BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Monthly Archive: October 2009

Tuesday

20

October 2009

0

COMMENTS

We're All Gonna Die! Pt. 23

Written by , Posted in Energy and the Environment

If we don’t cede our sovereignty at Copenhagen, then Gordon Brown tells us we’re all gonna die:

He added: “If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement in some future period can undo that choice.

“By then it will be irretrievably too late. So we should never allow ourselves to lose sight of the catastrophe we face if present warming trends continue.”

What warming trends? Even the BBC recently discovered that there has been no warming at all for ten years now.  In fact, Washington DC just had its coldest Oct. 16 in 138 years.

Monday

19

October 2009

0

COMMENTS

Racists Upset Over Minority Homecoming Winner

Written by , Posted in Identity Politics

Nikole Churchill is a minority at her school.  In today’s day and age, one would think that wouldn’t be a big deal, that there wouldn’t be a racist uproar if she won a beauty pageant and was named Homecoming Queen.  Clearly, one doesn’t study at the alter of identity politics.  You see, Nikole is a white student at a historically black college, so all bets are off:

Nikole Churchill, 22, won the contest at the college town in southern Virginia, but while she was all smiles, not everyone in the community was happy about the victory, the Times reports.

As well as the walkout, Miss Churchill had to contend with scowls, rather than the traditional sunny smiles, when she posed for a portrait with the runners up. All nine of the other contestants in the competition were black.

The following day Miss Churchill was heckled at a college football game and a previous Miss Hampton University said she was “very shocked” there was a white winner. “We’ve never had one before,” Patrece Parson said.

Ridiculous.

Sunday

18

October 2009

0

COMMENTS

Sometimes The Truth Slips Out

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Energy and the Environment

Liberals and other leftists have by necessity gotten quite good at hiding their agenda.  When the people learn just what it is they want to do, it’s almost always soundly rejected.  Their solution to this is never to change their agenda, but to hide it.  Yet sometimes the truth just slips out despite their best efforts.  Here are a couple of recent examples:

Yes, we’re buying votes

The Washington Post collected commentary from economists, pollsters and other politicos regarding the President’s request to provide a one-time $250 check to Social Security recipients. The reason given by the President is that seniors need help because they won’t be getting a cost of living adjustment this year (because there was no inflation and thus no increase in the cost of living).

One democratic pollster strayed from this narrative, however, and let their true motivations slip out.  Acknowledging that the proposal should be adopted “for political reasons,” he suggested the $250 benefit “will go a  long way toward holding on to a voting bloc that will be critical in next year’s midterm election.”  This is what is known as vote-buying, a cynical practice of stealing from Peter to bribe Paul that big government liberals are especially, though not uniquely, prone to.

We need economic pain for environmental gain

Web editor for The Nation, Emily Douglas, let a big one slip at a recent panel discussion on the environment.  When asked how to “reverse our culture of consumerism here in the United States,” Douglas immediately fired back, “make the recession worse.”  Although she claimed later this was a flippant answer, she also confirmed in her closing what many of us have said about the environmental movement for some time: it seeks to sacrifice human well-being in the name of environmental protection.  Its primary target is capitalism, because it has done more than anything to elevate the living standards people throughout the world.

Giving her final thoughts, Douglas stated flatly that she thinks “things should be more expensive” for Americans.  In other words, she wants people to be able to afford less conveniences, and thus to have a lower standard of living.  Sadly, this seems to be the dominant view in the modern environmental movement.

Friday

16

October 2009

0

COMMENTS

What Do You Know About Herbert Hoover, Chris Matthews?

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy

I recently fired off this email to the insufferable Chris Matthews.

Mr. Matthews,

In talking about how government should respond to economic turmoil in your recent broadcast, you asked Phillip Dennis, “What did Hoover do?” You then claimed that he did “nothing.” This is simply false.

Herbert Hoover was an interventionist president who paved the way for many of the programs later seen and loudly trumpeted under FDR. Federal spending increased 57 percent in Hoover’s four-year term, according to the OMB. In fact, FDR campaigned against Hoover’s big spending, much in the way that Obama did against Bush’s, only to commit to far more himself, again as Obama has done.

The idea that Hoover was a laissez-faire president is a popular myth in liberal circles, but it has no basis in reality. Recessions came and went fairly quickly prior to Hoover, back when laissez-faire actually was the accepted policy. It was only when government began interfering that a recession became a depression. It was Hoover’s meddling that created the Great Depression, and FDR’s that made it last so long. In addition to his disastrous tariffs, Hoover implemented price controls and drastically increased government spending. UCLA professor Lee E. Ohanian recently concluded that “By keeping industrial wages too high, Hoover sharply depressed employment beyond where it otherwise would have been… His policy was the single most important event in precipitating the Great Depression.”

Here’s how Herbert Hoover described his own policies while running for reelection:

“We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic.”

And here he is again in his memoirs:

“We developed cooperation between the federal, state, and municipal governments to increase public works. We persuaded employers to “divide” time among their employees so that as many as possible would have some incomes. We organized the industries to undertake renovation, repair, and, where possible, expand construction.”

Does that sound laissez-faire to you? Or does it more closely resemble the Keynesian claptrap advocated by Barack Obama and yourself? The facts are simply not on your side. I challenge you to educate yourself, or to have on someone knowledgeable about Herbert Hoover, such as professor Ohanian, instead of ambushing people with your factually deficient accounts of history.

Regards,

Brian Garst

Friday

16

October 2009

1

COMMENTS

Short On Good Teachers

Written by , Posted in Education, Labor Unions

Michelle Obama is warning of a coming teacher shortage. Andrew Coulson of the Cato Institute disagrees, noting that even if a million teachers retire in the next four years, we’d still have a lower pupil/teacher ration than we had in the 1970’s. I agree with him that a shortage of total teachers is not one of the problems we face in education, but there is a shortage of good teachers.

There are several reasons why there are not enough quality teachers. Because public schools operate outside of normal markets, the provision of education is highly inefficient.  A lot of money is wasted on things that do not increase education outcomes, while there is little pressure to invest in the most promising areas for increasing performance.  One such area is teacher quality.

Good teachers improve student performance, yet those with the best skills and experience find teaching salaries to be woefully inadequate compared to what they can make in the private sector.  School systems looking to hire teachers also undervalue subject matter knowledge and overvalue education degrees. A system of choice would encourage schools to place more appropriate value on the importance of quality teachers, and the result would be greater competition to attract and retain high performing teachers. As an example, The Equality Project Charter School recently opened in New York and offers a starting salary of $125,000 for its teachers. Impressively, the new charter is able to do this while receiving the same per pupil funding as the city’s public schools.

Another obstacle to filling schools with quality teachers is the unparalleled political clout wielded by teachers’ unions.  In many places it is simply impossible to fire teachers for incompetence. Thanks to union influence, teacher rating systems – where they even exist – are a joke, routinely finding the most incompetent teachers to be “satisfactory.”  Unions also strongly oppose merit pay, so despite the compelling evidence that shows the importance of effective teachers, the current system does next to nothing to reward effective teaching.

Unions are only able to dictate school policy because schools are governed through a political process. With a more market oriented system, where parents held the power of accountability instead of politicians and their appointees, union influence would wane, good teachers would be offered more competitive salaries, and students would be eminently better off.

Thursday

15

October 2009

0

COMMENTS

It's Still Misleading

Written by , Posted in Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements, Media Bias

NPR has finally decided to stop lying about health care statistics:

NPR’S deputy senior supervising editor Joe Neel drafted an e-mail that was sent out Oct. 14 to member stations addressing the number of uninsured. The e-mail clarified proper use of Census Bureau statistics and advised staff to “avoid the construction ’46 million Americans.'” That number has been a flashpoint throughout the health care debate.

The NPR e-mail said, “We are sticking with the 46 million number issued by the Census Bureau in September (for 2008). It’s the number of people in the U.S. who lack insurance coverage at any point during the prior 12 months. It includes citizens, legal residents and undocumented immigrants.”

The e-mail went on to explain how not to report the issue. “Better to say ’46 million uninsured in America,’ or ‘the nation’s 46 million uninsured people,’ or any other formulation that does not label all 46 million as citizens,” the e-mail continued.

Although it’s nice that they caught on, however belatedly, to the fact that it’s a lie to label a group as Americans when it includes people here illegally, the 46 million figure is still dishonestly misleading.  As the email says, it is the total number “who lack insurance coverage at any point during the prior 12 months.”  This necessarily includes a large number who merely transitioned from one plan to another.  Why, exactly, should these people be included in the same group with those who can’t afford coverage? And then there’s always those who can afford it but don’t buy it – also included in the NPR preferred figures.

How exactly does this mishmash of groups into one statistic inform the debate? There is no good answer to that, and NPR won’t bother trying to find one.  They’ll continue to regurgitate the Democratic talking points that there are 46 million people in America that justify a government takeover of health insurance. Their figures are wrong, and so are their solutions.

Thursday

15

October 2009

0

COMMENTS

Lobbying For Me, But Not For Thee

Written by , Posted in Energy and the Environment

Only certain interests can be respectably represented in Washington.  Unions are a-okay.  Lawyers get the stamp of approval when it comes to lobbying.  But businesses? Why, that’s gotta be criminal.

The Chamber of Commerce rightly opposes destroying our economy on the moronic assumption that we can prevent “climate change.”  In response, the left has gone completely batty.  They latched on to several prominent business defections as evidence that the Chamber is out of touch with environmental issues and to just generally attack the Chamber.  What they don’t note is that the companies in question support cap-and-trade because they stand to make billions off of it at the expense of everyone else. This is rent-seeking at its worst, but the left holds it up as an example of model corporate governance.

Now they’ve gone a step further and are calling for criminal investigations. A coalition of anti-business lefties called StopTheChamber whines that, “The Chamber is spending over $100 million to defeat new initiatives to reform the banking and health care industries and oppose legislation to curb global warming.” For this terrible crime of opposing statism, StopTheChamber wants criminal prosecutions. Clearly they must not only be opposed; they must be destroyed.

Wednesday

14

October 2009

0

COMMENTS

No Whitey Zones

Written by , Posted in Identity Politics

I not too long ago highlighted what I’m now going to call a No Whitey Zone, which are places where the idea of a white person holding an elected position is especially distasteful to local race-mongers.

Another No Whitey Zone has been discovered in Baltimore, Maryland:

“Our concern is who would the governor appoint?” Cheatham said. “Here you have a predominantly African-American city. What if the governor appointed somebody white? … Would he appoint someone Irish to be the mayor?”

A bloody leprechaun in government? The horror! This is particularly amusing considering that the previous mayor, and now current governor, is not only white, but with a name like Martin O’Malley is probably at least 200% Irish.

Hat tip: QandO

Wednesday

14

October 2009

2

COMMENTS

The Nobel Committee’s Silly Excuses

Written by , Posted in Foreign Affairs & Policy

They’re not surprised by the criticism, say the Nobel Peace Prize Committee members which have taken questions about their decision to award Barack Obama the prize.  Yet for people who saw the questions coming, their explanations are incredibly silly.

“We simply disagree that he has done nothing,’’ committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said yesterday. “He got the prize for what he has done.’’

Jagland singled out Obama’s efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an antimissile shield in Europe.

“All these things have contributed to – I wouldn’t say a safer world – but a world with less tension,’’ Jagland said by phone from the French city of Strasbourg, where he was attending meetings in his other role as secretary general of the Council of Europe.

“Alfred Nobel wrote that the prize should go to the person who has contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year,’’ Jagland said. “Who has done more for that than Barack Obama?’’

Who has done more than nothing? A lot of people, I’d imagine.

Some brush all the criticism off by noting that the award is really just an understandable rebuke of the crazy Bush years, where a psychopath cowboy went around scaring the beejesus out of dictators world leaders.  Although that explanation gets close to their motivation, it is not entirely satisfactory.  It doesn’t explain the laundry list of past winners that have done little to nothing to promote peace (Al Gore), are falsely given credit for the work of others (Mikhail Gorbachev), or in some cases flat out opposed peace (Yasser Arafat).

It is clear that this prize is not about peace, per se, but correct adherence to left-wing orthodoxy.  Members of the committee may rationalize this on the basis that they believe adherence to this ideology will ultimately promote peace, but ought such assumptions be tested with empirical evidence before handing out a world renowned award? Shouldn’t someone produce a single place where people have been made more peaceful thanks to an Obama policy before his stances are declared as having promoted peace?

Of course, if they used any empirical analysis at all – as opposed to a straight ideological checklist – you might find among the list of winners some people that actually deserved it, like Winston Churchill or Ronald Reagan. No global leftist worth his salt could ever let that happen.

Wednesday

14

October 2009

0

COMMENTS

Olympia Snowe Needs To Get An Answering Machine

Written by , Posted in Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements

Big government supporter Olympia Snowe provided cover yesterday for ongoing liberal attempts at a health-care takeover with her committee vote for the Baucus bill.  She summed up this betrayal of the American people by saying, “when history calls, history calls.”

If the erosion of personal freedom and the destruction of prosperity are what history asks for, then next time it calls, hang up.