Analytics

Friday, July 31, 2020

Post #4727 M: Ron Paul on the Lockdown Disease; Tom Wood's Life Advice

Quote of the Day

One's first book, kiss, home run, is always the best.
Clifton Fadiman 

Ron Paul on the Lockdown Disease

 

Tom Wood's Life Advice

         

Woods on Hitler and Economics

   

Choose Life

Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Gary Varvel via Townhall

Musical Interlude: #1 Hits 1963 

 Go Away Little Girl/Steve Lawrence

 

Thursday, July 30, 2020

Post #4726 M: McClanahan on Government Education; Portland and the Left

Quote of the Day

Do not speak of your happiness to one less fortunate than yourself.
Plutarch

McClanahan on Government Education

 

Portland and the Left

      

Choose Life

Political Cartoon

Musical Interlude: #1 Series 1963

Telstar / The Tornados
   

Wednesday, July 29, 2020

Post #4725 M: McClanahan on Personal Responsibility; DiLorenzo on 10 Things About Socialism

Quote of the Day

The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today.
Franklin D. Roosevelt  

McClanahan on Personal Responsibility



Woods on Smashing the Duopoly



DiLorenzo on 10 Things About Socialism



Choose Life



Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Michael Ramirez via Townhall


Musical Interlude: The Beatles

"Real Love". This marks the end of my Beatles series. My next series will have a different twist. I'll count down #1 hits in the rock era, starting with 1963.

Post #4724 J: Blogiversary 12; the Census Again?

Blogiversary 12




I don't recall if I celebrated my blogiversary last year; I was starting a temp gig at the time. I made sure to put it into my Google calender.

We are now going through the fourth Presidential campaign during the life of the blog. I think I referenced in earlier posts I had been debating with myself for a few weeks whether or when to start the blog. To a certain degree, I wanted to pose as an independent blogger; I had been a nominal registered Republican since the late  1980's when I left the Democrats as a young professor and alienated conservative Democrat (the politicization of the brilliant Bork nomination was the final straw; I had long fumed over the progressive wing of the party that had marginalized us). I had always been a fiscal conservative, even during my liberal salad days.

But even in my more socially (modern) liberal days, I disdained political correctness; I opposed the Chicano protests while at OLL, resented being forced to attend the lecture of then an obscure speaker of color, Alex Haley. I loved academic rigor and "the Great Books" and hated being force-fed multicultural rubbish. I was (and remain) strongly pro-life. Still, I was impressed with much progressive legislation more in terms of its ideals than in its means. I didn't have an undergraduate course in economics, although I had some exposure through a social philosophy course, including Marx and Engels. I really didn't have a concept of the opportunity costs of legislation, unintended consequences, how government exacerbates underlying issues and creates moral hazard.

I had become increasingly skeptical of progressive legislation and its effectiveness, not to mention the political failures of Carter's Presidency for which I had had a personal stake, volunteering for the first and only time in his Texas campaign. Four years later, I would be standing for Ted Kennedy at the 1980 caucuses. It really wasn't Kennedy's policies, more of an identification with the ideals of his slain older brothers, John and Robert. But what really solidified my growing political conservatism was taking graduate economics courses at UH. (And they were not at all "conservative"; it might shock my old professors to know of my interest in free market economics.) At the time I was a computer programmer/analyst and looked at getting an MBA for career prospects.

(I also thought maybe it was a way of meeting single women. It was partially effective; I did date more over the next 6 years, but no serious relationship and one particularly bad one that led me to separate from Catholic Newman, my refuge of sorts from the madness of academia and its stresses, on campus around the time I started on my dissertation.) The part-time MBA program, especially for non-business school graduates, required 12 prerequisite hours (4 classes): two in economics and 2 in QMS (basically statistics). I'm fairly sure that my econ courses were totally meat-and-potato economics without any obvious political perspective. In fact, I can honestly say I don't know my UH professors' politics (don't blame them for my views :-)), except Dr. Zinkhan, my marketing prof, once cautioned me I was coming across as too strident. (Unfortunately, Zinkhan became probably my most famous former professor involved in an infamous murder-suicide in Georgia a few years back.) For the most part, I think most business school profs lean moderate to progressives in their views.

The fact is that I had liked McCain's maverick reputation and bipartisan approach; he was the clear front runner to succeed former rival George W. Bush when his mismanaged campaign came apart in 2007. I was ecstatic when he rose from the ashes to capture the nomination, battling media conservative trolls in online forums targeting McCain for early votes against Bush's temporary tax cuts, his embrace of immigration reform, and ill-fated campaign finance reforms. I had made two small donations, never did get the promised gimmick gift of a tire gauge named "Obama's Energy Plan". I did get livid over the Obama asshole behavior, which I never forgave Barry for, like when McCain tried to defer the first debate over the TARP crisis, and Obama was sneering McCain was trying to chicken out of the debate, said he could do his part on the road with a pen and a phone.

When I started the blog, I wanted to avoid the appearance of a tilt, and if my blog and tweets have shown over the years, I have blasted some views of favorite politicians and even occasionally praised the opposition and/or Trump. You can probably read some of the criticisms I had of the McCain campaign (e.g., the Palin pick, the campaign suspension, etc., I was actually surprised the populist in him didn't take the obvious stand against TARP), and you saw parts of my dismay when I publicly called on McCain to dump Palin. But for the most part I was paranoid that if I publicly criticized McCain, it might be used to hurt his campaign. Ah, the hubris of a new blogger's ego!

The blog eventually migrated into what it's become in the present; it found its own formula/niche. I'm now more libertarian than conservative, and there's a lot of older stuff that I would wince at today. Now I came to see McCain in a tougher light; the straight talk turned into soundbites, and his pro-interventionist bias bothered me.

Sure, I was hoping readership would grow more than it has, but I'm less than a year away from post #5000. And I hope you all continue the ride, to find interest in what I have to say.

The Census: Again?

I know I blogged about doing this year's census. And I'm a digital packrat, I keep hardcopies of everything, including the online census.

I don't know why suddenly I felt like I was getting targeted by incompetent Census people again. It seemed like I was getting  more than my fair share of Census ads online and on cable. Maybe just a coincidence, but a weird one.

This is probably the first time, with remote home work, that anyone has probably found me at home at Census time. Maybe these bozos have done this in the past and I never knew about it. So some older dude, not identifying himself, knocks and asks to talk to the head of the household. I honestly thought this was one of these usual sales guys trying to sell me alternative energy from BGE (local utility). I have zero tolerance for being interrupted by these guys and quickly ended the encounter as "Not interested."

But the "head of household" bit was unusual and it popped in my head maybe this was a Census dude. A few days later I came home from a grocery run to find a Census flyer on my (and also a neighbor's) door.

Dude, I already submitted my form and I can prove it. If the Census "lost" my data, not my problem! Go away for another decade.

Tuesday, July 28, 2020

Post #4723 M: Stossel on SpaceX and the Private Sector in Space; McClanahan on Academia

Quote of the Day

People are in greater need of your praise when they try and fail, 
than when they try and succeed.
Bob Moawad  

Stossel on SpaceX and the Private Sector in Space



McClanahan on Academia



Choose Life







Political Cartoon



Musical Interlude: The Beatles

"Free As a Bird". As we near the end of this countdown, we Beatles fans after the breakup were desperately hoping for new unreleased material, maybe some forgotten, overlooked classic. So these last two songs were special, but maybe didn't meet unrealistic expectations. Of course, whatever hopes we had of a Beatles reunion album died with John Lennon's murder. All four had decent solo success, but you have to wonder what might have been if Lennon and McCartney continued to bounce ideas off each other, how their music would have evolved.

Monday, July 27, 2020

Post #4722 M: Remy in NoMargaritaville; McClanahan on Ivy League Lies

Quote of the Day

My home is not a place, it is people.
Lois McMaster Bujold  

Remy in NoMargaritaville



McClanahan on Ivy League Lies



Towards Political Civility


Choose Life


Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Pat Cross via Townhall


Musical interlude: The Beatles

"For You Blue"

Post #4721 Commentary: Open Immigration vs. Libertarians

This is not going to an exhaustive review of split camps in libertarians over immigration. The late-life Murray Rothbard and notably Hans-Hermanne Hoppe have sought to rationalize that restrictionist regimes are consistent within the construct of a libertarian society committed to the ideas of free markets, etc. At the risk of oversimplification, the idea is that a voluntary society loses some of its identity and culture by forced occupation of heterogeneous elements.

Others, like Ron Paul, argue the lure of the social welfare state. (Hoppe rightly argues the social welfare net is a separate issue.) The basic argument is fleshed out in this quote from Milton Friedman:
There is no doubt that free and open immigration is the right policy in a libertarian state, but in a welfare state it is a different story: the supply of immigrants will become infinite.
(Note that Friedman was not a restrictionist; he specifically approved of illegal Latino immigration.)

But the line "the supply of immigrants will be infinite" is fairly generic; for example, the Trump proxy in a recent SOHO debate used it to rationalize restrictions. The idea is that the other 95% of the global population would quickly overrun the native population and transform the country to something different, without our consent.

Now first of all, I want to provide a personal anecdote that illustrates, from both directions, how unrealistic this being overrun scenario is. In 1995, I worked at a Brazilian client location in Sao Paulo for a few months (I thought it would be for 3 weeks). Among other things, I was dating this beautiful Brazilian woman. (Not bad given the fact I knew little Portuguese going to Brazil,  and my lady knew little English. I don't even remember how the topic came up but my project manager told me that he could get me the equivalent of a 6-figure job offer with the client, well-above what I was making and would make for comfortable standard of living. Don't get me wrong; I loved visiting Brazil, and I love the people there. But my family and friends are back in the States a continent away; I love the freedom and the country, our culture and customs. As for girlfriend, I would have loved for her to join me in the States; I probably would have married her. But she had no interest in coming to the States (beyond an occasional tourist visit): her family and friends were in Brazil; she loved her country: the flip side of my experience.

I don't claim that my anecdotal experiences are generalizable, but I do think there's a risk in relocating to a new place with strange new customs, language, and culture: how well will you be treated in your new homeland, can you find steady work; you are leaving your comfort zone, you may never see again your family and your old friends. Yes, it's an easier decision if you are fleeing political oppression, like Hitler's "final solution".

I can't interview my great-grandparents on both sides of the family who emigrated from Canada in the late nineteenth century. I know certain aspects of the Quebec diaspora, e.g., large Catholic families ran out of room to sustain individual farms. New England became a lure for many French-Canadians looking for a better life, including farmers and loggers, not to mention the lure of jobs at the textile mills of Fall River, MA, where my own folks were born in a thriving Franco-American community. (The textile mills have long gone away, with Southern and other competition.) My maternal grandmother was a weaver and proud of her skills; my grocer grandfather wanted her to be a housewife, proud of his ability to provide for her. But make no mistake; working at the mills was a hard life. And of course there was no social welfare system. Franco-Americans pride themselves on a hard work ethic, probably considered it a loss of face to take charity.

So let's be clear: the immigration boom during the nineteenth through early twentieth century occurred without a social welfare state and the federal budget was small; we also didn't see unlimited people coming. This was under a fairly open immigration system (with some ugly anti-Asian exceptions and/or unofficial caps). We have some significant expensive access problems for most of the global population outside the Western Hemisphere. Since about WWI and its aftermath we've seen an economically illiterate quota system, which remains intact to this very day; it creates artificial shortages, even as our high tech industry seeks to recruit global talent to accommodate growth initiatives. Even if we tripled our annual quotas, it would only mean like something 1% of the American population. Having to wait 15 or more years is an abomination. And most empirical studies I've seen show significant economic benefits to increased immigration.

I see the right to travel and to migrate as an essential construct of freedom. I see restrictions to immigration as an abomination to the ideals under which this country was founded. Almost every libertarian think tank--Cato Institute, Reason, Adam Smith Institute, etc.--advocates an open-immigration perspective. I've often cited Cato's Alex Nowrasteh. Bryan Caplan's Open Borders, and Benjamin Powell, among others.

Sunday, July 26, 2020

Post #4720 M: SOHO Presidential Debate For Libertarians

Quote of the Day

Life is no brief candle to me. 
It is sort of a splendid torch 
which I have got hold of for a moment, 
and I want to make it burn as brightly as possible 
before handing it on to future generations.
George Bernard Shaw

SOHO Presidential Debate For Libertarians

I occasionally embed longer clips, in particular, SOHO debates. It will not surprise readers that I think the Jorgensen proxy won the debate; I've made it clear in tweets and posts that I intend to vote for Jorgensen and am not convinced by the argument mathematically Jorgensen can't win. I'm not going to go into a long analysis here. Ilya (Biden's proxy) is a fellow open-borders advocate and I think his strongest argument is on immigration; I'm not sure why others didn't challenge him more on union historical resistance to immigration and Deporter-in-Chief Obama. I found his trade argument weak, given among other things Clinton flipped on TPP and Democrats still oppose free trade on behalf of labor protectionist and environmental groups; they dislike the concept of temporary foreign visitors and regularly accuse of China of currency manipulation. As for Trump's proxy, other than maybe regulations and some court appointments, I was surprised Trump's targeting of Sanford, Amash, and Massie didn't get raised, his hostility towards Iran, etc. Only lip service to Trump's vast national debt accumulation, the COVID-19 spending bill, his self-serving use of the veto and dubious executive orders, his questionable abuses of "emergency authority", his refusal to look at social insurance reform, etc. I don't even think Trump's impeachment got raised. So I was disappointed that a lot of points I think weren't fleshed out.



A Pro-Masker Maces A Couple Eating Lunch




Fake Patriotism vs Athlete Indulgence



Choose Life

This fear over healthy cousins hugging is absurd.



Political Cartoon


Courtesy of Steve Breen via Townhall


Musical Interlude: The Beatles

"Blackbird"

Post #4719 Social Media Digest


Parler

No new parleys, and all notifications were from libertarians I'm following, i.e., the Paul's and Massie.

Facebook






































Twitter

Well, outside of the bizarre 3-day shadow ban of sorts last week, I've been off to a blistering start on the new, including a 25K impression ad lib tweet on the topic of VeryScaryPeople. It's been rare I've had more than a handful "viral tweets" (>1K) in my top 20 list. Now all 20 > 1.2K, and I know there must be a handful below that. Still, not a lot of engagements (likes or retweets); most have less than a dozen, at least one with none. I also made a point in recent posts of discussing my Twitter war with Ms. Debra, an ICU nurse, which appears below.