This is an Atom formatted XML site feed. It is intended to be viewed in a Newsreader or syndicated to another site. Please visit the Blogger Help for more info.
…and witness the verbal stylings of my good friend and fellow right-wing agitator, Evan Moore. Evan is the Chair of College Republicans at George Mason University, which has had its candidacy for a Phi Beta Kappa chapter revoked due to ‘insufficient academic freedom’.
What crime against intellectual liberty has this free-wheeling bastion of laissez-faire discourse and economics committed, you ask?
We declined to pay Michael Moore’s heavy speaker’s fee, in response to intense alumni and community pressure. In outrage, he claimed he would come to speak anyway, but never appeared. Michael Moore was not prevented from speaking at Mason; the Board of Visitors merely decided there were better ways to spend public money.
Admittedly, my interest in bringing in Phi Beta Kappa is less than altruistic, as it’s a nice bauble to attach to freshly-minted grad’s resume. However, charges of censorship are pretty flimsy, and Evan will debunk them, tonight.
What crime against intellectual liberty has this free-wheeling bastion of laissez-faire discourse and economics committed, you ask?
We declined to pay Michael Moore’s heavy speaker’s fee, in response to intense alumni and community pressure. In outrage, he claimed he would come to speak anyway, but never appeared. Michael Moore was not prevented from speaking at Mason; the Board of Visitors merely decided there were better ways to spend public money.
Admittedly, my interest in bringing in Phi Beta Kappa is less than altruistic, as it’s a nice bauble to attach to freshly-minted grad’s resume. However, charges of censorship are pretty flimsy, and Evan will debunk them, tonight.
What: Press Conference to announce an educational manual and grassroots efforts aimed at reducing the number of HIV/AIDS cases in the United States. The National Coalition of Pastors Spouses (an organization of over 3,000 African American pastor's spouses) created this manual and program which is supported by President Bush; it has also been placed on the website of the Department of Health and Human Services.
Who: Participants of this press conference includes Senator Bill Frist, Majority Leader; Senator Rick Santorum, Senate Conference Chair; Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, Chair of the CBC's HIV/AIDS Panel; Vivian Berryhill, President of the National Coalition of Pastor's Spouses; Iyanla VanZant, noted author and television host; Cristopher Bates, Undersecretary - Department of Health and Human Services; Claude Allen, White House - Senior Advisor on Domestic Affairs; Ambassador Edith Ssempeala - Uganda; Reverend Dr. Jones Thompson
When : Monday, March 7, 2005
Where: United States Capitol, Rooms HC-6 and HC-7
Time: 10:30 AM
Much of the (rational) opposition to immigration has to do with congestion: people worry that simply by adding more people to our crowded cities, immigrants impose large social costs on natives.
If we did something innovative to encourage immigrants to settle mainly in our big, empty states, would this satisfy the anti-immigrant types?
After all, these states are struggling to avoid losing population. Iowa is considering offering special tax-breaks to under-30s.
If we did something innovative to encourage immigrants to settle mainly in our big, empty states, would this satisfy the anti-immigrant types?
After all, these states are struggling to avoid losing population. Iowa is considering offering special tax-breaks to under-30s.
Immigration is an issue I have not made up my mind about -- so when I contribute a post on the subject matter I'm not arguing...rather, I want clarification and enlightenment on this issue. Most of my thoughts will be incomplete or not completely thought out. In other words, I expect to be proven wrong on a few points. But I will play the Devil's advocate, so to speak, to spur discussion, debate, etc.
For the general good, here are a few of my sources:
(1) George Borjas and Lynette Hilton, "Immigration and the Welfare State, Working Paper Series #5372," National Bureau of Economic Research, December 1995. ( http://www.fairus.org/html/04105611.htm )
(2) Dr. Donald Huddle, "The Net Costs of Immigration: The Facts, The Trends, and the Critics," Rice University, October 22, 1996. ( http://www.fairus.org/html/04105611.htm )
I'll chew over some of the replies to my previous post on immigration and respond sometime soon.
For the general good, here are a few of my sources:
(1) George Borjas and Lynette Hilton, "Immigration and the Welfare State, Working Paper Series #5372," National Bureau of Economic Research, December 1995. ( http://www.fairus.org/html/04105611.htm )
(2) Dr. Donald Huddle, "The Net Costs of Immigration: The Facts, The Trends, and the Critics," Rice University, October 22, 1996. ( http://www.fairus.org/html/04105611.htm )
I'll chew over some of the replies to my previous post on immigration and respond sometime soon.
Looks like I can't make the CoR gig on Tuesday either. I'll be down in Henrico County volunteering on the campaign of a good God fearing Catholic by the name of
Bob McDonnell
. Wednesday shall be the night for merryment! We'll just have to stay out long enough for Az to join in.
In making the case against the immigration SQ, Matt cites "Harvard economist George Borjas, in a study he performed," which apparently shows no economic benefit from immigration. I wish I knew which article Matt was talking about, since Borjas is rather prolific on the topic of immigration. He's a respected academic, and an anti-immigration star.
In any case, though, the literature is hardly conclusive on the net tax impact of immigrants. In a literature survey by Borjas from 1994, he cites estimates ranging from -$40 billion to +$27 billion. So we're talking about much less than 0.5% of GDP, and this is before welfare reform.
Now, let's talk about the quantity of immigration. Economists generally think it's the quality of immigration that matters most: it could be the case that we should prefer low-skill workers or high-skill workers, but we should have some preference for one or the other.
But Matt, it seems, also thinks that the quantity of immigration is very important. Hence all this talk about "historic rates" of immigration. Some people think that the social sciences are becoming too mathematized, but surely it doesn't hurt to attach some numbers, so we know what we're talking about.
Perhaps Matt hasn't ever looked at graphs showing the immigrant share of US population, which is why he doesn't cite any numbers. I'm going to upload some graphs from a paper by some economic historians at UC Riverside.
Relative to historic norms, current immigration levels aren't too high.
Venturing outside my field, I'll also note that immigrant ghettos are hardly a new phenomenon. Lots of our first generation ancestors took a while to learn English; it was the children who picked it up rapidly enough. I'll venture that 100 years ago, New York City was no less polyglot a place. Equally, people fretted that those immigrants, back then, weren't assimilating. Somehow we've survived it.
So it can't rationally be about public finance matters, nor even an abnormal quantity of immigrants (were a theory advanced as to why that would be bad). Perhaps there's a fetishism about "English-only" that is important. But I'll leave that to a sociologist.
In any case, though, the literature is hardly conclusive on the net tax impact of immigrants. In a literature survey by Borjas from 1994, he cites estimates ranging from -$40 billion to +$27 billion. So we're talking about much less than 0.5% of GDP, and this is before welfare reform.
Now, let's talk about the quantity of immigration. Economists generally think it's the quality of immigration that matters most: it could be the case that we should prefer low-skill workers or high-skill workers, but we should have some preference for one or the other.
But Matt, it seems, also thinks that the quantity of immigration is very important. Hence all this talk about "historic rates" of immigration. Some people think that the social sciences are becoming too mathematized, but surely it doesn't hurt to attach some numbers, so we know what we're talking about.
Perhaps Matt hasn't ever looked at graphs showing the immigrant share of US population, which is why he doesn't cite any numbers. I'm going to upload some graphs from a paper by some economic historians at UC Riverside.
Relative to historic norms, current immigration levels aren't too high.
Venturing outside my field, I'll also note that immigrant ghettos are hardly a new phenomenon. Lots of our first generation ancestors took a while to learn English; it was the children who picked it up rapidly enough. I'll venture that 100 years ago, New York City was no less polyglot a place. Equally, people fretted that those immigrants, back then, weren't assimilating. Somehow we've survived it.
So it can't rationally be about public finance matters, nor even an abnormal quantity of immigrants (were a theory advanced as to why that would be bad). Perhaps there's a fetishism about "English-only" that is important. But I'll leave that to a sociologist.
Alas, I'm in midterms through next week, with my last one being scheduled to end around 10 pm Wednesday, thus preventing me from joining any get-togethers earlier than Thursday. I'll have to catch up with CoR crew the next time around. If our bluegrass festival is moved to a later date, let me know. In any case, have some of PA's finest for me, and I'll see you soon.
Warm regards - Anastazia
Warm regards - Anastazia
Evidently I was buried under history readings on March 1st, the day these pieces appeared in the Washington Times:
No less than a Clinton-appointed ambassador, Marc Ginsberg conceded the following:
“Bush ‘deserves credit’ for aggressively trying to spread freedom in the [Middle East]. He said the catalyst for reform was Iraq, which held its first free elections on January 30.”
Granted, some of us might take praise from a Clinton diplomat as evidence of unsound policy, but signs of an emerging consensus, here and across the pond, are heartening.
From Dennis Ross, a diplomat during the Clinton and Bush I administrations:
“Something profound [is] going on right now, and what it really is, more than anything else, is a loss of fear…Every Arab regime has ruled basically thorough coercion and intimidation, and suddenly the fear factor is eroding…It’s not just regional. I think what has influenced the Lebanese in particular was also the Orange Revolution in Kiev. The notion that if you stand together, you can reverse fraud, you can force those who have always oppressed you to, in fact, withdraw.”
From Lebanon:
“A tent city near the tomb of assassinated former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri continued to expand yesterday mirroring recent protests that ushered in a democratically elected, pro-Western government in Ukraine. ‘I love America. Tell Bush to come here. Thank him, thank Chirac,’ said a Christian Arab named Sady.”
“Demonstrators came from across the sectarian divide. They included the Free Patriotic Movement, consisting mostly of Christian university students the Lebanese forces; Druze in traditional costume, Sunni Muslim supporters of Mr. Hariri and Shi’ite Muslims, including women in head scarves.”
It is nearly too astounding to be believed, and perhaps too good to last. However, the spectacle of those cedar flags, being borne proudly thorough the streets by liberty-loving Lebanese of all persuasions, was a sight to behold. This image may someday take its place in the history galleries next to shots of jubilant Germans, Georgians, Ukrainians, Iraqis, and, possibly, Egyptians. Rest in peace, Prime Minister. ‘What others meant for evil, God meant for good.’
No less than a Clinton-appointed ambassador, Marc Ginsberg conceded the following:
“Bush ‘deserves credit’ for aggressively trying to spread freedom in the [Middle East]. He said the catalyst for reform was Iraq, which held its first free elections on January 30.”
Granted, some of us might take praise from a Clinton diplomat as evidence of unsound policy, but signs of an emerging consensus, here and across the pond, are heartening.
From Dennis Ross, a diplomat during the Clinton and Bush I administrations:
“Something profound [is] going on right now, and what it really is, more than anything else, is a loss of fear…Every Arab regime has ruled basically thorough coercion and intimidation, and suddenly the fear factor is eroding…It’s not just regional. I think what has influenced the Lebanese in particular was also the Orange Revolution in Kiev. The notion that if you stand together, you can reverse fraud, you can force those who have always oppressed you to, in fact, withdraw.”
From Lebanon:
“A tent city near the tomb of assassinated former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri continued to expand yesterday mirroring recent protests that ushered in a democratically elected, pro-Western government in Ukraine. ‘I love America. Tell Bush to come here. Thank him, thank Chirac,’ said a Christian Arab named Sady.”
“Demonstrators came from across the sectarian divide. They included the Free Patriotic Movement, consisting mostly of Christian university students the Lebanese forces; Druze in traditional costume, Sunni Muslim supporters of Mr. Hariri and Shi’ite Muslims, including women in head scarves.”
It is nearly too astounding to be believed, and perhaps too good to last. However, the spectacle of those cedar flags, being borne proudly thorough the streets by liberty-loving Lebanese of all persuasions, was a sight to behold. This image may someday take its place in the history galleries next to shots of jubilant Germans, Georgians, Ukrainians, Iraqis, and, possibly, Egyptians. Rest in peace, Prime Minister. ‘What others meant for evil, God meant for good.’
Stephen,
In a way, your response to my post was correct. But I think if the system is broken the distinction between immigration per se and immigration "under the current system" is negligible in practice. We can argue technicalities but if the system has its problems than we are really skirting the central issue. I would imagine only the most vehement xenophobe has a problem with immigration in and of itself -- if immigraiton is defined as anyone coming to the United States for a better life. Most thoughtful opponents of immigration that I have read simply want immigration lowered to historic levels, want immigrants to assimilate within a reasonable amount of time, and (I think rightfully) want policymakers to realize Mexican immigration is substantively different than immigration from Europe in the past. By "substantively different" I mean that there's a difference in crossing the Atlantic Ocean and simply moving a few miles north. I think immigrants from Europe were cut off much more from their homeland and in some ways forced to consider America their home. I think Mexico's geographic proximity to the U.S. and the ease with which Mexicans can return to their native country affects assimilation. I also think when entire towns in the southwest scrap English and make Spanish the lingua franca (haha) we should be concerned. I have a lot of other information -- statistics on crime, etc. -- I'm simply not talking about because I want to discuss first principles.
I guess my whole point is that just talking about the economic benefits of immigration (which I think are questionable) is a mistake and that while I do not oppose immigration per se I think the system is a bad one -- but unlike some (not necessarily from CoR) I do not think the answer is to say to hell with borders or just throw open the floodgates (and let "the market" sort things out) -- I would like to see a degree of order brought to the immigration process, one that brings legal immigration down to historic levels and eliminates as much as possible illegal immigration. I would like to eliminate the social safety net that makes immigration so attractive (and perhaps nullifies the advantage of immigrants taking low-paying jobs) and do away with the multiculturalism that makes assimilation seem like a bad thing. The irony in all this is that American troops are defending borders all across the world (South Korea, Iraq, etc) while we increasingly don't care about our own.
Matt,
It seems that most of your complaints have to do with a broken system, rather than immigration in and of itself. That immigrants don't feel the need to assimilate, and that our social safety net creates the potential for their being an economic drain is not an indictment against immigration but America's immigration policy.
Could we agree that were there to be no social safety net as we know it, immigration would not be a bad thing? In time, people will assimilate. I know my German and Irish ancestors did, even though my great-grandmother and her fellow Irish separated themselves voluntarily in Hell's Kitchen.
It seems that most of your complaints have to do with a broken system, rather than immigration in and of itself. That immigrants don't feel the need to assimilate, and that our social safety net creates the potential for their being an economic drain is not an indictment against immigration but America's immigration policy.
Could we agree that were there to be no social safety net as we know it, immigration would not be a bad thing? In time, people will assimilate. I know my German and Irish ancestors did, even though my great-grandmother and her fellow Irish separated themselves voluntarily in Hell's Kitchen.
This is not exactly late breaking, but today Bob Casey, Jr. made his candidacy official for the Democratic nomination for the Senate seat from PA currently held by Rick Santorum that will be contested in 2006.
As a native Pennsylvanian, and someone who's done a fair amount of campaign work in the state, I really feel that Santorum is in trouble. I know this isn't especially profound given polling data indicating Casey could defeat Santorum. But PA (especially from my part of the state, central PA) has alot of blue collar/middle class voters that vote Republican because of social issues like abortion, Republicans' generally strong support of gun owners' rights, and the strong foreign policy positions of the GOP that have been one of their hallmarks since Reagan.
As a native Pennsylvanian, and someone who's done a fair amount of campaign work in the state, I really feel that Santorum is in trouble. I know this isn't especially profound given polling data indicating Casey could defeat Santorum. But PA (especially from my part of the state, central PA) has alot of blue collar/middle class voters that vote Republican because of social issues like abortion, Republicans' generally strong support of gun owners' rights, and the strong foreign policy positions of the GOP that have been one of their hallmarks since Reagan.
A moderate Democrat like Casey who is pro-life will have substantial appeal to a certain segment of the PA population. I know this because of what I call the "my mom and dad test." My mom and dad are working class folks who like their guns, support our troops, go to church three times a week, hate abortion, but probably don't buy all the Republican economic agenda. Sure, lower taxes appeals to them but my mom works, basically, for the health insurance her job provides (my dad owns his small business and buying your own insurance plan is quite expensive). The same heart of my mom's that goes out to the unborn also feels compassion for the poor among us and those who can't afford their prescription medication. In short, I know someone like Casey appeals to my mom and dad...and there are a whole lot of people like my mom and dad in Pennsylvania. Not very scientific, I know -- but politics is an art, not a science.
Yes, I know I'm a few weeks late on CoR's great immigration debate -- but I do have a few thoughts to offer. Generally, and instinctually, I favor less immigration than more and cast a wary eye towards the current state of immigration, especially Mexican immigration in the Southwest. However, I am open to correction and instruction -- I want to emphasize that from the start. What I offer below is not so much a rebuttal but questions I would like clarification on or answers to.
Unlike some of us, I place culture at the center of political life. This does not mean I focus only on "social" issues but that I think political activity follows trends in our culture. Culture frames everything we do -- it determines the questions we ask as well as the answers we supply. I think some degree of cultural concensus makes a nation's political life much easier. You might quibble with me on the degree to which culture matters or exactly what role culture plays in politics, but I think most of us would agree that, at some level, culture matters, and has political consequences.
My question, then, is this: does immigration have a cultural impact? Does it matter if large influxes of people from a foreign country, with a different culture, and who speak a different language settle overwhelmingly in a specific region of America? Should we take the potential of cultural impact seriously? Or doesn't it matter? Could significant cultural differences lead to a cleft country with all the potential for internal divisions and strife such a situation could lead to?
Another point: Does immigration really benefit us economically? I understand the basic concept of immigrant workers filling our nation's demand for low income workers in non-glamorous jobs. I understand the principles of the free market, free trade, etc (I have probably read more Hayek than anyone on the blog, save perhaps our friend from Berkeley). However, given welfare state safety net, I would imagine relatively poor immigrants actually cost us something as well (in other words, when talking about the economics of immigration, it would be dishonest to only mention the jobs they fill). In fact, Harvard economist George Borjas, in a study he performed, found no net economic benefit from mass migration from the Third World. The addes costs of schooling, health care, welfare, etc. arguably offset the rather meager amount of taxes low income immigrant families contribute (I am sure some immigrants work their way up to well paying jobs or become entrepreneurs with successful businesses -- but I think we can agree the majority of immigrants are not well off upon their arrival in the States).
Unlike some of us, I place culture at the center of political life. This does not mean I focus only on "social" issues but that I think political activity follows trends in our culture. Culture frames everything we do -- it determines the questions we ask as well as the answers we supply. I think some degree of cultural concensus makes a nation's political life much easier. You might quibble with me on the degree to which culture matters or exactly what role culture plays in politics, but I think most of us would agree that, at some level, culture matters, and has political consequences.
My question, then, is this: does immigration have a cultural impact? Does it matter if large influxes of people from a foreign country, with a different culture, and who speak a different language settle overwhelmingly in a specific region of America? Should we take the potential of cultural impact seriously? Or doesn't it matter? Could significant cultural differences lead to a cleft country with all the potential for internal divisions and strife such a situation could lead to?
Another point: Does immigration really benefit us economically? I understand the basic concept of immigrant workers filling our nation's demand for low income workers in non-glamorous jobs. I understand the principles of the free market, free trade, etc (I have probably read more Hayek than anyone on the blog, save perhaps our friend from Berkeley). However, given welfare state safety net, I would imagine relatively poor immigrants actually cost us something as well (in other words, when talking about the economics of immigration, it would be dishonest to only mention the jobs they fill). In fact, Harvard economist George Borjas, in a study he performed, found no net economic benefit from mass migration from the Third World. The addes costs of schooling, health care, welfare, etc. arguably offset the rather meager amount of taxes low income immigrant families contribute (I am sure some immigrants work their way up to well paying jobs or become entrepreneurs with successful businesses -- but I think we can agree the majority of immigrants are not well off upon their arrival in the States).
For instance, immigrant use of food stamps, Supplemental social security, and school lunch programs runs from 50 percent to 100 percent higher than use by native born. Of immigrants have come to America since 1980, 60 percent still do not earn twenty thousand dollars a year (or isn't two decades enough time to get on your feet?). Of immigrant households in the U.S., 29 percent are below the poverty line, twice the 14 percent of native born.
Are Mexican immigrants assimilating as fast as past waves of immigrants? I don't know for sure, but I believe one of Sam Huntington's arguments was that they are not. Also, current levels of immigration are above the historical averages for America (perhas the rates lessened immediately following 9-11). Could we agree to at least return immigration levels to historic rates?
Does immigration to a country which promotes multiculturalism differ from the immigration of one hundred years ago, when the word multiculturalism hadn't been invented and those from other countries were expected to become thoroughly Americanized -- in other words, when assimilation, not separateness, was what our elites stressed?
I'll end with this thought/summary: even if immigrants were a net gain economically, I think we have to at least think about the cultural consequences of immigration from Mexico/Latin America. But I am not all that sure immigration is a net gain economically, in light of the undue burden immigrants place on our social safety net. I also wonder about immigration in the era of a massive social safety net and multiculturalism. Again, I am not opposed to immigration per se, but think the conditions of contemporary America make the issue not as clear cut as our friends who focus almost solely on how wonderful it is for Mexicans to take low paying jobs make it to be. These are just some thoughts...I don't want to be branded a reactionary, a racist, xenophobic, or other such names. Name calling is the enemy of legitimate discussion, and I think at least a few of the points I've raised merit discussion.
You know your imperialist designs are in trouble when even Putin criticizes you. Now, in addition to heat from Russia, Germany, and France, Saudi Arabia, the heavyweight of Gulf politics, has spoken out against continued Syrian domination of Lebanon.
The New York Times has the story here :
From today:
"Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, went Thursday to Riyadh, the Saudi capital, hoping to secure Saudi support before a coming Arab summit meeting. But Saudi officials told Reuters and The Associated Press that Crown Prince Abdullah had delivered an unusually blunt rebuff. Egypt, the other key Arab player, has also called for the withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon.
'The Arabs have taken a stand and the international community have taken a stand," said Joseph Samaha, editor in chief of As Safir, a Lebanese daily. "This means there is no ally left for Syria.' "
The New York Times has the story here :
From today:
"Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, went Thursday to Riyadh, the Saudi capital, hoping to secure Saudi support before a coming Arab summit meeting. But Saudi officials told Reuters and The Associated Press that Crown Prince Abdullah had delivered an unusually blunt rebuff. Egypt, the other key Arab player, has also called for the withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon.
'The Arabs have taken a stand and the international community have taken a stand," said Joseph Samaha, editor in chief of As Safir, a Lebanese daily. "This means there is no ally left for Syria.' "
I know I should be studying for the 4 midterms I have today (t-minus 6:40) but I felt compelled to throw up... er... post this bleg.
Evidently the FEC is now looking into regulating blogs under the conditions of the McCain-Feingold bill. Were this to happen it would be a flagrant abuse of our First Amendment right to freedom of the press and/or speech. (I'm not certain whether or not you would file blogs under the former given the fact that they report, or the latter because it is interactive. An interesting question.)
pstupidonymous has the details on it here .
Evidently the FEC is now looking into regulating blogs under the conditions of the McCain-Feingold bill. Were this to happen it would be a flagrant abuse of our First Amendment right to freedom of the press and/or speech. (I'm not certain whether or not you would file blogs under the former given the fact that they report, or the latter because it is interactive. An interesting question.)
pstupidonymous has the details on it here .
According to
factcheck.org
, W's social security reforms would not result in a massive windfall for Wall Street bankers. The organization has "
discovered is that the model for Bush's accounts -- the Federal Thrift Savings Plan for federal workers -- actually paid securities firms a net total of only 16 cents for every $10,000 in workers accounts." This is "hundreds of times smaller" than the detractors and nay sayers said.
hat tip to Ramesh Ponnuru.
hat tip to Ramesh Ponnuru.
I'll leave out the commentary on how removing drug ceilings, FDA regulations, etc. would help prevent this and just give you the story:
"The world may run out of effective antibiotics by the end of this decade and faces a gap of at least five years before new drugs can be developed to combat superbugs."
That's the word from George Poste, Director of the Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University. Evidently we're using the drugs we've got too frequently.
This is nothing new to a son of a nurse. Americans are far too quick to call for a drug solution to the slightest problem, even when it won't do anything. For example, if you get a cold you have a viral disease. Anti-biotics won't do anything to cure this, but people frequently ask for them.
The result: "Even a few years ago, biologists could still turn to the “antibiotic of last resort”, vancomycin [MRSA, a disease in Britain that kills 1,000 a year]." Now all strains of MRSA have a degree of resistance.
"The world may run out of effective antibiotics by the end of this decade and faces a gap of at least five years before new drugs can be developed to combat superbugs."
That's the word from George Poste, Director of the Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University. Evidently we're using the drugs we've got too frequently.
This is nothing new to a son of a nurse. Americans are far too quick to call for a drug solution to the slightest problem, even when it won't do anything. For example, if you get a cold you have a viral disease. Anti-biotics won't do anything to cure this, but people frequently ask for them.
The result: "Even a few years ago, biologists could still turn to the “antibiotic of last resort”, vancomycin [MRSA, a disease in Britain that kills 1,000 a year]." Now all strains of MRSA have a degree of resistance.
Looks like Archbishop Charles Chaput agreed to speak at a luncheon and got some tough questions, which he handled quite well. The
Rocky Mountain News
has the whole story.
Per scholarly sources, nationalism determines whether you view Saddam Hussein, Bill Clinton, or Tony Blair as inspirations or villains. I’ve been on hiatus with my textbooks, and, like my dear colleague, I’ve returned ticked off - and not just because I’ve been told Bill Clinton should be a source for national pride. It is ridiculous to compare Saddam and Slick Willy to Britain’s Prime Minister (whom I admire, despite his misguided social democracy on the domestic front). Even isolated academics should realize it is irrational to treat corrupt dictators, sexual harassers, and eloquent allies with equal ambivalence.
Here’s another choice quote from my course readings on politics in the Middle East:
“The rise of fundamentalism is the greatest danger facing the contemporary world, whether it is Muslims in Tehran, Jews in the occupied territories, Siks in Amritsar, or Christians in America, such as Roman Catholics who firebomb abortion clinics or Protestants who picketed the funeral of the gay murder victim, Matthew Shepherd.”
Obviously, we should fear those pesky sign brandishers as much as their fundamentalist counterparts who choose car bombs as their primary medium of protest. Any phrase from this quote could inspire lengthy screeds on innumberable topics, but I think it speaks for itself. Scratch the motion for professor fellowships; I’m petitioning Regnery to open a textbook line, stat.
PS – Yes, as a geek who aspires to combat revisionism regarding communism and other menaces through the written word, I do have a conflict of interest. = )
Here’s another choice quote from my course readings on politics in the Middle East:
“The rise of fundamentalism is the greatest danger facing the contemporary world, whether it is Muslims in Tehran, Jews in the occupied territories, Siks in Amritsar, or Christians in America, such as Roman Catholics who firebomb abortion clinics or Protestants who picketed the funeral of the gay murder victim, Matthew Shepherd.”
Obviously, we should fear those pesky sign brandishers as much as their fundamentalist counterparts who choose car bombs as their primary medium of protest. Any phrase from this quote could inspire lengthy screeds on innumberable topics, but I think it speaks for itself. Scratch the motion for professor fellowships; I’m petitioning Regnery to open a textbook line, stat.
PS – Yes, as a geek who aspires to combat revisionism regarding communism and other menaces through the written word, I do have a conflict of interest. = )
Count me in one of those nights, no preference on my end. Since I didn't get to see a few of you over CPAC, I would love to catch up...
(1) Yes, Georgetown is a reasonably moderate place compared to many campuses (I readily admit that -- why do you think I am there?). Please, I am begging everyone to drop that subject. Seriously. I am not disputing anything anyone has said about this fine institution of learning. I know its not like Cal Berkeley or any number of other schools. But as Stephen said, its certainly to the left of much of America. Again, I was only pointing out that I have done academic work beyond the island of happiness that is Grove City College.
(2) My "I'm Back" post should definitely be considered sarcastic. Anyone who even glances at Child of Reagan can figure out we are not about open borders, Progressivism, Wilsonian foreign policy, or even neoconservatism. My talk of rage and anger and other nice things was clearly not a serious statement. Some of us have been writing together now for about three months and know each others politics pretty well. Progressive? Come on -- the first time some of us met each other was in a *bluegrass* bar in Old Town Alexandria, where a very *traditional* beverage from the *oldest* maker of this certain beverage in America was imbibed, and various ills of modern life were railed against. In short, it just so happened that upon my return to CoR there recently had been debates in this space about a few topics I jokingly referenced. Almost every writer for CoR has been to my apartment where we've shared food, drink, laughs, stories, etc. -- I know their politics and they know mine. I assumed we could all handle a little sarcasm...
(3) Neoconservatism is difficult to define, but like pornography, I think we know it when we see it. Stephen's comment about foreign policy taking precedence is more or less correct, I think. But I also hold that neoconservatives often are a little more comfortable with big government than the so-called paleos. Example: instead of abolishing the Dept. of Education like many old-line conservatives would love to do, neoconservatives might push for the Dept. to introduce measures aimed at achieving conservative ends -- like values education. Many neoconservatives claim there have not been any "neocons" since the 1960s or 1970s, when a number of ex-liberals (often ex-radicals) were "mugged by reality" and converted to the right side. Frankly, I don't buy it -- I think neoconservatism is an actual body of thought, a specific ideology. Any political ideology is difficult to describe, and inevitably someone you label under that ideology will object and say, "Yes, but I don't believe..."
(4) Did I mention I don't think Anz or Stephen are progressives?
(2) My "I'm Back" post should definitely be considered sarcastic. Anyone who even glances at Child of Reagan can figure out we are not about open borders, Progressivism, Wilsonian foreign policy, or even neoconservatism. My talk of rage and anger and other nice things was clearly not a serious statement. Some of us have been writing together now for about three months and know each others politics pretty well. Progressive? Come on -- the first time some of us met each other was in a *bluegrass* bar in Old Town Alexandria, where a very *traditional* beverage from the *oldest* maker of this certain beverage in America was imbibed, and various ills of modern life were railed against. In short, it just so happened that upon my return to CoR there recently had been debates in this space about a few topics I jokingly referenced. Almost every writer for CoR has been to my apartment where we've shared food, drink, laughs, stories, etc. -- I know their politics and they know mine. I assumed we could all handle a little sarcasm...
(3) Neoconservatism is difficult to define, but like pornography, I think we know it when we see it. Stephen's comment about foreign policy taking precedence is more or less correct, I think. But I also hold that neoconservatives often are a little more comfortable with big government than the so-called paleos. Example: instead of abolishing the Dept. of Education like many old-line conservatives would love to do, neoconservatives might push for the Dept. to introduce measures aimed at achieving conservative ends -- like values education. Many neoconservatives claim there have not been any "neocons" since the 1960s or 1970s, when a number of ex-liberals (often ex-radicals) were "mugged by reality" and converted to the right side. Frankly, I don't buy it -- I think neoconservatism is an actual body of thought, a specific ideology. Any political ideology is difficult to describe, and inevitably someone you label under that ideology will object and say, "Yes, but I don't believe..."
(4) Did I mention I don't think Anz or Stephen are progressives?
I'm gonna be on break next week, and while I don't have much free time, is anyone up for a CoR MeetUp at Tiffany Tavern in Old Town? Tuesday and Wednesday evenings are the only times that work for me.
I'm a frequent visitor to
CMT.com
and if you like bluegrass, folk, or country I recommend you become one too. Why? Because you can listen to a lot CDs for free, without commercial there. If you're into streaming radio or videos they've got that too.
The latest unknown goldmine I've stumbled onto is The Duhks, and you can listen to their latest album for free here .
While they are probably not conservatives, I'll forgive 'em. The CD is a little rough around its edges ("Dover, Delaware" reminds me too much of something you'd find at a bad coffee bar) its got some real gems in it.
I'm a big fan of "Four Blue Walls" more for the instrumentals than the lyrics. If you check out the CD, be sure to also listen to "Dance Hall Girls/Bozeemon Boogie." To the extent that it conjures up images of early immigrantion along the lines of Simon & Garfunkel's "American Tune".
Like most bands that haven't made it big, and probably won't, the lyrics aren't nearly as good as the instruments. There is some fine pickin' and strummin' here. I also appreciate that they change the lead singers frequently, which adds a new dimension to the CD.
The latest unknown goldmine I've stumbled onto is The Duhks, and you can listen to their latest album for free here .
While they are probably not conservatives, I'll forgive 'em. The CD is a little rough around its edges ("Dover, Delaware" reminds me too much of something you'd find at a bad coffee bar) its got some real gems in it.
I'm a big fan of "Four Blue Walls" more for the instrumentals than the lyrics. If you check out the CD, be sure to also listen to "Dance Hall Girls/Bozeemon Boogie." To the extent that it conjures up images of early immigrantion along the lines of Simon & Garfunkel's "American Tune".
Like most bands that haven't made it big, and probably won't, the lyrics aren't nearly as good as the instruments. There is some fine pickin' and strummin' here. I also appreciate that they change the lead singers frequently, which adds a new dimension to the CD.
Some heated exchange there in the last couple posts. To chip in my own two cents, I agree that Georgetown is a pretty conservative campus as they go for all the reasons Emmet pointed out. (Not conservative in relation to the entirety of America, but conservative in relation to other college campuses.)
As to WFB, Dinesh D'Souza and others I would make the point that while you may have some all-star conservatives trickle out, the majority of students come out of America's institutes of higher education more liberal than they went in. It's nice to have these two gentlemen, but I'd rather have an electorate that thinks unborn babies deserve to live, lower taxes are a good thing, and that smaller government is better government.
Finally, I would throw in my own two cents on the definition of neo-conservatism. I think it extends farther to the mainstream than militarism. Perhaps it can best be described as a belief in putting greater weight on foreign than domestic policy while holding that foreign policy should concentrate on spreading democracy, by force if necessary but not as a first resort. (The former is derived from Bill Kristol's statement he would rather vote for John Kerry than Pat Buchanan, even though domestically he agrees w/ Buchanan more, Max Boot's declaration that the right should give up the fight on moral issues.)
As to WFB, Dinesh D'Souza and others I would make the point that while you may have some all-star conservatives trickle out, the majority of students come out of America's institutes of higher education more liberal than they went in. It's nice to have these two gentlemen, but I'd rather have an electorate that thinks unborn babies deserve to live, lower taxes are a good thing, and that smaller government is better government.
Finally, I would throw in my own two cents on the definition of neo-conservatism. I think it extends farther to the mainstream than militarism. Perhaps it can best be described as a belief in putting greater weight on foreign than domestic policy while holding that foreign policy should concentrate on spreading democracy, by force if necessary but not as a first resort. (The former is derived from Bill Kristol's statement he would rather vote for John Kerry than Pat Buchanan, even though domestically he agrees w/ Buchanan more, Max Boot's declaration that the right should give up the fight on moral issues.)
I try to avoid bringing up Georgetown directly on this blog, just to avoid any unpleasantness...my aim is to comment on politics or, if college campuses do come up, talk about them (and my experience) broadly. I want to draw a distinct line between what I do at Georgetown and what I write on this blog, especially since I have 35-40 students every semester who may google my name. I'm not trying to hide my political identity, but rather make sure my politics and my work at Georgetown are entangled as little as possible. I love Georgetown and have had absolutely no problems politically there. But I don't want to debate Georgetown, the politics on campus, or anything else regarding the university in this space. In my post below, I only wanted to draw attention to the fact that my academic experience has not been limited to Grove City College.
Again, from this point on I would really like to avoid writing about Georgetown or my academic work. The internet is a strange place, where once something is written there's no telling where it will end up. I am probably being paranoid, I know -- but the world of academia is a tough place for conservatives, and I do not want to give anyone any ammunition. This was a major concern of mine when I left the blog and would prefer to keep what I do during the day a non-issue here at Child of Reagan.
Again, from this point on I would really like to avoid writing about Georgetown or my academic work. The internet is a strange place, where once something is written there's no telling where it will end up. I am probably being paranoid, I know -- but the world of academia is a tough place for conservatives, and I do not want to give anyone any ammunition. This was a major concern of mine when I left the blog and would prefer to keep what I do during the day a non-issue here at Child of Reagan.
Sometimes it can be funny to
call fellow conservatives names
like "progressive". In this case, it's grossly misleading, and potentially hazardous: this blog has a pretty wide audience, and the casual reader might take your sarcasm for "Truth." That's dangerous.
Next time, take a look as to what is being "propogated." [sic] Neither Stephen nor I posted anything that could be categorized as "internationalism" or "neoconservatism." A cursory reading, so long as it isn't an "angry" one, pretty clearly indicates that what is being advocated is NOT the sort of foolhardy militarism that one associates with neoconservatism, but rather a voluntary concern for freedom beyond our borders. I would talk about this more, but it's already been said. Scroll down.
Second, Anastazia was pretty clearly not supporting “open borders.” In fact, she said so: “I'm not advocating that we throw out immigration laws, but it should be easier for immigrants to enter the country to work legally.” She seemed to be calling for a rational immigration policy that enhances our economic prosperity by allowing workers and employers to enter into free, mutually-beneficial exchanges; this is sensible, and certainly does not deserve the label “progressive.”
In subsequent posts, the advertised rage has thankfully yet to manifest itself. But if this sort of knee-jerk, inaccurate name-calling is to characterize your future contributions to CoR, perhaps we should all “tremble” indeed.
PS: While you're remembering how to define "neoconservative" and "progressive", perhaps you should look up "liberal campus" too. Although it can understandably seem that way after four years at Grove City, Georgetown is *not* liberal in an absolute sense. If I can descend out of the foreign-policy sphere to comment briefly on my beloved alma mater: any campus on which pro-choice groups are forbidden from receiving funding or participating in student activities fairs, and on which condoms cannot be sold, does not qualify as "liberal." The student body is fairly conservative: ideas from the right regularly prevail at on-campus debates, and groups such as the Knights of Columbus are active and popular. Is it a Christian enclave in Pennsylvania? No. But compared especially to its peers, Georgetown isn't nearly so leftward-leaning as you seem to think.
Next time, take a look as to what is being "propogated." [sic] Neither Stephen nor I posted anything that could be categorized as "internationalism" or "neoconservatism." A cursory reading, so long as it isn't an "angry" one, pretty clearly indicates that what is being advocated is NOT the sort of foolhardy militarism that one associates with neoconservatism, but rather a voluntary concern for freedom beyond our borders. I would talk about this more, but it's already been said. Scroll down.
Second, Anastazia was pretty clearly not supporting “open borders.” In fact, she said so: “I'm not advocating that we throw out immigration laws, but it should be easier for immigrants to enter the country to work legally.” She seemed to be calling for a rational immigration policy that enhances our economic prosperity by allowing workers and employers to enter into free, mutually-beneficial exchanges; this is sensible, and certainly does not deserve the label “progressive.”
In subsequent posts, the advertised rage has thankfully yet to manifest itself. But if this sort of knee-jerk, inaccurate name-calling is to characterize your future contributions to CoR, perhaps we should all “tremble” indeed.
PS: While you're remembering how to define "neoconservative" and "progressive", perhaps you should look up "liberal campus" too. Although it can understandably seem that way after four years at Grove City, Georgetown is *not* liberal in an absolute sense. If I can descend out of the foreign-policy sphere to comment briefly on my beloved alma mater: any campus on which pro-choice groups are forbidden from receiving funding or participating in student activities fairs, and on which condoms cannot be sold, does not qualify as "liberal." The student body is fairly conservative: ideas from the right regularly prevail at on-campus debates, and groups such as the Knights of Columbus are active and popular. Is it a Christian enclave in Pennsylvania? No. But compared especially to its peers, Georgetown isn't nearly so leftward-leaning as you seem to think.
My boy Stephen --
I think you misunderstood my post -- I do NOT think having a single conservative professor at a university can turn around its entire political culture. But, you have to start somewhere. And you seem to make quite a strong case for my point, actually: you mention what one conservative professor did for Buckley...who then went on to do other, reasonably important things. Another example is Jeffrey Hart at Dartmouth, whose mentoring of students and sponsorship of Dartmouth Review has given us Dinesh D'Souza, Peter Robinson, and others. My point was not that having a single conservative faculty member can turn a school around (though in time, and in conjunction with other conservative faculty members, perhaps this would be possible), but that even one outpost of sanity can do wonders for students. And I think Kendall and Hart are two powerful examples of this. I think they have done more for the conservative movement, if indirectly, than the speeches of Ann Coulter or others. Its not a matter, as you say, of saving all the students -- its a matter of acknowledging the profound impact one conservative professor can have in the long run.
In short, I think you harped on my point that one conservative professor can make a difference, when that was really a minor point in my post. I KNOW, and I think its obvious, that one conservative in a department would be limited. Common sense tells us he or she would be limited. My point, broadly, was that we should work to get more conservative faculty members if we really want to change our campuses. You didn't really address this, or my critique of the strategies of current groups "fighting the battles" on college campuses.
And just because I went to Grove City College doesn't mean I'm unqualified to speak about the modern campus. You neglected to mention I'm currently on a liberal campus, where as a graduate student, the concentration/effects of liberalism are even greater. For instance, among the ENTIRE incoming class of Ph.D. students, I am one of (I think) maybe two conservatives. Conservatives just don't go to graduate school and get Ph.D.'s as much as liberals do. And that's one reason why the academy is in the shape it is (though I admit its a self-perpetuating cycle that may cause this...i.e., conservatives know academia is liberal, and thus avoid it...).
How much does Ann Coulter get a speech? $20,000 or something like that? (She may cut certain groups some slack). That's enough for a graduate student to live off of for an entire year. Maybe we should put that money towards getting conservatives through grad school and not getting the CR's name in a student newspaper.
And I'm not aware of any YAF funds for people like me -- that is, fellowship type things for graduate students.
In your next post, address my substantive point about the strategies of some of these groups. I might be wrong. But it seems that by doing nothing more than causing a commotion on campus, we only fool around with the symptoms of campus liberalism without treating the disease. And remember, my post was in a very specific context -- the book that said through activism we can take back our campuses...which is a joke.
I think you misunderstood my post -- I do NOT think having a single conservative professor at a university can turn around its entire political culture. But, you have to start somewhere. And you seem to make quite a strong case for my point, actually: you mention what one conservative professor did for Buckley...who then went on to do other, reasonably important things. Another example is Jeffrey Hart at Dartmouth, whose mentoring of students and sponsorship of Dartmouth Review has given us Dinesh D'Souza, Peter Robinson, and others. My point was not that having a single conservative faculty member can turn a school around (though in time, and in conjunction with other conservative faculty members, perhaps this would be possible), but that even one outpost of sanity can do wonders for students. And I think Kendall and Hart are two powerful examples of this. I think they have done more for the conservative movement, if indirectly, than the speeches of Ann Coulter or others. Its not a matter, as you say, of saving all the students -- its a matter of acknowledging the profound impact one conservative professor can have in the long run.
In short, I think you harped on my point that one conservative professor can make a difference, when that was really a minor point in my post. I KNOW, and I think its obvious, that one conservative in a department would be limited. Common sense tells us he or she would be limited. My point, broadly, was that we should work to get more conservative faculty members if we really want to change our campuses. You didn't really address this, or my critique of the strategies of current groups "fighting the battles" on college campuses.
And just because I went to Grove City College doesn't mean I'm unqualified to speak about the modern campus. You neglected to mention I'm currently on a liberal campus, where as a graduate student, the concentration/effects of liberalism are even greater. For instance, among the ENTIRE incoming class of Ph.D. students, I am one of (I think) maybe two conservatives. Conservatives just don't go to graduate school and get Ph.D.'s as much as liberals do. And that's one reason why the academy is in the shape it is (though I admit its a self-perpetuating cycle that may cause this...i.e., conservatives know academia is liberal, and thus avoid it...).
How much does Ann Coulter get a speech? $20,000 or something like that? (She may cut certain groups some slack). That's enough for a graduate student to live off of for an entire year. Maybe we should put that money towards getting conservatives through grad school and not getting the CR's name in a student newspaper.
And I'm not aware of any YAF funds for people like me -- that is, fellowship type things for graduate students.
In your next post, address my substantive point about the strategies of some of these groups. I might be wrong. But it seems that by doing nothing more than causing a commotion on campus, we only fool around with the symptoms of campus liberalism without treating the disease. And remember, my post was in a very specific context -- the book that said through activism we can take back our campuses...which is a joke.
As newly self-appointed ombudsman for this blog, I feel it is my duty to point out that Mr. Sitman failed to disclose a clear conflict of interest in his bleg, namely that he wants to be a conservative professor and would probably love to have a fatty fellowship from YAF.
That said I also disagree with him. It is my belief that for conservative professors to have an impact you need more than one at a campus. In fact, you must have a campus akin to Grove City College, the overwhelmingly conservative, religious college he went to.
Why do I say this?
Given my own experience at William and Mary, a secular public school like most other universities, a single conservative professor doesn't amount to much. You may learn neoclassical economics from the one untenured libertarian in the Econ department, but it will soon be forgotten in the onslaught of liberalism from every other professor.
That students still slide to the left over the course of their studies here is evidenced by a student survey conducted from 2000-2004.
Nor do I think this is different from other campuses. In God and Man at Yale, WFB observes that he was impacted by Willmoore Kendall, one of the few conservative professors. While Buckley was preserved from liberalism thanks to this prof, most of his classmates were not. Again, we have the case of one professor not being able to save them all.
So if one professor can't save them all is the solution to hire more conservatives? Not unless you can hire enough to constitute a majority of the faculty and create a Grove City environment. Since this isn't going to happen anytime soon, I would instead say the best thing to do is bring in guest speakers and to agitate for an Academic Bill of Rights which would castrate the left.
More on this rough bleg later...
That said I also disagree with him. It is my belief that for conservative professors to have an impact you need more than one at a campus. In fact, you must have a campus akin to Grove City College, the overwhelmingly conservative, religious college he went to.
Why do I say this?
Given my own experience at William and Mary, a secular public school like most other universities, a single conservative professor doesn't amount to much. You may learn neoclassical economics from the one untenured libertarian in the Econ department, but it will soon be forgotten in the onslaught of liberalism from every other professor.
That students still slide to the left over the course of their studies here is evidenced by a student survey conducted from 2000-2004.
Nor do I think this is different from other campuses. In God and Man at Yale, WFB observes that he was impacted by Willmoore Kendall, one of the few conservative professors. While Buckley was preserved from liberalism thanks to this prof, most of his classmates were not. Again, we have the case of one professor not being able to save them all.
So if one professor can't save them all is the solution to hire more conservatives? Not unless you can hire enough to constitute a majority of the faculty and create a Grove City environment. Since this isn't going to happen anytime soon, I would instead say the best thing to do is bring in guest speakers and to agitate for an Academic Bill of Rights which would castrate the left.
More on this rough bleg later...