tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-230619712024-03-17T05:24:29.633-04:00Objectivist v. Constructivist v. TheistOpinion pieces from the column "Taking Sides" by the Objectivist, the Constructivist, and the Theist, originally published in the <I><a href="http://observertoday.com/">Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer</a></I> and the <I><a href="http://post-journal.com/">Jamestown Post-Journal</a></I>.The Constructivisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07242149985581771922noreply@blogger.comBlogger331125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-7520975700456411262022-02-03T06:06:00.002-05:002022-02-03T06:06:31.829-05:00The Woke Mob Comes for Professors Amy Wax and Kathleen Stock<p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Stephen Kershnar</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">A Tale of Two
Professors<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Dunkirk-Fredonia
Observer<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">January 23, 2022<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In two cases, administrators and academics
are trying to silence high profile professors. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">Recently, the University of Pennsylvania Law
School’s dean, Ted Ruger, announced that he will <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/penn-law-seeks-sanction-professor-who-said-us-better-off-with-fewer-asians-2022-01-18/#:~:text=(Reuters)%20%2D%20The%20dean%20of,statements%20on%20race%20and%20immigration">try
to sanction</a> law professor Amy Wax. In a 2017 <i>Philadelphia Inquirer</i> <a href="https://www.inquirer.com/philly/opinion/commentary/paying-the-price-for-breakdown-of-the-countrys-bourgeois-culture-20170809.html">article</a>,
Wax and University of San Diego law professor Larry Alexander said that
the country is paying a price for breakdown of the country's bourgeois culture.
They argued that since the 1950s, the decline of bourgeois values - such as
hard work, marriage, respect for authority, and self-discipline - contributed to
societal problems such as opioid abuse, half of all children being born to
single mothers, male labor force participation rates down to Great-Depression-era
levels, and many college students lacking basic skills. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="background: white; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">In a 2017 interview with <i>The Daily Pennsylvanian</i>,
Wax <a href="https://www.thedp.com/article/2017/08/amy-wax-penn-law-cultural-values">argued</a>
that not all cultures equally prepare people to be productive in an advanced
economy. She said, "everyone wants to go to countries ruled by white
Europeans" because of their superior norms. Wax added that she did not
believe in the superiority of one race over another but was describing the
situation in various countries and cultures. Again, with the exception of a few
East Asian nations, no adult seriously doubts this claim. By the millions, people
vote with their feet in favor of Wax’s claims.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">In 2021 on</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> Glenn Loury’s
website, Wax </span><a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/penn-law-seeks-sanction-professor-who-said-us-better-off-with-fewer-asians-2022-01-18/#:~:text=(Reuters)%20%2D%20The%20dean%20of,statements%20on%20race%20and%20immigration"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">wrote</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> “As long as most
Asians support Democrats and help to advance their positions, I think the
United States is better off with fewer Asians and less Asian immigration.” <span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">Wax argued that Asians
are ungrateful for the advantages of living in the US. This can be seen, she
claimed, because they vote disproportionately for the “pernicious" Democratic
Party</span>. She further noted that this voting pattern is <span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">"mystifying"
because the Democratic Party pushes equal outcomes despite well-known group
differences. Regardless of whether one agrees, the claims are plausible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">In a 2017 interview with Loury, Wax <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb9Ey-SsNsg">said</a> regarding
affirmative action: "Take Penn Law School, or some top 10 law school... Here's
a very inconvenient fact ... I don't think I've ever seen a Black student
graduate in the top quarter of the class, and rarely, rarely in the top half
... I can think of one or two students who scored in the top half in my
required first year course.” This claim surprises no one who is familiar with
elite law schools. Penn is ranked <a href="https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings">6<sup>th</sup></a>.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="background: white; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">In 2017, a petition to fire Amy Wax was
started. Today it has <a href="https://www.change.org/p/university-of-pennsylvania-fire-racist-penn-law-professor-amy-wax">76,000</a>
signatures. <a href="https://www.thedp.com/article/2017/08/guest-column-by-33-penn-law-faculty-members-open-letter-to-the-university-of-pennsylvania-community"><span style="background: white; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">33</span></a></span><span style="background: white; color: #202122; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"> of
her Penn Law colleagues denounced her <i>Philadelphia Inquirer</i>
and <i>Daily Pennsylvanian</i> statements. Ruger later </span><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">banned her from teaching required
first-year courses. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="background: white; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">In England, Kathleen Stock, a professor of
philosophy at the <span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">University of Sussex</span> <span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">recently </span><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/28/sussex-professor-kathleen-stock-resigns-after-transgender-rights-row"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">resigned</span></a><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">. She <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>argued that people cannot change their sex. </span><span style="background: white;">She also argued that many trans women are males – consider,
for example, ones with penises who are sexually attracted to females – and, as
a result, they should not be in places where females undress or sleep in an unrestricted
way. She said ad nauseum that she thinks trans people should live free
from fear of violence, harassment, or discrimination, but that her claims about
identity are distinct from the need to protect these rights. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span><span style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">When Stock was made an Officer of the Order of
the British Empire, philosophers from the most elite universities – for
example, Cambridge, Harvard, MIT, Oxford, Princeton, Stanford, and Yale – and
others <a href="https://sites.google.com/view/trans-phil-letter/">denounced</a>
Stock. The professors said, “We are dismayed that the British government has
chosen to honour her for this harmful rhetoric.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">Stock’s resignation followed her
having been told by police to stay away from her campus for safety reasons. S</span><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">tudents at her university, put up
posters and graffiti demanding that she be fired. <span style="background: white;">The
Sussex branch of the University and College Union </span></span><span style="background: white; color: #121212;">called for an investigation into
transphobia. </span><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">An
ironic fact is that <span style="background: white;">Stock is a left-wing lesbian
and sex-nonconforming woman. </span>Some<span style="background: white;"> of the
elite philosophers who denounced her used to be her friends and allies. The
revolution always eats its own. </span></span><span style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">Were Wax or Stock to teach at
a public American university, the Constitution would make it illegal for the
schools to sanction them. Their speech and writing were not pursuant to their </span><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">official
duties.</span><span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;"> See </span><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;"><a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2005/04-473"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Garcetti v. Ceballos</i></a>, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). Even if their speech
and writings were pursuant to their official duties, and it was not, their
speech is still protected because it would easily pass the Pickering test. <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/510"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Pickering
v. Board of Education</i></a>, 391 U.S. 563 (1968). Specifically, their speech
is a matter of public concern and their interest in commenting on matters of
public concern outweigh the state’s interest of the State regarding the public
services it provides. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="background: white; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: black;">Note two things. First, regarding Wax, no one seriously doubts that the
country would be better off with bourgeois values or that – with the exception
of a few East Asian countries - Western culture is better. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="background: white; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">Second, regarding Stock, it is hard to dispute
that biologically, trans women are not women. Whether trans women are
gender-women – that is, women according to cultural norms – depends on what we do
and should think a woman is. At the very least, it is worth discussing Stock’s
careful-and-technical arguments. There are additional reasons to be wary of
radically revising our view of gender. Consider athletics, gender-transition
contagion, and the percentage of people who change their minds about
transitioning. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="background: white; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">The mean-spirited bullying of Wax and Stock is not
unique. Professors from Colorado, Cornell, Oxford, Princeton, Rutgers, etc.
have been blackballed, publicly denounced, or pressured to retract articles. The
elite schools matter because they have an enormous influence on the country’s
commanding heights. Consider, for example, Big Tech, government, Hollywood, mainstream
media, and Wall Street. What the elites believe will flow down to culture, law,
and the rest of academia. This abuse will continue until alumni cut off
donations, boards of trustee fire disgraceful administrators (for example,
Penn’s Ruger), and federal and state governments defund these institutions. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="background: white; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p>The Objectivisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-49537108126119439052022-01-13T11:28:00.001-05:002022-01-13T11:28:09.775-05:00Against CUNY and SUNY Vaccine Mandates<p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Stephen Kershnar</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Kathy Hochul’s
Mandate<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Dunkirk-Fredonia
Observer<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">January 10, 2021<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Kathy Hochul recently </span><a href="https://www.oleantimesherald.com/news/hochuls-2-0-plan-for-virus-fight-includes-vaccine-mandate-for-suny-faculty/article_19fad68c-2510-5f99-808e-2ef1fa389d87.html"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">required</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> CUNY and SUNY
faculty members be vaccinated. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The state should not protect faculty
against themselves. That is, the state should avoid paternalistic employment
conditions. The state would not be justified in requiring that faculty – or
other employees – avoid divorce, obesity, or gender-transition even if such
requirements were good for the faculty. Here I take no position on whether such
requirements would be good for them. In addition, the state should not
interfere with whether a faculty member gets an abortion because a woman owns
her own body. This is true regardless of whether abortion makes a woman’s </span><a href="https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-having-children-make-people-happier-in-the-long-run"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">life</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span><a href="https://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">go worse</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The issue, then, is whether the
vaccine mandate protects the unvaccinated from harming others. First, consider
whether unvaccinated faculty endanger students. Students are in little danger
from Covid. John Hopkins Medical School professor Marty Makary points out that
over the last 6 months, the chance of a younger person (15-24) dying from or
with Covid is </span><a href="https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/universities-covid-policies-defy"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">0.001%</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">, that is, 1 in
100,000. Because the data does not distinguish between dying from Covid or dying
from something else while infected with Covid, let us assume that the number
overestimates Covid deaths by a factor of 2 (I made this number up). Thus, the
chance of a younger person dying of Covid is 1 in 200,000. This still
overestimates the risk an unvaccinated person imposes on a student because the
unvaccinated person has less than a 100% chance of </span><a href="https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/one-three-americans-already-had-covid-19-end-2020"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">getting Covid</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> and less than a
100% of </span><a href="https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/209673/covid-19-spread-different-social-settings-imperial/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">passing it on</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> – whether
directly or indirectly - to a vulnerable person. Let us again assume that these
numbers are 33% each –likely an overestimate - and we end up with a 1 in 1.8
million chance that someone choosing not to be vaccinated causes a student to
die. This is too low a risk to have the state require an employee put an unwanted
substance into her body. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>By analogy, many people – including
me – think that the state should permit abortion even if the fetus is a person
because the fetus </span><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Does-Pro-Life-Worldview-Make-Sense/dp/1138307297/?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_w=mm8Ad&pf_rd_p=29505bbf-38bd-47ef-8224-a5dd0cda2bae&pf_rd_r=8D97QV62SNAWE3RNY4T6&pd_rd_r=6fe88b9a-693f-4770-bae9-55880a79d7f5&pd_rd_wg=iRZzh&ref_=pd_gw_ci_mcx_mr_hp_atf_m"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">infringes</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> on the woman’s
right to control her body. This is true even if abortion has a 100% chance of
killing a person. In short, we do and should take very seriously a person’s
right to control her body. This applies to unwanted vaccinations in a manner similar
to abortion, although the former involves a less significant impact on a
woman’s body. On a side note, zygotes and embryos are </span><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Killing-Problems-Margins-Oxford/dp/0195169824/ref=sr_1_2?crid=2NPAM9UHYORJA&keywords=jeff+mcmahan&qid=1641831847&s=books&sprefix=Jeff+McMahan%2Cstripbooks%2C40&sr=1-2"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">not people</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">, but this is a
discussion for another day.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Second, consider whether
unvaccinated faculty endanger vaccinated employees, for example, vaccinated
faculty. Vaccinated people have a </span><a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2022/01/06/cdc-finds-vaccinated-people-rarely-die-from-covid---unless-they-have-risk-factors/?sh=769b7fb32fa5"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">0.003%</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> chance of dying
from Covid, that is, 3 in 100,000. On campuses, the risk is noticeably lower
because they have fewer people </span><a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">75 and older</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> than does the
general population. Again, given this low risk and the small risk that an
unvaccinated person transmits the virus to a vulnerable, vaccinated employee, this
is too low a risk to pressure someone to take a strongly unwanted substance
into her body. By analogy, CUNY and SUNY do not require faculty to get a flu,
pneumonia, or shingles shots despite these being contagious diseases. CUNY and SUNY
also do not require that faculty not be </span><a href="https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2007/07/obesity-is-contagious/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">obese</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">, get </span><a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/21/is-divorce-contagious/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">divorced</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">, or </span><a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/comments?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0202330"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">gender transition</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">, even though
these have contagion-like effects. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Third, consider whether unvaccinated
faculty endanger unvaccinated employees, for example, unvaccinated faculty.
Such faculty have chosen to assume a greater risk than if they were vaccinated.
By analogy, we do not and should not require that faculty members get the flu
shot in order to protect those who choose not to get a flu shot. Because they
assumed the risk, the unvaccinated have no special claim to state protection,
especially if the protection involves strongarming people to put unwanted
substances into their bodies. In any case, the risk is not all that great
because in the US, the unvaccinated are only </span><a href="https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">7 times</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> more likely to
die from Covid than the vaccinated and the risk of the former is quite small. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Fourth, consider the public. If
Hochul’s order is designed to protect the public, then it is not
faculty-specific. If Hochul wants to require it of all New York employees, she
should do so. Singling out the faculty is just taking advantage of their weakness
– specifically, their far-left ideology – and is not a principled attempt to
focus on a dangerous group. By analogy, if the New York wants to lessen or
eliminate gun ownership, it should not do so by requiring that CUNY and SUNY
faculty not own guns as a condition on employment. Rather, it should mandate
this for all of its employees. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>One expects this sort of </span><a href="https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/universities-covid-policies-defy"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">virus-related idiocy</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> on campuses these
days. Amherst requires students to wear two masks if they are not wearing a
KN95 mask. Cornell recommends its students wear masks outdoors. Georgetown
requires events be held virtually or outdoors. Princeton requires that
vaccinated students not leave the county unless they are on a sports team. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>One objection is that vaccination
provides a </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good_(economics)"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">public good</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">. A public good is
one that for which people cannot be excluded and for which one person’s
consumption of the good does not make less available to others. Examples
include clean air and nuclear defense. The state should be wary of requiring
important rights be waived in order to bring about public goods. For example, consider
an imaginary scenario in which that contraceptive implants and IUDs in </span><a href="https://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/birth-control-teens"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">teenage girls</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> produce very good
results because they significantly reduce the number of dropouts, out-of-wedlock
births, and welfare usage. Further assume that these things are a public good
because of their effects on communities. New York still should not require this
for teenage girls who attend public schools. Nor should it require this for girls
whose mothers work for CUNY or SUNY. We should take a person’s right to control
her body seriously. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Disclosure: I had
three Moderna-shots.<o:p></o:p></span></p>The Objectivisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-45978806829506172562021-12-29T10:36:00.003-05:002021-12-29T10:36:50.091-05:00Immigration and the Soul of a Nation<p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Stephen Kershnar</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Immigration and
the Essence of a Nation<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Dunkirk-Fredonia
Observer<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">December 27, 2021<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Large numbers of immigrants have
recently come to the United States. This will change the country. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Using Census Bureau numbers, the
Center for Immigration Studies reports that </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">in the US</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">
there are now </span><a href="https://cis.org/Camarota/Immigrant-Population-Hits-Record-462-Million-November-2021"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">46 million</span></a><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> immigrants (legal and illegal). This is the largest number ever
recorded. Immigrants are now </span><a href="https://cis.org/Camarota/Immigrant-Population-Hits-Record-462-Million-November-2021"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">14.2%</span></a><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
of the population. Roughly, this percentage has </span><a href="https://cis.org/Camarota/Immigrant-Population-Hits-Record-462-Million-November-2021"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">tripled</span></a><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
since 1970 and doubled since 1990. It is nearly the highest percentage ever.
The highest was in 1890 when </span><a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">14.8%</span></a><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
of the population were immigrants. By 1910, the percentage of immigrants began
to drop precipitously. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>This
flood of immigrants ratcheted up the country’s population. Using Bureau of
Labor numbers, roughly 86 million people – </span><a href="https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-immigration-debate-0"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">26%</span></a><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
of the US population – are immigrants and their children. This makes the
country considerably more crowded than it was in the 70’s and 80’s.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">This flood of immigration is not only new but
differs from the rest of the world. In 2015, the US had a larger immigrant
population than any other country. It had </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">19%</span></a><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
of the world’s immigrants despite having </span><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/health/us-coronavirus-toll-in-numbers-june-trnd/index.html"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">4%</span></a><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> of its population. Currently,
no other country has even a </span><a href="https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/immigration-by-country"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">quarter</span></a><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
the number of immigrants we do. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The
Biden administration is on track to let in more than </span><a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/john-kennedy-2-million-illegal-immigrants-us-2021-biden-admin-border-security"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2 million</span></a><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> illegal aliens. There were already more than </span><a href="https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/yale-study-finds-twice-as-many-undocumented-immigrants-as-previous-estimates"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">22 million</span></a><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> illegal aliens in the country. On one estimate, the average
illegal alien and her children cost taxpayers </span><a href="https://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-09/Fiscal-Burden-of-Illegal-Immigration-2017.pdf"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">$8,000</span></a><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
per year. As a group they cost taxpayers more than </span><a href="https://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-09/Fiscal-Burden-of-Illegal-Immigration-2017.pdf"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">$100 billion</span></a><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> per year. These estimates are controversial and other estimates
are far lower. Still, on most estimates, illegal aliens pull money out of
citizens’ wallets.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The question is how this flood of
immigrants will change the US. One important issue here </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">is whether the United States is constituted by
a people, a set of ideas, or both. Many countries are constituted by a people
or a limited number of peoples. Consider, for example, China, Denmark, Israel, Japan,
Norway, and South Korea. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">It is often thought that the US is not
constituted by a limited number of peoples - despite its Western European and
African heritage - rather it consists of a set of ideas. These ideas include
economic and political freedom, specific Constitution-based content and
structures, and individualism. This is what allows the US to persist despite
incorporating 86 million new people. The question arises whether the new peoples
accept this set of ideas. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Currently, the </span><a href="https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2021-03/human-freedom-index-2020.pdf"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">politically freest</span></a><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> countries in the world are European and some East Asian
countries (Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan). The economically freest
countries largely follow </span><a href="https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">roughly the same</span></a><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> pattern. It is not obvious that immigrants from countries that are
currently and historically unfree will support the American set of ideas. As
George Mason’s economist Garrett Jones </span><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320112681_Do_Immigrants_Import_their_Economic_Destiny"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">argues</span></a><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">,
immigrants tend to bring their worldview with them and change the country they
move into to be more like the country from which they came. If this is correct,
we can expect immigrants who come from countries with less of a history of freedom
to be less likely to support this set of ideas than those from countries with
better histories. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">This is not merely an economic finding. Consider
whether the historic American people – that is, current Americans minus
immigrants and their children - would have voted for the Biden administration
and Democratic Party that continues to try to cut back on freedom, engages in
political corruption, and considers destroying long-standing American institutions.
For political freedom, consider free speech on university campuses, gun
ownership, and social media censorship. For economic freedom, consider attempts
to jack up taxes and regulations, monitor people’s bank accounts, and push affirmative
action and quotas. For corruption, consider immigration policies that run
roughshod over the law, Obama-era IRS corruption, the Russia Hoax, and unconstitutional
Covid policies. For attempts to change long-standing American institutions,
consider attempts to add DC and Puerto Rico as states, eliminate the electoral
college, nationalize election procedure, and pack the Supreme Court. Consider,
also, the administration’s indifference to inflation. Were the 86 million new
people not here, most, if not all, of these changes would not have occurred and
the proposed changes would not get serious consideration. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">This is not to say that immigrants do not
bring plenty to the nation. They clearly do. But it is to say that they will
greatly change it. This is especially true with regard to immigrants who are
not from Western or East Asian nations. Part of the problem here might be </span><a href="https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-diverse-countries"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">cultural diversity</span></a><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">. The most culturally diverse countries in the world are poor –
consider India - and often unfree – consider, </span><span style="background: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Cameroon,
Chad, Congo, and Nigeria. Economist </span><span style="color: #212121; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Erkan Gören found that
cultural diversity is </span><a href="https://www.etsg.org/ETSG2013/Papers/042.pdf"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">inversely related</span></a><span style="color: #212121; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> to
per capita income. </span><span style="background: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Still, one might doubt whether cultural
diversity causes poverty or unfreedom. Some of the worst nations in the world
lack diversity. Consider </span><a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/18/the-most-and-least-culturally-diverse-countries-in-the-world/"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Haiti
and Rwanda</span></a><span style="background: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Massive immigration - especially from non-European and
non-East-Asian countries – will likely change the set of ideas that are part of
the American identity and affect Americans’ wealth. Even if this were not true,
it is unclear that a nation is merely a set of political institutions or a way
for citizens to become wealthier. Arguably, it is a people who have a shared
history and identify with one another. This explains why no leading figure supports
admitting 20 million third-world immigrants a year even if doing so would make
us freer and richer. Similarly, almost no one wants Americans to be citizens of
ten or more countries and, thus, have little connection to the American people.
It also explains why almost no one wants her small town to be flooded with
Hasidic Jews or strictly observant Muslims regardless of how they vote and
regardless of whether they are pleasant and supercharge the business community.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">As the US takes in a massive number of immigrants it will
change the country. This change is worth considering before we let in another
46 million. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>The Objectivisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-4447777169389609842021-12-17T11:12:00.001-05:002021-12-17T11:12:17.014-05:00The Left Dominates the Professoriate<p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Stephen Kershnar</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The Left Ratchets
Up Its Control of Academia<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Dunkirk-Fredonia
Observer<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">December 14, 2021<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The left has a chokehold on
universities. This will shape the America for years to come. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">Americans are roughly evenly split between
liberals and conservatives. Here I use party affiliation as evidence of
political orientation. The Pew Research Foundation found that the ratio of
Democrats to Republicans is <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/26/what-the-2020-electorate-looks-like-by-party-race-and-ethnicity-age-education-and-religion/">1.1
to 1</a>, that is, roughly equal (2020 data). Specifically, 33% of registered
voters identify as Democrats and 29% identify as Republicans. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="background: white; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">First, consider top universities. Brooklyn
College’s Mitchell Langbert and Heterodox Academy’s Sean Stevens found that in
2019 at top universities - specifically the best private universities, public
universities, and liberal arts colleges in each state - the ratio of Democrat
to Republican professors is <a href="https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/partisan-registration-and-contributions-of-faculty-in-flagship-colleges">9
to 1</a>. The drift to the left appears to be increasing as the ratio among
younger tenure-track professors is 11 to 1. Among female professors the ratio is
an incredible 16 to 1.</span><span style="color: #212529;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: #212529;">In some fields, the ratio is even more skewed. Langbert and Stevens
found that the Democrat-to-Republican ratios for some departments are as
follows: anthropology (42 to 1), English (27 to 1), and sociology (27 to 1). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Second, consider
the Ivy League. In 2016, <i>The Washington Times</i>’ Bradford Richardson
reported that <span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">Columbia and Princeton had </span></span><a href="https://www.iwf.org/2016/10/03/study-democrat-professors-outnumber-republicans-11-5-to-1/"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">30</span></a><span style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-color-alt: windowtext;"> Democrat professors for every
Republican professor. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">In
2020, <i>The Yale News</i>’ Madison Hahamy reported that Yale professors gave
less than </span><a href="https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2020/11/04/large-donations-from-yale-faculty-went-almost-exclusively-to-democratic-affiliated-candidates-and-groups/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">3%</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> of their
political donations to Republican candidates and affiliated groups. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">The elite schools matter. Six of the
last ten presidents graduated from Ivy League schools and another two graduated
from the Ivies’ peers (Duke and Naval Academy). </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Seven current Supreme Court
justices went to the Ivy League or Stanford for both undergraduate and law
school. Ditto for the senate majority leader. The Ivies and their peers produce
a significant portion of the leadership of Silicon Valley, U.S. military, and
Wall Street. The faculty’s ideas likely explain - at least in part - the nearly
homogenous public views of the leaders of these fields concerning affirmative
action, Big Tech censorship, illegal aliens, interventionist wars,
transgenderism, vaccine mandates, voter IDs, etc. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Third, consider top tier liberal
arts colleges. </span><a href="https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-liberal-arts-colleges"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Examples</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> include Williams,
Amherst, and Swarthmore. Langbert found that the ratio of Democrat to
Republican professors at these schools is </span><a href="https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/31/2/homogenous_the_political_affiliations_of_elite_liberal_arts_college_faculty#_ftnref10"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">10 to 1</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">. Incredibly, 39%
of the colleges – 20 of the 51 - did not have a single Republican professor. In
New York State, these schools include Colgate (19 to 1), Hamilton (25 to 1),
and Vassar (35 to 1).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Lest one thinks this is just a
feature of the faculty, Sarah Lawrence University’s Samuel Abrams points out
that university administrators skew even further left than the faculty. Their
liberal-to-conservative ratio is </span><a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2018/11/08/college-administrators-are-more-liberal-other-groups-including-faculty-members"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">12 to 1</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">. In contrast,
Abrams points out, most occupational categories have more conservatives than
liberals. As a result, the administrators will not be keeping the faculty’s
political biases in check.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: 8.0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The
University of Colorado’s Spencer Case argues that the lopsided ratios are in
part the result of discrimination. He cites research from several sources. The University
of Toronto’s Yoel Inbar and the University of Cologne’s Joris Lammers found
that </span><a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691612448792"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">38%</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">of social and personality psychology professors said
that they would hire a liberal over a conservative if forced to choose between
two equally qualified candidates. A significant minority said they were willing
to discriminate against conservatives regarding grant review, paper review, and
symposia invitations. In 2010, University of North Texas’ George Yancey found
that roughly </span><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Compromising-Scholarship-Religious-Political-Education/dp/160258477X"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">30%</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> of sociologists would
be less likely to support a job seeker if they knew that he was a Republican. Cambridge
University’s Uwe Peters et al. found that a significant minority of surveyed philosophers
were </span><a href="https://philpapers.org/archive/PETIDH-2.pdf"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">explicitly willing</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> to discriminate
based on political orientation. The further to the left a philosopher is, Peters
et al. found, the more she is willing to discriminate. Case points out that
this willingness to discriminate aligns with conservative professors’ perception
of hostility. Nearly half report censoring themselves. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">There is no clear solution
to this problem. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">First, at least
some of the leftist bent among faculty is due to demographics and
self-selection. Writing in <i>The Atlantic</i>, Adam Harris points out that in
the 2018 election, <span style="color: black;">college-educated white voters were
noticeably </span></span><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/11/education-gap-explains-american-politics/575113/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">more likely</span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> to
cast their votes for Democrats than white voters without a degree. Demographic
and self-selection factors are difficult to disentangle from
discrimination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Second, there is
no way to prevent this discrimination without having outside people hire and
promote faculty. The willingness to discriminate is too strong to be
voluntarily set aside. Outside people would lack the expertise to make these
decisions or would come from the same class as current discriminators. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Third, affirmative
action for conservatives would come at the expense of merit. Conservatives
would end up underperforming. This would result in people looking askance at
conservative faculty just as they do regarding current affirmative action faculty.
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
problem here is Robert Conquest’s </span><a href="https://www.isegoria.net/2008/07/robert-conquests-three-laws-of-politics/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">second law of
politics</span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">. It states that, “Any organization not explicitly right-wing
sooner or later becomes left-wing.” If this is correct, then conservatives will
have a significant presence at a university only if it is explicitly
right-wing. There are some universities that have such an identity – for
example, </span><a href="https://blog.prepscholar.com/most-conservative-colleges"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Brigham Young, Hillsdale,
Liberty, and SMU</span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> – but they lack the national importance of the elite
universities. In addition, they are often sectarian and, thus, lack broad-based
appeal. The elite schools continue to have the best faculty and students. A
conservative attempt to capture an elite university would be prohibitively
expensive (the schools have large amounts of money that would be used to fight
the capture) and, if successful, would likely endanger its elite status. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
best alternative is to offer alternative programming. Conservative
organizations try to do so. Perhaps the most high-profile instance of this is
the Federalist Society, which provides a vital counter to the left in law
schools (Disclosure: I was a member). Still, it is unclear if this alternative
programming does much to counteract the leftist programming.<o:p></o:p></span></p>The Objectivisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-7507249468843149102021-12-01T10:48:00.001-05:002021-12-01T10:48:19.921-05:00How the Supreme Court Should Approach Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization<p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Stephen Kershnar</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The Constitution
Does Not Protect Fetuses<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Dunkirk-Fredonia
Observer<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">November 29, 2021<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>This Wednesday, the Supreme Court
will hear <i>Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization</i> concerning
Mississippi’s abortion law. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Mississippi </span><a href="https://legiscan.com/MS/text/SB2116/id/1846191"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">banned</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> abortions
performed after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. The law does not permit
abortion in the case of rape or incest but permits it when there is a medical
emergency or severe fetal abnormality. The 15-week period is odd. A fetus begins
to have a heartbeat after </span><a href="https://www.livescience.com/65501-fetal-heartbeat-at-6-weeks-explained.html"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">6</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> weeks, forms a
brain after </span><a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">6</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> weeks, and – on one
influential account - does not become conscious until </span><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20111002222748/http:/www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/RCOGFetalAwarenessWPR0610.pdf"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">24</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span><a href="https://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0632042877&id=MzZRuSQ5UeEC&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&ots=cx0KcmuOYk&"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">weeks</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">. It is unclear
what happens at 15 weeks. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Other states have also passed other pro-life
laws. The </span><a href="https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/id/2395961"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Texas Heartbeat
Act</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">
prevents abortions after fetal heartbeat, which usually occurs 6 weeks after
conception. Georgia </span><a href="https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20192020/187013"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">banned</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> abortions after 6
weeks. The three states’ laws conflict with </span><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113%26amp"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Roe v. Wade</span></i></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> (1973), a landmark
Supreme Court case that held that a woman has a right to an abortion up to 24
weeks because fetuses up to that time are not viable. A fetus is viable when it
can survive outside the womb.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>One issue is whether the
Constitution protects fetuses. There are two provisions that someone might
think protects the fetus. The Due Process Clause says, “[No s<span style="background: #F8F9FA; color: #202124;">tate shall] deprive any <i>person</i>
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Equal
Protection Clause says, “[No state shall] deny to any <i>person</i> within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Emphasis added. The issue here
is in part whether “person” refers to fetuses. Oxford University’s C’Zar
Bernstein </span></span><a href="file:///C:/Users/steph/Downloads/Bernstein%2520C'Zar%2520Original%2520Meaning%2520Person%2520Paper%252011%252028%252021%2520PDF.pdf"><span style="background: #F8F9FA; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">argues</span></a><span style="background: #F8F9FA; color: #202124; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> that the Due Process Clause is less relevant because, in
the context of abortion, the life-takers are private citizens rather than the
state. He also notes that the argument over abortion does not concern procedure.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="background: #F8F9FA; color: #202124; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The most
plausible way to way to interpret the Constitution involves originalism.
Originalism asserts that the meaning of a Constitutional provision was set at
the time it was passed. The idea is that Constitutional provisions have
meaning, and this meaning persists over time. This can occur only if the
meaning is set when it was originally passed. On different interpretations, the
meaning of a provision is fixed by the authors’ or ratifiers’ intention, the
ordinary meaning of the language to the public when it was passed, or its
inherited common-law meaning. On this last view, the law incorporated the
common law – specifically, English-judge-made law – because it used common-law
words and phrases. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="background: #F8F9FA; color: #202124; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The
meaning of “person” should be understood in common law terms because it – along
with other terms such as </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment#cite_note-1"><span style="background: #F8F9FA; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">“cruel
and unusual punishment”</span></a><span style="background: #F8F9FA; color: #202124; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> – was intended and
understood to be a term of art, that is, a word whose meaning tracked specific
legal meaning rather than ordinary meaning. One reason for this is that the
Constitution’s authors and ratifiers thought about and wrote the Constitution with
common-law meanings in mind. Another reason for this is the way in which language
works in specialized fields. Consider, for example, how commerce, science, and
sport use terms of art. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="background: #F8F9FA; color: #202124; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Bernstein
argues that the common law set the meaning of person according to the Born
Alive Rule. This rule states that a human being becomes a person only after
live birth. This can be seen in English common law regarding homicide (homicide
applied only to the killing of a born human being), tort law (no liability for
pre-natal injury), and inheritance (a human being may inherit only if he is
born). This matters because the 14<sup>th</sup> Amendment’s Due Process and the
Equal Protection clauses used some of the same language as the 5<sup>th</sup>
Amendment’s Due Process Clause, language that came from the British common law.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="background: #F8F9FA; color: #202124; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>If this
common law interpretation is correct, then the Constitutional term, “person,”
does not refer to a fetus. It still might be the case that as a matter of
constitutional law, states have a compelling interest in protecting fetal life
and that the ban on abortion is a necessary means by which to do this, but this
involves the sort of moral reasoning that originalists hesitate to engage in. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="background: #F8F9FA; color: #202124; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Consider
the moral debate over abortion. It comes down to three issues. (1) Is the fetus
a person in the metaphysical sense? That is, were we ever fetuses? (2) Does the
fetus have a moral right to inside the woman? (3) If the fetus does not have a
right to be inside the woman, may the woman kill it as a way of protecting her body
against invasion? That is, is an unwanted pregnancy a body-invasion similar to
a rape? These philosophical issues are outside of the Supreme Court’s expertise
and ones that it botched in the past. Perhaps the court must address these
issues in deciding what the Equal Protection Clause means, but then it seems to
blur the distinction between interpreting and making law. That is, addressing
(1) to (3) appears to be legislating. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="background: #F8F9FA; color: #202124; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>If the
common-law interpretation is correct, then professors – for example, Oxford
University’s John Finnis – who </span><a href="https://www.firstthings.com/article/2021/04/abortion-is-unconstitutional"><span style="background: #F8F9FA; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">argue</span></a><span style="background: #F8F9FA; color: #202124; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> that the Constitution requires that abortion be made
illegal because the Constitution protects “persons” - are mistaken because
fetuses are not Constitutional persons. In addition, if the common-law
interpretation is correct, then the Justices should be wary of putting too much
weight on precedent - especially </span><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113%26amp"><i><span style="background: #F8F9FA; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Roe
v. Wade</span></i></a><span style="background: #F8F9FA; color: #202124; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> (1973) and </span><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/505/833"><i><span style="background: #F8F9FA; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Planned
Parenthood v. Casey</span></i></a><span style="background: #F8F9FA; color: #202124; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> (1992) - because the
Court decided these decisions without acknowledging that a fetus is not a
Constitutional person and because it did not show its moral reasoning,
particularly with regard to issues (1) to (3). In addition, its focus on
viability is best seen as a political compromise rather than a good faith
attempt to interpret the Constitution. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="background: #F8F9FA; color: #202124; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Instead, the
Court should do one of two things. It should engage in explicit moral reasoning
regarding women’s and fetuses’ rights. Alternatively, it should declare that such
reasoning is legislating and hold that Constitution does not address the issue.
The issue would then get kicked back to the states. <o:p></o:p></span></p>The Objectivisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-77030358924518795742021-11-23T11:52:00.002-05:002021-11-23T11:52:17.353-05:00SUNY Fredonia at the Crossroads<p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Stephen Kershnar</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Standing at the Crossroads<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">November 12, 2021<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The State University of New York at
Fredonia appears to be standing at the crossroads. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>First, the school’s enrollment is dropping.
The school currently has roughly 3,800 students</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">.
By way of contrast, it had roughly 5,800 students in 2010. According to the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Democrat & Chronicle</i>, from 2011 to
2021, Fredonia’s enrollment fell 33%. In general, during this period, SUNY
enrollment fell by 20%. Still, with the exception of Potsdam, Fredonia’s
enrollment fell noticeably more than its comprehensive-college peers. In
addition, SUNY’s elite (non-specialized) research universities did not lose
enrollment. Some significantly increased enrollments. Consider Binghamton
(+26%), Stonybrook (+13%), Buffalo (+12%), and Albany (0%).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Second, in response to Fredonia’s
shrinking enrollment, the school sharply increased the percentage of students
accepted. In 2013, it accepted 53% of applicants in 2013. In 2020, it accepted 72%.
Recently, it is alleged that the acceptance rate for first-time-first-year
students is at roughly 90%, although this is likely a different category than
the overall acceptance rates listed in the preceding sentence. The college is
thus moving in the direction of open admission. Part of the reason for moving
in this direction is that the yield rate – the number of students whom Fredonia
accepts and who then accept Fredonia – dropped from 35% in 2013 to 18% in 2020.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">A few years ago,
President Ginny Horvath allegedly dropped the SAT floor by 100 points and made
recruiting NYC students a priority. It is unclear how this affected the
numbers.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Despite the increase in acceptance
and decrease in yield, the reported average SAT score increased from 1080 in
2013 to 1110 in 2020. The percentage of students in the top quarter decreased
slightly (-9%) and the percentage of students in the top decile increased significantly
(+46%). It is unclear how much, if any, of these reported changes result from the
35% of students for whom a class rank is not available (2020 number). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Despite the
reported caliber of students holding steady or improving, the graduation rate
is dropping. The four-year graduation rate decreased 10% between 2006 and 2016
(the latest available number). The above changes occurred even as the school
diversified its student body. Over the last decade, the percentage of minority
students more than doubled, going from 12% to 26% of the student body. This
figure leaves out students whose race or ethnicity is unknown. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>As a result of these changes in enrollment,
the school has a $16.4 million structural deficit. The administration says that
it </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">expects to make up most of the
structural deficit up with federal and state money but has called for $1.5
million in salary savings from unspecified sources. These problems are not new.
A few years ago, Horvath said that the school had a $12-million-dollar
structural deficit and largely exhausted its reserves, and, so, things would
have to change . Note that a structural deficit is not an actual deficit and so
we should be wary of putting too much weight on these deficit-numbers. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Fredonia College Council President Frank Pagano said, “We
had the same amount of people working when we had 5,700 (students) as we do
when we have 3,700 students.” He also said, “[S]ome programs will also have to
be cut or eliminated. It will be tough to do with tenured professors, but it
will have to be done if the campus wants to shore up its finances.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">President Stephen Kolison promptly contradicted Pagano’s
statement. He said, “[T]</span><span style="background: white; color: #202020; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">here are no existing plans for reducing
programs or eliminating tenured faculty positions.” In addition, t</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">he administration recently approved a plan to hire 11 new,
tenure-track faculty next academic year. Hiring these faculty will likely eat up
40% of the planned $1.5 million in salary savings. The statement and approval are
hard to square with the supposedly dire financial state of the college. Last
year, Kolison announced the college would hire 9 new permanent administrators.
This also suggests that the financial situation is not terrible. So far no one
has publicly explained the conflict between Pagano’s and Kolison’s statements. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The tension between the
administration and faculty is building. A few years ago, some faculty proposed
a no-confidence vote in President Ginny Horvath. The university senate never
voted on the proposal, but there was a good chance it would have passed. The
UUP recently filed suit against the college because it allegedly used an
improper procedure to increase the humanities faculty’s yearly teaching load
from six to seven classes. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Problems arise if the federal
government does not give millions of dollars to the college and its students as
it did last year. The problems can be addressed in a few ways: retiring faculty
and staff might not be replaced, programs with low enrollment might be cut, or
programs unrelated to the campus’ identity – its identity includes the arts, education,
and science – might be cut. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The first option –
refrain from replacing retirees - would avoid the loss of morale that would
accompany program elimination and layoffs. On the other hand, it would make
faculty and staffing shortfalls depend on who retired rather than prioritizing
what is important to the campus. It would also likely result in some programs heavily
relying on non-tenure-track faculty. These faculty are on average, less
competitive than their tenure-track peers, although their lower salaries make
them cost effective. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The second option
– eliminate programs with low enrollment – aims at selling programs students
want similar to how Walmart sells products customers want. The third option –
promote programs tied to the campus’ identity - would allow the college to
develop a clearer identity in the competition for students. The third option
would lessen the need to compete with the larger, more prestigious university
centers – for example, Buffalo – and some comprehensive-college competitors –
for example, Geneseo. These last two options come at a cost. They would involve
fewer programs, lowered morale, and, perhaps, a fight over the college’s
identity. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">In deciding how to
proceed with program cuts and layoffs – if in fact they must be made – <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>the college will have to balance market niche,
student preferences, and faculty morale. It thus faces the crossroads. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Disclosure: I am a
tenured faculty member at Fredonia.<o:p></o:p></span></p>The Objectivisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-66025146285653401612021-11-14T08:56:00.003-05:002021-11-14T08:56:45.238-05:00The Bleeding Southern Border<p> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Stephen Kershnar</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The Bleeding
Southern Border<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Dunkirk-Fredonia
Observer<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">October 31, 2021<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The Biden administration is moving
the country toward an open Southern border. This is disgraceful. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">This year, the
country will let in roughly </span><a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/john-kennedy-2-million-illegal-immigrants-us-2021-biden-admin-border-security"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">2 million</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> illegal aliens.
This is based on internal government </span><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/politics/migrants-us-southern-border/index.html"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">estimate</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> of 2 million
illegal aliens who will be encountered at the border. Many will be let in. In
addition, there are </span><a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/many-sneaked-over-southern-border-and-got-away-in-past-year"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">400,000</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> who will likely
sneak past border patrol. The number of illegal aliens is thus larger than the
population of San Diego. It is the equivalent to letting in a population equal
to Atlanta, Kansas City, and Miami in one year.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The loathsome Biden administration
did it through a massive across-the-board effort. It </span><a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/30/biden-terminates-border-wall-construction-485123"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">stopped</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> building the Southern
wall. It tried to put in place a </span><a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/24/texas-Biden-immigration-deportation/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">100-day</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> freeze on all
deportation. This applied even to those found guilty of assault, drunk driving,
and manslaughter. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The Biden
administration then tried to end the “</span><a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-admin-end-trump-era-remain-in-mexico"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Remain in Mexico</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">” policy. The policy
held that asylum seekers from Central America should apply in Mexico or the
first safe country. Common sense demands this rule as the </span><a href="https://cis.org/Arthur/One-Chart-Adds-Context-Border-Meltdown"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">vast majority</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> of Central
American asylum seekers are ineligible under American law. It also ended a
related agreement with El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras that – following
international law - asylum seekers must file for asylum in the first safe
country they get to rather than breaking into the US and filing there. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Having opened the
Southern border, the Biden administration then put in place the Obama administration’s
idiotic “</span><a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/catch-and-release-is-baaaaack/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">catch and release</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">” policy. This policy
allows illegal aliens who broke into the country to stay subject only to a notice
to appear before a judge far into the future. </span><a href="https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-Courts-Aliens-Disappear-Trial"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Many</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> do not do so. Some
illegal aliens were even released </span><a href="https://www.axios.com/migrant-release-no-court-date-ice-dhs-immigration-33d258ea-2419-418d-abe8-2a8b60e3c070.html"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">without</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> a court date. The
Biden administration then – at taxpayers’ expense - bussed or flew many illegal
aliens to different parts of the country in the </span><a href="https://nypost.com/2021/10/18/biden-secretly-flying-underage-migrants-into-ny-in-dead-of-night/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">dead of night</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> and without telling
local authorities. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The Biden administration also
eliminated accountability. It ended the “</span><a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/states-biden-trump-rule-public-charge-immigrants"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">public charge</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">” rule that required
that those who were likely to become dependent on welfare were ineligible for
permanent residency (green card). It announced that families or employers who sponsor
aliens would no longer have to sign an </span><a href="https://www.chugh.com/dhs-withdraws-proposed-rule-on-affidavits-of-support/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">affidavit of support</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">. Such a promise
of support would have made them financially responsible if an immigrant went on
welfare. And, of course, the administration ended any financial penalty for </span><a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-us-justice-department-ends-trump-era-limits-grants-sanctuary-cities-2021-04-28/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">sanctuary cities</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">. It is even
considering a roughly </span><a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/annakaplan/2021/10/28/biden-administration-reportedly-considering-450000-payments-to-families-separated-at-southern-border/?sh=9e7b5b566f4a"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">$1 million dollar</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> payment to
families separated while breaking in.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Many of the above policies are
illegal. Like the Obama administration’s criminal use of the FBI, IRS, Justice
Department, and NSA, open-and-notorious lawbreaking is now the norm.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>On average, each new legal immigrant
sponsors </span><a href="https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-Multipliers"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">3.5</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> other immigrants.
Immigrant women have on average </span><a href="https://cis.org/Report/Birth-Rates-Among-Immigrants-America"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">2.9</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> children
(immigrant women without an education have even more). Thus, letting in and
amnestying 2 million illegal aliens in effect adds 10 million people. By way of
contrast, Pennsylvania has 13 million people. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Most households headed by immigrants from Central America and
Mexico are on welfare (</span><a href="https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">73%</span></a><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">). This is more than twice as high as the native population
(30%). The economic problems of these immigrants continue to a </span><a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2015/11/10/how-upwardly-mobile-are-hispanic-children-depends-how-you-look-at-it/"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">second
generation</span></a><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">. Specifically, the children of Hispanic
immigrants have much lower incomes (including median household income), are
much less likely to be proficient in math and reading when in </span><a href="https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/stt2019/pdf/2020014NP4.pdf"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">school</span></a><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">, and are much less likely to graduate from college. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">One of the reasons this matters is that most taxpayers – </span><a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/18/61percent-of-americans-paid-no-federal-income-taxes-in-2020-tax-policy-center-says.html"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">61%</span></a><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> - pay no federal income tax and, so, we are importing
generations of people who ride in the wagon rather than pushing it. If the
country wanted immigrants who – both initially and via their children - would
perform better than average in terms of crime, education, income, marriage, and
welfare, we could easily get them by admitting immigrants from </span><a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2015/11/10/how-upwardly-mobile-are-hispanic-children-depends-how-you-look-at-it/"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Asia</span></a><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">. Such successful immigrants would even come with an obesity
rate </span><a href="https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">less
than half</span></a><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> of current Americans. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Instead of selecting immigrants similar to how an Ivy League
school selects its students – which we easily could do – the administration is hell-bent
on doing the opposite. Even if the country were committed to admitting Hispanic
immigrants, the country could mimic affirmative-action admission in the Ivy
League and admit the best Hispanic applicants, thereby ensuring quite talented immigrants,
even if not the very best we can get.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">None of this is good for current citizens. It is not good
economically. See above. This is true whether we compare the illegal aliens to no
immigrants or merit-based immigrants. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Nor is it good politically. People who depend on the
government for the basics – education, food, housing, and medicine – are much
less likely to care about freedom or vote for it. They are also less likely to
be bothered by warmongering or gross criminality – see the Bush, Clinton and
Obama administrations– and more on keeping the gravy train moving down the
tracks. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">This is not even good socially. Most Americans do not want
unskilled-and-uneducated illegal aliens as their neighbors or dating their
17-year-old daughters. Such preferences have nothing to do with an American’s race
or ethnicity. It makes little sense to import people who Americans, on average,
do not want as lovers, neighbors, sons-in-law, or spouses. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">What is the justification for opening the Southern border? As
noted above, it is not economic, political, or social. It is not even the most
charitable thing we could so. If we want to let in the poorest and most
desperate, we could admit 2 million from the Congo, Niger, Malawi, etc. They live
in far </span><a href="https://usa.inquirer.net/73246/top-poorest-countries-in-the-world"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">worse</span></a><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> conditions than Central Americans. We could also admit 10
million immigrants rather than the 3.2 million immigrants – legal and illegal –
that we will probably admit this year. In any case, a country facing a debt
130% of its economy, Social Security and Medicare insolvency, a social fabric increasingly
being torn apart (see abortion, Antifa/BLM, Covid-mandates, and school board
fights), and possible conflict with China, does not have the luxury of this
nonsense.<o:p></o:p></span></p>The Objectivisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-49990692536284166412021-11-14T08:54:00.001-05:002021-11-14T08:54:57.549-05:00Against University Vaccine Mandates<p> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Stephen Kershnar</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">University Vaccine
Mandates<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Dunkirk Fredonia
Observer<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">October 11, 2021<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Many American universities have Covid-vaccine
mandate. There are two purported justifications for government schools requiring
students get vaccinated. First, they want to prevent the unvaccinated from
harming themselves. Second, they want to prevent the unvaccinated from harming other
people. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Consider whether we should pressure college
students in order to protect them against harming themselves. As George Mason
economist Bryan Caplan </span><a href="https://www.econlib.org/teaching-paranoia-an-open-letter-to-every-university-president/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">points out</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> Covid poses
little danger to them. The Covid </span><a href="https://www.virology.ws/2020/04/05/infection-fatality-rate-a-critical-missing-piece-for-managing-covid-19/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">infection fatality
rate</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">
(death rate per infection) for college age students (specifically,
25-year-olds) is </span><a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">0.01%</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> (1 in 10,000). If
the college student is vaccinated, his </span><a href="https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0607-mrna-reduce-risks.html"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">infection fatality
rate</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">
is </span><a href="https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-comparison"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">90% lower</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">. The rate is now 0.001%
(1 in 100,000). So far </span><a href="https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/one-three-americans-already-had-covid-19-end-2020"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">one in three</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> Americans have
gotten Covid. So, the numbers should be discounted by the chance that the
student does not get Covid. Let us arbitrarily set this at 33%. Crudely, then,
the chance of death by Covid, then, is 0.003% (3 in 100,000) for the
unvaccinated student and 0.0003% (3 in 1 million) for the vaccinated student. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>These risks are too small to protect
students against themselves. By contrast, the chance of dying in a car crash is
</span><a href="https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/data-details/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">0.01%</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> each year. Yet, universities
do not, and should not, push college students to cut their driving way down in
order to reduce their chance of death. A safety proponent might argue that it
is better for a college student to drive than to be unvaccinated because while
the expected cost of being unvaccinated is smaller than the cost of cutting
driving way down, the benefit of driving is much larger. That is, driving is a
better decision – understood in terms of costs and benefits – than being
unvaccinated. Perhaps so. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Still, we should allow
people to make imprudent decisions. On average, it is imprudent for an adult to
be obese, drop out of high school, have children out of wedlock, or smoke. At
non-elite universities, some majors are poor investments, financially and
intellectually. Consider, for example, </span><a href="http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,2073703,00.html"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">art, education</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">, </span><a href="https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/valueofcollegemajors/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">social work, and theater</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">. Yet we allow adults
to major in these subjects. In fact, we subsidize their doing so. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Second, consider whether we should
protect college students in order to protect them from harming others. Let us
assume that the chance of an unvaccinated college student getting Covid is </span><a href="https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/one-three-americans-already-had-covid-19-end-2020"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">1 in 3</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">. The chance of a
Covid positive student passing it onto another person is hard to estimate. Let
us assume that the student shares a household with a vaccinated 65-year-old,
the vaccinated 65-year-old has an </span><a href="https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0607-mrna-reduce-risks.html"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">infection fatality
rate</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">
of </span><a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">0.14%</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> (1.4 in a 1,000) and
there is a </span><a href="https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/209673/covid-19-spread-different-social-settings-imperial/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">20%</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> chance the
college student will transmit it if he is Covid positive. The unvaccinated college
student has increased the 65-year-old’s chance of death by 0.009% (very roughly,
1 in 10,000). Is this enough risk to require someone get a medical treatment he
desperately doesn’t want? Without a general argument, we can’t answer this
question. If we can’t answer it, the default position should be against the
requirement because, other things being equal, less regulation of our lives is
better. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">By analogy, if
each gun owner were to increase another’s chance of death by 1 in 10,000 –
whether by accident, murder, or suicide - this intuitively does not seem high
enough to justify taking guns away. The cost-benefit analysis might differ here
because people get more out of owning guns than being unvaccinated. More
importantly, though, there is something odd about government requiring us to do
things on the basis of an economic consideration, at least when it involves our
body, and the odds of harm are very small. We do not want the government
prohibiting alcohol, fast food, guns, or SUVs, even if it were efficient to do
so. We do not want the government requiring poor women who get welfare benefits
- for example, cash, food, medicine, or housing - to have to get birth control
shots because it is efficient to require that they do so. If </span><a href="https://www.fatherly.com/health-science/divorce-can-be-contagious-for-unhappy-marriages/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">divorce</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">, </span><a href="https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2007/07/obesity-is-contagious/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">obesity</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">, and </span><a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202330#sec005"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">transgenderism</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> were contagious –
evidence suggests they are – we still do not want such individuals banned from campuses,
pressured, or taxed in order to slow the spread of these things. This is true
even if such policies are efficient. Perhaps these requirements infringe
fundamental rights and Covid vaccine shots do not. Again, though, we need an
argument as to why this is so.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">There is also the
issue of whom we are trying to protect. We might be trying to protect the
unvaccinated. However, they assumed the risk and it is hard to see why they
deserve protection. We might be trying to protect the vaccinated. This raises
the issue of whether there are enough unvaccinated people who have not had
Covid and whether the threat these people pose is serious enough to justify the
vaccine mandate. If the threat they pose is an additional 1 in 10,000 in chance
of death by Covid, this looks similar to the gun-ownership case. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">An objector might
argue that the vaccine mandate is an offer rather than a threat. He might claim
that no one has a right to attend college and so in return for the benefit of
doing so, the college may require students do certain things. Universities may
require a student pass most of his classes, pay tuition, and not walk around
naked. The claim is that the vaccine mandate is like these requirements.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">One problem with
this objection is that if the offer-not-a-threat argument were to succeed, the
college could also require students be celibate, refrain from drinking, or stay
thin and attractive. That is, there is no stopping point to this argument.
Intuitively, universities may not require students or faculty waive fundamental
rights <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>- consider those related to free
speech, religion, and search and seizure - in return for attending the university.
If the right against being vaccinated is a fundamental right, and this is
unclear, the mandate would be similarly problematic.<o:p></o:p></span></p>The Objectivisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-47958140989220836292021-11-14T08:51:00.008-05:002021-11-14T08:51:57.943-05:00The Myth of White Privilege<p> Please see link here.</p><p>https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/10/the_myth_of_white_privilege.html</p><p><br /></p>The Objectivisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-83748846359234529662021-11-14T08:51:00.003-05:002021-11-14T08:51:15.501-05:00The Ivy League Racializes<p> Please see link here. </p><p>https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/10/ivyleague_antiwhite_racism_will_destroy_the_united_states.html</p><p><br /></p>The Objectivisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-10662122021855371392021-04-01T14:31:00.002-04:002021-04-01T14:31:17.006-04:00Rethinking the High School Curriculum<p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Stephen
Kershnar</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Rethink
the Curriculum<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Dunkirk-Fredonia
Observer<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">March
29, 2021<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>For decades, the curriculum in
American middle and high schools has remained the same. It should be revised. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The curriculum in public high
schools is a serious matter because it is funded through state coercion and
because the taxpayers pay through the nose for it. When you hold a gun to
someone’s head to make him pay for something and then charge him an arm and a
leg, the money should be well spent. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Consider
the cost of public-school education in New York. The Empire Center’s E. J.
McMahon points out that in 2017-2018, relative to personal income, the state
spent an eye-popping $51 per $1,000, second only to Alaska. That year, the
state spent an incredible $24,000 per pupil per year, easily the highest in the
country. No other state spent more than $21,000 and only two topped $20,000. New
York City spent a whopping $27,000 per pupil, by far the most among the
country’s 1,000 largest school systems. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">University
of Colorado philosopher Michael Huemer argues that there should be test for
when a subject is offered. Here is my three-part test – a variant on his - for
whether a public school should offer a subject. A subject should be offered
only if it is (1) practically useful, (2) important to understand the world, or
(3) necessary to preserve freedom or the American way of life. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">First,
consider classes that are required and should not be. Huemer argues that foreign
language does not satisfy the criteria. Even if it were practically useful, and
it is not, it is so ineffectually taught that it probably should be dropped
from the curriculum altogether. Kate Palmer at YouGov notes that in 2013, only
25% of Americans spoke a foreign language. Given that 14% of Americans are
immigrants, foreign-language instruction accomplishes little. Foreign language –
with the possible exception of Latin - should probably not even be taught as an
elective. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Gym
is neither central to understanding the world nor necessary to preserve
American freedom. It does not require thirteen academic years to figure out how
to exercise. Many students participate in school sports and large numbers of adults
figure out how to exercise on their own. Even if getting students in shape were
practically useful, schools fail at it so miserably that it should be removed
entirely from the curriculum. Writing for Wisconsin Public Radio, Gretchen
Brown points out that 27% of American young people are ineligible to join the
military because of obesity and another 37% are ineligible due to other health
problems, such as asthma or joint problems. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Art,
home economics, and vocational education fail the three-part test, although the
more flexible requirement regarding them – for example, you need take only one
of them – makes any requirement less wasteful. The art requirement is poorly
thought out in that studying fine arts (drawing, filmmaking, playing an
instrument, pottery, etc.) is less important to understanding the world than
studying art’s great masters. Consider, for example, Bach, Michelangelo, Rembrandt,
and Martin Scorsese. Studying the great masters in K-12 should be taught, if it
is taught at all, through classes in the history of art, film, and music. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Social
studies – in cases in which it is distinct from classes on history or American
government and law (for example, the Constitution) – likely also fails the
three-part test, although it is a closer call.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Second,
certain subjects should be required. Consider math. If certain topics in math –
for example, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, and statistics - are practically
important or central to understanding our world, then there should not be a loosely
structured requirement that students take a math class but no class in
particular. Instead, all students should be required to take particular math
topics and likely to take them in a particular order. It is mystifying how it
could be crucially important to one’s education to take math, but any old math-topic
will do. This is even stranger at the university level. A similar thing is true
of science. If it is central to understanding our world to understand biology,
chemistry, and physics, then these classes should be required as should the
order in which they are taken. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Third,
certain additional subjects should be required. Consider finance and investing.
Given the importance of finance to Americans’ well-being these days, no one can
reasonably argue that classes in cooking, pottery, or Spanish should be
prioritized over this subject. In terms of protecting American freedom, classes
on law – especially the Constitution – and economics should likely be required.
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Kiplinger</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">’s Craig Hawley
points out that less than one-third of American adults are financially literate
by age 40.<b> </b>The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of
Pennsylvania points out that 37% of Americans <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">cannot
name any of First Amendment rights. Only 26% can name all three branches of
government. This is bad for Americans and bad for American freedom.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Subjects
that pass the three-part test are hard sciences, history, literature, math, and
writing. Eliminating subjects that fail the three-part test would have several
advantages. First, it would allow students to focus on more important topics.
For example, a student who takes a gym class instead of European history,
physics, or an additional writing class has lost a valuable opportunity. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Second,
eliminating these requirements would allow the school day (or year) to be
shortened. This would pay dividends as it would allow students to work at jobs,
thereby picking up valuable work habits, and reduce antipathy toward school. A
2020 Yale study <span style="background: white; color: #222222; letter-spacing: -.15pt;">found that roughly 75% of students have negative feelings toward school.
A shortened school day might lessen this number. Reducing the number of
administrators, staff, and teachers would put the brakes on public schools’ skyrocketing
costs. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: -.15pt;">Third, making these
changes would help schools focus on their core mission. Schools provide so many
diverse services (for example, athletic teams, daycare, free food, and mental
health services) and subjects that they have lost their way. A renewed focus
would help.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>The Objectivisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-6593218927169454582021-03-17T10:52:00.005-04:002021-03-17T10:52:56.515-04:00Space War: The Final Frontier in War<p> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Stephen
Kershnar</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Space:
The Final Frontier in War<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Dunkirk-Fredonia
Observer<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">March
15, 2021<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">As
we enter the third decade of the 21<sup>st</sup> Century, change is
accelerating. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Human
beings will become morally and physically better, and more beautiful, as eugenic
technologies improve. Consider, for example, gene editing and screening.
Companies and governments will increasingly track us. We can glimpse the future
in Big Tech’s collecting data on us, the U.S. government’s collecting massive
amount of data regarding our phone records, and China’s social credit system. People
with low scores in China are prevented from buying plane and rail tickets, they
are excluded from certain jobs, their children are excluded from certain
schools, their mugshots are released, and so on. We will also have a lot more
recreational time as machines increasingly replace workers in areas such as agriculture,
medicine, manufacturing, and transportation. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Similar
to these other changes, how we fight wars will change drastically. Worried
about 21<sup>st</sup> Century wars, the U.S. recently created the United States
Space Force. <span style="color: #202122;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Space
warfare occurs in outer space. It involves ground-to-space, space-to-ground,
and space-to-space violence that kills people and breaks their things. The
violence might involve kinetic weapons (for example, cannon, debris, guns, mines,
and missiles), directed energy weapons (for example, weapons that accelerate
particles or that send out lasers, microwaves, particle beams, or plasma), or
electronic destruction (for example, weapons that jam or destroy
satellite-based communication, positioning, or surveillance systems). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">International
law - specifically, the Outer Space Treaty and SALT I - currently bans countries
from putting weapons of mass destruction into space. However, if one country
violates the ban, an arms race will occur. Even if no country puts such weapons
into space, some will develop the capacity to make such weapons and likely induce
others to do so to prevent their being at a disadvantage. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
importance of winning in space and the speed with which such a war would occur
make it likely that, in the future, war will begin in space. Even if war were
to begin on the land or sea, space would quickly become relevant because of its
centrality to surface-based war. Space war is important because a modern
military’s communication, positioning, surveillance, and targeting systems depend
on satellites. In addition, many civilian industries that support the military
– for example, the energy, food, and weapons industries - depend on satellites.
As a result, satellites would be prime targets. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">A
space war would likely occur quickly. This is in part because of the
vulnerability of satellites to cannon, energy beams, missiles, etc. and in part
because of the speed and precision with which these weapons travel through
space. Consider, for example, a laser. Making things worse is the availability
of a low rent way of destroying satellites in some orbits through a cascading
destruction of orbiting objects (see the Kessler syndrome). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
other reason that a space war will unfold quickly is that in the future,
space-war vehicles will likely be autonomous. That is, robots will run them. Autonomous
machines make better and faster decisions than human beings, operate in more
extreme conditions (consider, for example, cold and g-force), and lack human
needs (consider, for example, companionship, food, and sleep). Because an enemy
can block or hijack ground-based communication, the machines will have to be
autonomous rather than depending on Earth-based signals. Even on Earth, drones
– whether autonomous or remotely piloted – will continue to replace manned
warplanes. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Given
the speed with which such a war will occur, then, a nation feeling threatened might
quickly attack to protect its space assets. This will put everyone on a hair
trigger. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>A problem occurs because there is no
answer as to whether, as a moral matter, one country is trespassing on a second
country’s rights when the first jams the second’s signal or when there is a
collision between satellites. This makes it unclear what counts as an act of
war. A country has the right to use a signal of a particular frequency in a
location or be in that location only if it owns that location. The problem is
that, as a moral matter, countries and people do not own locations in outer space.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Even
if a country or people could own a location in outer space, satellites move
and, so, do not occupy a location for very long. This movement in space occurs
whether a satellite moves around the Earth or has a stationary position
relative to the Earth’s surface because the Earth itself is moving around the
sun. Owning a location in outer space is even less plausible than owning a
location in airspace. The former is farther removed from people’s lands. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Countries
that refuse to sign one or more of the relevant treaties do not recognize that
other countries own territories in outer space. Some nations have in fact refused
to sign the Outer Space Treaty. They think countries should own outer space
similar to how they own airspace. Specifically, ownership should extend outward
from the ground. The Treaty does not even make it clear where airspace ends,
and outer space begins. In addition, the Outer Space Treaty allows nations to
withdraw from it, thereby allowing a legal escape hatch. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Ownership
of orbital territories is already problematic because China, Europe, and the
U.S. already occupy significant regions of the low Earth orbit and the equatorial
plane. Over time, other countries will have fewer places to put their
satellites. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Various
nations – for example, China and the US – can threaten or use force to keep
space demilitarized and protect current satellites against encroachment. Perhaps
this is the best that can be done. Still, the US should be wary of getting into
bed with China because of its aggressive posture (consider its threats
regarding the South China Seas and Taiwan), <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>horrendous history (consider Mao’s starving
and killing of tens of millions), abysmal treatment of the Uighurs, and the
solid chance that the countries will someday go to war against one another.<o:p></o:p></span></p>The Objectivisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-20095453835770080452021-03-03T14:58:00.002-05:002021-03-03T14:58:26.771-05:00Big Tech: Cancelation, Censorship, and Deplatforming<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Stephen Kershnar</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Big Tech and Cell Phone
Companies Are Out of Control</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Dunkirk-Fredonia
Observer<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">March 1, 2021<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> B</span>ig Tech is waging a disgraceful war
on the political right. Big Tech includes Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google,
Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Leading up to the election, Big Tech
colluded with the Deep State and the Democratic Party to censor stories
reporting that the Biden family, including Joe Biden, illegally peddled
influence. These stories were most likely true. The evidence for these stories
rested on Hunter Biden’s emails, the fact that the FBI is investigating him for
money laundering, and the Ukrainian energy company Burisma’s paying him $83,000
per month despite his lacking any relevant expertise. Leading up to the
election, Big Tech shut down the <i>New York Post</i>’s Twitter site over the
story as well as other people’s attempts to discuss it. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Providing a laughable
rationalization for the censorship, m<span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">ore than 50 former senior intelligence officials
signed a ridiculous letter claiming that the story was likely a Russian
disinformation campaign. This included intelligence officials such as John
Brennan and James Clapper. Both merit prison for lying to Congress and, perhaps
also, Russian Hoax felonies. So ridiculous was the letter that the </span>DOJ,
FBI, and Director of National Intelligence were forced to publicly announce that
this was not Russian disinformation. Big Tech still used the letter to bury the
story. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In response to the Capitol Hill
riot, Twitter permanently banned Michael Flynn, Sidney Powell, and Donald
Trump. Amazon, Apple, and Google shut down Twitter’s competitor, Parler,
because it did not censor those whom it wanted censored. Before the election,
Google largely and temporarily eliminated Breitbart News from its search
results.<span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;"> Blacklisting
Breitbart News is a big deal because it is one of the most influential conservative
sites. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Other deplatformed
people include Dan Bongino, The Conservative Treehouse, Diamond and Silk, Laura
Loomer, LifeSiteNews, Candace Owens, PragerU, and the WalkAway campaign. Each
of these is a high-profile conservative commentator, politician, or website.
For example, Diamond and Silk have 1.4 million Facebook followers. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">In January, Project Veritas reported that Twitter
shadow-banned conservative profiles. In so doing, it blocked users from their platform
without notifying them. The shadow-banned user’s followers do not know they
have been banned, as the user site will appear to exist, even though it will
not show up in search results or anywhere else on Twitter. Twitter later
permanently banned Project Veritas. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="background: white; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">Amazon removed the Heritage Foundation’s Ryan
Anderson’s book, <i><span style="background: white;">When Harry Became Sally:
Responding to the Transgender Moment</span></i><span style="background: white;">
(2018). Apparently, its coverage of the tragedies that sometimes accompany gender-transitions
is beyond the pale. Amazon continued to sell a book responding to it, Kelly
Novak’s book, </span><i><span style="mso-font-kerning: 18.0pt;">Let Harry Become
Sally: Responding to the Anti-Transgender Moment</span></i><span style="mso-font-kerning: 18.0pt;"> (2018). Apparently, Amazon thinks its
consumers cannot be trusted to decide for themselves how to think about gender
dysphoria. Writing in <i>The Bookseller</i>, Alice Revel notes that in 2017,
Amazon sold 50% of the books and 83% of the e-books in the U.S. When Amazon cancels
your book, it matters. </span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="background: white; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">Cell phone companies are also out of control. Writing
for <i>The Intercept</i>, Ken Klippenstein and Eric Lichtblau point out that
within hours of the<span style="letter-spacing: .1pt;"> Capitol Hill riot, the
FBI got thousands of private cellphone records and other communications of
people near the scene of the riot. This included members of Congress’ records.
The FBI used an emergency order rather than a warrant. This outrageous search
was followed by another one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span><span style="letter-spacing: .1pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">Writing in the <i>New York Post</i>, Isabel
Vincent reports that following the Capitol Hill riot, Bank of America handed
over financial data on 211 clients who used credit and debit cards for lodging,
food, and other purchases in Washington in the days before and after the riot.
This was yet another warrantless dragnet search. Vincent reports that only<span style="background: white;"> one person among the 211 who had their information
disclosed has been interviewed by the feds, and none have been arrested. Bank
of America refused to say whether they had been given a federal subpoena. </span></span><span style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">This sort of abuse did not come out of thin
air. Writing in <i>The New York Times</i>, Scott Shane and Colin Moynihan reported
on The Hemisphere Project in which, years ago, AT&T handed over a
massive amount of phone records to the government and the White House paid for it
as part of its liberty-trampling drug war. AT&T employees worked alongside
DEA and local law enforcement agencies to supply data on phone calls, including
the caller’s location and number. The data was handed over without a search
warrant. The DEA claimed the power to issue administrative subpoenas without
court approval. The government collected all calls handled by AT&T, including
those by people who were not AT&T customers. One wonders whether the Fourth
Amendment is still good law.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="background: white; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">Of course, the government did not notify the
American people of this program. It was discovered when an activist found a file
on it in response to material supplied via a FOIA request. <span style="background: white;">The size of the database AT&T gave to the
government dwarfs any collection of data done by the National Security Agency. Consider,
for example, PRISM. The Obama administration –the sleaziest in American history
– claimed the dragnet searches raised </span>no privacy concern. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="background: white; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">According to CNBC’s Jessica
Bursztynsky, the Big Tech companies – Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and
Microsoft – have market values ranging from $500 billion to around $2 trillion.
The cowardly Republicans - including Donald Trump – did nothing about these
abuses and limited themselves to intermittent and tepid criticism of these
practices. The left – an increasing embarrassment to this nation - has called
for even more censorship and is busy making a concerted effort to cancel Fox
News. </span><span style="letter-spacing: .1pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in;"><span style="letter-spacing: .1pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>As one commentator put it, ever wonder how </span>academics,
lawyers, and your neighbors would have responded to abusive behavior such as World
War I Sedition Act prosecutions, growing abuses in 1930’s Germany, political
blacklists in the 1940’s and 1950’s, and the FBI’s illegal surveillance and
infiltration of political groups in the 1950’s and 1960’s? We now know.</p><p></p>The Objectivisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-42267307156154247592021-02-19T19:21:00.005-05:002021-02-19T19:21:54.579-05:00Transgenderism and Truth<p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Stephen Kershnar</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Transgenderism and
Truth <o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Dunkirk Fredonia
Observer<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">February 15, 2021<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>There has been an explosion in the
number of teenage females who claim that they are boys or men.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #202124; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: .1pt;">Gender dysphoria is the severe
distress felt by people whose gender differs from
their sex or sex-related physical characteristics. <i>The
Wall Street Journal</i>’s Abigail Shrier points out that in the past, gender
dysphoria typically began in early childhood (ages two to four), affected a
small percent of the population (0.01%), was found almost exclusively in boys,
and usually disappeared (70% of the time). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #202124; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: .1pt;">Shrier observes that for the first time
in medical history natal girls (those born female) are the majority of those
claiming to be transgender. A transgender person claims that his gender differs
from his sex. Clinicians from several countries report that those presenting
with gender dysphoria have dramatically changed from preschool-aged boys to
adolescent girls. In one year, 2016-2017, Shrier notes, the number of gender
surgeries for natal females in the U.S. increased fourfold. They now have 70%
of all gender surgeries.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #202124; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: .1pt;">Brown University’s Lisa Littman argues
that transgenderism spread like a contagion and involves a maladaptive response
to stress and strong emotions. She points to the following sort of features of
those adolescents who identify as transgender. 80% are natal females. Their average
age is 16. The vast majority did not have indicators of childhood gender
dysphoria. Over half had a psychiatric diagnosis. Roughly half were engaging in
self-harm (for example, cutting themselves). 41% said they were not
heterosexual before identifying as transgender. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #202124; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: .1pt;">The public schools have signed onto this.
According to Shrier, many public schools, including those in California, New
Jersey, and New York, have a policy of not informing parents when a student
comes out at school. Some school administrators and staff conceal a student’s
gender change from the parents even while changing the student’s name and
pronoun on school forms. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #202124; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: .1pt;">The metaphysical issue, though, is
whether transgender claims are true. For example, is a transgender man a man or
does he merely present as one? The University of Sussex’s Kathleen Stock and
other gender-critical philosophers discuss the very controversial idea that
female is a biological category. On this account, someone who is a female has
some or all of a cluster of internally caused features, including fallopian
tubes, ovaries, vagina, womb, and XX chromosomes. On this account, an
individual without any of these features is not female, even though no one
feature is necessary to be female. For example, an individual with Androgen
Insensitivity Syndrome is genetically male (XY chromosomes) but resistant to
male hormones (androgens) and so lacks male genitalia and other similar
features. As a result, she does not have enough of the physical traits to be male.
If this account is correct, trans women are not female. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #202124; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: .1pt;">An interesting issue is whether trans
women are women. The issue arises because ‘woman’ might refer to gender rather
than sex. On this account, ‘sex’ refers to biological features found in human
and animals such as genes, physiology, or reproductive function. In contrast, ‘gender’
refers to socially constructed roles. It is concerned with attitudes and
behaviors, such as how one self-identifies and how others view someone. There
is thus an issue as to whether some men are female, and some women are male. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #202124; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: .1pt;">There are conceptual difficulties with
the notion that women should be identified by their gender rather sex. Consider
the notion that a person is a woman if that person identifies as a woman. What
is it that she identifies with that makes her a woman? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #202124; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: .1pt;">A person is not one gender merely because
she sees herself as being that gender. This would be circular. By analogy, a
person is not Jewish merely because she sees herself as Jewish. We still need
to know what makes someone Jewish and thus forms the content of her
identification. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #202124; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: .1pt;">First, consider biological sex. The idea
is that an individual is a woman if she sees herself as a biological female. If
this were what makes someone a woman, then a trans woman would be mistaken. She
is not a biological female and identifying as one does not change the biological
fact. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #202124; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: .1pt;">Second, consider gender. The idea is that
identifying with social stereotypes makes someone a woman. A problem here is
that the stereotypes are not very clear. Do they involve passivity and being
penetrated? Alternatively, do they involve activities such as cleaning,
cooking, dating cute guys, playing with dolls, wearing dresses, and so on? The problem
here is that some women do not identify with many of these stereotypes.
Consider, for example, a lesbian who is masculine in appearance and manner (in a
very-rude-and-outdated term referred to as a “bull dyke”). In addition, these
stereotypes are outdated and often insulting. For example, lesbians who wear
pants and do not want to date cute guys are women. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #202124; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: .1pt;">Another problem is that trans women do
more than identify with a stereotype. For example, what makes natal-girl teenagers
want to transition to boys or men is not that they do not like to be
penetrated, clean, cook, date cute boys, etc. Instead, they see themselves as
men in a deeper sense. The problem is in identifying what that deeper sense is.
Cut off from a connection to a biological category, it is unclear what holds
the stereotypes together or why they are so important to motivate someone to
change his body in significant ways. Some trans men take hormones or have
surgeries such as top surgery (breast removal), hysterectomy (removal of
ovaries and uterus), phalloplasty (surgical construction of a penis), or
metoidioplasty (surgery and hormones that make a clitoris work more like a
penis).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #202124; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: .1pt;">None of this tells us whether we should
allow trans men and women to choose their own name and pronoun, use what
bathroom they want, have surgery, and so on. We should, at least for adults. A
separate issue, though, is whether trans people’s claims are true.<o:p></o:p></span></p>The Objectivisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-45766560968138905952021-02-03T11:48:00.000-05:002021-02-03T11:48:05.448-05:00The Latest Attempt at Impeachment Jumps the Shark<p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Stephen
Kershnar</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
Attempted Impeachment Jumps the Shark<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Dunkirk-Fredonia
Observer<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">January
25, 2021<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">The Democrats’ latest attempt to
impeach and convict Donald Trump will be a new low for Congress, no mean feat. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The House impeached Trump on the
following basis, “<span style="background: white; color: #333333;">Donald John
Trump engaged in high Crimes and Misdemeanors by inciting violence against the
Government of the United States.” House members specifically claimed that, “He
also willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged—and foreseeably
resulted in—lawless action at the Capitol, such as: “if you don’t fight like
hell you’re not going to have a country anymore”. Thus incited by President
Trump, members of the crowd he had addressed, in an attempt to, among other
objectives, interfere with the Joint Session’s solemn constitutional duty to
certify the results of the 2020 Presidential election, unlawfully breached and
vandalized the Capitol, injured and killed law enforcement personnel, menaced
Members of Congress, the Vice President, and Congressional personnel, and
engaged in other violent, deadly, destructive, and seditious acts.” <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The
Democrats’ and their media co-conspirators’ hypocrisy is truly a wonder to
behold. Few, if any, Democrats got their panties in a twist when on July 1<sup>st</sup>,
Antifa and BLM protesters drove Trump from the White House into an underground
bunker. Nor did they get their knickers in a bunch when protesters forcibly
occupied the Capitol in support of now discredited claims by Christine Blasey
Ford, </span><span style="background: white; color: #202122; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Judy Munro-Leighton, </span><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Julie Swetnick, </span><span style="background: white; color: #202122; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">etc. More
than 300 were arrested. They did not collapse onto fainting couches when hundreds
were arrested for rioting during Trump’s inaugural celebration. They did not
even tightly clutch their pearls when in 2011, union thugs stormed and occupied
the Wisconsin State Capital. And, of course, they said nothing this past summer
when rioters burned cities, destroyed statues, injured police, killed more than
two dozen people, and looted stores.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="background: white; color: #202122; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>There
is no case against Trump. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #202122; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">First, consider the facts. Trump did not incite
violence against the federal government. <i>Forbes</i>’ Jemima McEvoy reports
that rioters planned the violent protests in advance of the relevant Trump speech
and tweets. The day before the riot, the FBI was aware of plans for violent
protest and warned the Capitol Police. According to the <i>New York Times</i>’ Lauren
Leatherby et al., the protests appeared to get violent 20 minutes before the
speech ended. It is more than a mile between where the speech was given and
where the Capitol’s barriers were breached. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #202122; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">In addition, Trump did not encourage violence. He
told people at the rally to “</span><span style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">peacefully and
patriotically make your voices heard.” His tweets were also above board. One of
them asks that, “[E]veryone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No
violence!”</span><span style="background: white; color: #202122; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #202122; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">In addition, the out-of-hand protests were not seditious.
They did not attempt to overthrow the government. Reuters quotes a Department
of Justice official who stated that there was no direct evidence of a plot to
kidnap or kill lawmakers. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #202122; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Second, consider the law. If one agrees with
Harvard’s Alan Dershowitz that impeachment and conviction require that a
government official commit a crime, Trump conduct is constitutionally
protected. Specifically, the First Amendment protects Trump’s speech and
tweets. Here is one of his statements, “[I]</span><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">f you don’t
fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Here is another. “</span><span style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me,
AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into
the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape
or form!!!"</span><span style="background: white; color: #202122; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> In <i>Brandenburg v. Ohio</i>, 395 U.S. 444
(1969), the Supreme Court held that this sort of speech may be criminalized
only if it is intended to incite imminent lawless conduct. Clearly, this was
not true here. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #202122; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">In addition, the Senate lacks jurisdiction. Article
II Section 4 states, “</span><span style="color: #202122; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the
United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction
of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Limiting
this grant of authority is Article I Section 3. It states, “J<span style="background: white;">udgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend
further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any
Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: #202122; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The language of the provision addresses what may be done to the
President and Donald Trump is no longer the President. As George Washington
University’s Jonathan Turley points out, in every other part of the
Constitution, the reference to “the President” or other specific officeholder
refers to the current officeholder, not people who have held it in the past. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: #202122; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">There have been two cases that purportedly show that the Senate
may disqualify someone for office who has not been removed from office. One
involved former Tennessee Senator William Blount. Blount, who signed the
Constitution, claimed that disqualification did not apply to him because he was
a private citizen. In 1799, following impeachment, the Senate refused to even
hold a trial. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: #202122; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">In 1876, the Senate voted on whether to dismiss the impeachment-charge
against former Secretary of War William Belknap. It narrowly failed to do so
and then acquitted him. One tightly contested vote is not a good enough reason
to reject the plain meaning of a Constitutional provision and clear pattern of
Constitutional language. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: #202122; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Nor are there good policy reasons to allow the senate to
disqualify former Presidents from office. This opens the door to endless
settling of scores. But if we are doing so, here are two people meriting prompt
disqualification: Barack Obama (Russia Hoax crimes) and Bill Clinton (campaign-finance
crimes and rape). Hell, we can even disqualify dead people for criminality or
gross incompetence. Consider LBJ and Woodrow Wilson. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: #202122; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Some leading figures – for example, Ted Cruz, Alan Dershowitz,
and Jonathan Turley – recognize that there is no legal case against Trump but
criticize his rhetoric. I think his rhetoric was admirable, expressing many
Americans’ legitimate outrage at the attempted coups, censorship, constitutionally
dubious lockdowns, and election illegalities. Still, this is a topic for
another day.<o:p></o:p></span></p>The Objectivisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-30236026856962242892021-01-13T08:22:00.005-05:002021-01-13T08:25:09.965-05:00Capitol Hill Riots: Clutching Pearls, Smelling Salts, and Twisted Panties<p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Stephen Kershnar</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">Capitol Hill
Riots: Clutching Pearls, Smelling Salts, and Twisted Panties<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">Dunkirk-Fredonia
Observer<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">Sunday, January
10, 2021<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The crackdown and overreaction to
Wednesday’s Capitol Hill riot is so lacking in proportionality as to constitute
pure pretext for what has and will continue to follow. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In the last few years, there have
been widespread riots, two attempted coups, and an election awash in fraud.
Following these events, a few hundred protesters stormed Capitol Hill, destroyed
property, and fought with the police. The police shot one protester dead, three
people died from medical issues, and one police officer later died from his
injuries. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>First, consider the rioting and
looting. Writing in the <i>New York Post</i>, Andy Ngo pointed out that last
May, rioters brought Minneapolis to its knees. He noted that rioters burned
entire neighborhoods to the ground, burned down a police station, and looted
hundreds of businesses. Widespread destruction, looting, and violence also broke
out in Los Angeles, New York City, Seattle, Washington, DC, and dozens of other
cities. During the riots, at least two dozen died. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="color: #2a2a2a;">Leftist elites – for example, Democrats, heads of Silicon Valley and
Wall Street, Hollywood, and university presidents – largely refused to condemn the
violence. Ngo pointed out that Kamala Harris encouraged her followers to donate
to a Minnesota fund that bailed out accused rioters. A dozen Joe Biden campaign
staffers did the same. The fund, Ngo reports, raised $35 million. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="color: #2a2a2a; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">In
Portland, Ore., Antifa and Black Lives Matter rioters repeatedly attacked a
building that houses a jail, police station, and sheriff’s office. The rioters tried
to free prisoners. They then started fires that caused workers to flee for their
lives. Radicals forcibly occupied areas in Seattle and Portland. Vandals pulled
down statues.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="color: #2a2a2a; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">Did
you see the prissy members of Congress clutching their pearls following these outrages?
Did you miss the sensitive members of the media needing to be revived with
smelling salts? No </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">one
seemed to have gotten too upset when Target stores were looted, parts of cities
occupied, highways disrupted, restaurant patrons harassed, etc. What happened last
Wednesday paled in comparison. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="color: #2a2a2a; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">Violent
protests in DC burned a historic church and caused Donald Trump to be
evacuated. A few years ago, protesters forcibly occupied offices, during the
Brett Kavanaugh hearings, and the Wisconsin legislative building. Did the members
of Congress collapse on their fainting couches? Did the media need emergency
meetings with their therapists?</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="color: #2a2a2a;">Second, consider that t</span><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">he left staged two coups. The Inspector General’s report makes it
clear that the Obama administration knew that the Russian investigation was fraudulent
almost from the start. The Inspector General’s report and later news stories
tell us that the case rested heavily on stories from a single source (the
source for the Steele dossier). Under oath, the source said that he made up the
stories. The source was even investigated to see if he was a Russian spy. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">The FISA court - a
court that the FBI and DOJ used to get secret search warrants - took a very dim
view of the Obama administration’s abuse in getting warrants. We know there was
criminal activity - the Inspector General Report even referred to officials for
prosecution – and yet, unbelievably, only one person has as of yet been
prosecuted. It is increasingly clear that Barack Obama was part of this. The
same Congressional and media virgins who are so outraged at Wednesday’s riots, could
not care less about this far more dangerous development. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">The impeachment of
Donald Trump was only slightly less ridiculous than the Russia Hoax. Hunter
Biden was engaged in illegal influence-peddling in the Ukraine, thereby profiting
from Joe Biden’s influence. Joe Biden had a prosecutor looking into the Hunter
Biden situation fired. Trump suggested that Ukraine investigate this activity. On
a side note, the <i>New York Post</i> story and statements by Hunter’s business
partner provide us with yet more evidence that Joe and Hunter were caught with
their pants down. The law permitted Trump’s actions and, arguably, required
them. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Third, consider that the recent
election was awash in fraud. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Texas' attorney
general’s motion to the Supreme Court documented the various illegal changes in
voting procedures in the battleground states. This included illegally changing the
way in which mail-in ballots were distributed,<b> </b>mail-in-date requirements
handled, signatures verified,<b> </b>and so on.<b> </b>Seventeen other states
signed onto the complaint. Many election workers signed affidavits alleging vote-counting
irregularities and other illegal activity, especially in the cities that were
at the heart of battleground-state controversy. The vote counting stunk to high
hell as vote counting was paused, poll workers were kicked out or told to
leave, and suspicious activity caught on tape. Trump lost the presidential
election despite the fact that the Republicans won almost all of the presidential
bellwether counties and toss-up House elections and the fact that Trump got nearly
10 million more votes than last time. Clearly, there was widespread election
fraud. The issue is whether there was enough to reverse the election. Likely,
there was.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In response to Wednesday’s Capitol
Hill riots, Twitter permanently banned Michael Flynn, Sidney Powell, and Donald
Trump. Simon and Schuster canceled Senator Josh Hawley’s book in retaliation
for his challenging the election. Amazon, Apple, and Google shut down Twitter’s
competitor, Parler, because it does not censor those whom the left wants
censored. The Conservative Treehouse, Laura Loomer, and the WalkAway site are
being or have been deplatformed in various ways. Pressure is being brought on
cable companies to shut down Fox News and, especially, Tucker Carlson. Earlier Big
Tech – for example, Google, Facebook, and Twitter – censored the <i>New York
Post</i> and sharply reduced traffic to Breitbart, while the mainstream media
refused to show Any Ngo’s videos of Antifa and BLM violence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">In general, people
should not trespass, hit people, break other people’s things, or violate the
law. Still, we think that civil disobedience is sometimes permissible.
Consider, for example, sit-ins at lunch counters in the segregated South,
Edward Snowden’s release of information that showed a massive illegal search,
and the illegal release of classified documents that showed that we were losing
a war (Pentagon Papers). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">Is protesting an
election awash in fraud following two attempted coups and a summer of rioting a
good reason for civil disobedience? I do not know because I do not have a good
enough theory of civil disobedience. In any case, the Capitol Hill riot does
not justify the crackdown or pearl-clutching.<o:p></o:p></span></p>The Objectivisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-70773886709402906242020-12-02T23:01:00.001-05:002020-12-02T23:01:20.642-05:00China's Social Credit System: Why is it wrong?<p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Stephen Kershnar</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">China’s Social
Credit System<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Dunkirk-Fredonia
Observer<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">November 29, 2020<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The Chinese government is
implementing a nationwide social credit system. The system is troubling. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The social credit system tracks a
person and assigns him a score. The score is supposed to measure his
trustworthiness. The Chinese government has already implemented this system
regionally and will likely implement it nationally in the near future. The Chinese
government’s and its companies’ use of mass surveillance technology allows them
to collect a lot of information on the Chinese people. The technology includes
artificial intelligence, big data, and facial recognition technology.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The system gives those people who
engage in anti-social behavior a low score. Examples include violating laws or
rules of etiquette with regard to bills, dogs, garbage, identification cards, mass
transportation, reservations, and traffic. Specific examples include eating on
mass transit, failing to properly separate one’s garbage, failing to visit
one’s elderly parents, jaywalking, making reservations at hotels or restaurants
and not showing up, not cleaning up after one’s dog, and running red lights. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The government
blacklists those with low scores. It then prevents blacklisted people from
buying airline and train tickets and getting fast internet, jobs, loans, and
visas. It also prevents children of blacklisted parents from attending various
schools and universities. For example, the National Development and Reform
Commission of China reports that blacklisting resulted in the denial of 27
million attempts to purchase plane tickets and 6 million attempts to buy train
tickets. Buses and movie theaters display the names and faces of blacklisted
individuals. This resembles the Two Minutes Hate in George Orwell’s dystopian
novel <i>1984</i>. The government also uses low scores to tighten its repression
of various minorities, such as the Muslims Uighurs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The system gives
out high scores for pro-social behavior. People with high scores are more
likely to get some jobs. They also get reduced waiting time at hospitals and
government agencies.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Russia plans to
implement a similar system.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Among the interesting issues is whether
this system is wrong or bad. Peking University’s Kui Shen argues that the
policy is wrong because it violates people’s rights, specifically, their rights
to dignity, privacy, and reputation. A problem with the Chinese system is that
the government assigns scores and determines rewards and punishments. This
exceeds a government’s legitimate authority. Still, one can imagine corporations
implementing a nearly identical system. On a side note, there was little, if
any, pushback when Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders proposed
that the government take over credit scores and adjust them for social-justice
purposes. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The problem with Shen’s argument is
that people do not have a right to dignity, privacy, or reputation. The notion
that a person has dignity means, roughly, that he merits respect. The problem
is that in terms of policy, we respect someone when, and only when, we do not
infringe his rights. Hence, respecting someone’s dignity amounts to respecting
his rights. As a result, there is no distinct right to dignity and the appeal
to it is empty. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The purported
right to privacy is no more than a claim that a person’s rights to his body and
property be respected. It is disrespected in cases of burglary, trespass, warrantless
searches, and so on. Again, it is not a distinct right so much as a label for a
grab bag of other rights. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The purported right
to a reputation is a right that others not talk or write about a person in an
objectionable way. Leaving aside defamation, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>there is no right that others talk or write about
someone in a particular way. The gossips at church and temple do not trample on
anyone’s rights. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Writing in <i>The
Hill</i>, Tyler Grant, argues that the social credit system is wrong because it
is totalitarian. He notes that it resembles Orwell’s <i>1984</i> dystopian
world. This certainly tracks our intuitions. Grant notes that the West has the
machinery to implement such a system because corporations already collect a
large amount of data on us. They also censor us. Consider that Big Tech recently
censored those who sent out disapproved messages about COVID-19, election
fraud, and Hunter Biden.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The problem is
that the system can be implemented through methods that individually do not
infringe anyone’s right. For example, in the US, a person gets a financial
credit score. A person’s debt level and payment history determine his score. A
score gets lowered due to bankruptcy, foreclosures, and repossessions. This
score affects a person’s access to insurance, jobs, and loans. While it does
not currently affect things such as airplane tickets or university admissions, it
is hard to see what is wrong with additional companies using these scores. The
scoring companies would likely argue that the widespread use of such scores
would discourage people from defaulting on their credit-card bills and college
loans. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Even more
disturbing is that a credit score could be widened to penalize someone for associating
with the wrong people or expressing the wrong ideas. Consider bar associations.
In 1998, the Illinois bar association prevented Mathew Hale from practicing law
in Illinois because he was a member of the Klu Klux Klan. He had already
graduated from law school, passed the bar, and agreed to follow the bar
association’s rules. In 1961, the Supreme Court in <i>Konigsberg v. State Bar
of California</i> (1961) held that state bar associations could refuse to admit
a person to the bar because he has a bad moral character. If state bar
associations may take a person’s views or character into account, it is unclear
why credit-scoring companies may not do so. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">France, Germany,
and the United Kingdom fine and imprison people for hate speech. It seems a
small step for criminalized speech to also affect people’s credit scores.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">While the Chinese
social credit system is totalitarian and incredibly troubling, it is difficult
to see exactly what is wrong with it. It is worrisome that much of what is
going on in the West might serve as a precedent for a social credit system here.<o:p></o:p></span></p>The Objectivisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-73162944292785863222020-11-19T08:51:00.003-05:002020-11-19T08:51:37.532-05:00Election Fraud and Government Legitimacy<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Stephen
Kershnar<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Election
Fraud<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Dunkirk-Fredonia
Observer<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">November
15, 2020<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">There
is a significant chance that Democrat Party operatives stole the election from
Donald Trump. The implications of such a theft are interesting. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
Democratic Party hoped to gain control of the country for a generation by fundamentally
changing the American people, Congress, and the Supreme Court. It hoped to change
the American people by amnestying tens of millions of illegal aliens and
reopening the immigrant spigot. The amnestied aliens would turn Republican
strongholds such as Texas and Florida into Democratic states similar to what
they did in California. When chain migration is added to the effect – the
average immigrant sponsors 3.5 family members – the American people will be irrevocably
changed. The Democrat Party hoped to add two states: Puerto Rico and
Washington, DC, thereby ensuring their control of the Senate. It hoped to
transform the Supreme Court by packing it with new justices. Depending on how the
Georgia runoff elections turn out, the Party might still accomplish these goals.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">On
the night of November 3<sup>rd</sup>, the American citizens went to bed with
Trump ahead in the vote count in the battleground states of Georgia, Michigan, North
Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In Michigan, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin, election analyst Robert Barnes noted, the vote was halted, and several
thousand votes later conveniently found that put Biden ahead. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="subheading" style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="subheading" style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;">There were troubling vote irregularities in
battleground states. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="subheading" style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;">(1) In the major metro areas, Big Data Poll’s Richard
Baris reports that Biden got fewer votes than Hillary Clinton did except for
the biggest metro areas of the battleground states (Atlanta, Detroit, Milwaukee,
and Philadelphia).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="subheading" style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;">(2) The Republican Party alleges that in Detroit, Las
Vegas, and<b> </b>Philadelphia, Republican, poll watchers were prevented from
watching the vote count. In Philadelphia, a Pennsylvania appellate court judge
had to order that that watchers not be blocked. It is unclear if the order was too
late because contestable ballots were no longer checkable.<b> <o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="subheading" style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;">(3) <i>The Washington Times</i>’ S. A. Miller and Alex
Swoyer report that <span style="background: white;">poll workers, post office
employees and certified election observers filed affidavits that state that
they observed suspicious-and-illegal conduct in the handling and tabulation of
ballots in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada and Pennsylvania. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="subheading" style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;">(4) <i>The Wall Street Journal</i>’s Kim Strassel
reports that for Wisconsin not to have a suspiciously large voter turnout
nearly 900,000 (30% of Wisconsin’s voters) would have had to registered to vote
on election day. This, she claims, is very unlikely. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="subheading" style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;">(5) T<span style="color: #111111;">he Nevada Republican
Party sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department regarding 3,062
instances of voter fraud. It predicted the number of instances of fraud will
grow. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="subheading" style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #111111;">(6) The Cook Political
Report listed 27 House seats in the Toss Up column. So far, the Republicans
have won every one in which a call has been made (18 seats). It is odd that Republicans
are winning the contested seats but losing the presidency.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Adding
to the suspicious pattern, some of these cities – for example, Detroit and
Philadelphia - have a history of election difficulty and fraud. In 2019, for
example, the Public Interest Legal Foundation sued Detroit because among other
problems, it had more registered voters than eligible voters. A federal court
convicted and sentenced an elections judge, Domenick Demuro, <span style="background: white; color: #222222;">for accepting bribes to cast fraudulent
ballots and certifying false voting results </span>in Philadelphia<span style="background: white; color: #222222;"> during elections as recent as 2016.</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">All
of this was aided and abetted by the rushed attempt to switch to a mail-in
ballot system and weaken the deadline, voter-identification, and
signature-checking requirements that prevent election fraud. At this point, it
appears there was fraud. The issue is whether it was widespread enough to flip
the election. As of now, we cannot answer this question. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">If
there were widespread election fraud, this would have been the third coup
attempt. The first attempt was the Russia-Hoax criminal conspiracy. At present,
not even the FBI leadership who were in the middle of the conspiracy are defending
the FISA warrants central to it. The second attempt was the crassly political
impeachment attempt that focused on Trump’s stated preference that Ukraine
investigate Biden-family influence peddling. Hunter Biden’s computer and the evidence
it unlocked make it abundantly clear that such influence peddling occurred. In
addition, there was no evidence – zero – that Trump’s preference was anything
more than that. Such a request would have been legally and morally permissible.
Sadly, it was not made.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Stealing
an election through widespread fraud is equivalent to a bloodless coup. One
problem with such a theft is that it undermines government legitimacy.
Government legitimacy concerns the right of the government to coerce the people.
It is closely related to the people’s duty to obey the law. The problem is that
if the government is legitimate, and not merely an organ of naked force, the
people have to validly consent to it. The people have neither consented to a
government that took power through fraud nor to a fraudulent electoral
procedure.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">An
illegitimate government is a problem. Similar to the apartheid practices in the
American South, the destructive-and-illegal Vietnam War, and weaponization of
the government during the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations, election
theft does and should undermine faith in the American government. We cannot be
proud of a county that has dirty elections. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">A
second problem is that the perceived election theft will intensify the
politicization of American life. The election fraud, if it occurred, went hand
in glove with Big Tech censorship, politicized corporations (especially Silicon
Valley and Wall Street), suffocating ideological chokehold in academia, and thuggery
(Black Lives Matter and Antifa). The politicization will increasingly force citizens
to choose sides. Americans live, play, and work together and no one wants our lives
increasingly politicized. Nor should they. No one enjoys yelling at
Thanksgiving dinner. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">A
third problem is that the changes that went into this election will haunt the
country for years to come. The American people do not want internet censorship,
corrupt election practices, and politicized corporations. Americans will rue
the day these things became part of American life. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">In
short, election fraud, if it were widespread enough, undermines the legitimacy
of the American government. The fraud along with the forces that allowed it
will further politicize American life and change the country for the worse. And
for what?<o:p></o:p></span></p>The Objectivisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-15760479874527961972020-11-05T14:47:00.001-05:002020-11-05T14:47:14.466-05:00Society's Leaders Set Out to Crush Donald Trump<p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Stephen
Kershnar<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
Commanding Heights Team Up to Crush Trump<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Dunkirk-Fredonia
Observer<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">November
1, 2020<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>I write this before the election has
been decided. The commanding heights of American society coordinated to decide
the election. Never before have academia, Big Tech, Deep State, Hollywood,
legacy media, Silicon Valley, and Wall Street teamed up to choose the
president. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Consider Big Tech companies’ dangerous
concentration of power. Big Tech includes Amazon, Facebook, Google, Instagram,
Twitter, and YouTube. There is the conservative notion that a private media company
may print what it wants, subject only to defamation-related restrictions. There
is also the liberal notion that private media platforms should censor posts. The
two positions are consistent. The first addresses whether the media should be
free to print what it wants and the second addresses how the media should
exercise this freedom. The problem is that Big Tech and financial companies –
for example, PayPal - can and sometimes do shut down any effective outlet for conservative
sites and, also, try to financially starve them out.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The problem resulted because Big
Tech got into bed with the Deep State and the Democratic Party. Big Tech censored
stories on the strongly evidenced claim that the Biden family, including Joe
Biden, illegally peddled influence. Consider Hunter Biden’s emails detailing
the influence peddling. We have strong evidence that the emails are from Hunter
Biden’s computer and real. The evidence includes (1) on-the-record witnesses,
(2) Hunter Biden’s signature, (3) the computer-store owner’s statements, (4)
other information on the computer, (5) an FBI investigation using the computer,
and (6) in-effect concessions. The in-effect concessions are that Hunter Biden’s
attorney asked for the computer back and the Bidens never denied that it was
Hunter’s computer. The FBI is investigating Hunter Biden for money laundering
and has had the computer files for a year. Yet, Big Tech shut down the <i>New
York Post</i>’s Twitter site over the story and other people’s attempts to
discuss it. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Spearheading the effort to bury the
influence-peddling scandal, m<span style="background: white; color: black;">ore
than 50 former senior intelligence officials signed a ridiculous letter that
claimed that the story was likely a Russian disinformation campaign. This
included intelligence officials such as John Brennan and James Clapper, both of
whom should be in prison for lying to Congress and, perhaps also, Russian Hoax
felonies. In their letter, they even conceded that, “[W]</span>e do not have
evidence of Russian involvement … .” Since then the DOJ, FBI, and Director of
National Intelligence announced that this was not Russian disinformation.
Despite these announcements, Big Tech and the legacy media companies, except
FOX, used the ridiculous letter along with the notion that the emails were
stolen to bury the story. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The hypocrisy is breathtaking. The
emails were legally obtained. In addition, no one would have wanted the media to
refuse to print Edward Snowden’s whistleblowing, the Pentagon Papers, or leaked
documents about the failed Afghanistan war, despite the fact that they were
illegally obtained. In any case, the media trumpeted Russia Hoax stories, transcripts
of Michael Flynn’s conversations, and Trump’s tax returns without caring a wit
about whether the information was illegally obtained. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">A
similar pattern occurred with regard to discussion of Joe Biden’s
more-likely-than-not sexual assault on Tara Reade. The #MeToo movement, like
the pig Napoleon, now thinks that some animals are more equal than others. The
pattern also occurred when Google shut down almost all traffic to <i>Breitbart</i>’s
influential site. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
Deep State moved as slow as molasses in bringing charges against Russia Hoax
criminals such as James Comey, Andrew McCabe, and Rob Rosenstein from the DOJ
and FBI. This occurred despite the fact that the Inspector General, Michael
Horowitz, referred some of them for prosecution and that they clearly committed
fraud on a FISA court, a serious felony. At this point, it looks as if the vaunted
Bob Barr and his sidekick, John Durham, ran out the clock on prosecuting them.
The precedent is now set. The Deep State is above the law. The Republican
establishment, especially Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, ran away from these
issues. By doing so, they allowed the conspiracy, which likely involved Barack
Obama and Joe Biden, to be shoved down the memory hole.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
corporate world and associated elites poured money into the Biden campaign.
According to <i>CNBC</i>’s Brian Schwartz, Wall Street gave Joe Biden’s
campaign roughly five times as much money as it gave to Donald Trump’s campaign.
According to <i>Vox</i>’s Theodore Schliefer and Rani Molla, Silicon Valley
gave Biden ten times as much money as it gave Trump. According to <i>Inside
Higher Education</i>’s Kery Murakami, professors gave seven times as much money
to Biden as Trump. For elite professors – such as those from the Ivy League –
the number is likely far higher. Hollywood puts all them to shame. In the 2018
election, <i>The Hollywood Reporter</i> found that Hollywood (specifically,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>its top executives and entertainers) gave
99.7 % of its donations to Democrats and Democrat-leaning political action
committees. In addition, academia, corporate leaders, and Hollywood have been quiet
as church mice on Big Tech censorship, Deep State crimes, and elite groupthink.
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The elites’ support of Biden is
mystifying. I doubt they support Joe Biden’s radical policies, such as adding
two states (Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia), amnestying tens of
millions of illegal aliens, eliminating the electoral college, moving toward
open borders, packing the Supreme Court, raising taxes, and socializing
medicine and higher education. I doubt they want more and deeper interventionist
wars (for example, Syria). It is equally hard to believe that they support ever
more race preferences and quotas. By now, they must surely know that the Russia
Hoax was a criminal conspiracy, impeachment was a crass political move, and the
Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and Defund-the-Police movements are built on lies and
reintroduced political violence on a scale not seen in fifty years. Still, the
commanding heights of our society teamed up to try to crush Donald Trump. This
will not be the last time they take the field.</span></p><p></p><p></p>The Objectivisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-33524713959395164352020-10-21T09:11:00.006-04:002020-10-21T09:17:33.382-04:00Progressive taxation is neither fair nor good<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Stephen Kershnar<br /></span></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">Progressive Taxation<br /></span></u></b><span style="font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer<br /></span></i></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">October 19, 2020</span></span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Presidential candidate Joe Biden
announced that on day one, he would repeal President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax
cuts and raise taxes another $500 billion by closing loopholes. He plans to spend
some of the money on making college, medical care, and pre-K education cheaper,
if not free, for many people. He would also lavish money on schools, paying for
new guidance counselors, nurses, and psychologists as well as higher pay for teachers.
This proposed spending orgy raises the issue of whether it is fair or prudent
to ratchet up taxes on the rich and upper middle class.</span></span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: times;">A progressive tax is a tax in which the
tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases. Using <span style="color: black; mso-fareast-font-family: +mn-ea; mso-font-kerning: 12.0pt;">2017
</span>IRS numbers, the National Taxpayers Union reports that t<span style="color: black; mso-fareast-font-family: +mn-ea; mso-font-kerning: 12.0pt;">he
top 50% of all taxpayers paid 97% of all individual income taxes, while the
bottom 50% paid 3%. Making matters worse is the fact that the top 1% paid a
greater share of individual income taxes (39%) than did the bottom 90% (30%).
The rich also paid a higher percentage of their income (top 1% paid 27% of
their income) compared to the middle class (top 10% to top 25% paid 11% of
their income). As usual, the poor free rode on the others’ labor (the bottom
50% paid 4% of their income). Corporate taxes follow a similar pattern.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: times;">Here is another way to see how incredibly
progressive taxes are in the United States. If we split taxpayers up into
quintiles by income (0-20%, 21-40%, 41-60%, 61-80%, and 81-100%), a 2016
Congressional Budget Office report found that first three quintiles get more in
government transfer payments than they pay in taxes. That is, they make money
off of the tax system. The fourth quintile pays only 8% of its income in taxes
once government transfers are subtracted from their taxes. It is the fifth
quintile, upper middle class and rich, that pays a high rate. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: times;">We might evaluate these taxes in terms
of fairness or goodness (making the world a better place). <i><u>First, consider
fairness.</u></i> As University of Colorado philosopher Michael Huemer points out,
progressive taxation is unfair. He notes that if five friends go out to dinner
and later receive the bill, no one would suggest that the person with the most
money should pay for the everyone else’s dinners or even most of the cost of
their dinners. Instead, the friends would insist that each person pay the cost
of his own dinner. <i>Fairness, then, requires that a person pay for his cost</i>. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: times;">If we apply this sense of fairness to
taxpayers, Huemer notes, we should eliminate progressive taxation. The poor likely
cost more and should thus pay more than the rich. The poor get free or subsidized
food, housing, medical care, and schools as well as welfare. They also cost
more because there is more crime in poor areas. If taxes cannot be a flat
amount (for example, $10,000), then they should be a flat rate (for example,
25% of income).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: times;"><i>The rich might benefit more from the
government – because they have more valuable property to protect – but this is
irrelevant</i>. The restaurant goers would not think one friend should pay for
others’ dinners merely because he enjoyed his dinner more. In any case, given
the crimes rates in poor areas, it is unclear whether the rich benefit more
from the government than do the poor. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: times;"><i>The rich likely deserve their income at
least as much as do the poor and working class</i>. On average, rich people
contribute more economically to their fellow man than do others, which is why
the market pays them more. On average, they had to sacrifice more to develop
their skills. They also work noticeably longer hours than do others. Hence,
they are therefore at least as deserving of keeping their money as are the poor
and middle class. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: times;">People sometimes argue that the rich
have a greater ability to pay taxes than do other groups and, hence, they
should pay more. <i>However, an argument is needed as to why a greater ability to
pay should result in a duty to pay more</i>. Huemer notes that because the ability
to pay depends on wealth, not income, the ability-to-pay argument would suggest
that the US replace the income tax with a wealth tax. Yet, few leftists argue
for such a replacement. And, returning to the restaurant analogy, the friends
would not think it fair to stick the wealthiest friend with the bill. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: times;"><i><u>Second, progressive taxation likely makes
the American people worse off.</u></i> Progressive taxation transfers money from people
who benefit less from a given amount of money (for example, $10,000) to people
who benefit more from it. This is diminishing marginal utility. However,
progressive taxation also reduces the incentive for the rich to engage in
productive activities such as starting new businesses, expanding existing ones,
or investing their money in other people’s businesses. The rich invest and save
at higher rates than do others. <i>In the long run, productivity is more important
than diminishing marginal utility</i>. This is especially true given that
government skims off a lot of the money that is being transferred and spends it
on itself. Worse, the government often transfers money in ways that make things
worse (for example, by subsidizing fatherless households). Because economic
freedom correlates with happiness, income, and political freedom, lowering
taxes on the most productive citizens would probably make the American people happier,
richer, and freer. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: times;">In general, then, p<span style="background: white; color: #222222;">rogressive taxes would be replaced with
a flat rate, if not a flat amount. It would also be better to transfer some of
the taxes the rich currently pay to the poor and middle class. In a democracy,
when some people can vote themselves other people’s money, irresponsible
spending is sure to follow. Joe Biden’s fevered spending dreams are a case in
point.</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>The Objectivisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-87935638918119860952020-10-21T09:07:00.000-04:002020-10-21T09:07:05.598-04:00COVID Lockdowns Are Unconstitutional <p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Stephen Kershnar</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The COVID Lockdown
and the Constitution<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Dunkirk-Fredonia
Observer<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">October 5, 2020<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The United States has suffered worse
epidemics (for example, smallpox and the Spanish Flu) and emergencies (for
example, the Civil War and World War II) than COVID. Yet the government never before
locked down the people similar to what just happened. The American people will
regret allowing this to occur as the precedent is now set for in effect
suspending the Constitution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">43 states locked
down their people in response to the <span style="background: white; color: #333333;">coronavirus.</span> The lockdown ordered people to stay home and backed
it up with criminal sanctions. Only <span style="color: #202122;">essential
businesses were allowed to remain open. Schools and universities were
closed. The initial reason given for the lockdown was to flatten the curve
(protect hospital capacity). This quickly changed to prevent COVID from
spreading. The lockdowns often lacked an end date. <span style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">In March and April, seven states (Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming) and a number of countries (for
example, </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Iceland,
Japan, South Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan) did not lock their people down. <span style="background: white; color: #333333;">The data tell us that the lockdown
orders did not save lives, although this was not known at the time these
decisions were made. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Pennsylvania governor, Thomas Wolf, ordered Pennsylvania
residents to stay at home, banned public gatherings, and closed non-essential
businesses. His orders extended for six months with no end in sight. Although
Wolf later suspended the orders, he reserved the right to reinstate them at
will. The Pennsylvania legislature previously authorized this executive
takeover by granting the governor broad emergency powers. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">In a September 14<sup>th</sup> decision, <i>County of Buter
v. Thomas W. Wolf</i>, District Court Judge William Stickman IV, a Trump
appointee, found this ravaged the Constitution. Consider the stay-at-home
order. Pennsylvania ordered its residents to stay at home except when they
needed to get access to or provide life-sustaining goods or services. Stickman noted
that the stay-at-home order was unprecedented in American history. He observed
that the widespread-and-extended shutdown far exceeded the 1918-1919 short
shutdown of businesses during the far deadlier Spanish Flu. He further observed
that the shutdown was dissimilar to a person-specific quarantine. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Stickman argued that the stay-at-home order violated the 14<sup>th</sup>
Amendment’s Due Process Clause. He noted that there are fundamental rights at
stake, including, the right to travel. The right to travel is fundamental,
Stickman found, because it is essential to ordered liberty and deeply rooted in
the nation’s history. In addition, the right is inextricably linked to other
fundamental rights, such as the right of association. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Stickman reluctantly followed the Third Circuit in applying
intermediate scrutiny to evaluate the stay-at-home order rather than the
correct test: strict scrutiny. The intermediate-scrutiny test holds that a law
infringing a fundamental right is unconstitutional unless it </span><span style="color: #202122; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">furthers
an important government interest by a means that is substantially related to
that interest. It is less demanding than strict scrutiny (the government must
have a compelling state interest and the means must be necessary to achieve it),
but more demanding than rational review (the government must have a legitimate
state interest and the means must be rationally related to achieving it). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: #202122; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Even
with intermediate scrutiny, the law still failed miserably. Stickman found that
there were far less burdensome means to fight the pandemic than locking down a whole
people and, hence, the law was not reasonably necessary to achieve the government’s
goal. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: #202122; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Wolf
also banned public gatherings, again with an open-ended order. This applied to church
meetings, but not to Black Lives Matter protests. Stickman noted that this ban
on gatherings infringed two inextricably linked fundamental rights: right of
free speech and right of assembly. The state argued that this was not aimed at
speech. Still, Stickman argued, even if this were so, it still failed the test
for a time, place, and manner law that governs content-neutral restrictions on
speech. Such a law must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government
interest and leave alternative channels for communication. The law did not do
so. The ban was too haphazard, leaving Home Depots open, but closing down churches.
Churches could have taken the same precautions as stores. The state was unable
to point to a single case of a public gathering widely spreading the virus.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: #202122; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Stickman
found the categorization of some business as essential and others not was so arbitrary
(not done according to either a clear criterion or science) and done so poorly
(for example, the waiver process was closed early to avoid addressing a backlog
of requests) that it violated the Equal Protection Clause. He also found that the
closing of businesses violated the Due Process Clause because it infringed the
fundamental right to earn a living.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: #202122; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">There
are several lessons to be learned. First, federal and state legislatures should
rescind open-ended grants of emergency powers to the executive. Governors – for
example, New York’s Andrew Cuomo - cannot be trusted with this much power. Where
the powers have not been rescinded or where a governor ignores the recission, legislatures
should rein in the executive. One wonders where the Pennsylvania legislature
was during this debacle. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: #202122; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Second,
the American people need to support those who prioritize liberty above safety.
The American people should have contempt for politicians with a clear track
record of trampling on citizens’ rights or who do not appreciate the constitutional
limits on government power. Kamala Harris’ disgraceful abuses as California
Attorney General make her a paradigm instance of the former. Barack Obama’s
weaponization of federal agencies (for example, DOJ, FBI, and IRS) and dragnet
searches (for example, NSA’s internet searches) make him a paradigm instance of
the latter. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: #202122; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Third,
the nation needs judges who will strictly enforce Due Process protected rights
to assembly, earn a living, free speech, travel, and so on. Result-oriented
embarrassments – see, for example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg – and those who
mechanically defer to the government – see, for example, Stephen Breyer – are
to be avoided.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: #202122; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Sadly,
the lockdown is now precedent for government action when future epidemics,
unrest, and wars occur.<o:p></o:p></span></p>The Objectivisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-63087073451220649392020-10-21T09:04:00.004-04:002020-10-21T09:04:51.787-04:00The Democratic Party's Terrible Ideas<p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Stephen Kershnar</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">A Radical Agenda<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Dunkirk-Fredonia
Observer<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">September 21, 2020<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The Democratic Party
and its Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates, Joe Biden and Kamala
Harris, are trying to remake the American government, people, economy, and culture.
Their ideas are terrible. Sadly, establishment Republicans share many, if not
most, of these ideas. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><i><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">First, Democratic
Party leaders are pushing ideas that would remake our government.</span></u></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> The Democrats would
change how we elect the president by eliminating the electoral college and
giving statehood to Puerto Rico and Washington, DC. They would change the
Supreme Court by packing it with more than the usual nine members. They would
increase the power of the government over our lives by socializing medicine
(single-payer healthcare), socializing college (making public college free),
and giving free medical care to all immigrants, including illegal aliens, and
then raising taxes to pay for these things. They would allow 16-year-olds to vote,
thereby giving easily manipulated adolescents political power, even though they
cannot be trusted to drink, have sex, or marry. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The Democrats and
establishment Republicans support an interventionist foreign policy. Consider
the establishment’s wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Serbia, and Syria. The
U.S. stations troops in 150 nations (roughly 165,000 personnel) generations
after we fought wars in places such as Germany, Japan, and South Korea. Even
after all the blood and treasure we poured into recent wars, the Taliban are
poised to take over Afghanistan if we leave, Iran controls Iraq, Libya is a
failed state, and the Assad government continues to rule Syria. Consider, also,
the roughly 10,000 people the U.S. killed via drones in backwater countries such
as <span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">Libya,
Somalia, and Yemen</span>. No one should want more of this. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">If this were not
enough, consider the embarrassing Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who
died on Friday. She supported restricting business owners’ right of free speech
and practice of religion [<i><span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission,</span></i><span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;"> 584 U.S. ___
(2018)]</span>, not recognizing an individual’s right to bear arms [<i><span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">District of
Columbia v. Heller,</span></i><span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;"> 554 U.S. 570 (2008)]</span>, removing any real constitutional
roadblock to the government taking people’s property via eminent domain [<i><span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">Kelo v. City of
New London</span></i><span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)]</span>, permitting the government to
engage in ever more race and sex discrimination [<i><span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">Grutter v. Bollinger</span></i><span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">, 539 U.S. 306
(2003)]</span>, and destroying what little is left of federalism by in effect
repealing the Commerce Clause [<i><span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius</span></i><span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">, 567 U.S. 519
(2012) and <i>Gonzales v. Raich</i>, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)]</span>. She, thus,
wanted to restrict or eliminate important constitutional rights found in the
First, Second, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments and to gut the central Article
I brake on federal power. Now imagine a judiciary packed with Ginsburg-like embarrassments.
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><i><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Second, consider
how the Democratic Party leaders would remake the American people.</span></u></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> The Democrats’
(and establishment Republicans’) love <span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">immigration. Roughly, 60 million immigrants
and their young children live in the US today (2016 figure). Immigrant
households are far more likely to be on some sort of welfare (63% versus 35%)
and more than twice as likely to be on Medicaid or get free food. The Democrats
(along with a lot of Republicans) want to flood the country with many more low-skilled
immigrants and to amnesty the 22 million illegal aliens currently here. The
Democrats want to get as close as they can to open borders via attempted
amnesties, laws that prevent the building of a wall, catch-and-release
policies, a push to eliminate ICE, refusal to enforce crime and welfare
requirements, and so on. The Democrats thus want to dilute the historic
American people. </span><span style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><i><u><span style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">Third, consider how the Democrat
party would remake the economy.</span></u></i><span style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-color-alt: windowtext;"> The Green New Deal would involve a radical restructuring of
our energy industry, the life blood of our economy. They would try to ban
fracking and try to shut down some of the natural-gas and petroleum pipelines. Socialized
higher education and medicine would involve a complete takeover of large
portions of the economy. The Democrats would regulate business more and put more
race-and-sex preferences and quotas in place. </span><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><i><u><span style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">Fourth, the Democrats will also
change the country’s zeitgeist</span></u></i><span style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-color-alt: windowtext;"> through cancel culture, imagined racism (see Black Lives
Matter and the diversity-industrial complex), monument removal and name change,
political violence (Antifa), and stultifying political correctness. These
cultural changes are an abomination. </span><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">No adult thinker believes that the
package of Democratic changes would make us better off. Right now, the U.S. is
one of the richest and freest countries in the world. There is a fairly strong
correlation between economic freedom, happiness, and political freedom. An
economically free country has a clear-cut rule of law, limited regulation, open
markets, and small government. Restricting Bill-of-Rights liberties, diluting
the historic American people, and further socializing the economy will not make
us freer, happier, or wealthier. Nor will it bring us more peace. Yet as
currently constituted, the Democratic Party wants to restrict, dilute, and
socialize in precisely this way. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">More directly, who wants to live
with the Democratic vision? If the Democrats’ vision is enacted, you won’t be
trusted to keep your money, own guns, or say what’s really on your mind. Your country
is going to add tens of millions of people over the next decade who don’t share
your culture, language, or values and, increasingly, see you as an obstacle to
their progress. Things you long took for granted (“I may sell my cakes to whom
I choose”) turn out not to be part of American freedom. The icons with whom you
grew up (for example, Winston Churchill, Christopher Columbus, and George
Washington) get pulled down and shoved down the memory hole. They are replaced
with politically correct icons that are not important parts of the American story.
Even truth is dumped overboard as the media and elites ignore obvious truths about
Biden’s mental ability, race and sex differences, speech being different from
violence, and so on. </span><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">Americans do not want to live like
this. Nor should they.</span><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>The Objectivisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-19260520996063643932020-08-12T17:05:00.000-04:002020-08-12T17:05:10.323-04:00The American Elites' Terrible Ideas<p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Stephen
Kershnar<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
Elites’ Worldview<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Dunkirk-Fredonia
Observer<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">August
10, 2020<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The elites in this country are
surprisingly unified in accepting and promoting terrible ideas. The mystery is why
this is so. The elites are the people who control the commanding heights of
academia, business, and government. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">First,
academia skews hard left. Faculty at 40 leading universities have a Democrat to
Republican ratio of 12-to-1. Writing in the <i>Washington Times</i>, James
Varney points out that in 2018, and the faculty and staff of Ivy League schools
gave money to Democrats over Republicans in battleground races at a ratio of
250-to-1. This far surpassed their 2012 ratio of political spending of 90-to-1.
Brooklyn College’s Mitchell Langbert found that in 2017, faculty at elite
liberal arts colleges (for example, Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore) have a similar
13-to-1 ratio of Democrats to Republicans as the leading universities. Remarkably,
39% of these liberal arts colleges did not have a single Republican professor. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The commanding heights of the
business world <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>- Hollywood, Silicon
Valley, and Wall Street - skew hard left.<b> </b>Writing in <i>The Hollywood
Reporter</i>, Jeremy Barr, found that the top Hollywood people gave 99.7% of
their donations to Democrats or Democrat-leaning political groups. Writing in <i>FiveThirtyEight</i>,
Farai Chideya found in that in 2016, employees at tech companies gave 95% of
their political donations to Hilary Clinton and 4% to Donald Trump, a 24-to-1
ratio.<b> </b>In 2018, Karl Evers-Hillstrom writing in <i>OpenSecrets.org</i>
found that the securities and investment industry gave 62% of its contributions
to Democrats. In the most recent cycle, the financial industry has given money
to Joe Biden over Donald Trump 5-to-1. Not as far left as Hollywood and Silicon
Valley, Wall Street still leans to the left. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Federal workers follow the same
pattern. Writing in the <i>Federal News Network</i>, Mike Causey found that in the
2016 Presidential Election, federal workers gave 95% of their donations to
Hillary Clinton. Department of Justice employees gave 99% of their donations to
Clinton. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and State Department employees gave
similarly. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">For
context, for Americans in 2020, Democrats and Republicans stand much closer to
a 1-to-1 ratio (54% Democrat to 46% Republican for people registered with a
major party). In the 2018 election spending, Democrats spent roughly 55% and
Republicans 45% of the money. Again, much closer to a 1-to-1 ratio. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
odd thing is that elites often have terrible ideas. First, consider the elite’s
unadulterated love of immigration. 61 million immigrants and their young
children live in the US today (2016 figure). Immigrant households are far more
likely to be on some sort of welfare (63% versus 35%) and more than twice as
likely to be on Medicaid or get free food. Yet, the elites in both parties continue
to try to flood the country with more low-skilled immigrants and to amnesty the
22 million illegal aliens currently here. This craziness has been accompanied
by a movement toward open borders via attempted amnesties, laws that prevent
the building of a wall, catch-and-release policies, a push to eliminate ICE, refusal
to enforce crime and welfare requirements, and so on. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Despite near universal support from elites on
both the right and left, US citizens neither wanted nor needed the importation
of tens of millions of unskilled immigrants, many of whom snuck in illegally.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Second,
consider the elites’ widespread support of foreign wars. Supported by the establishment
on both sides of the political spectrum, in the last few decades the country
has waged war - sometimes followed by nation building - in Afghanistan, Iraq,
Libya, Serbia, Somalia, and Syria. Trillions of dollars later, the US still
needs to prop up Afghanistan, Iran controls Iraq, Libya is a failed state, and
our side lost in Syria. Judging from the last couple of presidential primaries,
there is little evidence they, unlike Donald Trump, learned anything from the blood
and treasure foolishly poured into the sand. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Third,
consider the elites’ policies on race relations. Despite national
self-flagellation accompanied by affirmative action, quotas, and a cancerous diversity-industrial
complex, race relations are a mess. Judging by the looting, protests, rioting, and
statue-toppling as well as the rise of hate-filled politicians such as the
Squad (specifically, see Ilhan Omar and Rashida Talib), things are moving in the
wrong direction. Racial grievances have now given rise to a jump-the-shark movement
to eliminate the police. Yet companies – including Apple, Amazon, and Walmart -
have committed to dumping $450 million into social and racial justice groups
(for example, Black Lives Matter) that sew racial division. This is
well-illustrated by the kneeling, BLM messages, and related nonsense in professional
sports. The elites not only fund racial division, but spend their time reading inane
books on how to eliminate their own racism and counter white privilege.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Fourth,
consider the elites’ acceptance of government debt. The federal debt continues
to increase at an alarming rate. The debt is roughly 30% larger than the
economy (crudely, $27 trillion versus $21 trillion) and will likely go up
another trillion before the year ends. There is barely a peep about this
unfolding mess in either political races or the establishment media. Politicians
fight over whether to spend an additional $1 trillion or $3 trillion on COVID-subsidies
without bothering to mention that the country is broke. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Elites
have other terrible ideas. Consider, for example, Big Tech censorship, cancel
culture, and the continued subsidization of housing- and student-loan bubbles. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">One
of the reasons elites support these things is ideology. Academia has done its
work. A second reason is that the elites have little skin in the game. Their
wealth largely insulates them from the effects of these disastrous policies. It
also prevents them from having to revisit their ideas when reality crashes into
them. A third reason is the way in which the business and political worlds are
structured to reward career bureaucrats, judicial scoundrels, and lifetime
politicians. Terrible ideas often pay handsomely in money and prestige.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
one thing that can be done is to recognize that the elites have a hard-left worldview
that includes some terrible ideas. Forewarned is forearmed.</span></p><p></p>The Objectivisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-57723897247930625222020-07-29T10:22:00.001-04:002020-07-29T10:22:07.311-04:00Academia Should Learn from the NFL<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Stephen
Kershnar</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Academia
Should Learn from the NFL</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Dunkirk-Fredonia
Observer<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">July
27, 2020</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The
professional sports leagues are flourishing because they ruthlessly emphasize productivity.
Academia should do the same.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">The
major sports leagues make a lot of money because they are quite good at
identifying and showcasing athletic excellence. Consider, the National Football
League (NFL). In 2019, it made roughly $16.5 billion dollars. In 2019, according
to <i>CNBC</i>’s Jabari Young, the NFL’s average </span><span style="color: #171717; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">TV viewership was 16.5 million per game and NFL
games finished with 47 of the top 50 telecasts during the season.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: #171717; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">The league pays its
players well. </span><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Action Network</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">’s
Darren Rove reports that the players received roughly $8 billion of the $16.5
billion because of the collective bargaining agreement. The NFL’s average
salary was $2.7 million, and the minimum salary was $495,000. The other leagues
also pay well. The average National Basketball Association (NBA), Major League
Baseball (MLB), and National Hockey League (NHL) average salaries are $7.7,
$4.4, and $4 million. The minimum salaries are $893,000, $564,000, and $700,000.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: #171717; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Academia could benefit
from the NFL’s emphasis on accountability, information, and merit. Consider
accountability. In the NFL, owners, general managers, and head coaches are
accountable. Owners bear a financial loss for having a bad team. If the team
does not perform, owners fire head coaches, often ignominiously. During the
2013-2016 seasons, </span><i style="color: #171717; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Business Insider</i><span style="color: #171717; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">’s Cork Gaines reports, 19 NFL teams
changed head coaches. In 2019, teams fired 25% of the league’s head coaches (8
of 32). </span><span style="color: #171717; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="color: #171717; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: #171717; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">In contrast,
university trustees, presidents, and provosts are less frequently fired. Oftentimes,
no one is held accountable when university’s ranking drops compared to its
competitors. Rarely are people in these positions fired or paid less when a
university gets weaker students, hires worse faculty, or fails to add a
reasonable amount to the endowment. Writing in </span><i style="color: #171717; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Inside Higher Education</i><span style="color: #171717; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">, Rick
Seltzer points out that in 2011, the average university president had his or
her position for 7 years. Background: The average university president is 62
years old.</span><span style="color: #171717; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: #171717; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">In contrast, teams
hold NFL players accountable. Their employment, pay, and playing time depend on
performance. Players who were the best in the game often fade quickly. For
example, in 2015 quarterback Cam Newton was the league’s most valuable player
and led his team to the Super Bowl. He now has a one-year deal with the New
England Patriots and might not even start. Running back Adrian Peterson won the
MVP in 2012 and, although he still starts, is no longer an elite player. Both
are paid less than the league average in base salary.</span><span style="color: #171717; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: #171717; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">In contrast to NFL
players, professors get iron-clad job security in the form of tenure. This lack
of accountability has predictable effects. University of Utah economist
Jonathan Brogaard and others found that in the two years after getting tenure,
faculty production (publications) fell by 30%. Production fell by an additional
15% through the rest of the decade. The number of important publications they
produce fell similarly. Nor does the robust discussion of ideas justify tenure.
Cornell psychologist Stephen Cici and others found that tenured professors are
risk-averse in that they show little interest in defending controversial ideas.
In </span><i style="color: #171717; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Cracks in the Academy</i><span style="color: #171717; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">, Jason Brennan summarizes these and related
findings, “once they have tenure, [professors] become lazier, more risk-averse,
and more conservative. Giving them a job for life extinguishes the fire under
their asses.” From the perspective of performance, it is irrelevant how much of
the decline in productivity is due to lack of incentive versus age. The idea of
tenure for an NFL player is absurd. </span><span style="color: #171717; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: #171717; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">In the NFL and MLB,
teams value players using statistics. MLB Players are ranked in terms of their
overall value to the team (wins above replacement or WAR). This allows teams to
rank them against other players, whether at their or other positions. Teams also
rank players in terms of specific features. Owners and fans rank NFL quarterbacks
in terms of rating, yards, touchdown passes, etc. There is no attempt to rank
professors in a way analogous to WAR rankings. There is no reason this cannot
be done. For example, research productivity could be ranked in how often a
professor’s work is cited or the number and quality of publications. </span><span style="color: #171717; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: #171717; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Even the most obvious
test for productivity, value-added to students, is not done. This could be done
via by pre- and post-testing students in subjects central to a university education
(consider, for example, biology, chemistry, classic literature, history, and
math) or their major. It could even be done in terms of students’ future
earnings after controlling for ability and demographic factors. Academia
rarely, if ever, uses either measure. Instead universities are ranked according
to polls that have not been validated. A professor’s teaching performance is not
evaluated at all or evaluated via anecdotes, classroom observations, or statistically
invalid student evaluations. The Moneyball revolution controls professional
sports leagues but has been shut out of the academy.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: #171717; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">The difference between
sports and academia is most striking with regard to merit. Blacks are 13% of
the U.S. population, 70% of the NFL players, and 100% of starting cornerbacks (64
out of 64). The last time a white player started at cornerback was 2002 (Jason
Sehorn). Coaches, fans, owners, and players would laugh at the idea of hiring
or playing a player because he contributes to diversity. As the Hoover
Institution’s Victor Davis Hanson points out, no one wants to see 87% of the starting
players be Asian, Hispanic, or white so that the league “looks like America.”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: #171717; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">In contrast, in
academia, universities frequently hire faculty and administrators on the basis
of their ethnicity, gender, or race. Some universities – including the elite
University of California universities – have sunk so low as to give significant
weight to prospective professors’ diversity statements in deciding to whom to
hire. The weight given to diversity increases the more one moves down the
university food chain.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: #171717; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">In short, the NFL
takes productivity far more seriously than does academia. This is unfortunate.</span></p>The Objectivisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-90559179955460527422020-07-15T17:24:00.000-04:002020-07-15T17:24:03.857-04:00Statues, Names, and Tribal Identity<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Stephen
Kershnar<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Statues
and Tribal Identity<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Dunkirk-Fredonia
Observer<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">July
6, 2020<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Antifa,
Black Lives Matters, George Floyd protesters, and fellow travelers have defaced,
destroyed, removed, or sparked plans for the removal of many memorials. The
memorials include monuments, plaques, and statues. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Protesters
targeted memorials for confederate leaders such as Jefferson Davis, Robert E.
Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and J. E. B. Stuart. They also went after memorials for
union figures such as Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglas, and Ulysses S. Grant.
The protesters also targeted historical figures such as Christopher Columbus,
Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, George Washington, and
Woodrow Wilson. In Great Britain, Winston Churchill’s statue would have been
torn down were it not encased in a steel cage. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Names
are falling even faster than memorials. Schools removed names from buildings, grandiose
rooms, and programs. Names include those of confederates such as P. G. T. <span style="background: #F8F9FA; color: #202122;">Beauregard and </span>John C. Calhoun.
Other discarded names include those of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James
Watson, and Woodrow Wilson. The names of Aunt Jemima breakfast food, Dixie
Chicks band, Eskimo pies, and Disneyland’s Splash Mountain have been dumped
into the filthy trash bin. The Washington Redskins’ name has joined them. The
Cleveland Indians’ name will do so shortly. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
removal of monuments is not wrong. When a monument is on government property, no
one has a moral right that a monument be left up or taken down. Ditto for
names, Still, these changes are bad in that they make us worse off. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
University of Minnesota-Morris’ Dan Demetriou gives an interesting argument
against these changes. First, he argues, liberty and stability depend on tribal
identity. Tribal identity occurs when one person sees another as a member of his
group. Consider, for example, the way in which family members think about one
another. Other examples include how people think about each another when they
are in a sports team, military unit, or country. A good example occurred in the
movie <i>Saving Private Ryan</i>. Private Ryan views members of his paratrooper
unit as his brothers and is willing to fight and die alongside them. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Without
tribal identity, nations break up or become increasingly unfree. Examples of
nations that dissolved because of insufficient tribal identity include the
European colonies as well as Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia. These
countries’ peoples never formed a sufficiently strong tribal identity. Other
countries without tribal identity (for example, Iraq) are kept together through
force. When trust evaporates, governments protect people’s rights through prodigious
amounts of force. Consider, for example, how in the U.S., federal and state governments
responded to 1960’s antiwar and racial unrest. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Second,
Demetriou argues, a people bring about tribal identity through memorialization.
He argues that people make and keep a shared identity by celebrating their past.
They celebrate their past by memorializing their art, heroes, tragedies,
victories, and so on. This is similar, he argues, to how family members celebrate
their tribal identity through memorialization, which they do by putting pictures
of their adventures, ancestors, and descendants. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">When
a family puts a picture of its ancestors on the wall, it is not saying that the
ancestors were better than other families’ ancestors or that the ancestors were
good people or that they did the right thing. Rather, the family is saying,
“This is our past and, thus, who we are.” This binds together those who share
this past or see it as their own. Identification with a past need not be genetic.
Consider, for example, how an adopted child views his adopted family’s past as
his own. Families would react with fury were an outsider to come in and demand
that they take down their ancestors’ pictures and throw them in the filthy trash
bin, even if their ancestors acted wrongly. They would view this as an attack
on them and would be right to do so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">By
analogy, when the Chinese wave their country’s flag, they are celebrating the
Chinese people and nation. They can do so without approving of the Chinese
government’s appalling past. Mao and his enforcers killed 40 to 70 million
people. The Chinese people’s past and, thus, identity includes, but is not
defined by, Mao’s savagery. Muslims celebrate Mohammed, despite his
antisemitism and practice of enslavement, rape, slaughter, etc. because he and
the religion to which he gave rise have in part made them who they are. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Southerners’
past includes confederate soldiers. Stories of their beloved leaders, campaigns,
and deaths are part of their past. They rightly understand the demand that
memorials for their ancestry be thrown into the trash as deeply insulting. There
is nothing conceptually problematic about a person celebrating her past,
including her ancestors’ bravery, comradery, and sacrifice, without signing
onto their cause. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Americans
are not a racial or ethnic people as are the Chinese, (Asian) Indians, Irish,
Italians, French, and Japanese. If Americans are to be a people rather than a grab
bag of peoples (blacks, gays, Jews, Mexicans, etc.) who share less in common
with each passing year, they have to have a shared identity. The identity is
tied to the past and maintained through memorialization. There is no evidence
that a tribal identity can rest on a value (for example, liberty) and, in any
case, the left’s ongoing war on liberty suggests that this would not be a good
bet were it possible. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Seton
Hall University’s Travis Timmerman argues that confederate monuments should be
taken down and put in private museums or historical sites where they can be put
in historical context, cease to be held in reverence, and no longer receive state
funding. He is right that it would have been better had federal and state governments
not gotten into the memorial business. Similarly, it would have been better if federal
and state governments had stayed out of broadcasting, museums, schools, welfare,
and other areas in which they make a mess. Still, as long as they are in the memorial
and naming business, they should give our past its due. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />The Objectivisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.com0