Category: ideological culture

Categories
education and schooling ideological culture

Why Homeschoolers Make Good Citizens

Horace Mann promoted the “common school” not primarily to increase literacy or prepare kids for college. No, the movement that gave birth to the modern public school system in America was designed to inculcate good citizenship by putting all kids through a “shared experience.”

A few years ago, Mann’s notion was re-iterated by a college professor in an essay called “The Civic Perils of Homeschooling.” Public schooling, he wrote,

is one of the few remaining social institutions . . . in which people from all walks of life have a common interest and in which children might come to learn such common values as decency, civility, and respect.

Are we really supposed to believe that public schools instill decency, civility, and respect?

In “Does Homeschooling or Private Schooling Promote Political Intolerance? Evidence from a Christian University,” Journal of School Choice: International Research and Reform, 8(1), Albert Cheng left bald assertions aside and conducted some research. He concluded that private schooling does not decrease social tolerance, and “those [college students] with more exposure to homeschooling relative to public schooling tend to be more politically tolerant.”

Why might this be the case? Cheng himself offered two possible reasons — greater self-actualization in homeschooling, and religious instruction — but I can think of others.

For one, public schools bring together many, many kids, but through regimentation and Mann’s desire for “shared experience,” the results tend toward more conformity, and bullying, and less tolerance.

Meanwhile, homeschoolers are doing something different than the crowd, and perhaps are that much more wiling to accept others doing their own thing, even if not the norm.

So, hooray for homeschooling! The cradle of liberty.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets ideological culture too much government

Their Solution Is Our Problem

J.D. Tuccille at Reason took on journalist Matthew Yglesias’s vox.com video that I wrote about yesterday, focusing on Yglesias’s pooh-poohing of the sheer size of the national debt. Tuccille noted that Yglesias under-reported its humungosity, and that the Congressional Budget Office finds, counter to Pollyanna-liberals, no small reason to worry about the ballooning debt.

But I’m still shaking my head that Yglesias really did argue the federal debt is no problem, because — get this! —  the Fed can always just print more money. 

We know! What he sees as a solution we see as a problem.

The modish government-as-savior view of society seems pure simplicity: major inputs and outputs — money supply, fiscal spending, debt, inflation — all of which liberal-progressives will “expertly” adjust.

Fed this, no wonder people ask questions like “why haven’t we seen inflation, following the huge influxes of quantitative easing?” Well, it is not just about consumer prices, but investment prices, too, which we have long known to be more volatile than consumer goods; investments can easily suck up new money to create an unstable boom, which bursts.

The biggest problem for today’s market recovery — aside from subsidies and wage controls and all the folderol that directly discourage new jobs — is federal government irresponsibility itself (symbolized neatly by the federal debt) which signals to investors and other market participants that they cannot make viable long-term plans.

Economist Robert Higgs called this effect “regime uncertainty.” It’s the uncertainty bred by bad policy.

Just the kind Yglesias and his comrades adore.

Fiddle with the economy’s dials, oh wise ones, and uncertainty seems a certain result.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets ideological culture too much government

Not a Problem?

Increasing public debt is bad for a number of reasons. Journalist Matthew Yglesias, speaking on vox.com, gives voice to a very different, very Pollyannish perspective: “Debt is just not a problem right now,” he says.

Why?

“The U.S. can never run out of dollars.” After all, the Fed can just print more.

That’s not an uncommon view where I live, near the center of privilege, Washington, D.C.

The video starts with an instruction: “Stop freaking out about the debt.” It sports nifty, simple graphics and comforting music. Matt Yglesias sounds convinced himself.

Nothing he says convinces me. But I’ll concentrate just on the frank inflationism.

Yglesias mentions inflation. But it’s obvious he means CPI numbers, even though he offers the short-hand “too much money chasing a fixed amount of stuff” definition to stand in for the “supply of money increasing faster than the demand for money” definition that I hear from competent economists.

But while he admits that price inflation can be a problem, what he is promoting is inflationism. That’s the doctrine that central bank fiddling with increases in the rate of money growth is the way to control the economy. And that it’s costless.

Like money cranks of the old days, he only sees the costs of not inflating the credit system.

It never enters into his ideologically-driven thoughts that maybe artificially lowering interest rates fakes out investors and consumers, getting them to make bad investments that destabilize relative prices that, when they unravel, wreak havoc.

Inflationists are folks who are always trapped by the cure they prescribe. We’re left with boom-bust forever and ever.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture

Autopsy Myopia

The results are in: Actor Philip Seymour Hoffman died from acute mixed drug intoxication. He had combined heroin with benzodiazepines. That combination did him in.

It wasn’t a “heroin overdose” as such.

Indeed, according to Jacob Sullum writing at reason.com,

Drug combinations like this are typical of deaths attributed to heroin or other narcotics. Data from the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) indicate that “multi-drug deaths” accounted for most fatalities involving opiates or opioids in 2010: 72 percent in suburban New York, 83 percent in Los Angeles, and 56 percent in Chicago, for example. Back in the early 1990s, the share of heroin-related deaths reported by DAWN that involved other drugs was even higher, 90 percent or more.

We hear about “overdoses” of illegal drugs for the simple reason that this plays into the hands of those who run the War on Drugs. It’s an inconvenient truth, for them, that the most deadly problem with most narcotics (illegal or prescription-legal) is with what other drugs (illegal or prescription-legal or over-the-counter) they interact.

One might argue that drug warriors, by focusing on targeted illegal drugs, are killing Americans by distracting us from the biggest danger, mixing drugs.

This over-focus on a hated thing to the detriment of good diagnosis is not limited to pharmacology.

Consider economic policy. I know many people who blame the 2008 financial implosion (as well as its lingering effects, even) entirely on the 1990s (bipartisan) repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. They focus on one bit of deregulation. Other enforced regulations leading to the debacle, not to mention Federal Reserve inflationism, housing market subsidies, anti-discrimination programs, and a whole mortgage after-market created by government creatures, Fannie and Freddie?

Blankout.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

Categories
ideological culture too much government

Are You My Father?

Van Jones, the president’s controversial former green jobs czar, must have been struck by lightning yesterday en route to taping ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

Discussing President Obama’s new “My Brother’s Keeper” program to “build pathways to success” for at-risk “children of color,” Van Jones embraced a notion of corporate personhood far beyond anything previously expressed . . . well, by anyone.

First, Jones advanced the new Obama initiative as just another bailout: “Listen, everybody else . . . got in trouble in America. Wall Street got in trouble; we were there for them. The auto industry got in trouble; we were there for the auto industry. You got a whole generation of young kids who are clearly in trouble.”

A bailout isn’t a dad, though.

And functioning fathers are “essential,” argued Manhattan Institute scholar Heather MacDonald. Noting that fatherless kids are 20 times more likely to go to prison and nine times more likely to drop out of school, she applauded the president’s statement that “nothing keeps a young man out of trouble like a father who takes an active role in his son’s life.”

MacDonald also highlighted that a whopping 73 percent of black children are now born to single mothers, and that three decades of social programs “haven’t made much difference.”

“Do you think you need anybody to tell us how terrible this is?” Van Jones, who is black, pointedly asked Mac Donald. “We work on it every day. We need corporate America to step up.”

Jones wants corporations to be fathers to our children? That’s taking personhood for corporations too far.

And asking too little of men.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture responsibility

A Trumped-up “Consensus”

“A co-founder of Greenpeace told a Senate panel on Tuesday that there is no scientific evidence to back claims that humans are the ‘dominant cause’ of climate change,” the Washington Times reported yesterday.

But what about that grand consensus — “97 percent” — of scientists saying the exact opposite?

Well, economist and legal theoretician David D. Friedman wrote, this week, that one of the most famous citations about the climate change consensus is the result of some, uh, data fudging.

Friedman chased down the origin of that infamous and oft-repeated 97 percent figure through three papers, all available online. Despite the high tone of certainty, the scientists who collated information from surveys of other scientists did not find that “over 97% endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” At best, a huge cohort of these scientists agreed that humans merely contributed to global warming. Very different.

Friedman concluded that the main author responsible for the strong interpretation of weak findings,  John Cook, told “a deliberate lie.”

This scientist’s misrepresentation of “the result of his own research” doesn’t prove that Anthropogenic Global Warming is true or untrue, of course. But it does suggest that the “consensus” so much talked about is shaky indeed.

I began the week talking about our reliance upon experts to gather, analyze and report on information honestly and reliably.

And how horrible it is when they let us down.

The climate change we need is in the culture of academic responsibility.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture media and media people

Lying Will Not Set Us Free

A professor in the John Hopkins University School of Nursing published, a decade ago, an alleged statistical finding of a rather shocking nature: “the leading cause of death in the United States among African American women aged 15 to 45 years,” she and her colleagues wrote, was “femicide, the homicide of women,” clarified as “intimate partner violence.” Domestic homicide.

Attorney General Eric Holder passed along the statistic. It got a lot of attention. You’ll find the claim on government websites and on YouTube.

Thankfully, it is not true.

Christina Hoff Sommers first blew the lid off the bad statistic in 2011. More recently, writes Wendy McElroy at Reason,

the Washington Post fact checker, Glenn Kessler investigated Holder’s statement and published his results. Kessler wrote that CDC “data show that, for the year 2008 (the year before Holder’s speeches), cancer, heart disease, unintentional injury and HIV/AIDS all topped homicide. Then if you break out intimate-partner homicide, that ends up being seventh or eighth on the list (depending on whether you also include all homicides.)” As a basis of comparison, in 2008, cancer killed 1,871 black females; heart disease, 1,629; all homicides, 326.

You can see the motive to up the numbers. One instance of domestic violence ending in death is horrific, but thousands would carry more political weight.

Wendy McElroy, upon whose reportage I am entirely and confidently reliant, asks if the truth would have the “same media appeal as sensationalized falsehoods.” She concludes, sadly, with “Perhaps the media can be shamed into valuing the truth.”

We depend upon the honesty and good will of our fellow citizens — scientists, journalists, bureaucrats and politicians the most. Inaccuracies are bad; lies are worse. The truth can set us free. But falsehood is mainly useful to hoodwink us.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture

A Right to Sport?

One of the reasons many of us find pleasure in sports is that it provides respite from life-and-death issues like politics.

But there is no respite: the current Winter Olympics now going on in Sochi, Krasnodar Krai, Russia, has been ultra-political from the get-go. Russia’s chest-baring potentate, Vlad “The Impulsive” Putin, has spent billions to showcase Russian greatness, and will spend billions of taxpayer rubles more.

But amidst talk of terrorism and toilets, undrinkable water and unthinkable discrimination, you will probably be the very opposite of “shocked, shocked” to learn that the Olympic Charter promotes something as odd as this:

The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practicing sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.

David Howden, at the Mises Institute’s Circle Bastiat, directs our attention to the peculiar framing of the issue of access to games and entertainment competition in terms of rights, which are not

founded on any rigorous analysis, but rather represent preferences. (The preferences of the United Nations, incidentally.) Perhaps the more dangerous problem is that the past century has seen such an inflation of human rights that each one’s value has diminished significantly.

My take’s slightly different: Human rights get cheapened when equated with mere entertainment — or other benefits provided by governments.

But there’s something like a right to sport within the right to pursue our happiness.

Despite Sochi’s broken toilets and the modern Olympics’ long history of politicians pursuing power, the words of our Declaration of Independence come to mind when I see a skier turning flips through the air on a big jump.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture

Too Fine a Point

Whatever one makes of the direction Egypt is headed, the most ominous headline I’ve seen, recently, is the one that is ostensibly optimistic: “Egypt: 98.1% of voters approve constitution.”

That was in USA Today.

It is not, of course, believable.

What do more than 98 percent of America’s voters agree on?

Transplant that radical supermajority to Egypt, where politics is often deadly, a coup recently took out the biggest faction — and with it, the previous working constitution — and where the major faction is associated with terrorism and street violence, and we are to expect a consensus like this?

The title defeats itself, undermines itself.

It might as well have said, “This Title Is a Lie,” except without the paradox.

Then again, with only 38.6 percent of voters going to the polls, that 98.1 figure takes on a new meaning. Could it be that, of 38.6 percent of eligible voters actually voting, the ones who did show up were nearly unanimous in their support of the new regime?

More likely, but still not likely at all.

Revolutionary politics is an ugly business. And what we are to make of what’s really happening in Egypt is beyond my ken. I just know that 98.1 percent of Egyptian voters do not approve of the constitution.

But if this kind of nonsense gets reported with a straight face in America, it should make us more circumspect about the other information we receive about conflicts overseas.

I’m 98.1 percent confident of that opinion. At least.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies

Prez States Obvious; News at 11


A magazine profile of President Barack Obama has set the commentariat a-talking.

On racism, the president says that “some” folks hate him because he’s black; and others support him because he’s black.

Wow. What was obvious in 2008 seems . . . painfully obvious now.

Similarly, the prez ’fessed up (again) to his past marijuana use — and his long-term tobacco habit. He uttered the word “vice.” He noted that marijuana doesn’t seem any more harmful than alcohol . . . which implies that the prohibition of marijuana makes less sense than the once-prohibited but now-legal hootch.

A reasonable opinion. Held, before President O’s pronouncement, by a clear majority of the public  . . . not as radical, but as obvious.

So why make such a big deal about these statements? Because of previous taboos? It’s not as if Obama took leadership on any of these ideas, moving them from “horrors!-false” to “blah-true.”

Years ago, the movie Bulworth featured Warren Beatty as a senator who, all the sudden, started blurting out things he believed to be true, but which were not usually said in public. It was a comedy. (Your tastes and appraisals may vary.) The prez comes off as nowhere near as outrageous (or straightforward) as the Beatty character, though he, too, has rapped in public.

But perhaps we grade on a curve. A president speaking obvious truths is memorable not because the truths are daring, but because of the novelty: a politician has deigned to acknowledge truth.

File the brouhaha under O, not for Obama but for Obvious.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.