The Latest EV News

 | 

I like to stay informed on the latest developments in electric vehicles (EVs)—in other words, with the amazing idea of trying to resurrect a technology that died a century ago, with the advent of the internal combustion engine. EVs are a retro-idea so captivating to our genius president that he has been willing to lavish billions of taxpayer money on funding EV makers. It’s easy to play at being a venture capitalist when you’re using other people’s capital.

A new Wall Street Journal article reports that Azure Dynamics, a Canadian company that, in partnership with Ford, makes electric vans for sale in Europe and America, has stopped production of its e-vans and filed for bankruptcy. It did this in spite of receiving millions of dollars in federal grant money, including a recent $5.4 million grant to work on a new electric inverter.

Azure hit the wall after making a miserable 508 e-vans (and retrofitting 1,500 Ford vans to make them hybrids) this year, and only 800 last year.

Ford is now worried about who will service the damn things, and 120 of the company’s 160 workers are looking for work.

The WSJ piece also notes that recent sales of Nissan’s EV (the Leaf) and GM’s EV (the Volt) have been lousy. Fisker Automotive has had two recent recalls and is jonesing for another government loan. Its battery supplier, A123 Systems, has just issued a recall of its products, and is looking for suckers—pardon me, investors — to come up with $55 million to cover the recall.

Earlier this year, Bright Automotive went dim — it filed for bankruptcy when it could not get any more federal subsidies. Last year, EV maker Think Global failed miserably, leaving Indiana with a nice, empty factory. Think Globally, fail locally — what a great business model!




Share This


The New Untouchables

 | 

A recent study in the UK found that more than half of smokers lie to family and friends about the extent of their habit. And why wouldn't they? Anti-smoking sentiment is now so prevalent that cartoons are retroactively edited to delete animated cigarettes, and movies that still allow actual smoking are castigated with the same moral fervor once (and still) directed at X-rated films.

Nothing has helped me understand the social impact of stigmatizing “illegal drug users” as much as watching the stigmatization of smokers over the last decade or so. Quite apart from whether smoking is as damaging as reported, the marginalization of those who choose to do it has been instructive.

Once a socially respectable and sexy practice, lighting up a cigarette now converts the puffer into a pariah and even into a child abuser by means of the “toxic” secondhand smoke. Companies require smokers to conduct their filthy habit on the pavement outside, despite subzero weather. Some refuse to extend health insurance to smokers; others refuse to hire them at all. Public areas open to the wind and weather have been closed to smokers. Weighing the smoking-status of battling parents is a growing trend in child custody cases.

All this has occurred while cigarettes are still legal and tobacco companies reap billions in profits. While “victims” of obesity receive love and sympathy, “victims” of smoking receive hatred and contempt. And it has occurred despite the fact that — unlike illegal drugs — no one seriously accuses cigarettes of causing prostitution, theft, impaired driving, or reduced judgment. Nor are cigarettes a slippery slope to heroin. But despite the absence of such horrendous accusations, the smoker is despised and shamed. Even as she hands over more and more tax money for the privilege of consuming a legal product, the government targets the smoker with panic-inducing campaigns such as the one underway from the CDC, an agency that has invested $54 million tax dollars to promote televised “public service” announcements and posters with revolting images.

I've watched in wonder as society has created a reviled class of people virtually out of thin air.




Share This


Race Doesn’t Exist

 | 

The Trayvon Martin shooting has resulted in predictably absurd conclusions and ridiculous behavior. On first impression, the circus that gathered around the Sanford, Florida, site of the killing (featuring race-baiting clowns like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton) looks and sounds a lot of a scene from the satiric Tom Wolfe novel The Bonfire of the Vanities.

In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Jackson sputtered that “blacks are under attack,” adding that “targeting, arresting, convicting blacks and ultimately killing us is big business. . . . No justice, no peace.”

This cynical circus is so predictable because it’s based on a false premise. Not that the shooting didn’t take place; George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. The false premise is that the shooting was race-related.

It’s false because there’s no such thing as race.

What we call “race” is a social construct invented hundreds of years ago by slave traders and colonial powers. It’s been kept around because it suits lazy people and statist governments looking for cheap ways to categorize individuals.

It’s time that reasonable people abandon this slothful shortcut.

I make the argument about the falseness of race in detail in my book Libertarian Nation (if you have a Kindle, you can “borrow” the book from Amazon for free). Much as I hate to interfere with commerce that channels some money my way, here’s the gist of the argument.

The pigment of your skin and acidity of your hair don’t have much to do with your personal identity. And they don’t make you similar to or different from anyone else.

Race is a social construct. And an old one. The idea that people can be categorized into supposedly objective — or, more recently, “scientific” — groups has been around for as long as human civilization. It’s always been subject manipulation, usually by the state. And its categories are always shifting, usually according to the political needs of the people running the state.

The libertarian notion of a colorblind society is closer to reality than advocates of identity politics — racists and multiculturalists — like to admit.

So, contemporary notions of race are more . . . contemporary . . . than most people realize. Skin color wasn’t the controlling characteristic of race until the end of the 16th century; and then it had something to do with slavery and something to do with the birth of colonialism. The states that stood to profit from the import of cheap materials and slave labor began a 500-year campaign to convince the world that Africans with dark brown skin were a different class of humans than Europeans with lighter brown or pink skin. The Portuguese and Dutch were especially dedicated to the concept. They defined “race” to suit their needs; but popular culture seems to have forgotten their roles in promoting the fiction.

All people are a mix of genetic traits. This fact raises various questions — and the dread of both hardcore racists who lament “mongrelization” and race-obsessed multiculturalists (who, intellectual brothers of the racists, are heavily invested in the notion of distinct racial identities).

What’s the relationship between genes and race?

Most anthropologists and biologists agree that race is a fuzzy concept. By various estimates, 20 to 30% of the genes in the average “black” American come from light-skinned European stock. As Time magazine has noted: “science has no agreed-upon definition of ‘race’: however you slice up the population, the categories look pretty arbitrary.” And, in a similar vein, the Chicago Tribune reported:

In a 1998 “Statement on ‘Race’,” the American Anthropological Association concluded that ordinary notions of race have little value for biological research in part because of the relatively minor genetic differences among racial groups.

And, the anthropologists might have added, the broad genetic variation that exists within racial groups. In the New Statesman magazine, the often-quoted science writer Steven Rose pointed out:

. . . the idea that there is a genetically meaningful African “race” is nonsense. There is wide cultural and genetic diversity amongst African populations from south to north, from Ethiopians to Nigerians. There are, for example probably genetic as well as environmental reasons why Ethiopians make good marathon runners whereas Nigerians on the whole do not.

The normally statist British newspaper The Guardian has stumbled to the same conclusion:

Other scientists point out that our species is so young — Homo sapiens emerged from its African homeland only 100,000 years ago — that it simply has not had time to evolve any significant differences in intellectual capacity as its various groups of people have spread round the globe and settled in different regions. Only the most superficial differences — notably skin colour — separate the world’s different population groupings. Underneath that skin, people are remarkably alike.

So, the libertarian notion of a colorblind society (often dismissed by statists as an unrealistic ideal) is closer to reality than advocates of identity politics — racists and multiculturalists — like to admit.

These advocates have more influence over mainstream media and popular culture than they should. People like Jackson, Sharpton, and Derrick Bell have devoted their lives to a fiction. That must leave them with a hollow feeling, in their solitary moments or when they look themselves in the mirror.

Derrick Bell may have been the saddest of the bunch. He was intelligent enough and well-trained enough that he should have been able to see through the fiction. Instead, he spent his life popularizing Critical Race Theory — which is the intellectual rationalization of a false premise.

The critical document that stands in contradiction to the ultimately bankrupt rationalizations of the Critical Race Theorists and base manipulations of the race hustlers is Martin Luther King’s rightly immortal “I Have a Dream” speech. To the point:

In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. …We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. …Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.

I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. …I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

That speech drew its undeniable moral force, in part, from its recognition of the falseness of the concept of race. The triviality of the color of a person’s skin.

(Take a few minutes to read — or reread — that speech. Would any left-wing speaker today use the metaphor of a bounced check to criticize failed promise? It’s so…bourgeois.)

A side note: I’ve always thought there were two Kings, the libertarian defender of individual dignity who fought for fair treatment and delivered the August 1963 speech and the less-inspiring socialist who muddled through the last years of his life.

Compared to King’s image of free individuals treating one another with mutual respect, the current discussion of race is insect-like. The mainstream media tries to turn Trayvon Martin’s shooting into clicks and readers and ratings. The pathetic New York Times concocts the term “white Hispanic” to emphasize that Martin’s shooter was, er, something different from black.

Race is a dubious social construct that serves most effectively as a shortcut for lazy statists trying to put hard-to-manage individuals into easy-to-manage boxes.

Not everyone is so small. Former NAACP leader C.L. Bryant accused the likes of Jackson and Sharpton of “exploiting” the Martin shooting. “His family should be outraged at the fact that they’re using this child as the bait to inflame racial passions,” Bryant told The Daily Caller. He said that “race hustlers” were acting like “buzzards circling the carcass” of the teen.

Race doesn’t exist. Population ancestry influences the patterns of an individual’s genotypical and phenotypical traits (what people commonly think of as “racial” appearance and characteristics) but single variables — for example, skin color — do not. It may seem counterintuitive, but skin color is actually a poor indicator of race.

Race is a dubious social construct that serves most effectively as a shortcut for lazy statists trying to put hard-to-manage individuals into easy-to-manage boxes. No one who loves liberty should buy into the fiction.




Share This


Teenage Wasteland

 | 

Author Shirley Jackson was doing errands in her Vermont village, pushing her daughter in a baby stroller, when the germ of her alarming short story "The Lottery" (1948) came into her mind. Two hours later, it was written. Three weeks after that, it was published in The New Yorker. All that summer long she received critical letters from horrified readers. And for the past 50 years it has been anthologized and discussed as one of the most chilling and profound American short stories of the 20th century.

I mention this at the beginning of my review of The Hunger Games because there are many similarities in the two stories’ themes. Set in a seemingly ordinary rural community, "The Lottery" is about the not-so-ordinary ritual of selecting one person each year to be stoned to death as the community scapegoat. "Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon," one village elder remarks as the community gathers for the stoning ritual.

In Hunger Games, set in a dystopian future, one boy and one girl from each of 12 "districts" is selected, also by lottery, to be sent to the municipal capital to participate in a televised gladiator-like fight to the death. In this case, the purpose is not to appease the god of the harvest but to control the masses through a combination of fear and hope. They have been convinced by government propaganda that the Games will purge them of violence, prevent the ravages of war, and increase productivity. But really the Games are designed to make everyone complacent and obedient.

The Hunger Games, based on the popular trilogy by Suzanne Collins, opened to eager crowds who couldn't wait to see it. My local theater offered the midnight screening in a whopping 18 of its 20 screens, and avid crowds were lining up at 6 pm. Many of them were mothers with children. You might wonder: Why would any parents allow their children to read a book or watch a movie in which children must kill children? For that matter, why would anyone but a pervert want to watch 24 children fight it out in a kill-or-be-killed arena? What is The Hunger Games’ appeal?

In this case, the purpose is not to appease the god of the harvest but to control the masses through a combination of fear and hope.

Obviously, there is more to these books than the competition. In responding to initial criticism of "The Lottery," Jackson wrote, "I hoped, by setting a particularly brutal ancient rite in the present and in my own village, to shock the story's readers with a graphic dramatization of the pointless violence and general inhumanity in their own lives." Reading the Hunger Games trilogy, one can't help but see this same theme and message about pointless violence and general inhumanity. Collins uses violence to make a plea for nonviolence.

Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Everdeen), the likable 16-year-old heroine, is the virtual breadwinner for her widowed mother and 12-year-old sister, Primrose (Willow Shields). Noble and resourceful, Katniss is accustomed to taking risks and making sacrifices for her family. She regularly slips out beyond the district perimeter to hunt for game (a capital offense), which she trades for other goods. She is a generous and honorable young woman who instinctively rebels against tyranny and injustice, but who would never hurt anyone intentionally. Nevertheless, when Katniss impulsively volunteers to take her sister's place when Primrose's name is called as a contestant, she understands that she will have to use her hunting skills to kill other children in order to survive the Games. 

Many who have not read Collins’ books have expressed shock and dismay that she would have children aged 12–18 engaged in her fictional battle. But despite the gruesome subject, there is nothing gratuitously violent or graphic in these books, or in the movie. They are tense and exciting, and they are made more so by the underlying hint of metaphorical truth. Is it such a stretch to imagine a society that would send its children to die in battle while adults stay home and watch it on TV? For over a decade the American government drafted 18-year-olds to fight a war far from home that had very little to do with our own security. Like the children in The Hunger Games, these teens had no voice in the matter; until 1971, they weren't allowed to vote in federal elections. Even with an "all-volunteer army," most of today's recruits are still barely out of their teens.

Similarly, in The Hunger Games wealthy families can protect their children by paying poorer families to take their spots in the drawings in exchange for money or food. As a result, Katniss' name is written on at least a dozen cards in the drawing, and her friend Gale's is written on 42. This is clearly a reminder that the children of wealthier families were able to avoid the draft during the Vietnam era by going to college, while children of poorer families could not afford that option.

Like Jackson, Collins clearly intended to demonstrate the dehumanizing effect of war. Unfortunately, the film's producers seem to have lacked the courage to make this same point on screen. Perhaps worried about the R-rating that a true adaptation would have earned, the film version softens the hunt by stereotyping the characters into two distinct types. Katniss never kills anyone except as a reflex, and always in self-defense. The people she does kill are carefully presented as nasty bullies and gang members, thereby justifying her actions, because she is ridding the world of bad guys.

Moreover, actress Jennifer Lawrence is 21, not 16, largely negating the effect of children being forced to kill children. This creation of good guys and bad guys destroys the message about the brutalizing nature of war, and blunts the powerful idea that these are children who might otherwise have played together and become friends had they not been forced into battle by their government.

Is it such a stretch to imagine a society that would send its children to die in battle while adults stay home and watch it on TV?

Similarly, Haymitch, the battle mentor from District 12 (Woody Harrelson) is presented as a detached, antisocial drunk. He is a former winner in the Hunger Games and thus has been assigned to help prepare Katniss and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), the boy from her district, for the battle. What's missing from the movie is the reason Haymitch drinks: in order for him to win the Hunger Games, 23 children had to die, many of them at his own hand. In war, no one emerges unscathed. Not even the victor.

Just before Katniss leaves for battle, her friend Gale (Liam Hemsworth) suggests that they sneak away into the forbidden woods to live off the land by themselves (just as Equality 7-2521 does in Ayn Rand's Anthem). “What if people stopped watching?" he adds, as another suggestion, referring to the audiences riveted to their television sets during the Games. "Wouldn't they have to stop the Games?"

Knowing that he has little chance of survival, Peeta says, "I keep wishing I could think of a way for me to show them that they don't own me. If I'm gonna die, I wanna still be me." That spirit of individuality and self-determination is bright throughout the book, and in the movie as well. The many suggestions of resistance in these books, and in the film, make them well worth reading and viewing, even though the filmmakers have pulled much of the punch from their version of the story.


Editor's Note: Review of "The Hunger Games," directed by Gary Ross. Lionsgate, 2012, 142 minutes.



Share This


A New Wrinkle on Public Choice Theory

 | 

In my business ethics classes, I typically discuss public choice theory (PCT) right after I survey ethical egoism. I explain that by taking egoism seriously, economists have been able to understand many issues more profoundly than philosophers, who currently tend to dismiss egoism from the realm of serious ethical theory. (Other important phenomena that are generally beyond the appreciation of academic philosophers, uninterested in the profound role of self-interest in real life, include moral hazard, the principle-agent problem, regulatory capture, and especially “rent-seeking.”) In short, many philosophers buy into the Hegelian notion that the state (which they equate with the government) is the realm of disinterested charity — unlike business, which they take to be the realm of pure self-interest. Most economists are not Hegelians, which needless to say is part of their charm.

PCT asserts three propositions. First, everyone in the political process — voters, politicians, government bureaucrats, special interest groups, and the lobbyists who represent them — are motivated primarily (if not entirely) by self-interest. That is, egoism governs political reality. Second, there is an asymmetry in what participants in the process stand to gain, with special interests often standing to gain a lot while the average taxpayer only a little. And there is a concomitant asymmetry of knowledge. Third, since politicians are not spending their own money, but are using other peoples’ money (OPM), they have no incentive to use resources for the general good.

Most economists are not Hegelians, which needless to say is part of their charm.

The classic use of PCT is to explain why pork-barrel spending is so prevalent among politicians of every party (including those accurately characterized as libertarians, such as Ron Paul), and so hard to control. Suppose I am Congressman Jason (a jarring thought, I grant you), who represents a district dominated by a university. Suppose further that I am approached by a group of people who want me to build a “senior center” in my district, which, being a university-dominated area, has a lower concentration of old people than many other districts. They approach me, pleading their case, and reminding me that they made a large donation to my campaign in the last election. This group will typically include the folks who have the most to gain, such as the old people who will benefit from the project without having to spend a nickel more than taxpayers who won’t be able to use it, and the construction firm that will pocket millions of bucks from it. But the group will give itself a virtuous-sounding name, such as “Citizens for the Elderly” or “Seniors in Solidarity.”

PCT predicts that I, the politician, will reason as follows: “If I put this project in some grand bill, say, a defense spending bill, and it passes, I will get tens of thousands of campaign dollars for my next election. And, hey, money is the mother’s milk of politics. Moreover, voters in my district — especially elderly ones — will see my name on this new center and give me credit for it, even though it was OPM that financed it. Of course, the populace as a whole would be better off if this senior center were built in a district with a higher concentration of old people, but it isn’t my money, so I don’t care.”

PCT also predicts that since some of the old people in my district stand to gain a lot, not to mention the construction company, they will follow the progress of the legislation very closely, write letters on its behalf to my colleagues, call other congresspersons, and so forth. On the other hand, since the average voter only stands to lose perhaps a dollar on this boondoggle — and has other pressing matters to worry about — that voter will have no incentive to follow the legislation. He will be “rationally ignorant,” in the snappy patter of the economists.

So, when we think of politicians acting for their self-interest, as predicted under PCT, it is self-interest at arms length, so to say. We think of pols who decide to push suboptimal taxpayer-funded projects to directly help favored supporters or their constituents as a whole, so they can indirectly benefit by harvesting more votes. But a recent article in the Washington Post suggests that when they put through pork-barrel projects, many pols receive a much more directly personal payoff.

The newspaper compared public records about the property owned by all 535 members of Congress, and correlated the information with the earmarks pushed by these people over the past four years. It turns out that 33 of these solons pushed projects (costing taxpayers over $300 million) that were within two miles of their own properties. Moreover, 16 of them pushed subsidies for companies or programs in which their immediate family members (children, parents, or spouses) were employed.

The report notes that under the rules of Congress, this is all perfectly legal, and the members so benefiting were under no obligation to disclose it.

When confronted, the legislators naturally explained away their conflicts of interest by remarking on how necessary the projects were for their local economies, and claiming that the personal benefits they received were unimportant or merely coincidental.

Here are some of the juicier examples. Notice that members of both major parties are well represented.

  • Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) got $900,000 in funding to resurface some roads back home. One stretch of resurfaced road just happened to be the one on which he and his daughter own two homes.
  • Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) arranged for $4.5 million in taxpayer cash to improve a freeway interchange at a junction near his 104-acre farm and a bunch of his rental properties.
  • Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX) got an earmark to widen a major road in his district that just happened to be 600 feet away from a property that was owned and being developed by his family.
  • Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) used a $6.3 million earmark to restore the beaches on little Tybee Island. By sheer coincidence, he owns a home on the island, about 900 feet from the beach.
  • Rep. John Olver (D-MA) got $5.1 million to realign part of a highway. The project starts at a part of the road that is only about 200 feet from his 15-acre home, as well as some adjoining properties owned by his family.

The capper is Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA). He was serving on the House Ethics Committee when it defined a congressperson’s financial interest as one having “a direct and foreseeable effect” on his or her assets. But the committee added that, as the Post put it, “’remote, inconsequential or speculative interests’ do not count.” Two years after writing this, however, Hastings himself got a $750,000 earmark for a new overpass — on a site only three blocks from a business he formerly owned and ran that is now operated by his brother, on land he still owns.

So when politicians spend OPM, they not only use it to buy votes, they often use it more crudely, to feather their own nests. This hardly supports the Hegelian concept of the state as the realm of disinterested charity.

Sixteen members of Congress pushed subsidies for companies or programs in which their immediate family members were employed.

Why do politicians think they can get away with such obvious use of taxpayer money for their own direct benefit? Well, to begin with, in every case they think they can successfully rationalize away their behavior to the voters. So, for example, Rep. Kingston, when questioned by the reporters, said brazenly, ”It’s absurd to suggest that this benefits me. The beach doesn’t improve the real estate of a house, unless it’s on the beach. . . . The only thing that changes in value is the beachfront property. It does have an economic impact on the beach and the community.” One has to suppose that Kingston thinks the average voter is a fool — which may or may not be a plausible view, depending on the depth of your cynicism.

But one should also remember that politicians are rarely caught. Few reporters ever do the sort of research needed to discover cases of such directly beneficial pork projects. Indeed, the research that the Post reporters did seems to be the first of its kind.

Perhaps the Post will now do an expose showing that Santa Claus doesn’t really exist. Its management, which is highly favorable to expensive government, may be similarly surprised.




Share This


Wait, Mock, and Squander

 | 

In 2006, when gasoline was selling for about three dollars a gallon, an outraged Senator Obama assessed our dependence on foreign oil and proclaimed, “The time for excuses is over.” Today, as gasoline approaches four dollars a gallon, now-president Obama tells us to use less. After three years of profligate spending ($100 billion) on sources of alternative energy, total solar and wind power generates a whopping 0.45% of our electricity, and we are as dependent as ever on foreign oil. Without a single green success story to tout, Mr. Obama tritely blames oil companies, OPEC, the Middle East, speculators, Republicans, and George Bush, his go-to villain.

Evidently, there is still time for excuses.

While the president gripes, we wait. We wait for the clean energy marvels discharged from his subsidized pipeline of foreordained technologies — although none are what we want or can afford. The demand for electric vehicles remains near zero, despite a $7,500 tax credit, which the president, oblivious to market signals, increased to $10,000. Another splash from the pipeline is the $50 light bulb, winner of a $10 million Energy Department prize for being, as Secretary Steven Chu said, “affordable for American families.”Mr. Obama's latest panacea is algae — although the wait time for algae-based fuels ranges from very long to infinite. Meanwhile, the impatient among us can buy hisconventional biofuels (as sold to the Navy last December) for $26.75 a gallon.

Mr. Obama proudly announced that Detroit is on track to build cars averaging nearly 55 mpg by 2025. So if we wait 13 years, and gasoline prices do not rise, we'll be able to drive almost twice as far — in frail, sluggish 2025 Obamamobiles. If we wait 50 years, perhaps technological advances in solar panels and windmills will produce similar payoffs for our utility bills.

In bold defiance of the laws of supply and demand, President Obama insists that offshore drilling and projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline will have little, if any, affect on fuel prices. Calls to increase supply are cynically mocked. Unable to explain the economics of his assertions, he artfully shifts to political derision, "'Drill-Drill-Drill' is not a plan, it's a bumper sticker. It’s not a strategy to solve our energy challenge. That’s a strategy to get politicians through an election."

In bold defiance of the laws of supply and demand, President Obama insists that offshore drilling and projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline will have little, if any, affect on fuel prices.

To be fair, every president since Richard Nixon has promised to end our dependence on foreign oil. These people did little to achieve the goal, but they had the good sense to say even less about their failure. Obama, however, aggressively tries to convince us that his energy policy — three years of bad bets on green energy and abject neglect of everything else — is working. He boasts that “under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years.”

It was none of his doing. The production increase is the result of leases issued during the Bush administration and, more significantly, exploration on state and private land. There, thanks to entrepreneurs and the technologies developed at their expense, oil and natural gas production has increased dramatically. In the lands and waters that the president controls, oil and gas production has decreased by roughly 30 to 45%. President Obama's silence regarding the success of production on state and private property, coupled with his earnest and purposeful curtailment of production on federal property, reveals his deep contempt of capitalism and fossil fuels and the wealth they create.

Nowhere is this more evident than in North Dakota, where private developers on private land have tripled oil production over the last five years. The state has had seven consecutive tax cuts. Now, given an unemployment rate of 3.5%, burger flippers make $18 an hour and thousands of $60,000 to $80,000 a year oil industry jobs wait to be filled. But instead of seeing wealth creation in North Dakota that is extensible nationally, Obama chose only to see eight dead birds that were found near the oil fields, and now seeks to stifle the growing prosperity with a lawsuit filed by the US attorney for North Dakota.

Each year, windmills from California to New York swat as many as 250,000 birds to their deaths. An estimated 70 golden eagles, as well as almost 10,000 other birds, are killed annually by the wind turbines at Altamont Pass, near Oakland, California. But no legal action has been taken. This is a political statement profoundly mocking the oil industry. President Obama is telling oil companies that he will sacrifice our very eagles (to repeat, 70 a year by the Altamont Pass bird-o-matic alone) to choke off the supply of the companies' products.

As he mocks, he squanders. He considers our 20 billion barrel reserve of recoverable oil as a fixed asset to be stingily guarded for political purposes. He seesdrilling rigs and gas stations as festering pockmarks on our national landscape, so he tells us that to reduce fuel prices we must use less. But the 20 billion barrels arepolitically recoverable oil. We possess over 1.45 trillion barrels that are technically recoverable with existing technology. We have enough oil and gas to last hundreds of years. According to a 2011 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, "the United States’ combined recoverable natural gas, oil and coal endowment is the largest on Earth . . . larger than Saudi Arabia, China and Canada, combined."

What civilization ever advanced, what economy ever prospered, by using less energy?

Use less? We should use more. What civilization ever advanced, what economy ever prospered, by using less energy? With our reserves, and such newly developed technologies as steam flooding, hydrofracking, and horizontal drilling, America could become the world's predominant supplier. Obama's mantra, "We can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices," is ignorant folly, no matter how many times repeated. That America's energy supply is too paltry to affect price is supreme fiction; that Obama promotes such a myth is supreme impudence.

US consumption is not one of the reasons energy prices are high. Considering our vast domestic reserves, prices would plummet if the US increased production to meet the country's demands. In fact, since price is a function of expected future supply and demand,it would begin to drop merely upon news of our intention to increase supply. Crude oil hit $147 a barrel and gasoline sold for $4.11 a gallon in July 2008, when President Bush announced he would lift the ban on offshore drilling. In less than a month, oil prices were below $120 a barrel. Within six months, oil was $37 a barrel, and gasoline was $1.61 a gallon.

President Obama knows this well — and he knows its converse. His restrictive energy policy reversed the 2008 trend and resulted in the doubling of prices during his term. And since speculators believe he will continue to squander fossil fuel assets, prices will continue to increase. What the president doesn't seem to know very well is the enormous national wealth lost to his feckless policies: losses in employment, personal income, tax revenue (federal, state, and local), debt reduction, retirement fund value, global competitiveness, and immunity to Middle East turmoil andnational security annoyances from the likes of Russia, Iran, and Venezuela (to name a few).

Incredibly, President Obama chooses to squander resources, inanely attempting to restructure our economy and way of life in preparation for a green fantasy worldin which pock marks are crowded out by tidy, quasi-public charging stations and biofuel dispensers supported by a vast system of government subsidized solar, wind, and algae farms. And, to help him achieve his fantasy, he doesn't think we'll mind paying $40,000 to $100,000 and more for Obamamobiles, $50 for light bulbs, $26 a gallon for algaehol, and "skyrocketing" prices for utilities.

The president's energy campaign, not that of his opponents, is a "strategy to get through an election." He believes that "Drill-Drill-Drill" is a bumper sticker, but that Wait-Mock-Squander is sound policy based on smart projections of industry and technology decades ahead. To him, a future of clean energy and green jobs sounds even better, politically, than ObamaCare. But ObamaCare now costs $1.7 trillion, only two years after Obama projected a cost of $927 billion. Still, with his failure at prognosticating exceeded only by his failure at crony-capitalism, he bets our economy on a future driven by starkly unproven technologies. He can describe the vague green future only by means of deceitful, juvenile mockery of the prosperous past. And he expects that voters will accept, on the face of his trite nostrums, the idea that our immense reserves, the largest in the world, are of little future value. One has to admire the audacity: Obama dares to risk being the president who sent us trudging patiently down the road to national weakness and economic decline, a shiny, extortionate toll road — with a multi-trillion dollar "fuel of the past" bonanza lying just beneath its pavement.

Obama might pull it off, as he did the election of 2008. If so, the pockmarks will begin to be replaced by sprawling rashes of grotesque and witless energy "arrays." Idled oil fields will become hidden relics of our environmentally despicable past, places of interest only to historians and tourists, who will find them by following the eagles seeking refuge from Obama's wind farms.




Share This


Mudblood

 | 

In the August 2010 issue of Liberty I wrote an essay about racism. But that article was largely theoretical. Now I would like to share my personal experiences about the topic.

To do so I must first disclose my own racial identity. I am what might be called a mutt or a mulatto, although I prefer the term “mudblood,” which is the Harry Potter name for wizards who come from Muggle bloodlines. My mother is a white American woman of Russian Jewish lineage, and my father is a Muslim man with brown skin who immigrated to the United States from Bangladesh. My parents were married at the time of my birth but later divorced. My childhood religious and cultural education was a mixture of Judaism and Islam, although I never felt completely comfortable among either Jews or Muslims and as an adult I have abandoned organized religion. I have light brown skin but I am sometimes able to “pass for white.”

For my reader’s education let me mention that Bangladesh is a country with a population of mostly Muslim brown-skinned people located on the Indian subcontinent. (I doubt that I need to explain where Russian Jews come from.) What insight into race relations do I have as one of the world’s few part-Bangladeshi-Muslim, part-Russian-Jewish people?

The amazing thing about knowing Jews and Muslims is how distorted and out of touch with reality are the stereotypes and preconceived notions that some people have about members of other racial groups. Let me discuss the Bangladeshi stereotype first.

What most Americans know about Bangladesh, if anything, is that we are Muslims. Many Americans believe that most Muslims are Islamic fundamentalists who oppress women and support terrorism. My experience is that Bangladeshi Muslims are all different kinds of people, each with an individual identity. A minority of Bangladeshis are deeply religious, Islamic conservative fundamentalists. Some Bangladeshis are modern-liberal or leftist Muslims. However, I have found that most of the Bangladeshis whom I know are religious but not fanatical. I strongly believe that most Bangladeshis do not sympathize with or support Islamic terrorists. In fact, Bangladesh has something right now that the United States has never had, a female head of government.

If race has so little conceptual value for understanding people, then why do people make such a big fuss over it?

On the other hand, what can I say about Jews? Aside from a general enjoyment of gefilte fish and matzah ball soup and the other festive ornaments of Yiddish culture, the Jews whom I have known each have different individual personalities with traits that could not be predicted on the basis of knowing that they are Jews. I do not believe that most Jews are unusually smart or that most Jews are greedy, although the argument can be made that Jewish culture places a high value upon learning and intelligence and is conducive to a successful career as a lawyer. I recall with a certain fondness the Jewish custom of Hanukkah gelt, which is children's chocolate wrapped up to look like gold coins. I also recall pressure to study Hebrew and read Jewish books, but it is a stretch to find some special meaning in those customs. I regard “smart” and “greedy” as compliments, but I have known Jews who are neither. Yet some people have bizarre stereotypical pictures of Jews, as if all were identical.

When you have no firsthand knowledge of something it is easy to have a two-dimensional understanding of it. If I have any insight to offer it is that no two people are the same, and racial or ethnic generalizations have no relation whatsoever to how any real human being behaves. There is a notorious academic argument that if you were forced to form a basketball team to win money it would be logical to include no one but African-Americans. I suspect that athletic talent varies widely among blacks, and the idea in question is a thinly disguised excuse for racism. It is plausible to think that bigotry and racial hatred begin innocently enough as a crude cognitive technique of relying on racial generalizations for the purpose of understanding people. But this evolves into racism as the natural result of thinking about humans in terms of groups rather than individuals. I believe that racial stereotypes have no predictive accuracy.

If race has so little conceptual value for understanding people, then why do people make such a big fuss over it? One likely reason is that if race blindness were prevalent then the people who purport to speak for oppressed racial minority groups, the leaders of the racial special interests, would have no power. Unlike some libertarians, I have always believed that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was a hero and that the civil rights movement was a good thing. But I believe this only because in the Jim Crow South, blacks were second-class citizens who were not legally equal to whites. Segregation was the result of racist laws as well as the actions of racist owners controlling their private property. In my opinion, the civil rights movement was a success. Blacks achieved legal equality. There are still parts of America where racism is common, and I have been told that some data suggest that certain areas of the United States have noticeable numbers of white racist police officers. But the use of the machinery of government to enforce racist laws has disappeared in the United States, and this precisely is the victory of the civil rights movement.

Now, in the post-civil rights era, socialist blacks such as Al Sharpton and Cornel West have hijacked the civil rights movement and preach to the members of racial minorities that we remain locked in a racial war against the white supremacist conservative Republicans. They claim that the Democratic Party with its modern liberalism is the only place where we can find refuge and protection from the evils of the white racists. The desired protection takes the form of special programs to favor non-whites, or certain non-whites. This is an Orwellian nightmare — like saying that racial equality is our ideal but non-whites should be more equal than whites.

It is up to us to fight on behalf of individualism as the solution to racism by arguing that what matters about people is their individual personalities and not their race.

It is probably true that there are more pro-white racists in the Republican Party than in the Democratic Party, but I think that the American Right is a racially diverse group of people. Most conservatives, and the vast majority of libertarians, are good people who oppose racism. Only a small but vocal minority on the Right are Nazis or Klansmen who give the Right a bad name. It is worth noting that at various times in American history the Democratic Party was associated with the racist South and the Republican Party with the slave-freeing North. It is merely another absurd stereotype to say that the “average” right-winger is a white racist.

It is clear that racism and racial stereotypes have their philosophical basis in the doctrine that people are defined by their memberships in groups. If there is any hope of ending the blight of racism, it will come by taking an individualist approach. We libertarians are the world’s best advocates for individualism, and it is up to us to fight on behalf of individualism as the solution to racism by arguing that what matters about people is their individual personalities and not which race they are members of. I think that individualism will ultimately produce more diversity than state-sponsored affirmative action, because individualism attacks the root cause of racism, whereas affirmative action merely treats the external symptoms.

My friends in high school used to tell me that I should bomb my own car, and there have been many times when I got the sense from some Jews that they didn’t like me because I was Muslim, and received the same feeling from Muslims who did not like my being Jewish. I have never been beaten up as a result of racism (although my father has, and my maternal ancestors endured the Russian pogroms), but my entire life I have felt abnormal because it was not easy for me to fit into a traditional established role as a member of a specific race. I cannot be “a Jew” or “a Muslim” or “a white person” or “a dark-skinned person,” although I can be on the receiving end of discrimination against all of those categories. But it is still possible for me to be “an individual.” And being an individual is what each member of every different race on the planet has in common. It is what unites us and brings us together.

It’s liberating to be a mudblood, and it’s comforting to think that there are libertarians out there in the world who believe in individualism and represent the possibility that the human race will one day outgrow the abomination of racism.




Share This


The Music of Global Warming

 | 

We're all screwed. Soon we'll be leading frugal, monotonous, energy-efficient lives. Drastic lifestyle reductions are urgently needed to save the planet. It is a moral imperative (moral euphoria, to some) — that, and a matter of taxes, regulations, rules, and mandates. Occupying solar-powered hovels, we'll eat vegetarian meals in dim kitchens, carpool in horrid electric vehicles to tedious green jobs, work and play in staggering heat and intense dust (ever-watchful for deadly storms and dying species), and shower under tepid drizzles from dwindling water supplies. Our dysfunctional government is broke and our economy has seen its best days. China is the future. And there will be plenty of bad music.

In the 1980s, right after the global cooling scare of the 1970s, scientists began scaring us about global warming (GW). In the 1990s, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) upped the ante to anthropogenic GW (AGW). By 2006, Al Gore brought us catastrophic AGW (CAGW). Today, according to Al and his apostles, we have progressed to incomprehensible CAGW (ICAGW).

For the most part, the leaders of the global warming movement are cultural elites and technocrats who, having failed to save the world through socialism, turned to environmentalism.

For the most part, the leaders of the global warming movement are cultural elites and technocrats who, having failed to save the world through socialism, turned to environmentalism. They are from the ranks of the world's most earth-caring organizations (Friends of the Earth, World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, Rainforest Action, Environmental Defense, etc.) and,because of their ecclesiastical benevolence and dedication, have formed a global clericy to which our planet's salvation is entrusted.

This cabal has acquired immense political power through incessant planet alarms of ever-increasing magnitude and variety. The cabal gathers privately from time to time in ritualistic séance. Under subdued lighting and the influence of whale songs, Gregorian chants, and Halloween music, members tell one another climate monster-under-the-bed stories until they are frightened to exhaustion. The most astounding stories are then expressed, publicly, through cries of wolf :

  • Staggeringly high temperature rise, especially over land — some 10°F over much of the United States
  • Sea level rise of 3 to 7 feet, increasing some 6 to 12 inches (or more) each decade thereafter
  • Dust bowls over the US SW and many other heavily populated regions around the globe
  • Massive species loss on land and sea — 50% or more of all life
  • More severe hurricanes, especially in the Gulf of Mexico, proximate to the United States
  • Unexpected impacts — the fearsome “unknown unknowns”

One of the latest cry wolf announcements is that the worst of these incomprehensible impacts will be “largely irreversible for 1000 years.” Holy shit! Now we're talking LIICAGW.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that industrialized countries must spend $45 trillion over the next 40 years to be Kyoto-compliant. Make that $101 trillion to get us to 2100. And God only knows the cost of those fearsome "unknown unknowns." But a 1998 US Energy Information Administration (EIA) study found that the Kyoto treaty would cost the US economy $400 billion per year — roughly $570 billion annually today. Thus, the US tab for the next 90 years would be about $51.3 trillion. That George Bush would have none of this, angered the cabal.

The anger festered. When we (the only fully industrialized country smart enough to pass on the frantic planet decarbonization race) became skeptical about the AGW hypothesis itself, anger became ridicule. We became ignorant climate deniers. The Economist admonished us that "America needs to build some ladders to help everyone climb out [of the denial]." And lastSeptember, former president and standing jokeBill Clinton said that such skepticism makes us look like "a joke."

A humorless President Obama wants to be the ladder builder. After all, Americans should pay their fair share. At the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009, he promised that US emissions in 2050 will be 83% below 2005 levels. Many Americans cheered, possibly believing that Mr. Obama's soaring rhetoric had a modicum of substance behind it — perhaps a study showing that we can achieve his goal by tweaking our standard of living with Chevy Volts (tires fully inflated), GE Compact Fluorescents, and a few Solyndra solar panels. But a more thoughtful examination indicates that Americans, especially children and grandchildren, may find the adjustment very arduous. For example, to reduce 2050 emissions to 83% below 2005 levels, George Will pointed out, "2050 emissions will [need to] equal those in 1910, when there were 92 million Americans. But there will be 420 million Americans in 2050, so Obama's promise means that per capita emissions then will be about what they were in 1875. That. Will. Not. Happen."

Under subdued lighting and the influence of whale songs, Gregorian chants, and Halloween music, members tell one another climate monster-under-the-bed stories until they are frightened to exhaustion.

Competing with such dire realizations has troubled the cabal. Its most patronizing scientists now struggle to create climate alarms more astounding than economic reality. As the supply of disasters that can be attributed to man shrinks, rumor has it that future announcements of planet tragedies will have Sarah McLachlanmusic playing in the background. Now that’s cruelty to animals. The incorporation of depressing music is more than symbolism. The thinking seems to be that a milieu of despair will amplify the urgency of government action and stimulate the global warming industry.

Many believe that the cabal should lighten up. The absence of warming since 1998 should help. Some have suggested that at its next monsters-under-the-bed meeting, the cabal should watch An Inconvenient Truth a few times, but with banjo music for the soundtrack. Al Gore will seem more comical, LIICAGW less horrifying. But banjos will not brighten the mood in our languishing economy. For over three years unemployment has exceeded 8%, the housing market has been a shambles, and GDP growth has been feeble at best. With our national debt over $15 trillion and annual deficits over $1 trillion, we currently borrow 43 cents on every dollar we spend. Oil prices are rising, and we are not allowed to drill enough of our own or pump new supplies in from Canada. We can't even afford ObamaCare, and the EPA is beginning to charge us for carbon.

Yet, we are seen as the climate idiots and villains, an implacable obstacle to the cabal's bold global vision. In contrast, China gets a pass. The cabal would have us pay $51 trillion to help save the planet, while China — the world's most populous country, with 16 of the world's 20 most polluted cities and an economic furnace relentlessly stoked with as much greenhouse-gas-emitting coal and oil as it can find — pays nothing. With its rapidly growing economic and military power, China has been likened to the Germany of a century ago. Western Europe’s appeasement of Germany led to World War II. Awarding a colossal carbon tax break to an aggressive, planet-ravaging China trumps appeasement with encouragement.

In 2005, James Fallows wrote an article called “Countdown to a Meltdown.” Appearing in The Atlantic as a cover story, it was a speculative article about the American political-economic conditions that Fallows imagined would increasingly worsen through 2016, culminating in turmoil, ruin, and, I'm guessing, record-breaking sales of songs running the gamut from “Yesterday” to “Taps.” The article enshrined an opinion of America that is no doubt still cherished by all self-respecting members of the cabal.

Fallows’ view was that by 2016, China would have better schools, better roads and highways, and, having sent a spacecraft to Mars, better science than the United States. He saw America in 2016 as a place with "an undereducated work force" and "a rundown infrastructure." We would become a stagnant, destitute country where "young people, seeking opportunity, have to wait for old people to die," where "smoking and eating junk food have become for our underemployed class what swilling vodka was for the dispossessed in Boris Yeltsin's Russia." Holy blessed shit! This is even more astounding than LIICAGW.

The thinking seems to be that a milieu of despair will amplify the urgency of government action and stimulate the global warming industry.

Fallows imagined that in 2016, China would have "20 Harvards," as opposed to our one (which would become an academic "theme park" by 2016). Perhaps, therefore, our climate alarmists should consider a visit to Chinese universities, where they would profit from entry-level science and economics courses — not the soft, funny-book classes that they might get here, but the ones with objectivity and rigor. Better yet, they might consider a permanent move to China. In that country, their elitist credentials would surely land them the best jobs at the best companies, especially enlightened businesses that have relocated to escape the anticipated economic blight of America.

It is possible that incessant braying, accompanied by Chinese music, could persuade Communist Party officials of the urgent need for China to pay its fair share in thwarting climate hobgoblins. It's not clear how it will pass as ladder-building music, but it's an elegant metaphor for the discord between imagined climate catastrophes and real economic imperatives. As P.J. O'Rourke said in All the Trouble in the World, it is music that "sounds as if a truck full of wind chimes collided with a stack of empty oil drums during a birdcall contest." I'll be here in America, astoundingly skeptical.




Share This


Foreign Aid

 | 




Share This


Impudence, Sir, Sheer Impudence

 | 

 

In his history of England, the great classical liberal Thomas Macaulay continually used the word “impudent” to describe the proceedings of the English kings as they labored to find new ways of invading their subjects’ liberties. The word has ironic truth. We think of someone as “impudent” when he lodges obnoxious objections to the doings of people holding justified authority — but unjustified authority is impudence as well, and it is almost always worse.

This is the year of impudence.

President Obama impudently spends trillions he doesn’t have, and sends the bill to us, and future generations, as if only he and his friends mattered. His friends, in turn, spend virtually all their time telling us things that aren’t true, as if we weren’t smart enough to detect the fraud.

Government labor unions impudently insist that the nation, and the citizens of every state and city, must bankrupt themselves in order to provide luxurious retirements for people who, in many cases, impudently didn’t do a lick of work while they were “employed.”

Now justifiably-former Senator Santorum impudently lectures a nation of other adults about the evils of the “pandemic” of “pornography,” insisting that he knows it is “toxic” for marriages, “relationships,” and, I suppose, the birds and the bees, and promising that he will try to ban it.

Anyone who knows anything about what Santorum’s website calls “relationships” can think of some that may have been saved by the judicious use of “pornography.” (Yes, and some that may have been harmed. Is that the business of the law, or Sexologist in Chief Santorum?) And it would be funny, if it weren’t so cruel, to think about federal agents swooping down on some 90-year-old widower in North Dakota who, like the old bathtub-gin artists, whiled away his hours making his own dirty stories and pictures, and possibly purveying them to some other old degenerate.

But the major effect of Santorum’s remarks — nay, of his very being — is impudence, sheer impudence. Who does this man think he is? What item in the Republicans’ limited-government agenda does he suppose gives him, or any other politician, the right to act as Father Inquisitor to fellow adults?

Of all the year’s disgusting performances, this, to me, is the most disgusting, because it is the most impudent.

So far.




Share This

© Copyright 2013 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.



Opinions expressed in Liberty are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Liberty Foundation.

All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.