The Failing American Economy?

This was too flabergasting to pass up. In browsing some discussion forums, I came across this inexplicable statement:

The American dream has always been just that, a dream. Compared to other industrialized nations only very few Americans who are born poor end up rich. About the American economy: I predict it wil be over in about 15 years.It's simply not sustainable and wil collapse when people stop lending money to AmericaAbout 400 billion a year is needed from forreign investors, and they are rapidly becomming more reluctant.But what is most worrying is that American don't seem to worry at all, so they aren't interested in changing their way of lives.This I heared somewhere and found it a very good metaphore for the US economy:"We are racing towards a brick wall, but we are doing so in a luxery car"

Where does one start? Virtually every line in the paragraph is factually wrong. Talk about delusional.

For one, the poorest Americans are better off than Europeans. Not the poorest Europeans, Europeans in general:

The average "poor" American lives in a larger house or apartment than does the average West European (This is the average West European, not poor West Europeans). Poor Americans eat far more meat, are more likely to own cars and dishwashers, and are more likely to have basic modern amenities such as indoor toilets than is the general West European population.

Plus, the supposed lack of income mobility in the US is simply false. Statistically those who start off in the lowest braket do not end their lives their. And overall being "poor" is hardly what would be considered poor in the past. Poor people today are rich by yesterday's standard.

Income mobility in the US is probably the greatest of any nation in history and yet the denial continues.

About that 400 billion in investors: Why, exactly, does he feel that the investors are going to stop? What that really indicates is how good our economy really is. People are investing more and more in our economy, and they are not becoming "reluctant". It is an indication of how far behind everyone else really is.

But, I guess none of this matters. The stagnant, death-sentance welfare state of Europe is king. Or better yet, Socialism!

Right. I'll take my American Dream, thank you very much, and you can have your welfare state.

Raise the Driving Age?

The American Thinker usually has some great articles, but somehow a particularly dreadful one got through to the website.

Nearly all of the arguments have inherent flaws. Perhaps he should have read Jeff Jacoby's recent article on the myth of saving gas. Besides the absurd "national security" it would (not) bring with reductions in oil usage, the author makes some rather amazing and rather obnoxious claims: "Fewer hours fritered away on the road means more hours studying." Right. This is a remarkable fantasy land claim. Kind of like socialism. Too bad it doesn't work. Cars plus teenagers does not mean worse grades. How can he even write that with a straight face?

Also, cars make girls pregnant! Of course, the more teenage boys with cars the more pregnant girls! So, let's just raise the driving age. Maybe this is true, but to raise the driving age because of this is just plain stupid. Let's get to the heart of the problem here: cars don't make girls pregnant.... I think we're looking in the wrong direction here.

Then of course there's drug and alcohol abuse. Raise the age? That doesn't solve much, because far more older persons than teenagers are going to drive drunk. So I guess that means....ban cars!

And finally, the one with the most concrete support, but probably the one that is the most flawed nonetheless. Teenagers represent a higher percent of accidents and damage than their percentage of drivers should suggest. Therefore, raise the age, right? Wrong. That will just make the next age group have the highest rates. Think about it. What is it that teenagers have in common? They're new drivers. There's a novel idea. Teens are more accident prone because they have no driving experience. That is the real probem: teens are new drivers. They have only a few miles under their belts. Experience is everything, age, I am willing to bet, really has little to do with it.

Raise the driving age? There really is no logical reason to do so.

The New Sociallism

There is in my area a new proposal on the table: One city one school.

The idea is that it is logical to have one school district in charge of one city. Currently, there are numerous, from former small towns and some that are just independent. One of the disctricts wants to anex all of the others. They want to take over, calling it "logical".

For starters, this is not logical, except in a socialist welfare state mentality. If you are a parent, and you want the highest quality school you can get, you don't want one school disctrict. what you want is choice. If one school disctrict is corrupt and not up to your standards, you can go somewhere else. This currently happens. And what will it force? It will force the others to reform. What is going to make the one school district reform or continue in excellence with no competition? Well, essentially nothing. It goes back to the old socialist problem. There are no penalties for inefficiency or poor production. And that is why it is such a poor proposal, to the point of being anti-capitalist.

Hands off UN

Nice article on the UN's attempt at taking over the internet:

The World Wide Web (of Bureaucrats?) Keep your U.N. off my Internet. BY ADAM THIERER AND WAYNE CREWS Sunday, October 9, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

Kofi Annan, Coming to a Computer Near You! The Internet's long run as a global cyberzone of freedom--where governments take a "hands off" approach--is in jeopardy. Preparing for next month's U.N.-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society (or WSIS) in Tunisia, the European Union and others are moving aggressively to set the stage for an as-yet unspecified U.N. body to assert control over Internet operations and policies now largely under the purview of the U.S. In recent meetings, for an example, an EU spokesman asserted that no single country should have final authority over this "global resource."

To his credit, the U.S. State Department's David Gross bristled back: "We will not agree to the U.N. taking over management of the Internet." That stands to reason. The Internet was developed in the U.S. (as are upgrades like Internet 2) and is not a collective "global resource." It is an evolving technology, largely privately owned and operated, and it should stay that way.

Nevertheless the "U.N. for the Internet" crowd say they want to "resolve" who should have authority over Internet traffic and domain-name management; how to close the global "digital divide"; and how to "harness the potential of information" for the world's impoverished. Also on the table: how much protection free speech and expression should receive online.

While WSIS conferees have agreed to retain language enshrining free speech (despite the disapproval of countries that clearly oppose it) this is not a battle we've comfortably won. Some of the countries clamoring for regulation under the auspices of the U.N.--such as China and Iran--are among the most egregious violators of human rights.

Meanwhile, regulators across the globe have long lobbied for greater control over Internet commerce and content. A French court has attempted to force Yahoo! to block the sale of offensive Nazi materials to French citizens. An Australian court has ruled that the online edition of Barron's (published by Dow Jones, parent company of The Wall Street Journal and this Web site), could be subjected to Aussie libel laws--which, following the British example, is much more intolerant of free speech than our own law. Chinese officials--with examples too numerous for this space--continue to seek to censor Internet search engines.

The implications for online commerce are profound. The moment one puts up a Web site, one has "gone global"--perhaps even automatically subjected oneself to the laws of every country on the planet.

A global Internet regulatory state could mean that We Are the World--on speech and libel laws, sales taxes, privacy policies, antitrust statutes and intellectual property. How then would a Web site operator or even a blogger know how to act or do business? Compliance with some 190 legal codes would be confusing, costly and technically possible for all but the most well-heeled firms. The safest option would be to conform online speech or commercial activities to the most restrictive laws to ensure global compliance. If you like the idea of Robert Mugabe setting legal standards for everyone, then WSIS is for you.

The very confusion of laws makes some favor a "U.N. for the Internet" model. Others propose international treaties, or adjudication by the World Trade Organization, to stop retaliation and trade wars from erupting over privacy, gambling and pornography. Still others assert that the best answer is to do nothing, because the current unregulated Web environment has helped expand free speech and commerce globally for citizens, consumers and companies.

We favor the nonregulatory approach. But where laissez-faire is not an option, the second-best solution is that the legal standards governing Web content should be those of the "country of origin." Ideally, governments should assert authority only over citizens physically within its geographic borders. This would protect sovereignty and the principle of "consent of the governed" online. It would also give companies and consumers a "release valve" or escape mechanism to avoid jurisdictions that stifle online commerce or expression.

The Internet helps overcome artificial restrictions on trade and communications formerly imposed by oppressive or meddlesome governments. Allowing these governments to reassert control through a U.N. backdoor would be a disaster.

Mr. Thierer, senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, and Mr. Crews, vice president at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, are the editors of "Who Rules the Net?" (Cato, 2003).

Whining and Moaning

Well, some international commitee is trying to "break America's grip on the net." The question I want to know is why should they? Why should we give it up? We invented the internet. Does anyone think it would exist if not for us? Yes, lets give it up to third world nations and commitees, lets see what they do with it. Apparently they're mad that we have control of the internet. Well, I've got news for those representatives. We invented it, we pioneered it, and there is no reason we should give it up just because they want control of it. They can shove it for all I care.

On Gays, Pt. 1: "Marriage"

The most basic thing to understand about gay marriage is that it is not a civil rights issue. It's not surprising that many black Americans get pissed off with comparing the Gay movement to the Civil rights movement. Gays don't have to sit at the back of the bus, they don't have to use different drinking fountains, they have every right that you and I have. I cannot marry anyone I want either. No one can marry whoever they want. Men cannot take more than one wife; there cannot be any father-daughter marriages; there are restrictions on marriage, and those extend to everyone. There are reasons for certain things, and gay marriage is not something that has ever been the equivalent of heterosexual marriage: "In fact, until the last blink of an eye in human history, there has never been any civilization, any religion, or any culture that has treated homosexual relationships as the full equivalent of heterosexual marriage. Marriage is not simply a religious institution, nor is it merely a civil institution. Instead, marriage is a natural institution, whose definition as the union of a man and a woman is rooted in the order of nature itself." Gay marriage is simply not a right. It is not a civil rights issue. That's all there is to it. Let me say that again. Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue.

Gay marriage is also detrimental to society. We can all agree that domestic violence is not desirable. Homosexual relationships are often very violent and abusive. The fact is that homosexual relationships are not more tender and loving--they are more violent.

Such couples experience by far the most intimate partner violence, and this brings rise to another issue. That of adoption and effects of gay marriage on children. The gay community, which accounts for approximately 1 to 3 percent of the population (no, its not 10 percent) accounts for up to 1/3 of all sex crimes against children. Homosexual males are dissproportionately responsible for child abuse, and many males are pedophiles, finding themselves attracted to young boys. Despite claims of some, that pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality, studies suggest there is significant overlap between the two. Such themes abound in gay literature, and gay men are often attracted to underage boys, pedophiles are often attracted to older men, and other studies even suggest that pedophiles exhibit wide ranges of sexual behavior, including with women. Pedophiles are not solely attracted to young boys. It is something that abounds in homosexual themes, and many homosexuals find themselves attracted to young boys. Homosexuality also brings with it negative health effects. AIDS may not be a singularly gay disease, but it is in fact rooted and primarily a disease considerably more prevalent among gay men. Even in Africa, despite whatever the PC institutions say, the epidemic is due not to heterosexual sex, but rather to homosexuality and contaminated medical supplies and needles.

The problem with Gay marriage is that it is simply a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing as gay marriage. Marriage is not something that the government created, it has always been around. It is very much a natural institution, with the purpose of uniting one man and one woman into one flesh. This is simply not possible with gay marriage. Which is why there are restrictions in marriage. Legalizing gay marriage for the satisfaction of a few activists is both dangerous and repulsive to most people--and why not? Most people know what marriage is supposed to mean, that it is an ancient institution that should not be altered to appease someone else's agenda.

Even if you don't agree that marriage is a natural institution, the fact is that gays do not see marriage in the same way as heterosexuals: "Data from Vermont, Sweden, and the Netherlands reveal that only a small percentage of homosexuals and lesbians identify themselves as being in a committed relationship, with even fewer taking advantage of civil unions or, in the case of the Netherlands, of same-sex "marriage." This indicates that even in the most "gay friendly" localities, the vast majority of homosexuals and lesbians display little inclination for the kind of lifelong, committed relationships that they purport to desire to enter."

They do not want to enter into lifelong relationships, and may have hundreds and even thousands of partners in a lifetime, and regard other partners outside of a relationship to be the norm, regarding monogamy as oppressive.

Homosexuals may or may not be "born that way", but it looks more and more like they are not. The gay gene has not turned up anywhere, despite looking very hard for it. As a matter of fact, one of the most recent studies "undermines gay gene theory" Add this to the fact that, hmm, the human race would become extinct if homosexuality were in fact correct and natural.

Another problem with allowing gay marriage is that it will normalize such behavior and lead to higher incidence of homosexuality and simply confuse children. Consider this example. Normalizing such destructive and unhealthy behavior is neither wise nor commendable.

Some myths abound concerning gay marriage, such as the following:

Gay marriage is centered on love, so they will be more committed and good for children to grow up in

Well, after reading what I wrote before, this one sounds ridiculous. Gay marriage is not about love at all--it is about sex, and gays have no illusions of having a relationship, with only one other person. Also remember, gay marriage is often quite violent, and anything but loving.

Another one compares it to the past racial problems and marriage, concerning inter-racial marriages and bans thereof. This simply does not get to the heart of the issue. Interracial marriages are still the union of a man and a woman. The reasons for the wanting to not allow such marriages was due to racism. They regarded blacks as sub-human. This is a purely racial matter, and does nothing to marriage--it changes it in no way, it is not even comparable to gay marriage activism, as these are attempting to redefine marriage, which is something such civil rights movements never sought to do.

Krazy Krugman

Paul Krugman has got to be one of the biggest liars in all of journalism. It's a full time job writing corrections for his collumns. Hopefully 4th time's the charm on this particular one. I think they're going to need to start devoting a column to corrections.

NEW YORK Just days after it ran an editors' note--under pressure from outside and within--that sort of admitted it had erred in a blast at Fox News' Gerald Rivera during the Katrina tragedy, The New York Times finally ran a full correction on Sunday, on its editorial page, for a miscue by columnist Paul Krugman, while announcing a new policy on noting errors on that page.

Krugman had three times previously admitted getting wrong part of his Aug. 19 column about media recounts of the 2000 Bush-Gore race, but critics kept claiming that he still hadn't gotten it quite right. Editorial Page Editor Gail Collins wrote on Sunday that it had turned into a "correction run amok."

After publishing his third correction on the Web, Krugman asked Collins, she wrote, "if he could refrain from revisiting the subject yet again in print. I agreed, feeling we had reached the point of cruelty to readers. But I was wrong. The correction should have run in the same newspaper where the original error and all its little offspring had appeared."

Collins also announced that the paper would henceforth be running regular corrections and "for the record" explanations under the Times' editorials. Today she published several in the "for the record" category. One notes that Krugman, Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich all incorrectly stated that former FEMA director Michael Brown went to college with his predecessor Joe Allbaugh. Another corrects where Mick Jagger made a certain statement about economics.

And here is what one hopes is the final word on that Krugman column, in the Sunday correction:

"In describing the results of the ballot study by the group led by The Miami Herald in his column of Aug. 26, Paul Krugman relied on the Herald report, which listed only three hypothetical statewide recounts, two of which went to Al Gore. There was, however, a fourth recount, which would have gone to George W. Bush. In this case, the two stricter-standard recounts went to Mr. Bush. A later study, by a group that included The New York Times, used two methods to count ballots: relying on the judgment of a majority of those examining each ballot, or requiring unanimity. Mr. Gore lost one hypothetical recount on the unanimity basis."

The "Peace" Movement

Christopher Hitchens has absolutely nailed it on the so-called "peace movement."

To be against war and militarism, in the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, is one thing. But to have a record of consistent support for war and militarism, from the Red Army in Eastern Europe to the Serbian ethnic cleansers and the Taliban, is quite another. It is really a disgrace that the liberal press refers to such enemies of liberalism as "antiwar" when in reality they are straight-out pro-war, but on the other side. Was there a single placard saying, "No to Jihad"? Of course not. Or a single placard saying, "Yes to Kurdish self-determination" or "We support Afghan women's struggle"? Don't make me laugh. And this in a week when Afghans went back to the polls, and when Iraqis were preparing to do so, under a hail of fire from those who blow up mosques and U.N. buildings, behead aid workers and journalists, proclaim fatwahs against the wrong kind of Muslim, and utter hysterical diatribes against Jews and Hindus.

Some of the leading figures in this "movement," such as George Galloway and Michael Moore, are obnoxious enough to come right out and say that they support the Baathist-jihadist alliance. Others prefer to declare their sympathy in more surreptitious fashion. The easy way to tell what's going on is this: Just listen until they start to criticize such gangsters even a little, and then wait a few seconds before the speaker says that, bad as these people are, they were invented or created by the United States. That bad, huh? (You might think that such an accusation—these thugs were cloned by the American empire for God's sake—would lead to instant condemnation. But if you thought that, gentle reader, you would be wrong.)

The two preferred metaphors are, depending on the speaker, that the Bin-Ladenists are the fish that swim in the water of Muslim discontent or the mosquitoes that rise from the swamp of Muslim discontent. (Quite often, the same images are used in the same harangue.) The "fish in the water" is an old trope, borrowed from Mao's hoary theory of guerrilla warfare and possessing a certain appeal to comrades who used to pore over the Little Red Book. The mosquitoes are somehow new and hover above the water rather than slip through it. No matter. The toxic nature of the "water" or "swamp" is always the same: American support for Israel. Thus, the existence of the Taliban regime cannot be swamplike, presumably because mosquitoes are born and not made. The huge swamp that was Saddam's Iraq has only become a swamp since 2003. The organized murder of Muslims by Muslims in Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan is only a logical reaction to the summit of globalizers at Davos. The stoning and veiling of women must be a reaction to Zionism. While the attack on the World Trade Center—well, who needs reminding that chickens, or is it mosquitoes, come home to roost?

There are only two serious attempts at swamp-draining currently under way. In Afghanistan and Iraq, agonizingly difficult efforts are in train to build roads, repair hospitals, hand out ballot papers, frame constitutions, encourage newspapers and satellite dishes, and generally evolve some healthy water in which civil-society fish may swim. But in each case, from within the swamp and across the borders, the most poisonous snakes and roaches are being recruited and paid to wreck the process and plunge people back into the ooze. How nice to have a "peace" movement that is either openly on the side of the vermin, or neutral as between them and the cleanup crew, and how delightful to have a press that refers to this partisanship, or this neutrality, as "progressive."

PC Gone Wild

If there was any lingering doubt in your mind about the state of the world currently in terms of "PC", political correctness, this latest issue leaves no doubt. Political correctness is reaching new extremes, extending its latest reach to new levels, namely, American sports teams.

The NCAA (National College Athletic Association) has banned the use of American Indian mascots by sports teams during the playoffs. Apparently the only reason it did not go further is that it did not have the authority. "The NCAA's executive committee decided . . . the organization did not have the authority to bar Indian mascots by individual schools, committee chairman Walter Harrison."

The reasoning behind this ban? The NCAA is concerned with mascots that are "hostile and abusive." This always seems to be the reason for taking politically correct action. If it could conceivably offend anyone on the planet, obviously it is wrong and needs to be changed.

Probably the most visible player in this game is Florida State University, with its Seminole mascot. Interestingly, groups calling for such changes, deeming such mascots as "racist", ignore the positions of the Indians themselves. The Seminole tribe in Florida passed a unanimous resolution in support of the Florida State mascot. Some, however, feel that such names are "demeaning".

Obviously, some American Indians are going to feel that the names are demeaning. But most don't. In a national poll (the only one to date), 83 percent of Indians are not offended by such mascots, even ones such as the Washington Redskins, which, in my view, is perhaps the only one that should even consider a name change. What it comes down to is that Indians are OK with such mascots in sports.

And if we are going to get rid of some Indian mascots, what about other offensive mascots? Perhaps the Minnesota Vikings is offensive to some Norse descendant. Or perhaps the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame is an offensive mascot to some Irish. So where does it end? What about the other groups who might be offended? Clearly something needs to be done to chastise the abusive behavior of these schools.

It is rather disturbing that political correctness has seeped into society to such levels as the NCAA, a sports organization. The NCAA needs to get over it, and allow the schools to keep their mascots. This latest ban is both stupid and misguided, yet another attempt to sanitize every aspect of our lives, and prevent anyone, anywhere, from being offended by any possible thing.