pieslinger.net

What is this correct proportion that Israel is supposed to respect in order to deserve the favor of world opinion? Should the Israeli army refrain from employing its technical supremacy and limit itself to the weapons that Hamas uses?that is to say, crude rockets and stones? Should it feel free to adopt the strategy of suicide bombers and the deliberate targeting of civilians? Or, better still, would it be appropriate for Israel to wait patiently until Hamas, with the help of Iran and Syria, is able to balance Israel's firepower? Or might it be necessary to level the playing field regarding not only means but also aims? Hamas, unlike the Palestinian Authority, refuses to recognize the Jewish state's right to exist and dreams of the annihilation of its citizens; should Israel match this radicalism?
Every conflict, whether dormant or boiling, is by its nature disproportionate. If the adversaries agreed on the use of means and on each other's claims, they would not be adversaries. Conflict necessarily implies disagreement, and thus the effort of each camp to exploit its advantages as well as the other's weaknesses. The Israeli army is doing just that when it profits from its technical superiority. And Hamas does no differently when it uses Gaza's population as a human shield, unhindered by the moral scruples or diplomatic imperatives that constrain its adversary.
[André Glucksmann, City Journal]
[HT: BlogBis]

The atrocities in Mumbai have left reporters and commentators floundering for explanations. Why India? Was this a local terrorist group or al Qaeda? Why single out Americans and Brits if they also targeted Indians in the railway station? Why attack some obscure Jewish organisation? And so on.

They are floundering because they still just don?t get it. The atrocities demonstrated with crystal clarity what the Islamist war is all about ? and the western commentariat didn?t understand because it simply refuses to acknowledge, even now, what that war actually is. It does not arise from particular grievances. It is not rooted in ?despair? over Palestine. It is not a reaction to the war in Iraq. It is a war waged in the name of Islam against America, Britain, Hindus, Jews and all who refuse to submit to Islamic conquest.
[Melanie Phillips]
[HT: BlogBis]

Thanksgiving is really about how the Pilgrims in Plymouth Plantation, faced with starvation in 1623, changed the collective ownership to land into a system where families got to keep everything they produced themselves. The result was that the pilgrims learned new production, worked harder and increased productivity, and so ended hunger.
[Johan Norberg]

WASHINGTON ? African-American man Barack Obama, 47, was given the least-desirable job in the entire country Tuesday when he was elected president of the United States of America. In his new high-stress, low-reward position, Obama will be charged with such tasks as completely overhauling the nation's broken-down economy, repairing the crumbling infrastructure, and generally having to please more than 300 million Americans and cater to their every whim on a daily basis. As part of his duties, the black man will have to spend four to eight years cleaning up the messes other people left behind. The job comes with such intense scrutiny and so certain a guarantee of failure that only one other person even bothered applying for it. Said scholar and activist Mark L. Denton, "It just goes to show you that, in this country, a black man still can't catch a break."
[The Onion (via Johan Norberg)]

Yesterday afternoon the cause of freedom lost a great champion. Marshall Fritz, founder of the Alliance for the Separation of School & State, died after a bout with cancer.

I first met Marshall in 1997. He was a big, jolly, intense, and kind man - a man who enjoyed working hard and creatively to end the pernicious connection between schooling and government. (If ideas matter, and if schooling is an important source of ideas, why would a free people ever trust government with the responsibility of running -- or having anything to do with -- schools?)

One of Marshall's most creative ideas is his "World's Smallest Political Quiz."

I will miss Marshall greatly. Many people will.
[Don Boudreaux, Cafe Hayek]

Keeping in mind that making predictions is neither science nor art, but just good fun, here we go:

Barack Obama will win, but the race will be closer than polls predicts, partly because it´s so easy to say "Obama" to the pollster when everybody loves him. I would guess 52-53% vs 47-48% nationally. Obama will govern as a centrist and a lot of people will be disappointed when they see him in action because expectations are so exaggerated and because he is too smart to give in to the anti-trade, anti-business bunch.

But Obama will win again in 2012, because a Republican civil war will rage as diverse forces like the religious right, the national security conservatives and the free-marketeers fight bitterly over the soul of the party. The Republicans will still win the mid-term elections because of discontent with the Democratic Congress, but they won´t be able to unite behind and be enthusiastic about one presidential candidate. Sarah Palin will be crushed in the primaries by some young, urban and modern Republican who makes "change" the center of his campaign.

And the saddest person in the world tonight will be Hillary Clinton.

[Johan Norberg, "Liberalism-Capitalism-Globalisation"]

Everyone has their own least favorite Krugman quote. There was his disrespectful treatment of Milton Friedman after Friedman's death. There was his broken window analysis of the economics of 9-11. Today, now that he has won the Nobel Prize, I'd like to remember the quote that made it clear to me that the economic way of thinking was no longer of concern to him, when he wrote in the New York Times Sunday Magazine:

Although America has higher per capita income than other advanced countries, it turns out that that's mainly because our rich are much richer. And here's a radical thought: if the rich get more, that leaves less for everyone else. That statement -- which is simply a matter of arithmetic -- is guaranteed to bring accusations of ''class warfare.''

I've talked to a number of people who are depressed and angry at Krugman's prize.

For me, it is just another reminder that those of us who believe in liberty are in for a long time in the intellectual wilderness. Today's intellectual climate is a taste of what it must have been like to believe in liberty in 1933, or what it must have been like to be Milton Friedman in say, 1962.

I think things are much better today. We have many more outlets for spreading the virtues of freedom than we had in the past. I take solace in the fact that the average American today has a much richer understanding of the case for liberty today. And I take solace in what Milton Friedman said when I interviewed him in August of 2006 and commented on how topical Capitalism and Freedom still is. His response:

The basic principles that we believe in are going to stay the same for the next thousand years. That aspect of it will never go out of date. What goes out of date are the particular applications. We still find Adam Smith's book, Wealth of Nations well worth reading even though it's published in 1776.

So if you love liberty and fear those who would engineer our well-being rather than let it emerge from our free choices, if you love liberty and fear those who would use good intentions as an excuse for plunder, don't worry. We'll have our day down the road. Keep reading and writing and thinking. And don't yell. Above all, smile and hold firm to your principles. They will be remembered and valued when the pendulum swings the other way. It's just a matter of time.
[Russell Roberts, Cafe Hayek]

Today is Constitution Day in the United States.  On this date in 1787, 39 delegates to the constitutional convention in Philadelphia signed the document that was soon to be ratified by the states as the U.S. Constitution.  (It replaced, of course, the Articles of Confederation.)
It's impossible, I suspect, to find anyone who regards the Constitution as perfect, either in what it says and doesn't say, or in the ways it's been interpreted and applied through the years.  But this much I am confident of: the 1787 Constitution succeeded in the framers' goal of creating a huge free-trade zone.  For all of the courts' (and the Court's) questionable interpretations of this document, and for all of its abuse at the hands of Congresses and Presidents, efforts by state and local governments to protect producers from competition outside of their jurisdictions have largely failed.  Sure there are exceptions.  But the fact that Floridians can buy oranges from California, Californians can buy wine from Washington state, residents of Washington state can buy apples from North Carolina, North Carolinians can buy seafood from Louisiana, and on and on, is a happy testament to the success of the Constitution's commerce clause in creating a huge duty-free (and now transcontinental) market that encouraged the division of labor to deepen and, hence, promoted incredible, widespread prosperity.
[Don Boudreaux, Cafe Hayek]

Despite 74 pages of endnotes, Klein often omits notes and sources when there is a central and controversial claim about the horrors of markets that needs documentation. To show how Chicago policies failed, she often picks data from a particular year that suits her, and changes the yardstick when the old one yields results she doesn't like. [...]
This is why one claim that is repeated in the book is so important: "that between 25 and 60 percent of the population is discarded or becomes a permanent underclass in countries that liberalize their economies." This is important because it is the only time when it seems like she provides the reader with data on problems from liberalisation over a longer period and worldwide, not just a short time-period in a country of her choosing, in the middle of a crisis. This in essence is her argument for why free markets and economic liberalisation are bad for mankind.
In my paper I wondered why she provided us with neither an explanation for what this means, nor a footnote or source. Now we know, because in her response she openly admits that this is just her own summary of different (and sometimes incomparable) statistics on poverty and unemployment from a brief period and sometimes only a year from no more than four countries ? Bolivia in 1987, Russia in 1996, some areas of Poland in 1993 and so on. She doesn't even use data series, but newspaper articles and books with information on just that particular year.
Astonishingly, Naomi Klein calls this way of handling statistics and producing general conclusions on the effect of particular policies "standard practice." Well, it might be standard practice for some Canadian leftist fanzines, but at university we usually call it "rubbish." Not just because of the lack of data, but also of the biased choices ? there is no explanation for the particular selections, it's not that they liberalised more than others, or that they are representative, and the years chosen are not the most recent ones, or from a particular period after liberalisation. It is that she found countries and years when things were really, really bad.
[Johan Norberg]

When used correctly, the word is meant to give a recommendation or advice.
* "If you go to Florence, then you should go to the Trattitoria Sustancia for dinner."
* "If you want to drive the ball farther, you should grip the club softer."

But politicians don't tend to use the word for advisory purposes. Rather, they use it as a declarative verb.
* "We should have universal healthcare in the United States."
* "There shouldn't be such a big difference between what a Fortune 500 CEO makes and what a janitor is paid."

In my opinion, there is a big difference between the belief that "the United States can't afford not to have universal healthcare," and the declaration that "healthcare should be a right of all U.S. citizens."

The difference is that "should" implies there is an infallible rulebook of unquestionable logic that exists concerning all government, economic and personal endeavors. It implies that there is one right way and, therefore, that every other way is wrong.
When a politician uses this word, he or she is telling the citizens of this great land that there is a specific way we ought to live our lives or specific things we ought to believe. And, furthermore, that those who disagree don't understand how best to live their lives.

Well, with all due respect to Mrs. Obama, we already have a rulebook in America -- it's called the Constitution. Our predecessors crossed oceans, risked their lives, died and voted for this set of rules. And our Founding Fathers didn't pepper it with a bunch of "shoulds."

So, my advice to all politicians is to quit using the word altogether and instead try saying something like, "My vision for America is ?"
We are all eager to learn the vision a future leader has for the United States, but we are thinking citizens who choose our leaders and we want to match their opinions against our own opinions of which values and strategies should prevail.

But we don't need them, or anyone else, to tell us how we should be living our lives.
[Tobin Smith, ChangeWave]

The Swedish reviewers love Naomi Klein and her Shock Doctrine. So today, in a one-page advert in Metro (pdf, last page) Boris Benulic and I name seven of her reviewers and challenge them to a public debate about a book that we claim is a fraud.

One libertarian and one Marxist who believe that facts still matter on stage vs seven reviewers about the ideas, assumptions and evidence in a book that they praised. Preferrably at the Göteborg Book Fair in September, but they can choose the date, location and moderator, and Boris and I will arrange it all.

[Johan Norberg]

In a crushing defeat for Argentina?s beleaguered president, the Senate rejected increases in the agricultural export tax that have caused a farmer rebellion, with the vice president siding with farmers and casting the deciding vote.
(...)
"I do not believe that a law works that does not offer a solution to this conflict," said a weary Julio Cobos, the vice president, moments before voting against the measure. "History will judge me, I don?t know how."
(...)
The new tax system raised taxes on soybeans from a fixed rate of 35 percent to a rate that has floated up with global prices to more than 44 percent. Amid rising costs for materials like fertilizer, it reduced farm profits and provoked a series of crippling strikes throughout the country, shutting down highways for grain trucks bound for exports and causing scattered food shortages.

The rejection of a measure she fought so hard to defend was a severe political blow to Mrs. Kirchner, who took office in December after her husband and predecessor, Nestor Kirchner, decided not to run for re-election. Facing plummeting approval ratings that have fallen as low as 20 percent support in some polls, Mrs. Kirchner took the calculated risk last month of sending the measure to Congress for debate. Supporters of Mrs. Kirchner?s Peronist bloc control both houses of Congress.

Mrs. Kirchner and her husband, who leads the Peronist bloc, have justified the higher taxes as important to redistribute the country?s wealth and hold down Argentine food prices. But they exacerbated tensions in the country by portraying the farmers? strikes as a political threat, calling the strikers "greedy" and "coup plotters."
[The New York Times]
[HT: Louis Cyphre]

Although the winding down of Argentina to the status of international deadbeat began a century ago, the latest chapter is instructive. In March, President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner seized on rising soybean prices to slap "a windfall tax" on soy exports. Farmers refused to pay, the president wouldn't budge, and a deadlock ensued.

Much of the rest of the country joined sides with the growers. But the uprising is no longer a tax revolt. It has become a rebellion against unfettered executive reach ? or, in the view of the opposition, Mrs. Kirchner's authoritarianism. A week ago thousands of Argentines poured into the streets of cities around the country, banging pots and pans to express their dissatisfaction with their president's heavy-handed ways. It was the largest public outcry since the economic crisis in 2001.
(...)
This gets us to the root of the problem, which developed long before the Kirchners' abuses of market and legal principles. The constitution once held limited government and private property to be among the highest ideals of the land. But in the 1920s these protections, which had made the country a magnet for immigrants and the seventh-largest economy in the world, began to erode.
(...)
According to a paper recently released by researchers at the Buenos Aires business school Eseade, external debt as a percentage of GDP has now climbed to 56% compared to 54% in 2001. If you include the unpaid debt to bondholders, the number is 67%. More than a few analysts are worried that should the economy slow, the government may tap Central Bank reserves, sparking a run against the peso or, fearing that, choose default, for the second time in a decade, as its escape hatch.
[Mary Anastasia O'Grady, The Wall Street Journal]

International rice and wheat prices have doubled or tripled in the last two years, but world grain production will reach a record high this year. So how come millions are falling into poverty and starting food riots across the world? The answer lies not in any outsized surge in world demand or fall in world supply, but in the fact that several countries have imposed duties, quotas and outright bans on agricultural exports. This has reduced the amount of grain available for world trade.

To protect domestic consumers from rising world prices, dozens of governments have curbed the export of rice and wheat -- principally Argentina, Brazil, Russia, China, India, Ukraine, Vietnam, Cambodia, Pakistan, Egypt, and Indonesia.
[Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar, The American Spectator]
(HT: Sine Metu)

I came up with the idea of a test of two tee shirts. They would be identical, except one would bear the image of President Bush, and the other would bear the image of Messiah Obama. I knew what would happen, but decided to put it to the test myself.

Over at Cafe Press and Zazzle, there are thousands of images of President Bush portrayed as a monkey, ape, chimp, Curious George and much worse. So I decided to add one more to the collection - actually,two more. One with President Bush as a monkey, and the other of Obama. Identical shirts as you can see by the illustration.



The Obama shirt was immediately banned by both CafePress and Zazzle.

If you follow my link, you will see that the Bush as a monkey shirt is up for sale with all of the other Bush as a monkey shirts. Cafe Press has no problem with it. They banned the Obama shirt and sent me two nasty letters.

[Evil Smiley, People's Blog - The People's Cube]

In their 1975 book The Age of Napoleon, Will and Ariel Durant argue that the Reign of Terror during the French revolution was sparked, in part, by price controls.

The economy itself was a battlefield. The price controls established on May 4 and September 29 [1793] were being defeated by the ingenuity of greed. The urban poor approved the maxima; the peasants and the merchants opposed them, and increasingly refused to grow or distribute the price-limited foods; the city stores, receiving less and less produce from market or field, could satisfy only the foremost few in the queues that daily formed at their doors. Fear of famine ran through Paris and the towns....

On August 30 a deputy pronounced the magic word: Let Terror be the order of the day. On September 5 a crowd from the sections, calling for "war on tyrants, hoarders, and aristocrats," marched on the headquarters of the Commune in the Hotel de Ville. The mayor, Jean-Guillaume Pache, and the city procurator, Pierre Chaumette, went with their delegation to the Convention and voiced their demand for a revolutionary army to tour France with a portable guillotine, arrest every Girondin, and compel every peasant to surrender his hoarded produce or be executed on the spot [pp. 62-63].

[Don Boudreaux, Cafe Hayek]

Dear Humble Peasants.

Has anybody noticed the great offensive art the left has been turing out

1: Cross in Piss
2: Virgin Mary in Elephant shit
3: Walk on the stars and stripes

etc

I've been thinking of what kind of art would offend liberals.

Please elaborate.



1: A picture of a paycheck with zero deductions.
2: A polar bear submerged in urine
3: The gay rainbow flag drapped on the ground and walked on.
4: A painting of Che made from camel shit.

[The People's Cube]
And my vote goes for #4.

Violence broke out in Buenos Aires last week when demonstrators protesting food shortages and inflation were set upon by stick-wielding supporters of President Cristina Kirchner. The attackers were led by a sworn enemy of the private sector who was once an official in former President Nestor Kirchner's government.
"The only thing that motivates me," Luis D'elía said, after his assault on a protestor was caught on camera and his actions were justified by Mrs. Kirchner's chief of cabinet, "is hatred against the whorish oligarchs." He then announced that he and his men would patrol the city streets to defend their view that the country's producers are immoral. National police, who answer to the president, did nothing to quell the violence.
(...) the Kirchners have won the support of that segment of the Argentine economy loyal to the principles of 20th-century fascist Juan Peron. These include labor militants, government bureaucrats, the Peronist political machine and the likes of Mr. D'elía, whose thugs act as Mrs. Kirchner's informal enforcers. But by generating inflation and provoking shortages Kirchneromics is also fueling widespread discontent.
The recent trouble began not in Buenos Aires but in the provinces, where agriculture is the main economic activity. Farmers rebelled earlier this month when the government announced an increase in export taxes on agricultural products. Claims that the government's new "retention" rates -aka export taxes- are close to an expropriation are not without merit.
(...) Mrs. Kirchner says the tax increase is a redistribution mechanism, suggesting that growers and ranchers have to be forced to share more of their good fortune with others. But the greater motivation behind the export-tax increase is inflation.
This government, it seems, will do just about anything to reduce inflation except the one thing that would solve the problem: Let the peso strengthen. It has imposed price controls on businesses; frozen, and then subsidized, energy prices; and prohibited the export of beef.
(...) But never mind. Kirchner power does not lie in a rational economic model. The first couple's idea of running an economy is to tax, prohibit, regulate, subsidize and otherwise micromanage every aspect of Argentine life so that no decision can be made without checking first with them. They are, at bottom, unreconstructed authoritarians.
If you doubt this, consider the fact that Mr. Kirchner spent the past five years dismantling institutional checks and balances so that when this moment came, all the power would be in the presidential palace. He and his wife now control the judiciary, the legislature, the central bank, the national police and discretionary spending in the provinces. The only avenue left open to express dissent is civil disobedience.
As we saw last week, that path may be closing down too since the Kirchners now have their own military on the streets of Buenos Aires, led by Mr. D'Elía. The anger and envy behind the rage of this mob is what kirchnerismo has sown since 2002. Those who dare to differ are likely to be met with more savagery.
[Mary Anastasia O'Grady, The Wall Street Journal]

Yesterday evening, paratroops of 'camicie nere' were sent by Cristina Kirchner's fascist government to dissolve a spontaneous manifestation against their sustained policies of ransacking and corruption, right after she pronounced an inflamed speech inspired by the writings of Horacio Verbitsky, a well-known criminal that played a decisive role during the marxist guerrilla wars in the '70s.

After a prolific and esteemed career,
Sir Arthur has passed away in Sri Lanka.
[The Arthur C. Clarke foundation]

Advocates of educational liberty are reeling at a California court decision last week that essentially outlaws homeschooling in that state.

A February 28 ruling by the California Appellate Court for the second district argued that "parents do not have a constitutional right to educate their children in their own home."
(...)
This Draconian ruling "would drastically reduce or do away with homeschooling" in California, according to J. Michael Smith, president of the Home School Legal Defense Association.

The decision has outraged parents and others, who have vowed to fight it. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called the ruling "outrageous" and pledged legislation to reverse it if the state's supreme court fails to do so.

However, statist Educrats give it an enthusiastic thumbs-up.
(...)
The irony is, as the Las Vegas Review-Journal notes: "Research conducted by the National Home Education Research Institute in 2001 shows homeschooled students, on average, outperformed their public school peers by 30 to 37 percentile points across all subjects, and that performance gaps impacting minorities and genders are virtually eliminated among the homeschoolers."

But of course opposition to homeschooling isn't about education. Never has been. It's about indoctrination.
[James W. Harris, Advocates for Self-Government]

After watching the Obama-Clinton debate in Cleveland on Tuesday, I came away convinced that both candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination want to run this country like Argentina.

In that country, Juan Peron-inspired labor syndicates and their bosses dominate the economy and work hand-in-glove with the state. Together they have ensured Argentina's isolation from international commerce and investment, and a slow but steady decline in living standards.
[Mary Anastasia O'Grady, Wall Street Journal]