Anti-globalization dishonesty

I was recently lured into viewing an article on a series of photographs French artist Alain Delorme compiled that turned out to be bogus.

The article was titled "Look At These Chinese Workers Carrying Mind-Blowing Amounts Of Stuff" but it turned out the images were all fakes created in photoshop.

From an NPR interview on his website:

Turns out, Paris-based Delorme creates these spectacular towers of boxes, tires and blankets using Photoshop. As he exaggerates reality by meticulously stitching together the image, he tries to confuse the line between what is fake and what is real, and raise questions around the limits and rules of documentary photography. 

"Even pictures covering a story are retouched to look cleaner, more beautiful," he writes in an e-mail. "What are the limits when the search for perfect aesthetics hides a part of reality?"

So he thinks what he's doing is acceptable because other people adjust the lighting in their photos. Here's what he said his intention is with the series in the new piece:

Delorme alters the photos with Photoshop to exaggerate the loads his subjects carry and heighten that sense of consumption. "To what extent can we play with reality to get the viewer to ask questions?" He says the works investigate globalization and consumerism. "But it is above all a way to make people think about the consumer society we live in via the ‘Made in China’ phenomenon, with all its identical and exchangeable objects produced in big quantities."

Why is it critics of globalization avoid coming out and saying what they mean? Globalization is the extension of human cooperation across international borders and protectionists like Delorme rarely say they oppose it, but claim their propaganda makes people "think" about the issue or study it.

Bottom line, when you have to lie to people to make your point the way Delorme did with his fake images you are admitting your case is weak.
Read more...

The shame of modern communism

Yesterday I made a woman cry during an interview.

I was covering a naturalization ceremony where about 200 foreign-born residents were made American citizens and I interviewed a woman whose family fled the Ukraine in the late 1990's. Her father had been arrested and tortured for criticizing communism and he managed to flee with them when she was a teenager. She told me other people weren't so fortunate and then started to cry uncontrollably.

I write on here a lot about how much I detest Marxism, communism, socialism* and other anti-capitalist utopian fantasies, but I don't spend enough time hitting home how deadly serious these matters are. This woman's personal horrors that came rushing forward shows us what is at stake.

I think of most modern communists as hobbyists. They make shallow, empty-headed suggestions in favor of a communist state because they have no idea what they're talking about and lack the integrity to perform any real research on the subject. They think it's cute and novel.

They speak with the same tongue as the anti-vaccination crowd who tell us that medicine is worse than disease.

Their ignorance and indifference is a crime against humanity. They join activist groups like Worker's World Party, which supports North Korea, and International ANSWER, which sided with the Chinese military in the Tiananmen Square protests.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who survived a Soviet gulag, said in 1975:

There is a word very commonly used these days: "anti-communism." It's a very stupid word, badly put together. It makes it appear as though communism were something original, something basic, something fundamental. Therefore, it is taken as the point of departure, and anti-communism is defined in relation to communism. Here is why I say that this word was poorly selected, that it was put together by people who do not understand etymology: the primary, the eternal concept is humanity. And communism is anti-humanity. Whoever says "anti-communism" is saying, in effect, anti-anti-humanity. A poor construction. So we should say: that which is against communism is for humanity. Not to accept, to reject this inhuman Communist ideology is simply to be a human being. It isn't being a member of a party.

When I read of historic figures like George Orwell who believed in socialism, I cut them some slack because they did not have the hindsight of history to guide them. The modern socialist drones have no such excuse. In fact, they have to cling to bitter little lies like "true socialism has never been tried" to shrug off the lessons of human experience.

When I rewatched the first season of Spartacus I kept thinking how most of the gladiators saw gaining their freedom as the ultimate accomplishment and once they had it their lives would be nearly perfect. Yet, watching the show I knew I had my freedom and didn't think much of it. That's because I have the luxury of taking it for granted. The former soviet and eastern European new citizens I interviewed had a much different experience and cherished their new lives.

There isn't enough shame directed at the modern proponents of communism. Yesterday when I spoke to that woman these ideas that seem so abstract became, very, very real to me. If everyone had that experience, would anyone dare to pick up and carry those discarded ideas ever again?

*This is my boilerplate clarification that I am referring to actual socialism and not President Barack Obama or Denmark's welfare state.
Read more...

Obama doesn't care about evidence

Today President Obama announced his list of 12 legislative recommendations and 23 executive actions for gun control measures to capitalize on the wave of enthusiasm following the Sandy Hook shooting. Some of the measures are ho-hum, such a call to nominate an ATF director and have the Consumer Product Safety Commission review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes.

But, of course, there was a lot of nonsense recommended by the president, such as a federal ammunition magazine cap at 10 rounds, a ban on so-called assault weapons and having the Centers for Disease Control conduct a $10 million study to answer a question we already know.

I'm reminded of a brilliant article David Bier wrote last week that questions the philosophy behind the gun-grabbers demand that we provide a reason why we should be allowed to possess semi-automatic rifles like an AR-15.

Free societies place the responsibility on those who would restrain the freedom of an individual to justify their action, not on the individual to justify his freedom. But the proponents of government action have completely inverted this premise - government power now requires little justification - it is presumed valid - and exercising liberty requires a great deal of justification.  

Russell's Teapot taught us the burden of proof is on the claim maker. If we apply this logic to government power, shouldn't it be up to the President Obama to show us the evidence that his policies will reduce the murders of innocent people?

Where is the evidence that restricting magazine sizes will stop or minimize mass shootings? The claims from the anti-gun folks are quite grand. Lawrence O’Donnell was ahead of the curve on this idea. Back in July MSNBC's he guaranteed that the Aurora movie theater massacre would have ended early if the shooter hadn't used a hundred-round drum magazine:

California has made the sale of hundred-round clips illegal. California restricts those magazines to ten bullets. And so, if you’re an aspiring mass murderer here in California, and you decide tonight to obtain your killing tools legally, as our most recent mass murderers have done, you will be forced to reload after your first ten bullets, and if you try doing that in a packed movie theater, I promise you, you will not finish reloading. You will be taken down by the freedom of the people in that theater to attack you the second you have to stop firing and reload. The ten-bullet clip is about the freedom to stop mass murderers after they’ve fired ten shots, instead of a hundred.

But that shooting never lasted 100 rounds. The shooter's gun jammed on him. No one tackled him. He simply switched to a second weapon, as most of these shooters have had the option to do. Reloading can take one to three seconds. O'Donnell's wild claim, peppered with confident statements like "I promise you" was a swirl of useless conjecture. Where is the hard evidence that this policy will make a difference?

Banning weapons that have certain non-essential features and labeling them "assault weapons" based on the stock or the grip is another useless move lacking evidence. The research ranges from showing the 1994 federal ban on so-called assault weapons failed to make a clear impact on gun violence to inconclusive. There is no reason to believe passing these feel-good laws will prevent violence.

I think the most telling recommendation President Obama made today was his effort to fund another study on video games hoping the conclusion will be different. From Joystiq:

Obama mentioned video games once during the conference, asking Congress to provide $10 million for the Centers for Disease Control and other scientific agencies to research the causes of gun violence. 

"While year after year, those who oppose even modest gun safety measures have threatened to defund scientific or medical research into the causes of gun violence, I will direct the Centers for Disease Control to go ahead and study the best ways to reduce it," Obama said. "And Congress should fund research into the effects that violent video games have on young minds. We don't benefit from ignorance. We don't benefit from not knowing the science of this epidemic of violence."

Well, we do know the science here. In fact, the Supreme Court took that scientific fact into account back in 2011. We already have the answer to this question.

Imagine if the president said he wanted to fund a new study to determine if vaccines cause autism, or if George W. Bush was behind the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Try ending that request with "We don't benefit from ignorance."

The president does not practice an evidence-based approach to running this government. The list he produced today had some reasonable approaches, but he couldn't help himself from peppering it with dubious measures.

In an authoritarian world, all freedoms are restricted unless the government permits them. In a world of liberty, all freedoms are permitted unless the government restricts them.

I believe freedom should come first. There are times when it is needed for the government to restrict some of our freedoms, but the burden of proving the necessity of those restrictions falls on the government. If they want to take a right away it is up to them to prove to us why they should be allowed to. We shouldn't have to come up with a compelling reason for why we deserve each and every freedom we get to keep.
Read more...

With great responsibility comes great power

One of my friends from back home organized a symposium on international relations and peace today to coincide with United Nations Day.

I originally turned down his invitation. It's a work night and the event is a two hour drive in each direction. I told him, sorry, adulthood is in the way.

But first thing this morning I realized adulthood cuts both ways and decided, what the hell, I can make that drive.

As an adult I have the autonomy to eat ice cream for breakfast every morning, but I also have the foresight not to.

Most mornings.

I'm currently blogging from the symposium. I may not support the United Nations but I can always support a friend.

By the way, Dylan. The WiFi from your university venue has blocked your own political blog because it "may contain inappropriate material."

Read more...

Milton Friedman goldmine

I just discovered the YouTube channel BasicEconomics. It has tons of original Milton Friedman lectures, including the question and answer sessions that followed, along with other videos that liberty intellectuals will love. This is right up there with LearnLiberty and FreedomChannel as an aggregator of free-market videos.

From Friedman's extended lectures I have already learned that Keynes' support of protectionist trade policies was a temporary political compromise, not a shift in understanding, and that my history textbooks butchered a great story about John D. Rockefeller.

Late in his life, Rockefeller had a clever response when people would walk up to him on the street and criticize his wealth. After they would say he should share it with the rest of the country, Rockefeller would ask them if they wanted to receive an equal share of what everyone would get if he split up his wealth. After they said yes, he would hand them a single dime.

My history book merely said that he would hand out dimes to people on the street. Friedman's version is an actual lesson, not a quirky anecdote.
Read more...

After-school luddites

One of the suggested causes of the increased number of fat children today is technology - that instead of running to the baseball diamond when class is out, kids are running to the flat screen to cruise the Internet or blast aliens. The lack of physical exercise is sapping the strength of today's youth, we are told.

I think that is probably a factor, absolutely. But instead of labeling these new activities as a problem, let's try to understand them a little more.

First off, things like video games are fun - and apparently more fun than kick the can, since the whole premise is that kids are choosing the virtual world over the real one. There's something to be said for letting people - even young people - spend their time they way they want to. If stickball can't compete with Gears of War, why make kids play it?

Granted, missing out on exercise is a notch against these physically-undemanding activities. Sports like baseball and football have a positive side effect in exercise that you don't find in video games, Internet activities and yes, wholesome old-fashioned book reading. Sports are a great way for kids to spend their free time.

Assuming, of course, they can walk.

But that isn't true for all kids. These "good ole' days" of outdoor childhoods may have offered a lot of choices to the general public, but not to the unfortunate kids with wheelchairs or seeing-eye dogs. If the do-gooders of today had their wish and pushed all the children outdoors, where would these children go? Should they just roll themselves home, hidden from the able-bodied world?

Technology has given children a lot more options of what to do with their time, and the tails have been long. Instead of every kids sort-of enjoying baseball, modern children can spend their time doing something they truly enjoy. Handicap children don't just have books anymore, they can learn HTML and build Web sites, they can start a video blog or climb to the top of the leaderboards*. Above all, they can do more things today where other kids will aspire to be like them.

I think another factor is the awful overprotective parenting culture of today and the institutionalization of sports. Keep in mind that the pick-up game of pee wee baseball is dead - there are no longer mobs of 10-year-olds roaming the playground unaccompanied anymore to start an impromptu game, and why would they when adults organize the sports for them. Sometimes kids wants to be left to their own devices, and indoor activities offer a lot more breathing room these days.

Don't forget that the days of active kids had more child freedom - the tails were shorter because kids had less choices for what to do with their time, so it was easier to find teammates when they wanted to play, and it was mostly up to them to organize their own games anyways. Today's culture is very different so we shouldn't be surprised that kids will make different choices.

It's easy to find fault with the modern world if you have an idealized concept of the past. For all negative things associated with today's children, there are a lot of good that gets overlooked.

*I do want to caution that one of the most disturbing things I have witnessed was an autistic child playing a crude World-War 2 game on the PlayStation 2. Someone put the difficulty on really low and all he would do is run up to the enemy soldiers and stab them in the chest over and over before moving onto the next one.

Read more...

Prediction: TSA to scale back searches

My biggest regret for January 2009 was I never got around to making a video of me predicting President Obama was going to be the next Jimmy Carter; that he was hyped up by the public and had no idea what he was getting himself into, and would fail to meet his central campaign promises.

It's one thing to make predictions, it's another to publicly record them. Since I didn't make that video, I really can't take credit for being right. In that spirit, here's a specific prediction:

The search methods of Transportation Security Administration will be scaled down within a year. What's more, this is the peak of airport screenings, and there will not be an increase in the level of searches. If this prediction fails, and searches becomes more intense, then the public outcry will force it to be reversed within six months. In the first scenario, we will still be unable to bring liquids on board airplanes. If the second scenario occurs, that rule will be omitted.

Maybe I'm old fashion and believe the whim of the public can influence our laws for the good, but I feel we're at the breaking point of this issue. The TSA really has set itself up to lose by givings customers the ultimatum of being photographed naked or allowing a stranger to touch their genitals. People are standing up to this, and the TSA is foolishly making martyrs of them.

Hint: If you get taken to court by the TSA, ask for a jury trial.

We've silently accepted that flying is a privilege and not a right and that no cost is too high to be a little bit safer, but now the public is learning why that's wrong.

Let's examine that concept, that being safer is always better and costs don't matter. If that were true, I have an easy solution to improve automobile safety - drive a dump truck.

When you drive a dump truck, hitting a tree is a much safer occurrence - you might not even notice when you do it. Same with a deer or a tool shed. The safety of drivers and passengers go up when you're in a lumbering metal monstrosity.

But the costs would be high. Even a hybrid dump truck would be a gas hog, and finding a parking spot would be a real pain. In a typical accident between a regular car and a dump truck, the occupants of one vehicle walk away and the others get covered with a tarp. Hitting a house with a car can be deadly, but imagine what a a larger vehicle would do. Add on to that the horror of being too big to use the drive-through window at a Burger King and you can see there are some costs that just aren't worth additional safety.

Safety and freedom are on opposite ends of a sliding scale, and increasing one can reduce the other. Safety is a wonderful thing, but it's not the only thing that matters. You can be too careful, and we shouldn't just assume our current level of security is optimal. I'm willing to accept a little more risk in exchange for a lot more freedom and sensibility in our airports, and I believe America is learning that lesson right now.


Read more...

Saving the public from illegal lemonade stands

It was only a matter of time before this would happen.

County officials in Portland, Oregon shut down a lemonade stand because the 7-year-old operator didn't have a $120 temporary restaurant license.

Technically, any lemonade stand -- even one on your front lawn -- must be licensed under state law, said Eric Pippert, the food-borne illness prevention program manager for the state's public health division.

The reason they shut down this criminal operation is that little Julie Murphy brought her stand to a public event, instead of the seedy suburban streets where black market lemonade usually thrives.

Say there was a crackdown on unlicensed lemonade stands. What would the preschool merchants do if they had to pay $120 for the right to be in business?

The industry as a whole would be destroyed due to a dead weight loss. The start-up cost would be incredibly high, and the price of a glass of lemonade would have to rise considerably. Customers would buy less and profits would fall. The only reason this industry is allowed to exist is because it's publicly unpopular to enforce the existing laws.


UPDATE The county has apologized to Julie.

"A lemonade stand is a classic iconic American kid thing to do," county Chairman Jeff Cogen said. "I don't want to be in the business of shutting that down."

Read more...

A tough week for lesbians in schools

Don't like the Catholic church? Then stop helping them.

There's a lot of talk right now about why it was wrong for the Sacred Heart of Jesus School in Boulder, Colorado to tell a lesbian couple that their 5-year-old girl daughter will have to find a new school next fall.

I've been surprised at how shocked and angry my friends and acquaintances have been that a Catholic private school would reject a student because of her parents' lifestyle. Yes, I don't think it's a nice thing to do. I wouldn't have made that same decision. But what I don't understand is why people are so bent out of shape and want to find a way to force the church to reverse it's decision.

Here's a news flash: It's the Catholic church, for crying out loud. We already knew they see homosexuality as a major sin. Why are people so shocked that they would have policies based on this view?

It's not often that I find myself defending the Catholic church. I have a different world view and I don't see gay people in the same dim light the Catholic church does. Despite those differences, I believe the Catholic church has a right to hold views I find primitive or unbecoming, as well as the right to reject pupils for any reason they see fit.

As Larry Iannaccone has written, we have a market for religion in America. People are free to attend whatever church they like - or none at all. As a result, different religions have to compete with one another to attract followers. Religions with unpopular views either change or see their congregation dissolve.

My own family has had an experience with this. My parents wanted to raise my brother and I as Catholics, but we were rejected because, as my dad puts it, they didn't pay to have a Catholic priest attend the wedding. The Catholic church considered their marriage unofficial, making me and my brother bastards in their eyes. The local Lutheran church, however, didn't care and welcomed us in. Besides the offering money each week, my dad sang in the choir and my mom eventually became church president.

But this issue is about a school, not a church, right?

Well no, it's about both. Religious schools are supposed to be allowed to teach their own doctrine. In effect, they are selling a product. Sometimes that will mean teaching something other people find repulsive. Such as unfairly rejecting a group of people based on irrelevant details.

It doesn't matter that the school is soft on other sinful parents - like adulterers and divorcees - because as a private school they should be able to reject anyone they want - even if it doesn't make sense.

So what do the protesters want? It's hard to say, some people want to school to change it's policies. Other people want the anti-discrimination laws to force the girl back into the school.

Neither of these feel right to me.

While I agree people should try to appeal directly to the school, it should be the other parents leading the charge. I think the protesters would make a lot more progress if they would appeal directly to the parents of other pupils and ask them to demand a policy change.

This also leads to an important question: Why would someone protest a school policy if they wouldn't send their children there in the first place?

If I had kids, I probably wouldn't send them to a Catholic school. I feel that crosses me out of the list of who should draft the policies of a Catholic school. I've noticed a lot of the people who are upset about this issue think even less of the Catholic church than I do. They would never send children to this school, no matter what the policies are.

As for using the legal system to intervene - is that really the best way to find a business that is going to take a lot of your money and teach moral lessons to your children? Why on earth would you want to do business with them?

As Milton Friedman said, allowing businesses to discriminate makes them pay for their own prejudice. When a school rejects a pupil, they miss out on the tuition dollars they would have made.

I hope these people that dislike the Catholic church realize that if this protest succeeds at overturning the ruling, it will keep the same church around longer. By discriminating, they are punishing themselves, and helping their own competitors. They also risk offending the community, like we can see here. Why bother to bring the clumsy hammer of government into it if the problem is going to solve itself?

Which leads to the other story this week - A public school in Jackson, Mississippi canceled the prom because two lesbian students wanted to go together.

In a typically cowardly fashion, the county school board releases a vague statement, saying the prom is canceled "due to the distractions to the educational process caused by recent events."

Oh please. If they cared about the "educational process" so much they wouldn't be on the school board for a public school in Mississippi. The school officials knew they couldn't possibly get away with banning the couple, so they decided to ruin it for everyone instead.

The difference between the issues is that this a public school, financed with tax dollars. They do not have willing customers - students are assigned to a school by geography.

In Maine the public schools teach acceptance for gays. It appears in Mississippi they are teaching the opposite. My stance has always been that school should keep out of social issues whenever possible. This would mean no "coming out week" posters, but no prom cancellations either.

I don't have enough faith in the government to always pick the right side of a social issue, so I think it's best if they just stay out. Let people live their lives how they want, free from government approval or disapproval

On the plus side, the ACLU has gotten involved in the Mississippi case. They've got something very important going for them.

They're right.

Read more...