and employment of grape worker. It is all too easy for American liberals, secure in their well-paid jobs and their freedom in the United States, to say, in effect, to the blacks of South Africa: "We're going to make you sacrifice for your own benefit." It is doubtful whether the blacks in South Africa will respond with the same enthusiasm. Unfortunately, they have nothing to say in the matter; once again, their lives will be the pawns in other people's political games."For a comprehensive overview of the 1986 battle between the Congress and President Reagan (Congress, including the GOP-controlled Senate, overrode his veto of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act), see here. South Africa was already in the process of transitioning from the worst aspects of apartheid (the ruling Nationalist Party split from the pro-apartheid Conservative Party in 1982). Reagan opposed apartheid, of course; he was more pragmatic in achieving that end.
Progressives, just like Obama, confuse symbolism with serious public policy. Just because you do a focus group on attractive but misleading names like the "Affordable Care Act". PR doesn't make for good public policy. What's next--sneaking a tax increase into the "I Love Moms, Babies and Puppy Dogs Act"?
In the meanwhile, if Calpers' divestment creates a buying opportunity for SWHC, I may scoop up a few shares. The prospect of making money at the expense of boneheaded California politicians and other pension board members makes me smile.
Sportsmanship and Class
Internet fitness entrepreneur Matt Furey recently wrote an inspirational account of his son's baseball game (my edits):
Over this past weekend, I was in Hollywood, Florida for a prestigious 12 and under baseball tournament, the (2-0) SY TITANS out of Santa Ynez, California, happened to be the #5 ranked team in the country, and so,our backs were against the wall (0-2) when my son, Frank, took the hill [to pitch]...In the sixth we added another insurance run, then brought in our closer, who punched out three batters with runners on 2nd and 3rd. We won, 6-5 and what a thrill 'twas. And [as the team and parents celebrated the hard-fought first victory] the SY TITANS walked before our parents and fans and clapped for us, celebrating our victory with us, telling us congratulations, and much more...As I left the ball park, several parents came up and congratulated the efforts of my son. They told me how they wish they didn't have to face him.To the "losing" coach, parents and young men: well done!
Political Humor
As a two-time former NASA contractor (Clear Lake City and Goddard Space Flight Center), I am amused, but no one else I knew would be...
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
The Supremes, "Love Child". I don't know the formula for writing a #1 song, but it probably wouldn't start with a young woman growing up with social stigmas of illegitimacy and poverty, determined that her own children would grow up differently. Things have changed over the past 40 years, not necessarily for the better, with cycles of single-parent households and celebrity couples unabashedly having children out of wedlock. (Let me point out my support of traditional marriage and family is clear, but I would never blame a child for circumstances beyond her control; adoption can be a wonderful alternative. What I like about the song is the young woman is taking responsibility for her actions and consequences and not giving into her boyfriend's selfish, disingenuous demand that she "prove" her love through intimacy. If I had written the song I probably would have included something about not having a daddy in her life, that the boyfriend was handing her the same lines her own mother heard from her father.) But in terms of melody, lead and backing vocals, cadence, bridging, arrangement, etc., this song is probably my favorite Supremes performance. I prefer a couple of their other hits, but in terms of group performance, this hit is in a league of its own.
