You’ve undoubtedly heard or read something like this: Libertarians are merely ideological parrots who keep repeating “leave it to the free market.” Economic libertarianism isn’t ideological — it’s logical. In fact, it’s better than logical — it’s an empirically sound position.
Author: Loquitur Veritatem
See https://politicsandprosperity.com/about/.
You’re Driving Me Crazy (Revised Version)
Driving habits that seem to have become universal in the past several years:
1. Pulling onto the road in front of an oncoming vehicle when it’s the only vehicle in sight.
2. Looping left to make a right turn, and vice versa.
3. Making an abrupt turn without giving a signal, when there are other drivers around you who would benefit from knowing your plans.
4. Going just slow enough to make it through a light as it turns yellow, then speeding up after the cars behind you have braked for the light.
5. Staying in the left lane of an interstate highway while driving at the speed limit (or slower). (This habit dates back at least 20 years, but it has become standard practice in certain places: Virginia and Florida, to name two.)
6. Going 55 mph in the middle lane of an interstate highway when the speed limit is 65 or 70 mph. (Can’t you and the jerks in the left lane read the signs that say “Slower Traffic Keep Right”?)
7. Getting all ticked off and speeding up when someone tries to pass you on an interstate highway, even though you had been dawdling along obliviously at 55 mph.
8. Yielding the right of way when it’s yours — out of a misplaced sense of courtesy — thus confusing the driver who doesn’t have the right of way and causing traffic behind you to back up needlessly.
9. Of course, there’s talking on a cell phone while driving in heavy traffic.
10. Then there’s talking on a cell phone while driving in heavy traffic and leaning into the back seat to slap your child. (Here’s a case where I think the government should confiscate your car — and your child.)
11. How about those drivers who cross the center line while taking a curve because they can’t exert the bit of effort required to stay in the proper lane? (What, no power steering, you self-centered jerks?)
12. Don’t you love those drivers who like to take corners by cutting across the oncoming lane of traffic? Jerks, jerks, jerks.
13. Then there are the drivers who simply drive down the middle of unstriped roads and parking-lot lanes. They either have poor spatial judgment, suffer from extreme nervousness, or flunked sharing in Kindergarten.
14. What are those stripes for on either side of a parking space? Might they be meant to be parked between? No, they’re just targets to aim for. As long as your car is straddling one stripe or the other, you’re okay. SUV drivers — being mostly obnoxious jerks — are the worst offenders, but yuppie women in small BMWs are close contenders.
The longer I make this list, the more irritated I get. I’m ready to hop in my car and go 30 mph through a 20 mph school zone. Then I will keep going 30 mph when I get onto a nice 45 mph boulevard. Then I will honk at you if you dare pass me. Why not? Everyone else seems to do it.
With Apologies to a Female INTJ
In “IQ and Personality” (March 14, 2004), I said “if you encounter an INTJ (Introverted, iNtuitive, Thinking, Judging), there is a 37% probability that his IQ places him in the top 2 percent of the population.” That is, among the 16 personality types in the Myers-Briggs taxonomy, INTJs are the most likely (by a large margin) to have a very high IQ.
A reader has commented on my use of the masculine pronoun in the passage quoted above: “Just letting you know that I am an INTJ and I am a female.”
I’m guilty of lazy writing, for which I apologize. Even though I’m a type-proud, male INTJ, I don’t assume that all INTJs are males.
His Life As a Victim
The New York Times has posted a piece about Bill Clinton’s memoir, My Life. Should we laugh, cry, or scream at Weeping Willie’s latest outrage? You be the judge.
Let’s start with the Jones case, which led to Clinton’s impeachment. The Times says that Clinton
takes the whip to [among others] the Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously in 1997 that Paula Jones’s sexual harassment case against him could go forward while he was in office. He called that one of the most politically naive and damaging court decisions in years.
Of course, he would place himself above the course of justice. You know, the person who holds the presidency is only holding a job temporarily. He’s not indispensible; in fact, he’s rather easily replaced. It was Clinton’s fault that he was sued for sexual harassment. If he couldn’t defend the suit and do his job at the same time, he had two options: resign the presidency or step down temporarily under the provisions of Amendment XXV of the Constitution.
Then there’s this compelling bit about terrorism:
Mr. Clinton defends his record on terrorism, arguing that he pressed the allies for more of a focus on counterterrorism and citing speeches in which he called terror “the enemy of our generation.”
He also notes that in 1996 he signed two directives on terrorism and appointed Richard A. Clarke to be the administration’s terrorism coordinator.
That’s telling ’em, boy. But I guess bin Laden wasn’t listening to Bill’s speeches or reading his directives. Osama damn sure wasn’t impressed by Dick Clarke.
Whitewater? Oh, that:
[Clinton] explained the sudden appearance of Mrs. Clinton’s legal billing records in the White House residence as the product merely of sloppy record-keeping in Arkansas.
Huh?
Finally, we come to the “new, new, new” Clinton:
Mr. Clinton closes the book with a short meditation on the lessons he has learned about accepting personal responsibility, letting go of anger and granting forgiveness. He said that in the many black churches he had visited he had heard funerals referred to as “homegoings.”
“We’re all going home,” he wrote, “and I want to be ready.”
Well, he ain’t ready yet, as these snippets from the Times article attest:
[the] autobiography…is by turns painfully candid about his personal flaws and gleefully vindictive about what he calls the hypocrisy of his enemies….The book’s length gives the former president plenty of room to settle scores, and he does so with his customary elan….He reserved special venom for Kenneth W. Starr….
Of course he did. Starr’s determined effort to uphold the rule of law finally resulted in a small measure of justice when Clinton was disbarred by the State of Arkansas and the U.S. Supreme Court. Such is Clinton’s “legacy”.
Very Helpful, I’m Sure
Headline:
World Leaders Condemn Hostage Slaying
I remember when anti-Vietnam War protesters circled the Pentagon, joined hands, and tried to will an end to the war. That was more effective than the rote condemnation of terrorists for the killing of Paul Johnson in Saudi Arabia.
The same article quotes Human Rights Watch (a world leader in what?) as calling Johnson’s slaying “a heinous crime that no political cause can justify.” You know all you need to know about Human Rights Watch when it elevates al Qaeda’s Islamo-fascist agenda to the status of a political cause. Right up there with George Washington and company. Moral relativism just makes me sick.
The 9/11 Commission
The fault-finding commission deluxe. But I’ve already said all that needs to be said about these 10 turkeys in search of headlines.
Where Your Tax Dollars Go — Installment 9,999,999,999
From the web site of a taxpayer-funded think tank:
Throughout The X Corporation, employees, in small groups and through individual efforts, are making a difference in the quality of their communities and in the lives of their friends, neighbors, and the many who are in need. Through innumerable acts of kindness and concern and commitments of time and boundless energy, a culture has grown within X that shows that extraordinary acts by ordinary people can make a difference in the world.
Giving back to the community is a priority at The X Corporation….
How about focusing on the work that taxpayers are paying you for? That would be the best way to “give back to the community.”
P.S. This is small potatoes. The real ripoff is in the absurdly high salaries paid by such tax-exempt organizations.
P.P.S. Oh, yes, and what would we do without diversity? Here’s what The X Corporation has to say about its diversity program, which is run by a full-time Diversity Coordinator:
Differing points of view, different frames of reference, and a broad range of life experiences bring an energy to the workplace that has helped X become a world leader in producing effective, insightful analysis. [Actually, if this organization is a “world leader” in anything, it’s b.s. Good analysis requires educated intelligence and perspicacity.]
X maintains an all-inclusive diversity program. Supported by an advisory committee, X’s diversity efforts are designed to ensure that we attract, develop, respect, motivate, and retain highly skilled people without regard to race, ethnicity, gender, personal background, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, education, or position within X. [An all-inclusive diversity program, by definition, ensures the hiring of people — some of them not highly skilled — precisely because of their race, etc., etc.]
See all the great things you get for your tax dollars?
What, No Trial?
I’m sure we’ll hear from Human Rights Watch about this (courtesy AP via Yahoo News):
Saudi al-Qaida Leader Reportedly Killed
CAIRO, Egypt – The purported leader of al-Qaida in Saudi Arabia was killed in a raid in the capital Friday, Saudi security officials said. Abdulaziz al-Moqrin, 31, was killed by security forces who had surrounded militants in a downtown neighborhood shortly after the discovery of the body of an American killed earlier in the evening, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Or perhaps Madonna will share her views with us.
Tokyo Rose Meets Professor Irwin Corey
More ethereal transmissions from Madonna (courtesy BBC News World Edition):
Madonna has said US President George Bush and ex-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein are alike because “they are both behaving in an irresponsible manner”….
During the US interview Madonna tried to draw a line under her wild days, vowing to be “part of the order, not the chaos, of the world”.
She said: “The stance of a rebel is ‘I don’t care what you think’. But if it’s just for the sake of upsetting the apple cart, you’re not really helping people.
“You turn the apple cart over and then what? Then everyone’s looking at an apple cart that’s turned over and they’re like, well, now what do I do?”
The 45-year-old mother-of-two said her days of shedding her clothes on stage or in front of the camera are also over.
Madonna wants to shed her old image
“I thought I was liberating mankind but, like I said, I wasn’t really offering an alternative.
“To a certain extent I was saying ‘Look, you know, why do men only get the job of objectifying women in a sexual way? I want to do it too.’
“There was an element of that, but there was also an element of being an exhibitionist and saying ‘look at me’. It wasn’t that altruistic. I can admit that.”
That Madonna — always reinventing herself. Give her 10 years and she’ll be a Republican.
More about the Worrying Classes
I wrote recently about the worrying classes. Worriers are the many among us who cannot be convinced that people would be better off with less regulation, with private Social Security accounts, with even fewer restraints on international trade, and on, and on. Worriers seem incapable of envisioning the greater good that economic freedom brings to most people. There are several worrying classes.
In my previous post I wrote about the the jabberers. They are the denizens of Capitol Hill, the media, universities, and so-called knowledge professions whose main task is to promote the worriers’ agenda.
The other worrying classes are the activists, the entrenched, the “engineers”, and the romantics. Activists are represented by such organizations as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and other irresponsibly luddite groups. Then there are all the groups that represent outraged feminists, homosexuals, persons of color, and their sympathizers. To top it off, there are the groups that want to spend your tax dollars for their pet diseases and disabilities.
The entrenched class includes labor unions, regulated industries, and various professions (notably medicine and law). They promote laws and regulations to shelter themselves from competition by playing on the fears of the worrying masses.
“Engineers” are those physical and social scientists who try to out-think free markets. They’re smarter than the rest of us, you see.
Romantics simply want a better world. Their tenuous grasp of reality causes them to believe in peace through surrender and prosperity through socialism. Many of them are activists. Those who are not activists constitute a large fraction of the worrying masses — those who lend their votes, money, and sympathy to the worrying classes.
"Those Who Can, Do,…
…those who can’t, teach,” the old saying goes. These days it should be “those who can are forced to put up with those who merely think and talk.” The jabbering class — which resides on Capitol Hill, and in the media, universities, and so-called knowledge professions — talks a good game, but most of its members aren’t equipped to play the real game of life. They thrive only when they have the power of government on their side. That is why they try so avidly to control it, shape its rules, and divert tax dollars to their causes.
If we truly had constitutional government and laissez-faire capitalism, most members of the jabbering class would be begging on corners. And they wouldn’t do it very well.
It Is the Economy — And a Few Other Things
Predicting presidential elections is fairly easy. To begin with, the incumbent or the nominee of the incumbent party wins most of the time — 60 percent of the time from 1920 through 2000. (I’ve picked 1920 as the starting point for this analysis because it marks the birth of the modern, post-Teddy Roosevelt, more-or-less laissez-faire Republican Party.)
Why do incumbents or the incumbent party’s nominee tend to win? Because the private economy grows most of the time. (My measure of growth in the private economy is the change in real GDP per capita, net of government spending.) Naive voters (that’s most of them) tend blame or credit the current president with the state of the economy. Such blame or credit is seldom merited.
With three exceptions, which I’ll come to, the incumbent or the incumbent party’s nominee lost the election when the private economy was shrinking in election year or was about where it had been four years earlier. Such was the case in 1920 (Cox lost to Harding), 1932 (Hoover lost to FDR), 1952 (Stevenson lost to Eisenhower), 1960 (Nixon lost to JFK), 1976 (Ford lost to Carter), 1980 Carterr lost to Reagan), and 1992 (Bush I lost to Clinton). The more attractive personalities of Eisenhower (vs. Stevenson), JFK (vs. Nixon), and Reagan (vs. Carter) may also help to explain their victories. Clinton’s personality may have helped him beat Bush I, but he was helped greatly by Perot, who probably siphoned far more votes from Bush I than he did from Clinton.
The only three election outcomes that violate the rule of growth are those of 1944, 1968, and 1980. The private economy was growing in 1944, but it had shrunk since 1940. However, it had shrunk because of the massive diversion of resources to a popular war. People understood that and stuck with Roosevelt, albeit by a smaller margin than in 1932, 1936, and 1940.
In 1968 and 2000, by contrast, incumbent vice presidents (Humphrey and Gore) failed to win election in their own right, despite strong economic growth.
The 1968 election was, as much as anything else, a referendum on the war in Vietnam and the cultural war in America. Humphrey was the target of the electorate’s rage for the failure of the war in Vietnam and for the rise of the counter-culture. Nixon’s victory over Humphrey would have been even larger had Wallace not captured a large part of the counter-counter-culture vote.
The 2000 election was Gore’s to lose, and he lost it, but barely. Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court made the right decision, albeit for the wrong reason. The Florida Supreme Court tried, selectively, to give some voters a second chance after they had failed to cast proper ballots, in contravention of the rules adopted by the Florida legislature and therefore in contravention of the U.S. Constitution.
The strong desire of conservative voters to punish Gore for Clinton’s sins was probably offset by the strong desire of liberal voters to vindicate Clinton by electing Gore. Gore may have been hurt by the contrast between his own rather scolding, school-marmish personality and Clinton’s sunny personality, but Bush certainly wasn’t (and isn’t) an Eisenhower, JFK, or Reagan. Gore simply ran a bad campaign; he zigged left and zagged right, always transparently pandering to one interest group or another. He ultimately lost the election because many people on the far left suspected his bona fides and cast their votes for Nader. And there went Florida. Gore was the Titanic of presidential candidates — seemingly robust but fatally vulnerable.
What will happen in 2004? Bush stands a good chance if the economy continues to rebound strongly until election day. But he will probably lose if the economy stutters or if voters see Iraq as a second Vietnam. A major terrorist attack in the United States could cut either way. It will be close.
Fair’s Fair
Doctor Proposes Not Treating Some Lawyers
AP reports that Dr. J. Chris Hawk, a South Carolina surgeon, asked “the American Medical Association to endorse refusing care to attorneys involved in medical malpractice.” According to AP, Dr. Hawk “said he made the proposal to draw attention to rising medical malpractice costs. The resolution asks that the AMA tell doctors that — except in emergencies — it is not unethical to refuse care to plaintiffs’ attorneys and their spouses.”
Of course, there were loud protests, and Dr. Hawk withdrew his proposal. But I like the idea.
Next target: politicians who meddle with health care.
The Worriers
The worrying classes got hold of government in the 1930s. Then the worrying masses got in the habit of looking to government to solve every problem — no, to anticipate every problem so that nothing bad ever happens to anyone.
Rational people — libertarians, thinking conservatives, and free-market economists — can talk until their throats go dry, but it won’t sway the worriers. Worriers cannot be convinced that people would be better off with less regulation, with private Social Security accounts, with even fewer restraints on international trade, and on, and on. Worriers seem incapable of envisioning the greater good that economic freedom brings to most people. And having lost the habit of private charity, they cannot imagine that the many who profit by economic freedom will help the few who do not.
Ironically, FDR said it best: “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself–nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” But FDR, as usual, did exactly the wrong thing. He turned government over to the worrying classes and seduced the worrying masses into dependence on government. The cycle of power and dependence remains unbroken.
Why Not Just Use SAT Scores?
Here’s what happens when universities insist on having a “diverse” student body (from the New York Times online):
Diversity Plan Shaped in Texas Is Under Attack
By JONATHAN D. GLATERAUSTIN, Tex., June 8 — Texas lawmakers thought they had found the ideal alternative to race-based affirmative action.
Seven years ago, after a federal court outlawed the use of race in the admissions policies of the state’s public universities, the Legislature came up with an answer: It passed a law guaranteeing admission to the top 10 percent of the graduating class from any public or private high school. After a few years of hard work, diversity was restored and other states, including California and Florida, adopted similar approaches. The law looked like a success.
But the 10 percent rule, which seemed to skirt the tricky issue of race so deftly, is coming under increasing attack these days as many wealthy parents complain that their children are not getting a fair shake. A consensus seems to be building that some change is necessary.
Parents whose children have been denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin, the crown jewel of Texas higher education, argue that some high schools are better than others, and that managing to stay in the top 25 percent at a demanding school should mean more than landing in the top 10 percent at a less rigorous one. The dispute shows how hard it is to come up with a system for doling out precious but scarce spots in elite universities without angering someone.
Of course, the Times had to work in a gratuitous reference to “wealthy parents.” The real question is whether the 10-percent rule discriminates against the more intelligent high school grads in Texas. The answer is: It must.
The amount of money a school district has to spend per student depends on the average income of households in the school district. Income depends, to a large degree, on intelligence. And intelligence is a heritable trait. Thus, students from “wealthier” school districts are generally more intelligent than students from “poorer” school districts — because they were born smarter, not because of their more expensive schooling.
The 10-percent rule thus has the same effect as old-fashioned affirmative action. It discriminates against brighter students.
Favorite Posts: Affirmative Action and Race
The Right Is Smarter Than the Left
This content of this post is now incorporated in “Intelligence, Personality, Politics, and Happiness.”
In the "Old News" Department
Headline from AP, via Yahoo News:
Research Shows Dogs Can Comprehend Words
Science once again catches up with reality.
Torture
I knew that recent disclosures about legal memos regarding the use of torture would send Democrats and media types scurrying to re-mount their high horses. An excellent post by Tom Smith of The Right Coast saves me the trouble of composing my own post. Smith has it just right.
In the "Nausea" Department
From Reuters.com:
Film Industry Gives Controversial Iraq Film Ovation
By Arthur SpiegelmanBEVERLY HILLS, Calif. (Reuters) – Director Michael Moore’s controversial anti-Iraq war film “Fahrenheit 9/11” won a standing ovation on Tuesday night from an audience of film industry professionals attending its West Coast debut at Academy Award headquarters.
After an audience of more than 600 people in the theater of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences cheered, whistled and laughed their way through the two-hour film, they jumped to their feet to give Moore a standing ovation as he took the stage.
Respect for Presidents
In the previous post I referred to Ronald Reagan as President Reagan and Mr. Reagan, whereas I called Bill Clinton plain old Clinton. I’m not of the school that accords every president or ex-president the same degree respect when it comes to honorifics. Presidents must earn my respect by their actions. I’m their employer, after all.
Here’s how I think of the men who have served as president since the end of World War II:
Truman — sometimes Mr. Truman and sometimes Harry; it depends on which Truman I’m thinking of at the moment, the no-nonsense Truman or the partisan Democrat.
Eisenhower — Ike, with respect for his soldiering days, or President Eisenhower.
Kennedy — Jack or JFK is the best I can do for the playboy of the West Wing.
Johnson — LBJ or something unprintable for the biggest crook on this list, after Nixon.
Nixon — Nixon, when I’m being kind; otherwise, only Tricky Dick fits the man.
Ford — Jerry, because it rhymes with ordinary.
Carter — Jimmy, because it’s the undignified label he gave himself; better than he deserves. (A “great ex-president” my foot.)
Reagan — Mr. Reagan or President Reagan; Gipper is too familiar for a man who was pleasant but dignified.
Bush I — Bush I is the best I can do for a career bureaucrat who had to have his turn in the White House.
Clinton — Clinton, when I’m being kind; otherwise, Slick Willie or something unprintable for this walking amalgam of JFK, LBJ, and Nixon.
Bush II — Bush II, when he’s being a compassionate conservative; otherwise, President Bush.
Politics and Prosperity 