A friend writes in to say that Kerri Dunn was actually a fairly busy jail bird, publishing a paper about race, gender, and stereotypes (surprise!). Here's that paper.
As you can see from the first page, Kerri Dunn claims affiliation with Claremont McKenna College two years after haven been terminated for falsifying police reports and a hate crime.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Jail Bird Kerri Dunn Publishes From Prison Using CMC Affiliation
Where Kerri Dunn Is Six Years Later And Why She Matters
"This is like a very big deal if they think I'm a suspect" -- Kerri Dunn to The Los Angeles after it surfaced that she had faked a hate crime. For those wanting to know where Dunn is now, scroll down to the end.March 9th, 2004 is a day that ought to live in Claremont McKenna history. It is the anniversary of Kerri Dunn's hate crime hoax and a stain upon the character of Claremont McKenna's administration. Despite maintaining her innocence, Ms. Dunn wound up spending some time in prison for faking that hate crime and lying about stolen property. She filed false police reports.
The full coverage of the entire events were covered as per usual by The Claremont Independent. That whole issue is embedded at the very bottom and linked here. (For Facebook readers, click on the title and it should take you there.) I have also posted the entire Los Angeles Times article down below.
All of this could have been prevented and should be remembered whenever there's an alleged bias related incident. There was, as The Los Angeles Times put it, a "crisis" of hate up at the Claremont Colleges that lead to it. In reality, it was Kerri Dunn, a then 39-year old visiting psychology professor, who played upon deep seated racial animus in our culture to achieve a goal: the division of our student body. And she succeeded, at least for a moment.
[A brief note before we begin: Nathan Harden, a CMCer who transferred to Yale and now writes for Phi Beta Cons and Huffington Post, wrote about Dunn at National Review's Phi Beta Cons. (Mr. Harden's summary is good, but Ms. Dunn actually was in the process of converting to Judaism, so it's not exactly accurate to say that she's not Jewish.]
Now what of that campus culture of hate? The events leading up to the Dunn story, though is seldom, if ever told in the rich detail it deserves. Here's how one student described it to me who was on campus then.Someone had a black history month poster on their door in Marks, and someone wrote "nigger" on a picture of George Washington Carver. This was extremely weird, as no one could figure out who hated George Washington Carver. It just so happens that a group of black students from UCLA were visiting campus. They were in Marks (no one knew what they were doing in there), and it was they who reported the incident.Shortly before that, some Harvey Mudd students, in one of their ritutalist burning sessions, had burned a paper mache piece of artwork in the shape of a cross, prompting none other than Hughes Suffren, dean of the Office of Black Student Affairs, to call it a hate incident in February 2004, and to blow it out of proportion.
This somehow prompted an afternoon meeting in the Ath, where one of the college's lawyers (from O'Melveney & Myers - knowing what I know now, this must have cost a few thousand dollars just to have him there) patiently explained that, constitutionally speaking, there was no difference between "hate speech" and regular speech, thus the college couldn't punish "hate speech." This seemed to upset some students in the audience, but I was impressed by the college's stance for free speech. I forget who the other speakers were, but a professor invited herself to speak and went on and on like CMC was a hotbed of Klan activity. The haters should "crawl back under the rock they came from," she said. Some students applauded, the rest of us were confused by the whole situation.
This, of course, was Kerri Dunn. When her car was discovered vandalized that night (several hours after her speech - nothing about the incident made sense, and some of us realized that from the beginning) the presumption was that the haters were pissed off by what she had said at the forum. As I said, nothing about this made sense, and some of us realized it from the beginning.
Anyhow, it all started with that damned group from UCLA calling in that stupid grafitti on the George Washington Carver picture. There was other crap that semester (someone wrote "fag" in a bathroom stall at Pomona, and it became a 5-C incident worthy of discussion groups about homophobia - seriously, some writing in the bathroom stall); the remarkable confluence of identity politics leading up to the Kerri Dunn incident was striking at the time.
"Do you know what's scary?" Hughes Suffren, dean of the Office of Black Student Affairs, said in February 2004, according to the Claremont Courier. "What's scary is that Claremont students are supposed to be the most intelligent young minds in the world. The global leaders of the future. You're telling me a future global leader doesn't know the symbolic significance of burning a cross?" Suffren continues to speak before Claremont McKenna resident assistants for their obligatory racial sensitivity training, as I wrote about here.
President Gann tried to spin her overreaction to the Dunn event.
While this information certainly comes as a shock and surprise to our community, Claremont McKenna College remains committed to its mission as an undergraduate residential college in which academic freedom and free speech are wholeheartedly supported, and in which all individuals feel welcome to study and teach here, and free to express their viewpoints, thoughts, and ideas.R.J. Pestritto, a CMC alum, and a professor of history at Hillsdale College, wrote to President Gann:
Thank you for your update. As an alum of CMC, I was pleased to hear that you will be scrutinizing the employment contract of the professor who perpetrated this hoax on the Claremont community. I hope that that will be your second-to-last action as president of CMC. Your final action should, of course, be to turn in your resignation, if the Board has not already seen fit to relieve you of your duties.In your rush to stuff your politically correct agenda down the throats of the Claremont community, you have now made CMC a laughingstock.
The statement you have released is an outrage, and is woefully inadequate. You make clear that you will hold the offending professor accountable (as should, of course, be done). But you take no responsibility yourself for your rush to judgment and your rush to take advantage of the situation. You owe an unambiguous apology to the entire Claremont community. You owe the Claremont community your resignation.
President Gann didn't resign. Instead, she pushed for more quotas at the college -- as she said she would to the student protesters. Here's what The St. Petersburg Times in their rather lengthy feature about it:For the past two years [President Gann] been pushing to diversify the faculty and student body and to beef up departments that for decades had lived in the shadow of the famously conservative economics and government departments.
So when the activist groups demanded that the college increase more students of color (whatever that is), President Gann gave them what many of them wanted anyways -- more quota-ed students and faculty members. Who says faking hate crimes don't pay?Nevertheless, Gann was determined that her school more closely resemble the society around it. While 30 percent of the student body identifies itself as minority, Gann said, the number of African-American undergraduates (4 percent of the 1,052 students) is far lower than that of schools such as Duke.
Moreover, the equally small number of minority professors makes recruiting qualified minorities much harder. The school had two minority faculty members in 1990 and it still had two when a report on diversity was done 12 years later. (Gann has hired two tenure-track minority professors for 2005, she said.)
Everyone seems to be wondering where Kerri Dunn is now and that's where I have been pouring most of my energy these last few days. It turns out that Kerri Dunn is living in Montclair, New Jersey, and like everyone these days, she's on Facebook. Most recently, she became a fan of Human Rights Watch, Barack Obama's Accomplishments, Greenpeace International, Moveon.org, and lest I forget, the Coffee Party. So, in other words, she's a typical leftist.
March 11, 2004 Thursday
Home Edition
SECTION: CALIFORNIA; Metro; Metro Desk; Part B; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1000 words
HEADLINE: California;
College Classes Canceled to Protest Hate Crime;
Officials and students at five Claremont campuses react after vandals trash a professor's car and spray-paint it with slurs.
BYLINE: Joy Buchanan, Christiana Sciaudone and Monte Morin, Times Staff Writers
BODY:
Hundreds of students at the Claremont Colleges marched in protest and administrators canceled classes at five of the system's campuses Wednesday after vandals attacked a visiting professor's car and painted it with ethnic slurs.
The incident, which police classified as a hate crime, apparently occurred as the professor was speaking at a forum about racial intolerance at Claremont McKenna College on Tuesday night.
Vandals smashed the car's windshield, slashed all four tires, stole more than $1,700 worth of personal property and covered the car with black spray paint, according to police.
On Wednesday, more than 500 students and faculty members held teach-ins across the system's campuses, and some said they feared the colleges were experiencing a series of hate crimes.
"It cannot be passed off as just an attack of violence," said Jaqueline Dubois, a student organizer. "I think people are scared."
The attack is the latest in a string of incidents. Earlier this year, four students stole an 11-foot cross from an art class and set it afire. The next month, a student discovered a racial slur written on a picture of George Washington Carver, a black agricultural scientist.
College administrators have offered a $10,000 reward for information leading to the car vandals. A spokeswoman for the FBI said federal agents were helping Claremont police with the investigation.
"This is one of the most serious incidents that I've experienced here in Claremont in my last 26 years," Claremont Police Lt. Stan Vanhorn said. "The car had been viciously vandalized."
The owner, professor Kerri Dunn, has taught social psychology and introductory psychology at Claremont McKenna College for two years. Dunn said she had been outspoken in her classes on the issue of racial intolerance, and she suspected that the vandalism might have been committed by one of her students or a friend of the student.
"I definitely believe I was targeted. I was speaking out, and one of the things they wrote on my car was 'shut up,' " Dunn said. The instructor said she was raised Catholic and had been converting to Judaism, and that one of the slurs on her car was anti-Semitic.
"How else would they believe I was Jewish unless they were in my class?" she asked.
Dunn said the attack might have been prompted by her comments in class Monday, when she urged students to speak out against earlier racial incidents. "I kind of got on a soapbox and asked what was wrong with them," Dunn said.
College administrators who canceled classes said the vandalism required a strong response.
"We have absolutely zero tolerance for any hate crime," said Pamela Gann, president of Claremont McKenna. "This is an affront not only to the faculty member, but to the whole community, because higher education institutions stand for rational discourse."
Gatherings were held throughout the day Wednesday, including a nighttime rally that attracted hundreds. At one gathering, civil rights attorney Connie Rice said some thought the college shouldn't have canceled classes.
"While some think it's an overreaction, I don't," Rice said. "The community ended the terror by saying, 'Not here.' That's what you've done."
In January, four students stole a student's cross sculpture from Pomona College and burned it at Harvey Mudd College. They turned themselves in and said the cross-burning was not racially motivated. School officials did not contact the Claremont Police Department because they didn't consider it a hate crime.
Students later protested the administration's handling of the incident.
The four students were placed on disciplinary probation, banned from intercollegiate athletics for one year and required to complete 100 hours of community service, said Randy Ringen, spokesman for Harvey Mudd. They also agreed to compensate the artist and write an apology to the college community and the custodial staff.
In February, a student discovered a racial slur written on a picture of scientist Carver hanging in a dorm at Claremont McKenna. School officials determined that the act was not a hate crime because it did not target an individual. They did notify police, but police did not file a report.
Also in February, Clark Lee, a student at Claremont McKenna, said he and others reported a student group that required participants to take a photo with at least 10 Asians as a condition of membership in the group.
In response to some of these incidents, Claremont McKenna sponsored a panel discussion about free speech, hate speech and hate crimes Tuesday night. Dunn spoke at the forum, then went to her office to grade papers. When she returned to her car, she discovered the vandalism.
Several students said canceling classes and holding rallies were appropriate responses to the most recent incident.
"We're just really thankful for everyone uniting for this and showing solidarity," said Lee, who is from Taiwan. "Students are usually apathetic, but when things actually hit home, they hit hard."
Tunji Balogun, a senior at Pomona, said he and other students had formed a group called the Student Liberation and Action Movement, or SLAM, in response to the cross-burning. He said some white students thought he and others had overreacted to the event but now were rallying with them.
"It's everybody's problem. "It's not just a problem for these few, angry students of color," Balogun said. "It's disconcerting that it took an incident against a white professor to get this response."
Balogun, who is black, said the students' response had been sincere.
But Amit Thakkar, a Pomona College senior whose parents are from India, said: "Issues like this happen so much here that I can't even tell you all of them.... I don't know if I would feel safe walking around on this campus knowing that someone here is capable of this."
Dunn said her insurance company told her she was not covered for the damage, "and I don't know how I'm going to afford another car now. I guess I'm going to have to use a bike." But, she said, "They're not scaring me away."
Monday, March 15, 2010
Mixed on Mixed Housing at Pitzer and Harvey Mudd
A new article in The L.A. Times mentions Pitzer's and Harvey Mudd's gender neutral housing. For the record and for my loyal readers, I remain fairly agnostic on the question, but this might be a function more of the fact that I have lived in a single for the last two years.
It's worth quoting this article in full:
They weren't looking to make a political statement or to be pioneers of gender liberation. Each just wanted a familiar, decent roommate rather than a stranger after their original roommates left to study abroad.Um... what's an "other"? Does Pitzer even have others? That strikes me as particularly odd. But then again, this is Pitzer. . .
That's how Pitzer College sophomores Kayla Eland, female, and Lindon Pronto, male, began sharing a room this semester on Holden Hall's second floor. They are not a couple and neither is gay. They are just compatible roommates in a new, sometimes controversial, dormitory option known as gender-neutral housing that is gaining support at some colleges in California and across the nation.
Eland, a biology major who hopes to become a doctor, said that a roommate's personality and study habits are more important than gender. "This might not be right for everyone," she said of sharing the small, cinder block-walled room with a man. "But I think it's important to have the right to choose where you want to live, how you want to live and who you want to live with."
Pronto, an environmental studies major who works each summer as a forest firefighter, agreed. Apart from remembering to lower the toilet seat, he said, living with a woman friend is not much different from rooming with a man. "As far as I'm concerned, a roommate is a roommate," he said.
Although the number of participants remains small, gender-neutral housing has gained attention as the final step in the integration of student housing.
. . .
Pitzer housing applications ask whether students prefer a roommate to be woman, man, "other," or have no preference. Or students can request to live together, as Eland and Pronto did after losing their original roommates.
Naturally, unexplored in this whole article is the economic benefits to the colleges of gender-neutral housing. In short, colleges that sometimes face a housing crunch due to study abroad or over enrollment might seriously consider gender-neutral housing as a means of addressing their problem.
That said, I have a hard time buying into the politics surrounding it. "The final step in the integration of student housing"? Nonsense. The final step in integration would be to make sure we all lived in one giant room. How inclusive that would be!
In any event, moving on to Harvey Mudd:
Harvey Mudd College, next to Pitzer in the Claremont Colleges, began gender-neutral housing last fall mainly as an option for gay and transgender students, said Guy Gerbick, dean of residential life. Seven students joined; among them are a man and two women, all straight, who share a triple room.First off, props to the gentleman who is rooming with two other ladies. That doesn't strike me as particularly conducive to studying, but it does seem like a fun sitcom. I'm a bit concerned about parents not being able to nix such a decision at Harvey Mudd. Aren't they the ones picking up the tab? Don't you wager that they ought to have more of a decision? I certainly do.
Parents cannot veto such a decision at Harvey Mudd, but Gerbick asks students to discuss it with their families ahead of time. He also asks applicants whether they are romantically involved; all of this year's participants said no. But if they were, the school could not forbid them from rooming together.
"If we are going into a post-gender world, then the regulation of private behavior is just not practical," he said.
Several years ago, an earlier proposal for gender-neutral housing was killed at Harvey Mudd by skeptical administrators and older, more conservative trustees, Gerbick recalled. More recently, 74% of Harvey Mudd students voted in a survey to allow the option and, to Gerbick's satisfaction, a new administration agreed.
But what the heck is a "post-gender" world? As for regulation of private behavior, you have to be joking. Harvey Mudd regulates what goes on students' white boards. They regulate flyers that they don't like and conversations that they don't like. Why wouldn't they want regulate what goes on in their dorm rooms? At the very least, they ought to be consistent.
As for whether or not I'd ever want to live with a woman, I think it's best summed up in the question of whether or not a woman would ever want to live with me. I remain agnostic on that question as well.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
My Big Government Op-ed on OSHA's Jordan Barab CMC'75
Over at Big Government, I wrote a piece on OSHA and how CMCer Jordan Barab is trying to make the organization still more menacing, to the utter disaster of the rest of the country. The title summarizes what I think about OSHA, "Hit the Road, Jordan."
Hope you enjoy it and I did try to edit it more closely, but I'm sure, as always, something or other got through.
Henry Kravis is the Graduation Speaker?
Apparently The Student Life had it wrong.
Henry Kravis CMC '67 will be the graduation speaker, not Surin Pitsuwan.
Pitney's Analysis of Why 2010 Is Not 1994
Professor John J. Pitney Jr. wrote a piece for National Review Online about whether or not 2010 will be the G.O.P.'s 1994. He says no, and his analysis is generally right. Here are the finest paragraphs of the piece.
The most important differences between the two years stem from the depths of the country’s problems. In 1994, the deficit was 2.9 percent of gross domesticAs much as I liked the piece, I think Pitney missed some rather key examples of why 2010 is profoundly different. In short, the rise of conservative-tea party media is unparalleled. Yes, it has its antecedents in conservative talk radio, butproduct . In 2010, it’s 9.2 percent, and the Baby Boom generation stands 16 years closer to busting Social Security and Medicare. Back then, the Cold War had recently ended and the scope of terrorism was not yet clear. Now the threats are painfully obvious.
If the Republicans want to present the electorate with a serious policy agenda, they will have to deal with these problems in a realistic and mature manner. That won’t be easy. Deserving victory never is.
It might seem a bit self-serving to say this, but Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood, Big Government, and Big Journalism concoctions are starting to have an effect on the culture.
Combine Obama's incompetence and arrogance with a good ole fashioned James O'Keefe investigation into ACORN and the lid was blown wide off. Before the ACORN videos, conservatives had seldom had a victory. After that, we've had only victories and in the most unlikely of places -- New Jersey and Massachusetts!
Frankly, I think there's something more systematic going on. I think we're seeing the Right's rejection to play by the left's rules. Fox was the first, but not the last, of the attempts to set about creating uniquely conservative, or iconoclastic responses to media bias and it's working. The middle is breaking for the center right -- if only because the left cannot resist thuggish displays of power in their efforts to pass entitlement after entitlement.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Warm Regards for Pitzer College's Choice of Commencement Speaker
He came to Newark looking to pick a fight for the peopleWithout a doubt, the best commencement speaker this year is Pitzer's choice of Mayor Cory Booker. Well done, Pitzer! Well done, indeed!
I'll get to how much I respect Pitzer for bringing Booker in a moment, but something must be said. Seriously, Claremont McKenna! Why, oh why, are you bringing back Surin Pitsuwan CMC '72? I like the guy, but that speech when he was last year's commencement speech was really horrendous! And why did you pick the same guy two years in a row when he was such a lousy speaker. Does this mean that Mr. Pitsuwan will be the speaker for my graduation, too? If so, I may skip out.
In any event, onto Mr. Booker. If you haven't heard yet, Mr. Booker is a member of the Democratic party that was once called a "wolf in sheep's clothing" by none other than this year's Claremont McKenna speaker, Jesse Jackson Sr. -- this namecalling despite Mr. Booker having worked for Mr. Jacksor's 1988 presidential campaign.
So why is Mr. Booker under attack from the left? Because he's not beholden to the public sector unions that make being a lefty so hard. Exhibit A I take from a selection of a speech he gave at the 2008 Democratic National Convention as reported by City Journal.
Particularly outspoken was Newark’s Cory Booker, who noted how “vicious” teachers’ unions can be in their efforts to stymie reform: “Ten years ago, when I started talking about school choice, I was tarred and feathered,” Booker noted. “I literally was brought into a room by a [teachers’] union [representative] . . . and threatened that I would never win in office if I kept talking about school choice, if I kept talking about charter schools . . . there are billboards all over my city paid for by the teachers’ unions attacking me and I don’t even have mayoral control yet. I just tell the truth about what’s going on.” Booker implored Democratic office holders to “have the political will to stand up against these phenomenally powerful interests” and suggested that “when I started talking about this, I had so many Democratic establishment folks turn their backs on me, and it was Republicans in America that were willing to donate to my campaign in Newark, New Jersey. So we have to understand as Democrats that we have been wrong on education; it’s time to get right.”And from another City Journal article, there's a full profile, with this interesting paragraph:
A Democrat, Booker nevertheless remained an outsider, often outvoted eight to one by the Newark Democratic political establishment. So he began staging media events—dismissed as “stunts” by Mayor James—to draw attention to local ills, including camping out on street corners to spotlight the drug trade that openly flourished in the city. Booker also crossed party lines to seek solutions to Newark’s problems. With South Jersey Republican businessman Peter Denton, he cofounded the education-reform group E3, which advocated bringing more schooling alternatives—from charter schools to vouchers—to struggling inner-city kids. “When I first met Cory, school choice was still very controversial in Newark,” says Denton. “In black communities, it was understood as something that white Republicans supported. But Cory understood its importance right away and was willing to advocate for it.” Booker was appalled to see many of Newark’s political leaders—“the connected, the elected, the elite,” he calls them—sending their kids to private schools but condemning poor children to remain in the terrible public schools.Now that's some hope and change even I could get behind.
Friday, March 12, 2010
John Doggett Gives Talk on America's Response to Climate Change
For those wondering what we as Americans should -- and should not -- do in response to so-called global warming, have a look over at John Doggett CMC '69.
Here are some selections:
Mr. Doggett has had a fascinating life as founder of the Black Student Union (BSU), conservative talk show host, entrepreneur, and now professor of business at the University of Texas. For me on him, please see the two part interview I conducted with him for The Claremont Independent.America is no longer the largest polluter in the world
“The good news is: we’re no longer No. 1 in something that we don’t want to be No. 1 in. We’re no longer the largest polluter in the world, which really irritates the Europeans. They like to say, ‘you Americans, you know: you screw everything up.’ I said, ‘Talk to the Chinese.’ In 2008 the Chinese passed us as the largest polluters…. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) by 2010 -- next year -- the Chinese will be the largest consumer of energy in the world. But … IEA says that around the next 25 to 30 years they will build more new generating capacity, distribution and transmission capacity -- new -- than we have in the United States today. New! And they say it’s going to cost them about $3.8 trillion to do that. If you know any people who are in the business of making products for the electrical grid, guess what, there’s one place they should be selling.”
“But for us as entrepreneurs, for people who say we believe in capitalism, when you have countries that have to spend trillions of dollars to be able to continue to grow their economy, if we can’t figure out a way to sell them products and services that they need, then we should be ashamed of ourselves.
“Another way to look at what’s going on, … In 2005 China was using a third less energy than us. By 2010, they will be using more than we are. Think about how hard it is to build power plants here. This is the Chinese experience in building power plants. …. "In 2006 they added more than 100,000 megawatts. Now … what does that mean? It meant they were bringing on line two new coal-fired plants a week, two a week. They slowed down some, now it’s only one new coal-fired plant a week. How long has it taken you, Ron (Harper), to bring your plant on line and you got people saying we shouldn’t do that. … Well, guess what? Their new plants are more efficient than their old plants, and they are cleaner than their old plants, but they are not as clean as anything that I saw here at Basin and they do not have a Sierra Club. They have people that hate air pollution, but they do not have people who say we’re going to shut down coal. As we say in Texas, 'that dog ain’t hunting. '
Be aggressive in protecting your power source: coal
“And so, my second message for you is this: you have to be aggressive in protecting your power source, coal, right now and investing in ways to make coal cleaner for a very simple reason, the Chinese are going to continue to grow their economy with coal as the number one energy source and they’re not going to agree to do any of the things that people are trying to make us do. And so if we want to see how it is to compete with both our hands tied behind our back and our legs strapped together, we can try to do that.
“But Goldman {Sachs} was right, and I’m sharing it with you: we’re dealing with competitors who have bought into the American way of life and capitalism and the free market and they’re not going to have those constraints. And if we want to compete, we’re going to have to compete in the way the game is played: by innovating, because China is a coal capitol. We’re at 50 percent, they are at 80 percent. … They use more coal than the United States, Europe and Japan combined and it’s going to continue. But the Chinese have a real air pollution problem and they are starting to deal with it by investing a lot of different technologies including ultra-critical and super critical coal plants, which are the most efficient coal plants in the world and they are, by the next year, going to be the leading manufacturer or constructor of these new coal plant technologies in the world….”
“But there’s a price and with that price comes opportunity. We have a conversation about climate change and that conversation in this country is all about us and maybe the Europeans. I showed you slides with data from the CIA that says 40 percent of all the people on the planet live in Brazil, Russia, India and China. Forget Russia and Brazil, 40 percent of all the people in the world live in two countries, India and China.
"And so what they do is really important and if we’re going to have a conversation about the climate or about cap-and-trade or carbon tax, about doing something about greenhouse gases or global warming, that conversation has to include them because people in China hate dirty air -- it's the second largest source of protest in that country. The first one is {the Chinese} government taking land and not paying people properly for it.…
China's dirty air doesn't stay in China
“My wife went back for Chinese New Year a couple of years ago which is late January-early February. Talked to her friends from high school and college, and she said every one of her friends who had children said every one of their kids had respiratory problems because of the dirty air, 100 percent. …
"The Chinese Government is learning that if they are going to continue to grow their economy -- as they grow their economy -- and as more and more people become members of the middle class, like the United States, middle class people don’t like this stuff and they are speaking out. … But here’s what’s really important for us to understand in this conversation about climate change. This air, this dirty air, does not stay in China. This is a picture of the western part of the United States with a quote from the Wall Street Journal a couple of years ago. On some days almost a third of the air over LA and San Francisco can be traced to directly to Asia. With it comes up to three quarters of the black carbon particulate pollution that reaches the West Coast. That was two years ago.
“What does this picture look like, if Goldman (Sachs) is right and the Chinese economy is four times this large and the Indian is 10 times this large and we have not engaged them in the conversation about what to do about the climate? We can bankrupt Basin (Electric) and it won’t make a beans bit of difference -- and that’s not part of the conversation. It has to be part of the conversation. ...
“Now, what do we know? There’s going to be this meeting in December in Copenhagen. We’ve told the Chinese and the Indians that they need to sign on (climate proposals), and they said, ‘No, nix, not going to do it; we’ll consider signing in a decade, but we have growth to deal with and, anyway, you guys are responsible for screwing everything up. It’s not us, so we’re going to do what we want to do because although we are now the largest polluters in the world, we’re responsible for 25 percent of all greenhouse gases, just those two countries and on a per capita basis, on a person basis, we’re still much cleaner than you are.’ ...
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Joel Pollak Fundraiser on Wednesday Night
Joel Pollak, my old co-worker with Alan Dershowitz, friend, and fellow Big Government writer, is running for Congress against Jan "Single Payer" Schakowsky.
I've written about Joel before here, but it's going to be a special treat to see him this Wednesday, March 17th.
I realize that it is during Spring Break, but I'm told to publicize the event widely. Here's the website. The information is copied below and for those of you wondering, here are Joel's issues.
March 17th, 2009
7:00 PM
The home of Abigail and Zach Shrier
1620 S. Crest Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90035
Please RSVP to Ashley Kain, Deputy Campaign Manger, Joel Pollak for Congress at Ashley@pollakforcongress.com or 847-347-6082$50 suggested donation to the campaign
“One of the biggest stories I’ve ever seen uncovered in my life… was [uncovered by] Joel Pollak, who’s running against Jan Schakowsky.”
“Joel Pollak found the book, and he wrote a piece… it was one of the great moments. My heart was pounding because it was objectively and obviously truthful…”
- Andrew Breitbart CPAC 2010
Join us in an evening with Andrew Breitbart and Joel Pollak.
“Taking On and Taking Down the Chicago-D.C. Machine”
Andrew Breitbart, Commentator for the Washington Times, Author of Breitbart.com, breitbart.tv, Big Hollywood, Big Government, and Big Journalism, regular guest host for Dennis Miller’s nationally-syndicated radio program.
Joel Pollak, a Harvard-educated human rights lawyer and critically-acclaimed author, is the GOP candidate running against incumbent Jan Schakowsky in Illinois’ 9th District. Joel rose to national prominence after challenging Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), asking: “How much, if any, responsibility do you have for the financial crisis”? The ‘debate’ became a YouTube and TV sensation and support for Joel has been pouring in from around the country.
Special VIP Opportunity with Breitbart and Joel Pollak
We will be having a special opportunity to meet with Andrew Breitbart in the first 15 minutes of the event. There will be a $250 contribution per person or $450 for a group of two for this opportunity. We will allow all VIPs to take their photo with Breitbart and Joel Pollak.
Please notify Ashley Kain for VIP meeting or sign up here:
http://pollakforcongress.com/LAreception
$50 suggested donation to the campaign
Contributions to Pollak for Congress are not tax deductible as charitable donations for federal income tax purposes.
Federal Election Law requires political committees to report the name, mailing address, occupation and name of employer for each individual whose contributions aggregate in excess of $200 in a calendar year. Contributions from corporations and foreign nationals are prohibited. Individuals are limited to $2,400 per election (primary and general) for a total of $4,800 per cycle or $9,600 per couple on joint bank accounts.
Dean Hess Quoted on Obama's Pick for the Fed
Janet Yellen is apparently going to be Obama's appointee for vice chairman of the Fed. But should she be appointed? Dean Hess was quoted for Business Week. Here's his response:
Gregory Hess, a former Fed economist who’s now faculty dean at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, California, said Yellen’s views on inflation may be “worrisome” to investors and could result in higher bond yields.
“She would create a wider chasm” with other Fed policy makers who are more likely to favor higher interest rates, Hess said.
Personal Cost
“She truly does understand the costs of recessions, and I think she does understand the personal cost that this puts on people’s lives,” said Hess, a member of the Shadow Open Market Committee, a group of economists that critiques Fed policy and has traditionally favored keeping inflation close to zero. “The question is, does she take that too far in the implementation of policy?”
Romney Book Tops Bestseller List; Tour Lists CMC as "Claremont College"
Mitt Romney is coming to speak at Claremont McKenna on April 15. His book, No Apologies: The Case for American Greatness, now ranks as number one on the bestsellers list, according to the Politico.
Unfortunately, Mitt Romney's book tour lists that speaking engagement at Claremont McKenna as "Claremont College." I commented that that wasn't right on the Facebook group, but as of yet, no change.
In any event, to get us prepared for Romney's speech, here are several short video clips where he reads from the book.
Here is talking about the presidential race and his views on current affairs.
And here is talking about his views on education.
No More TNCs?!
From Andrew Cosentino's party inform:
Per order of the Dean of Students office, TNC is canceled indefinitely. This isn't because of one specific incident, but as DOS examines certain policy issues TNCs will unfortunately remain off the Calender. I assure you that we are doing everything we can to remedy the situation.I wrote about Dean Mary Spellman back in the day about how she ended the drinking culture at Sarah Lawrence, well, look's like she's done that here, too.
Exit question: What will ASCMC waste our money on now? My bet is pizza at all the Senate meetings. Oh wait, you mean Chris Jones is already doing that?
Just Che No: Why is Pomona's Sociology Event Studying Che?
From: Markus Kessler [mailto:markus.r.kessler@
gmail.com ]
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 12:23 PM
To: Ernie Mendoza
Subject: CHE Movie Screening
Pomona College sociology liaisons will be hosting a Sociology Movie Night this evening at 7:00 p.m. in the SOCA lounge (corner of 6th and College Wy). Professor Colin Beck will discuss revolutionary movements, followed by a screening of Che, Part I. Snacks will be provided. Everyone is welcome.
Associated Press Writes on DeVore (CMC '85) Bid
Calif. Senate challenger says his time has arrived
Thursday, March 11, 2010
(03-11) 16:06 PST LOS ANGELES, (AP) --
In many other states, U.S. Senate candidate Chuck DeVore could be a rising political star, aligning himself with the budding tea party movement and the growing animosity toward increases in government spending.
A termed-out lawmaker known for his right-wing rhetoric on the floor of the California Assembly, DeVore has the pedigree of the ideal conservative candidate: leader in the Orange County Republican Party, Desert Storm veteran and officer in the Army National Guard, consistent record speaking out against tax hikes and critic of global warming.
His critiques even have been bipartisan. DeVore didn't like the bank bailout that began under President George W. Bush and he has railed against the Obama administration's efforts to sustain automakers and combat the recession.
It's that consistency that has made DeVore popular with skeptics of federal interventions of just about any sort and has endeared him to the most loyal party die-hards.
In California, however, being the darling of conservative activists and elements of the tea party movement goes only so far.
A Field Poll released in January showed that just 6 percent of likely voters in June's Republican primary said they would support DeVore in the Senate race against his opponents, former congressman Tom Campbell and former Hewlett-Packard Co. chief executive Carly Fiorina.
Barack Obama's 24-point victory over John McCain two years ago in California suggests a right-wing candidate such as DeVore would have face great difficulty in a statewide general election. Republicans in the state have slipped to just 31 percent of the electorate.
DeVore is undeterred. Despite greater name recognition for his primary opponents, DeVore believes he is best positioned to catch the rising tide against government deficit spending. He also believes his record of advocating small-government principles makes him the best candidate to challenge Democrat Barbara Boxer, who is seeking a fourth term in the Senate.
Each candidate will be appealing to primary voters this weekend during the California Republican Party convention in Santa Clara, the biggest stage so far for them to gauge their viability.
DeVore, 47, lags as badly in fundraising as he does in the polls, yet has managed to carve out a niche in the Republican primary contest, serving as Fiorina's main foil. His criticism of the wealthy former CEO began when the Republican contest was a two-candidate race and has increased since the moderate Campbell entered the race in January.
He has surprised Fiorina at least twice when she was a guest on talk radio programs, calling in to challenge her conservative credentials. One such exchange last month prompted Fiorina to respond, "Quit attacking me and start talking to the voters of California about what you would actually do."
When a Fiorina Web advertisement criticized Campbell as a wolf in sheep's clothing on fiscal matters, it was the Devore campaign that portrayed the ad as a fiasco, helping to propel the phrase "demon sheep" into California political lore.
He has been particularly adept at highlighting any missteps that could reveal Fiorina's unfamiliarity with an issue, such as when she said California should not rule out bankruptcy as an option for its current financial problems. States cannot legally file for bankruptcy protection.
If he doesn't win the June primary, DeVore seems intent on taking Fiorina down with him. By comparison, his criticism of Campbell, who as emerged as the front-runner, has been muted.
"Campbell would be the stronger candidate," DeVore said when asked to explain his attacks on Fiorina. "Campbell's flaws are less fatal and exploitable."
Others see DeVore's attacks on Fiorina as pure political calculation. Where Campbell is a social moderate in favor of gay marriage and abortion rights, DeVore and Fiorina are trying to appeal to the party's most conservative elements to gain voters for the June primary.
"He and Fiorina are competing for the same votes, because Fiorina made a strategic decision to go to the right," said Jack Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College in Southern California. "His underlying message is that if you want a strong, conservative alternative to Tom Campbell, it's Chuck DeVore, not Carly Fiorina."
A campaign spokeswoman for Fiorina said DeVore's attention shows he is much more worried about her than Campbell.
"It's a recognition that Tom Campbell's record won't square with California primary voters," spokeswoman Julie Soderlund said. "It's a recognition that Campbell will fall in the polls and that Carly is truly the one to beat."
Yet trying to appeal to California's most conservative voters also puts Fiorina — and DeVore, if he manages an upset victory in June — in danger taking stands that could come back to haunt them in the general election.
For example, Fiorina criticized a Boxer proposal to tax the bonuses of CEOs at financial institutions that received a taxpayer bailout through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which began under Bush. Polling indicates that a special tax on corporate bonuses has widespread appeal with Republicans, Democrats and independents. Democrats and independents account for two-thirds of the California electorate.
Soderlund stressed that Fiorina opposes tax increases of any kind and that she had called on all board members and executives at companies receiving bailout money to resign.
DeVore said he won't back away from his conservative opinions if his campaign makes it beyond June. In fact, he said, there has never been a better time to run as an unabashed conservative in left-leaning California.
He said he believes voters are worried about the expansion of the federal government and what he considers to be out-of-control government spending.
"Unlike my competitors in the Republican primary," DeVore said, "I'm the real deal and I can win."
The Right Blogosphere Versus Adam Kokesh CMC '06
There's no excuse to fly the flag upside down
And Hotair.com's Green Room calls Adam Kokesh "an IVAW [Iraq Veterans Against the War] traitor in G.O.P. clothing."
Here are the relevant selections:
I spoke to the New Mexico Republican Party’s communications director today about his running in the primary as a Republican. The problem is that anyone who is a registered Republican can choose to run in a primary race. There’s nothing that can legally be done to keep him from identifying himself as a Republican, despite the fact that he holds absolutely no conservative or Republican principles. He talks like a patriot now, but what about his actions over the past six years? Apparently, we’re supposed to just forget all about them, and there are apparently plenty who are willing to do that. Kokesh is now appearing on Fox News with Judge Napolitano. He’s been endorsed by the Republican Liberty Caucus, the 912 Project, and of course, Ron Paul. He’s being praised as a “constitutional candidate”, which is utter bull considering he encourages members of the military to break their oath to always defend the Constitution. The man is a disgrace to the country and especially to the Marine Corps.
Yet he’s raising money. He’s getting attention.
There’s another option for District 3 Republicans: Tom Mullins. He deserves our support, and Kokesh deserves to be exposed as the anti-military, anti-American traitor that he is. If you know anyone who lives in New Mexico, make sure to pass this on and get the word out. We can’t let Kokesh get away with such a blatant lie. His home is not in the Republican Party, and unfortunately, the only way to ensure that is to make sure he does not get elected. So help us expose him for the traitorous fraud he is.
Charles Kesler's Real Clear Politics Piece on the Tea Parties
Sometimes the most obvious derangements of our politics are staring us in the face but we don't see them. Take, for instance, the health care reform bill for which President Obama and the Democrats are forever lusting. Many people have protested it isn't really a reform bill, because reform implies improvement and this isn't an improvement. But it isn't the "reform" part of the Democrats' health care bill (if they ever agree on one) that strikes me as most perverse. It's calling this voluminous monstrosity a bill. Can you have a bill, a single law, that is almost 3,000 pages long? In the old days, that would have constituted a whole code of laws. When our founders thought about law, they often thought along the lines of John Locke, who described law as a community's "settled standing rules, indifferent, and the same to all parties," emphasizing that to be legitimate a statute must be "received and allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong, and the common measure to decide all controversies" between citizens. This phonebook-sized law that would control a sixth of the U.S. economy cannot be a law by that definition. If you rummage through the text of, say, the House of Representatives' version of the bill, you find scores of places where power is delegated to administrative agencies and special boards, which are charged to fill the gaps in the written legislation by promulgating thousands, if not tens of thousands, of new pages of regulations that will then be applied to individual cases. Voters sometimes complain that legislators don't read the laws they enact. Why would they, in this case? You could read this leviathan until your eyeballs popped out and still not find any "settled, standing rules" or a meaning that is "indifferent, and the same to all parties." In fact, that's the point of such promiscuous laws. They operate not by setting up fences to protect each man's liberty. They start not from equal rights but from equal (and often unequal) privileges, the favors or benefits that government may bestow on or withhold from its clients. The whole point is to empower government officials, usually unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats, to bless or curse your petitions as they see fit, guided, of course, by their expertness in a law so vast, so intricate, and so capricious that it could justify a hundred different outcomes in the same case. Faster than one might think, a government of equal laws turns into a regime of arbitrary privileges. A "privilege" is literally a private law. When law ceases to be a common "standard of right and wrong" and a "common measure to decide all controversies," then the rule of law ceases to be republican and becomes despotic. Freedom itself ceases to be a right and becomes a gift, or the fruit of a corrupt bargain, because in such degraded regimes those who are close to and connected with the ruling class have special privileges. It was against the threat of such a despotism that proper and not so proper Bostonians threw the original Tea Party. The English East India Company was about to go bankrupt, and the British government bailed it out by passing the Tea Act of 1773, granting the Company's agents a monopoly on selling tea to Americans and filling the government's own coffers by taxing the sales. The Americans had already rejected this tax as unconstitutional in 1767, but it stayed on the books. Among the Company's agents in Massachusetts were the royal governor's two sons and a nephew. They didn't call it Chicago-style politics then, but the principles were the same. Today's Tea Party movement sees a similar threat of despotism-of monopoly control of health care, corrupting bailouts, massive indebtedness, and the eclipse of constitutional rights-in the Obama Administration's policies. The Tea Party patriots may mistake the President's motives when they compare him to King George. But they are right to suspect in the very nature of modern liberalism and the modern state something hostile to the consent of the governed and to constitutional liberty. The republic will owe them a debt of gratitude if Obama's plans end up just as wet as George III's, floating in the salty tea pot of Boston Harbor.The Tea Party Spirit
By Charles KeslerPage Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/10/the_tea_party_spirit_104699.html at March 11, 2010 - 03:42:28 AM CST
* * *
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
My Big Government Post on John Olver (MA-1)
I wrote another blog post on Big Government about a Massachusetts politician. The title of the post is, "Please Sir, May I Have Some More? John Olver (MA-1), Earmark King."
John Olver (MA-1) has the delegation’s worst record when it comes to wasteful earmarks. He directed $2,752,000 for special projects in his district between 2005 and 2006 alone. According to The Boston Globe, Olver OKed more than $34.7 million in earmarks in that last budgeting cycle. What was the money spent on?The Boston Globe reported just some of his earmarks, August 7, 2007:
Olver’s earmarks include $6 million for improvements to the Fitchburg-to-Boston rail line; $1 million for downtown streetscapes in Pittsfield; $150,000 for repairs to the William Cullen Bryant homestead, a national historic landmark, in Cummington; $275,000 to renovate the Berkshire Music Hall; and $1.5 million for the Silvio Conte Wildlife Refuge. Each of these expenditures is important to somebody.
Oh, but that’s not all. Olver spent some $45,000 in taxpayer dollars on mailings to his constituents, through franking, bragging about his “successes”. The Boston Herald reports:
Olver, who sits on the House Appropriations Committee, sent out one newsletter with a two-page glossy map of his district showing about 30 projects the panel funded “at my request.”
The map noted $3.5 million in federal earmarked funds for Pioneer Valley bike paths, $13.4 million for Route 2 safety improvements and $8.8 million for the Pittsfield Intermodal Transportation Center.
Whether or not these earmarks generate jobs or cause instability for much needed projects as people look to goverment, not business to provide investment, is another question as his district has been hit hard by the recession, with few jobs to show for his support of the so-called stimulus bill. If Olver were to be defeated, his twenty-two staffers would have to find other work. (The national average for congressmen is only 14.) The current bill for their salaries? Some $904,000 a year!
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
More on Pomona and Unionizing Workers
CLAREMONT - Workers fed them breakfast, lunch and dinner, and when it was time to turn the tables, Pomona College students rose to the occasion.
On their quest to unionize, 65 dining hall workers have sought help from the students with getting their message across as well as "finding outside legal and organizing consultation."
"It's hard for the students not to be connected to this," said Sam Gordon, a junior. "They literally provide for us."
On Tuesday, the workers petitioned the college's Senate in hopes of garnering support for a right to bargain collectively and without interference from the school's administration. Students also hosted a rally during Saturday's trustee meeting to draw attention to the workers' demands.
"They are a great support for us," said Benny Avina, catering chef at the college. "We've been struggling. They push you to that point. The unions are one of the last resources you have."
The Web site for Pomona Workers for Justice, maintained by a students on behalf of dining hall workers, claims that workers were not paid overtime and that promises for nine months of work were not fulfilled.
"I cannot guarantee (abuses of overtime pay) never happened in the past, but as soon as we find out we correct it," said college's President David Oxtoby.
Last year, on average, the college paid for 212 overtime hours per dining hall employee, Oxtoby said. Also, each employee worked 1,510 hours during the school year 2008-09, which adds up to 70 hours more than nine months of full-time work.
Petitions are also being circulated by students, demanding that Oxtoby signs a "card-check neutrality agreement."
"Neutrality agreement is essentially a pledge by employer that they will not engage in any anti-union practices," said John Lloyd, an assistant professor of history at Cal Poly Pomona.
Oxtoby said he is not anti-union, but favors an election conducted by National Labor Relations Board, He wants to be able to have an open discussion with the workers.
"I don't believe we intimidate workers," Oxtoby said. "There will be no harassment, no firings of anyone involved."
Workers have been forming unions either through majority signup or through a National Labor Relations Board - usually secret - election since 1935.
If a group of workers choose the majority signup, also called the "card check," NLRB can then certify their union if a majority of them sign authorization cards designating the union as its bargaining representative.
But under the current law, the employers can veto workers' decision to organize through majority signup and force them into the NLRB election process.
"There is a fear among union activists that employer's call for secret ballot is not really intended to protect workers' rights but as a delay tactic," Lloyd said. "It gives the employer a chance to discourage the employees from joining."
One year ago today, President Barack Obama introduced the Employee Free Choice Act, which would give workers the choice on how to unionize.
EFCA would have stiffen penalties against employers that discriminate against workers for their union activity. It would also allow employers and newly formed unions to use binding arbitration if they are not able to agree on a first contract. Under current law, employers have a duty to bargain in good faith, but are under no obligation to reach agreement.
But last summer, the "card check" provision of the bill was dropped, Lloyd said.
"It's a big compromise," he said. "Colleges tend to be more progressive socially than corporations, more open to accepting unionization. But we must remember that colleges and universities are also employers and that sometimes acts like employees unionizing may resolve in higher labor costs."
DeVore Wins California Republican Senatorial Debate
Chuck DeVore, CMC '85, Wins First California U.S. Senate Debate You can listen to the debate here. Here are both parts.
The debate concerned Tom Campbell's troubling ties to convicted terrorist, Sami Al-Arian.
Three Cheers for President Oxtoby!
I don't often have occasion to applaud President Oxtoby, given his political inclinations, but he should absolutely be commended for his steadfast refusal to accept anything less than a secret-ballot when it comes to the decision of dining hall workers to unionize. In the latest issue of The Student Life, he pledged to support the "fair, secret-ballot election" in a campus wide email. Here Oxtoby proudly joins the overwhelming majority of American workers who believe that the secret ballot is the best method to guarantee union elections.
The group that opposes that secret ballot is the self-appointed, Students in Solidarity with Workers for Justice. You may visit their website here.
I have no doubt that working as a dining hall worker is a less than pleasurable experience. Having done manual labor myself as a means of supporting myself in high school -- construction, demolition, mostly -- my heart goes out to the plights of the workers. I wish them the best of possible outcomes given their situation.
The student activist group says that efforts toward unionization in the past have been met with hostility on the part of Aramark, which was the provider of meals at Pomona's Dining Hall during the 90s and early 2000s.
Be that as it may, Sodexho -- the company which now administers the meals at the dining halls at Pomona -- is not Aramark and they deserve the right as to how their business will or will not conduct its affairs. A recent article put up on the Claremont Progressive's website argues that 90 percent of the staff supports card check. That may well be true, but from where does that statistic come? More likely that statistic comes from the students themselves, and here we have cause for worry.
Unfortunately, it strikes me that many campus radicals are trying to push the school and the cafeteria to consider card-check, a process by union members intimidate others into joining their union. The aforementioned alone writes, without knowing it has conceded that workers can sign the cards in their own homes. To me, this reads like, "Oh, we can show up and demand that people unionize." Ask yourself seriously: Would you be more or less likely to sign something if someone came to your home?
True, the article does argue there will be no intimidation because the workers seek to "form an independent bargaining unit without union affiliation," but the larger argument against card check isn't that some larger union would coerce the workers but that they would be coerced by another worker into signing a statement that they may or may not agree to. As much as I would like to think that this independent bargaining unit would be purely democratic, history indicates that it would have some kind of leadership -- even if informal -- and hence, a potential for coercion exists.
In terms of the underlying economics of the matter, I wonder about the wisdom of unionization in a field where the supply of workers is very high and higher still especially during this time of recession. The unemployment rate in Inland Empire is approaching 14% and it seems likely that any strike could easily be broken. Effectively, the student activists would be pricing poor workers out of a job.
The article mentions that one in five of the groups that go through the secret ballot process (NLRB), but couldn't that be because the workers don't want a union and that management would give better benefits if there weren't one? The percentage of union workers in the non-governmental sector has been shrinking, after all. And the article mentions President Obama's support for the Orwellian-named Employee Free Choice Act, but what it neglects to mention is just how bitterly unpopular that legislation is. At the time of this writing, it is mercifully a political non-starter. Indeed, liberal icon George McGovern has come out against the bill. With such opposition, why does the Left persist?
Perhaps it was never about making workers' lives better at all, but about control and union coffers being flooded with cash. Am I cynical enough to believe that? You bet I am.
As far as disclosure goes, I don't have a dog in this fight. I haven't eaten at any of the non-Collins dining halls this semester or last. (I'm off the meal plan.)
Monday, March 8, 2010
American Patriots Against Kokesh Blog Goes Live
Is the Kokesh campaign pushing daisies? I don't take a position vis a vis CMCer Adam Kokesh's attempt to be elected to New Mexico's Third Congressional seat other than I'm happy to see a CMCer run for such a position, but I would be remiss as a blogger if I did not point to the creation of this website, American Patriots Against Kokesh. I don't pretend to know if anything that is said there is accurate, but if it is, it is pretty damning. Polling shows both Mr. Kokesh and Mr. Tom Mullins, another Republican in the race, trailing Congressman Lujan, but Lujan's approval rating of under forty percent make him vulnerable, says Politico. They report further:
Lujan leads his little-known Republican challengers, holding a 42 to 36
percent lead over businessman Tom Mullins and a 40 to 32 percent lead over Iraq
war veteran Adam Kokesh.
I'll be there. Hope you are too!Sunday, March 7, 2010
A Response to Cocktail Conservatism
A Response to Cocktail Conservatism
What Are "Reformist Republicans" Drinking And Where Can I Get Some?
By: Charles Johnson
Posted: 3/4/10
Every political group tries to claim the middle ground by labeling its opponents the extremes. To Jefferson, the Hamiltonians were all monarchists; to Hamilton, the Jeffersonians were all mobocrats. To such thinking, Lincoln becomes an abolitionist, and Douglas is pro-slavery - crude simplifications which fail to capture the depth of each man's political thought. Labels of "extreme" are therefore entirely unhelpful, though Ilan Wurman, an editor emeritus of this publication, certainly indulges in quite a bit of it, as he tries to write the economic right out of the Republican Party.
Wurman, in his last article for this publication, has laid forth a vision for what I would like to call "cocktail conservatism." It may appear smooth when it goes down, but indulging it too much can lead to bad consequences the morning after. Currently, Americans are all recovering from the morning after and while we no longer have to deal with our latest enabler-in-chief, we have a new one that is much worse. It is, after all, a good thing that Republicans are starting to realize that their party is in needed of dire reform. Maybe we can help them see the folly of their ways by asking them a few direct questions.
Do reformist Republicans, believe, as Ilan Wurman's old boss, George W. Bush, would have it, that everyone deserves - no, is entitled! - to a home? The housing bubble showed how that line of thinking turned out. In the city of Palo Alto, where Ilan lives, median home prices still sit just north of $1.3 million and an operating budget of $127 million is spent on a mere 70,000 residents, who still enjoy 53 tennis courts and five libraries. But most of America has painfully felt the blowback of those ill-conceived policies.
We've walked these roads before, but at least "compassionate conservatism" was honest, trying in vain to bring compassion to the status of a virtue - a flawed project, but a hopeful one. So-called reformist republicanism is merely compassionate conservatism by another name - the effect will be much the same: an unstable republic, loaded with more debt and more false hope.
Instead of thanking those of us who have toiled to bring the conservative movement around to its senses, Ilan builds his home for straw men arguments. He writes: "The veiled libertarianism of some campus 'conservatives' would, however, abolish the public education system altogether, and eliminate social security, health care, and taxes entirely."
The drinks are on me, if Ilan can credibly produce such a campus conservative! More likely, as we've had conversations on this score, he is referring to me, as he suggests that I, like other libertarians on campus, believe the phrase "limited" government means no government at all - contorting language itself as he builds his argument on the backs of straw men.
A libertarian is not an anarchist; limited government means limited government. Full stop. And no, "progressivism" did not save capitalism from itself. Capitalism, during the booming years of the 1920s - growth the likes of which we have never seen - made its flaws uneconomical. Child labor had long been on the decline throughout the nation, before the lawmakers took it up as their cause célèbre. The stroke of a pen did not abolish it, but the very capitalism that Ilan says would lead to a Hobbesian state of nature, did (and also led to fewer women forced to work, because men made more and so they could afford to stay at home). The Hobbesian state of nature occurs in those places where capitalism is the least present, not where it is most present. Somalia is not Wall Street - notwithstanding Jesse Jackson's attack during his Ath talk on the "banksters."
On taxes, Wurman favors Milton Friedman's "negative income tax," but as Friedman made clear, that was only because the federal government was already in the process of wealth redistribution. Friedman favored a flat tax, because he believed in the importance of an equality of sacrifice.
Although he doesn't say it outright, Ilan really believes that conservatives should adopt the New Deal, tinkering on the margins to promote this or that conservative end, but leaving the whole largely intact. In so doing, he falls prey to Hayek's - and George W. Bush's - fatal conceit: that conservatives might violate the Constitution and thereby save it. They plan to outmaneuver the Left by taking for themselves the mantle of social justice. The devil, though, is in the details as we'll see in a moment.
In the specifics, Ilan is at his best, but even here he disappoints. I shall take each in turn.
On education, he says that "more school choice includes charter schools and can include a partial voucher system." What does Wurman have to say about all those charter schools becoming unionized, thereby defeating the whole purpose of a charter school in the first place? Why partial voucher, anyways? Shouldn't each student get back the money we would spend on her? No, Ilan thinks, because the state "has an interest in the education of its citizenry." Oh, but what a lack of interest it has displayed! Few states have gifted and talented programs and education budgets are slashed in suburb after suburb now that the housing meltdown has depreciated home prices. Small wonder, then, that the amateurs, that is to say the home schoolers, do much better even on those strong standards of accountability that Ilan mentions. Incredibly, Ilan suggests that parents would "take advantage" of more choice by teaching their kids false science or "perhaps racism" and worries that some people would be "left behind in a total privatization of the public system."
I'd risk the racists, if we could do something about the abysmal failure our schools have become. Detroit public schools, to cite just one of dozens of potential examples, have a graduation rate of 25%. The country seems to have turned out just fine without us lavishing billions on public sector bureaucrats in the face of these astounding failures - just ask Edison, Franklin, Lincoln, or any of the other great men who decided to self-teach.
On taxation, Ilan assumes that some campus libertarians do not want any taxes at all. He favors making the tax code "fairer and simpler," but these are normative words. What would he do? The tax code is complex because auditors, government officials, and accountants have an interest in making it complex with its myriad deductions. Along the way, Wurman confuses the negative income tax with the flat tax. Friedman favored the latter because it dealt with an equality of sacrifice and was more efficient; the first he suggested only if the government were going to be doing redistribution, something he opposed.
On medical policy, Wurman favors "personal health savings accounts," that would "further bring the cost down." Why not just purchase health, the same way one purchases all sorts of other goods, through the private market? Naturally a conservative approach would allow people to buy, and borrowing a page from CMC Economics Professor Eric Helland's new research, we could have serious tort reform - but the real issue here is costs. Ilan's plan would have the costs, but not the accessibility.
At times, Wurman's arguments are just not well thought out at all. He tells us that he "believe[s] in transitional assistance to help employees laid off due to globalization get more education and new job training" - as if one could really prove that he lost his job to globalization, that government could know what the jobs of the future might be in deciding training, or that this "transitional assistance," will be well, "transitional." Getting the bounce right on Ilan's "safety trampoline," will prove a lot more difficult than he lets on.
He writes further, "I believe that the government does have a right, and an obligation, to preserve and protect the environment. There's nothing fundamentally immoral about using public resources - to which everyone contributes - to promote a truly public good." Very well, but from what does this right emanate? In California, safeguarding the environment has meant ordinances that restrict building on lands, and it has meant pricing out the middle class. A right ought to be accessible at all times and places, but defending the environment, which everyone can agree to in principle, ought to be a discussion of trade offs, rather than "rights". When viewed from this angle, the "public good," becomes a lot harder to discern, to say nothing of the wisdom - or lack thereof - of entrusting government alone to determine how those resources are allocated.
Wurman concludes with some rather ridiculous questions: "Do we want to improve equal opportunity? Do we want to heal the sick in our society who can't afford health care for themselves? Do we want to give our children the best education possible?" - as if some campus conservatives were really opposed to these kind of things. These ends aren't achieved because we want them, they are the product of serious trade offs made by the body politic through their representatives. The people cannot always afford clean air, however much they may want it, and there are optimal levels of pollution, but questions remain as to what is optimal.
Our role as Republicans should not be to make law, but to discover laws that are in accordance with nature. We are not to be a Grand New Party, but to remember and preserve. Here Ilan is at his weakest, remembering only a partial history. Ilan claims that the Founders intended for us to be an agrarian republic, but he ignores Hamilton's Report on Manufactures or the city slicker life and public service of Benjamin Franklin, hanging his argument instead on Jefferson's thoughts on schooling. But the beauty of quoting a Founding Father, especially one as dilettante with his finances as Jefferson, means that you can contort whatever he said to suit your ends. He was hardly "the patron saint of limited government." Despite Jefferson's plans, it's worth noting that none - save the university - came to pass.
Further, Wurman's citation of the Preamble to the Constitution is hazy. The Founders wanted to promote the general welfare, not provide specific welfare, as he seems to take it. The states could not "legislate as they saw fit," the federal government can - and did - ban lynching, because to do so would not threaten a republican form of government. But what is a republican form of government is the premise - that all men are created equal.
The Founders did not mean that the young should be enslaved to the old, as social security would have it; or that the rich should be to the poor, in what currently passes for our national health care system. Indeed, as Ilan knows full well, Jefferson - there I go citing him again! - believed that a constitution should be discontinued every generation or so, so that no generation would be bound to another. But most of all, they did not mean, as Lincoln reminded us and as Wurman should take note, that these men were equal in all respects - only in their political rights, grounded upon natural law. Efforts at equality were not license for Leviathan.
We get the government we deserve, after all - that much the founders knew well. Yes, the government can inculcate virtue, but who is the government, but us? Why does Ilan think that the government of the people can bestow virtues on a people that lacks them? It would be more efficient for our civil society to inculcate those virtues long before we trust them to the federal or state government. One of the great defenders against tyranny, de Tocqueville knew well, was local government, but where is local government in Ilan's vision of conservatism? It is where Republicans have always placed it, but an afterthought - and that is where Republicans, tea-partying away, have the greatest chance to take back the country from the Left and cocktail conservatives alike.
Charles Johnson CMC '11 is editor emeritus of the Claremont Independent. His blog, the Claremont Conservative, can be found at www.claremontconservative.com.
© Copyright 2010 Claremont Independent
Friday, March 5, 2010
iClaremont Application Time?
Imagine taking your own tour of the Claremont Colleges on your iPhoneAn alum sends this article about the iStanford application in and I think their inclination is right about applying it to the Claremont Colleges.
Here are the essential paragraphs:
Students can use iStanford to look up anyone in the campus directory and call or e-mail them with a tap on the phone; search for class schedules and e-mail professors; add and drop classes; find campus buildings without a paper map; and view game scores and schedules.
As smartphone mania spread across the nation's college campuses, more than 50 other schools adopted some form of smartphone campus navigation tool, modeled after Stanford's groundbreaking app. Most were created with the assistance of the team that developed iStanford and who now work for Blackboard.com, a teaching and learning company with an office in San Francisco.
Of course I think it would be a lot cooler if you could edit the content in much the same way you edit the Claremont McKenna webpage, which would make the content more dynamic.
The downside of an iClaremont application is that we'd get a lot more of the Steve Jobs cult interested in our campus, which I think is probably a net loss. I fear them. They control the internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
