Quote of the Day
Let us live for the beauty of our own reality.
Charles Lamb
Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day
 |
| Via Bastiat Institute |
 |
| Via LFC |
Image of the Day
Still More Sunday Talk Soup
I intensely dislike MTP's Gregory one-sided grilling of conservative/libertarian's perspectives. For example, take Romney's recent appearance, ostensibly to discuss (as a former organizer of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics) security at the Sochi Winter Olympics. Gregory then challenged Romney's pro-traditional marriage position; Romney did a brilliant job expressing his position largely consistent with my own. But Gregory continued to pounce on the "inevitability" argument, pointing out a dozen states have legalized "gay marriage" and challenging Romney to point out the negative outcomes. Romney, all too briefly, pointed out judicial activism on the issue and distinguished between short- and long-term effects of socially experimental policy (not in those words, exactly); he also noted that he was not advocating regulation of gay relationships. Let's expand on these points.
The talk about momentum in polls is absolutely ludicrous. During the stampede of state ballot measures reaffirming traditioal marriage in the aftermath of Massachusetts' judicial fiat liberalization of marriage, most of them carried with overwhelming majorities--where were the contagion/momentum pollsters then? What about the fact in 2008 polls predicted California's Prop 8 (reinstating traditional marriage) was headed for defeat? Only a small fraction of states liberalizing marriage have done so at the ballot box, and those that did so won narrowly in heavily blue states, outspending traditionalists by multiples but using disingenuous indirect talking points. Take, for example, my former state of residence, Maryland; Democrats own the state government and muscled "gay marriage" with lopsided majorities. Traditionalists got the measure on the state ballot. The pro-gay marriage forces swamped the airwaves with ads, not featuring gay couples, but, e.g., a black minister pushing the measure as a referendum on religious freedom (since he would not be forced to perform "gay marriages")--as if traditionalists were arguing for the regulation of religion! This was nonsensical since any state regulation of religion--including forcing clergy to officiate at "gay weddings"--is unconstitutional on its face. Yet despite a stacked deck, the referendum barely carried, with considerable opposition in the Democrats' key black constituency. The reason I mention this is because so-called pundits often argue that the GOP has a demographic death wish, yet the Democrats seem to have no fear of ignoring a key constituency on this issue.
About the adverse effects of social engineering? First of all, note that maybe 1 in 20 in the general population is homosexual, and many homosexuals pursue promiscuous vs. monogamous lifestyles. The issue is more symbolic than substantive. Second, homosexuals pursued relationships for thousands of years without feeling the need to impose on the heterosexual institution on marriage. As a libertarian, I find it perplexing that gays would invite the State to intervene in historically private, unregulated relationships. If they wanted to create their own religion with their own ceremonies and wanted to borrow the name "marriage" and "family" from the straight population, because they lack relevant original constructs of their own, who cares? This is little more than the Politics of Envy and wanting to impose their values on society as a whole.
But Gregory has the question ass-backwards. Marriage and family have been useful social constructs designed to promote the sustainability and stability of society. It's impossible for pregnancy to occur through homosexual relations; gays can only emulate marriage and family through unconventional means. What is the purpose of any social embrace of nonconventional relationships? To boost the self-esteem of a tiny minority of citizens? Note that there were thriving gay communities, even in Houston, while Texas maintained some anachronistic sodomy laws on the books. I had come across gays even while a young Navy officer, and most people I knew had a 'live and let live' attitude, that any judgment of gay relationships was between God and them. Have some people like the Westboro Baptists engaged in intolerant acts, even hostile acts? Yes, but some people are also uncivil based on other individual differences (race, religion, disabilities, appearance, etc.)
Given when social experimental failures like the so-called war on poverty have devastated urban families, where 1 in 3 births are illegitimate, where lifelong marriages are under pressure, is it prudent to further mess with institutions which have evolved over thousands of years and across cultures? I submit "NO!" What I'm seeing is increased social instability and falling birth rates with existing policy interventions by "progressives"; I don't see the loosening of the definition of marriage as stabilizing the situation. What are the unintended effects of legalizing low-frequency nontraditional relationships? I don't know--but I don't think those whom proposed anti-poverty programs intended to undermine marriage and the family. The burden of proof is on those proposing radical change, even as marriage and family are under assault by modernist errors. I don't see the need for these alleged reforms; gays do not need straight approvals to pursue their own relationships and lifestyles,
Second, this blog has largely steered clear of the global warming/climate change debate except to make the following points:
- climate models are fairly rudimentary and have limited explanatory power; in particular, alarmists go beyond the data and their assertions are more speculative than scientifically grounded;
- some aspects related to climate change, including sun activity and the earth's own evolution, are beyond human ability to control;
- any US policy reforms are not only infeasible from a cost-benefit perspective but more than offset by other countries' policies (especially developing economies, like China and India) which are effectively ramping up deployment of carbon-based power plant technologies;
- the scientific community has been largely compromised, corrupted and undermined by political activism and political correctness run amok.
Hearing a science-illiterate Barry Obama pompously declare that the scientific debate over goes beyond his limited power and competency. He cannot dictate innovation in energy technologies by fiat---what we do know is that goverment intervention tends to be counter-productive. What we need is less goverment subsidies to corrupt crony alternative energy companies that pick the bones clean of income transferred from future taxpayers and more freedom/less regulation of the energy industry. Manipulating energy prices can have negative macroeconomic effects on economic growth; self-imposed fossil fuel rationing can be self-defeating in international bidding for limited natural resources. Higher expenditures for energy means less consumer/supplier resources available for spending, investment, or saving. An EPA war on domestic energy consumers is the equivalent of Obama shooting himself in the foot.
A Sidenote on a Good Friend
I have never been chosen "best man" at a wedding (although I've been a groomsman, I think at all my siblings' weddings). I published a note a few days back claiming I had never been invited to a college friend's wedding; technically, that wasn't true--I attended 2 weddings while still enrolled, one at UT and the other at Houston; when I wrote what I did, I was thinking after graduation. I remember at pre-med graduate Joe's wedding, I introduced myself to his mother as Joe's friend (as against Yvonne, whom I knew during their relationship but who was more of an acquaintance; I think Joe and I first met when the Longhorns won the College World Series and we went to see the Tower lit up in orange). Joe's mom sniffed and corrected me: "You are one of Joe's
MANY friends." Unintentionally funny in misunderstanding the context...
I have a 3 years younger brother; we were reasonably close growing up (throwing footballs and baseballs together, Scouts, etc.), but we didn't room together when he followed me to UT. We probably ate together once a week, but we had our own sets of friends. (I was a grad student and he was undergraduate.) He was working in East Texas as an engineer while I was working on my doctorate in Houston. He was rebounding from a broken engagement when he met an event planner from Vegas at a vacation resort. As the relationship evolved, she moved to East Texas, and they got engaged. He was really nervous one weekend when I visited home, and I overheard him talk to my folks. He had decided to name his best friend Steve as best man, and he was worried that my feelings would be hurt over not being chosen. To be honest, I was annoyed--not about the best man choice but that he thought that it would bother me. It never entered my mind that he might choose me as best man. We had never discussed the matter growing up, but he was barely in his teens when I left for college. He lived over an hour away, and we infrequently visited each other while I lived in Houston. (I think he came to see the Astros play and the occasional Cougars-Longhorns football game.) He was visibly relieved when I took the news well. I didn't tell him then, but I had never considered him if and when I was to marry. I had made the choice years earlier, although I never spoke of it. Good thing, since to date, I've never gotten married or even asked anyone.
I've had 3 good friends since my UH days; I keep them out of my blog intentionally. (None of them are responsible for any of my idiosyncratic political beliefs.) Probably my closest was an office mate at the University of Houston. He is, simply put, one of the finest men I've ever met. He introduced me to racquetball and regularly beat me by scores like 21-2. He took pity on my bachelor diet and invited me to family dinner a few times where I met their 3 (eventually 4) beautiful kids. He, a former Eagle Scout, was involved in Scouting, and the family was enthusiastic about chess. (I think his wife has been involved in related chess tournaments.) After my academic career ended, I took a contract position at an IBM facility in the Dallas suburbs, and my friend, who had been teaching in Kentucky, moved to a different suburb where one of my sisters now lived. Of all coincidences, my sister and married friends knew each other because my nephews were in a local Boy Scout troop where my friend (and two of his own sons) was involved. My friend never knew that the boys' mother was related to me. My sister is pretty, petite and very sweet, sort of the anti-Ronald; she would volunteer to do extra chores for Mom. I sometimes kidded that she was God's way of making it up to Mom for having me.
In any event, my friend, who is also a CPA, had started his own company but over the last decade moved to the Atlanta area to take a significant position with a non-profit. He lost both of his parents over the decade-plus I had relocated to Chicago. My friend had not really shared much with me about his folks and friends growing up, but when his Dad passed a few years back, he wrote a moving tribute, one of the finest letters I ever read.
My friend is not on Facebook, but his wife and some of his children are. I "friended" his better half, and on their recent anniversary, she posted some of their wedding pictures. I made a mental note to tease him about his prominent sideburns, but when really grabbed my attention was a picture of my friend with his beloved late Dad. Under the picture, his wife noted that his Dad served as his son's best man. I was blown away. I've not heard of many sons whom choose their Dad to be their best man, but in fact, and I had never mentioned to anyone until then, that I had always planned to ask my own Dad best man. I consider it an amazing coincidence among good friends that we independently had the same idea. (Of course, I still have to find the right woman to make it come true, easier said than done.)
Reisman Tweets: Pro-Liberty Platform: Thumbs UP!
Facebook Corner
(Bastiat Institute).
"Arizona legislators passed a bill to let business owners refuse service to gay people in a move they said is meant to protect religious freedom. But if it’s freedom they’re looking for, one Arizona pizzeria is doing them proud with a proud assertion of its own freedom to refuse service. The only twist? It’s not gay people they’re turning away. It’s… Arizona state legislators.".
I as a consumer reserve the right not to purchase pizza from politically correct vendors.
 |
| Courtesy of Eric Allie via Illinois Policy Institute |
The CBO did not say that the ACA will hurt the economy - it said some 2 million people will choose not to stay in the their jobs simply to keep their healthcare insurance. This does not mean that the demand for those labor hours went away; the demand for those labor hours will still be there and will be met by new workers and/or more hours for existing workers. Also, according to the CBO, the Stimulus created or saved 3+ million jobs. IPI, I enjoy being challenged and exposed to conservative thought when it is worthy of my time, but you guys are just weak. Reading your posts is like watching Fox News on Saturday mornings - just wait 30 seconds and the guests/hosts start shrieking the usual nonsensical GOP talkings points ("Obama's fault," "communist," "Benghazi!").
Absolute economic illiteracy! As anyone with a modicum of economic knowledge knows, the relevant statistic is total compensation, and as compensation goes up, demand for labor shrinks. Either businesses swallow price increases--not a viable long-term strategy--or they risk losing customers whom will pay higher prices for goods and services.
Ronald - I can only conclude from your rant that you did not read my post. My comment does not address the minimum wage, yet your reply seems to address only the minimum wage. I think the GOP is going to get hurt on that issue, too, when poor and working class whites who keep voting the GOP into office finally realize that the GOP cares nothing about them.
You conceptually don't get that business-sponsored healthcare is part of compensation and ACA policies have resulted in higher costs, more than worker productivity increases can absorb. "Progressive" policies have exacerbated sector inflation and have transferred costs to employers/consumers.
(The Independent Institute).
"The four runner-up worst-run states, in order from least badly run to most badly run, were Nevada, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Illinois. Meanwhile, the most badly run state in America is California."
That's because we had the choice of a senile old liberal crock and a Republican c*nt who tried to insinuate that we were stupid when she claimed she "didn't know" that one of her ILLEGAL employees wasn't legal...we gotta get a better choice next time...
What's the excuse for electing the same old failed professional politician a third time. You're more worried about a voluntary employment transaction vs. a successful female CEO whom might approach an unsustainable California financial mess differently? Here's a hint to residents of the People's Republic of California: maybe one party rule of the state isn't such a good thing, and you need to stop electing actors or professional politicians governors....
(Tom Woods).
I specialize in featuring the criminally underrated on my show. Take George Reisman, for example. Listen as he dismantles the "robots will take all our jobs" argument on my podcast.
Funny, just stopped at a truck stop in Maryland last week that has cut the staff in half by adding automated ordering kiosks - and the cashier told me that all cashiers are now part time. She said the company is bringing this model to all their stores.
Technology-driven productivity is constant; I think Mark Perry points out we spend maybe 7% of our income on food vs. a heavily agricultural economy at our birth. I can still remember the long distance wars about 30 years back; today long distance is a freebie for cellphones and households are dropping their landlines. I can do bank transactions or buy gas around the clock. I can pay a bill or send an email in a fraction of the time and expense. What I save or invest from cheaper goods and services I can spend on other job-producing goods and services.
Political Cartoon
Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Series
Joe Cocker, "The Letter"
