Followers

Monday, April 22, 2019

On the Deterioration of 
American Society
By Rick Adamson

“Civic engagement is low. Lacking connection to these robust institutions (religious organizations, cultural or hobby activities, volunteer public-service groups, social or fraternal organizations), most Americans don't even know to miss them. They don't even think they're supposed to get their support, security, and purpose from the little platoons around them. They think the federal government and national politics are supposed to provide access to the good life.
The result is Americans who expect too little from their communities and too much from a distant central power.” Timothy P. Carney
Obviously, displacement and anxiety due to globalization, technology and automation have contributed to this trend but the rapid growth of the general government has contributed immensely. Carney sites one study (in his new book “Alienated America”) that claims the New Deal usurped 30 percent of Catholic charitable giving. And I once heard Franklin Graham say that most pastors do not know how to serve their communities as a result of decades of Fed Gov involvement in the war on poverty and the welfare state.
Historically, family along with local "civic" institutions helped people develop character by setting high standards, shunning them when they stumbled and helping them when they were down. But when you have a general government providing for ALL needs there is little need for these institutions and certainly no need to conform or to be shunned or shamed. Thus character development is retarded.
Another book comes to mind: “The Road to Character” by David Brooks 2015.
It is not a book about religion, however, in an interview I heard Brooks say that most all religions [and by implication: other independent "civic" institutions] provide a framework for improving moral character.
Even our immigration laws require that a person be of "good moral character" in order to become a naturalized citizen which implies that existing citizens already have "good moral character."
This has changed as "humanism" and self promotion encroached upon what Brooks calls moral reality or self-effacement that was prevalent until after WWII.
It seems that the major issues are the difference in thinking about the role of the State and of human nature. Some on the left believe that humans have inherent capabilities to be good people and that through rational thought they can create utopia. Some on the right believe that human behavior requires moderation which is best accomplished through independent “civic” institutions. The latter was the basis of the American Revolution.
I would just ask; if humans, through rational thought alone, could create utopia, why has it never happened? And if it is true that human behavior requires moderation and there are no independent “civic” institutions who/what is to be done? State control, totalitarianism/autocracy?
It seems that we are in trouble.
And That’s that!

Return of the Sowell Man



Return of the Sowell Man

By Loyd Billingsley




The best economist is black, and he’s back in the battle.sque rutrum. “Even the best things come to an end,” wrote Thomas Sowell in a December, 2016, column headlined “Farewell.” At the age of 86, the great economist had decided to stop writing his column and “spend less time following politics and more time on my photography.” Since then, Sowell has been rather quiet, but current political trends have prompted him to re-emerge.
“Socialism is a wonderful sounding idea,” Sowell recently told Fox Business. “It’s only as a reality that it’s disastrous.” A former Marxist, Sowell began to see the difference between reality and rhetoric. “When you see people starving in Venezuela and fleeing in the neighboring countries and realize that this is a country that once had the world’s largest oil reserves, you realize that that’ve ruined a really good prospect with ideas that sounded good but didn’t turn out well.”
Those who wonder who this guy is might take a cue from NBA great Charles Barkley, who in 2000 quipped that “the best rapper out there is white and the best golfer is black.” As it happens, the best economist is also black, and his name is Thomas Sowell. He dropped out of high school and served as a photographer in the Marines during the Korean War. He was the first in his family to attend college and earned a BA from Harvard, a master’s from Columbia and a PhD from the University of Chicago.
The Hoover Institution scholar has probed the world of ideas in books such as Basic Economics, Economic Facts and Fallacies, and Wealth, Poverty and Politics. He is also the author of The Economics and Politics of Race, Ethnic America, Affirmative Action Around the World, and the 1985 Marxism: Philosophy and Economics. Sowell’s conservative economics and criticism of affirmative action have drawn vicious attacks from the left.
Columnist Carl Rowan compared Sowell to Vidkun Quisling and NAACP general counsel Thomas Atkins called him one of the “house niggers” on the plantation. Lani Guinier, a Clinton nominee for Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, even questioned Sowell’s blackness. The economist, who was raised in Harlem, does not generally respond in kind, but he was justified to say “I don’t need some half-white woman from Martha’s Vineyard telling me about being black.” Sowell also kept on writing thoughtful, well-researched books such as the 2013 Intellectuals and Race, more relevant than ever with leftists smearing all rivals as racists.
Sowell shows how supposedly “progressive” intellectuals championed eugenics out of fear of the “inferior” races. For progressive sociologist Edward Ross, black Americans were “several million of an inferior race.” Madison Grant, a progressive activist educated at Yale and Columbia, penned The Passing of the Great Race, which Hitler called his “bible.” Author Jack London, a socialist, held that “the inferior races must undergo destruction, or some humane form of economic slavery is inevitable.”
On the correlation between skin color and intelligence, Sowell quotes a tenth-century Muslim scholar who charged that Europeans grow paler the farther north you go, and that the “farther north the more stupid, gross and brutish they are.”
In the view of the current “race industry,” whites who outperform blacks are simply unjust beneficiaries of past discrimination. Likewise, Asians who outperform blacks and Hispanics are beneficiaries of “privilege.” Sowell shows how diversity dogma generally ignores discrimination against Asians and Jews, high achievers despite centuries of persecution in many countries.
At the same time, the intellectuals of the left “pay no price for being wrong, no matter how wrong, or with what catastrophic consequences for millions of other people.” That dynamic was on display in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, where socialist Bernie Sanders chose to celebrate his honeymoon, and the Soviet client states in Eastern Europe and Cuba, an all-white Stalinist dictatorship. The American left championed them all, and they now keep the faith as Venezuela’s socialist regime starves and oppresses the people, who flee by the millions.
Sowell, who turns 89 this year, knows that socialism is guaranteed to wreck America. He is troubled by the fathomless ignorance of “rising star” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her fellow Democrat socialists. The great economist may be back in the fight, like Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca, but unlike Victor Laszlo, Sowell is not sure we will win this time.
With willful ignorance, intolerance and bad ideas on the rise, Sowell has “a great fear that, in the long run, we may not make it.” On the other hand, as he said in his 2016 “Farewell” article, “let us hope that we can learn something from the past to make for a better present and future.”
To that end, everybody should get to know Thomas Sowell, whose books on economics, race and affirmative action, should be part of high-school and college curricula across the nation. If we are going to have a better present and future, as Sowell explained on Fox Business, everybody will have to “test ideas against facts.”
“Even the best things come to an end,” wrote Thomas Sowell in a December, 2016, column headlined “Farewell.” At the age of 86, the great economist had decided to stop writing his column and “spend less time following politics and more time on my photography.” Since then, Sowell has been rather quiet, but current political trends have prompted him to re-emerge.
“Socialism is a wonderful sounding idea,” Sowell recently told Fox Business. “It’s only as a reality that it’s disastrous.” A former Marxist, Sowell began to see the difference between reality and rhetoric. “When you see people starving in Venezuela and fleeing in the neighboring countries and realize that this is a country that once had the world’s largest oil reserves, you realize that that’ve ruined a really good prospect with ideas that sounded good but didn’t turn out well.”
Those who wonder who this guy is might take a cue from NBA great Charles Barkley, who in 2000 quipped that “the best rapper out there is white and the best golfer is black.” As it happens, the best economist is also black, and his name is Thomas Sowell. He dropped out of high school and served as a photographer in the Marines during the Korean War. He was the first in his family to attend college and earned a BA from Harvard, a master’s from Columbia and a PhD from the University of Chicago.
The Hoover Institution scholar has probed the world of ideas in books such as Basic Economics, Economic Facts and Fallacies, and Wealth, Poverty and Politics. He is also the author of The Economics and Politics of Race, Ethnic America, Affirmative Action Around the World, and the 1985 Marxism: Philosophy and Economics. Sowell’s conservative economics and criticism of affirmative action have drawn vicious attacks from the left.
Columnist Carl Rowan compared Sowell to Vidkun Quisling and NAACP general counsel Thomas Atkins called him one of the “house niggers” on the plantation. Lani Guinier, a Clinton nominee for Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, even questioned Sowell’s blackness. The economist, who was raised in Harlem, does not generally respond in kind, but he was justified to say “I don’t need some half-white woman from Martha’s Vineyard telling me about being black.” Sowell also kept on writing thoughtful, well-researched books such as the 2013 Intellectuals and Race, more relevant than ever with leftists smearing all rivals as racists.
Sowell shows how supposedly “progressive” intellectuals championed eugenics out of fear of the “inferior” races. For progressive sociologist Edward Ross, black Americans were “several million of an inferior race.” Madison Grant, a progressive activist educated at Yale and Columbia, penned The Passing of the Great Race, which Hitler called his “bible.” Author Jack London, a socialist, held that “the inferior races must undergo destruction, or some humane form of economic slavery is inevitable.”
On the correlation between skin color and intelligence, Sowell quotes a tenth-century Muslim scholar who charged that Europeans grow paler the farther north you go, and that the “farther north the more stupid, gross and brutish they are.”
In the view of the current “race industry,” whites who outperform blacks are simply unjust beneficiaries of past discrimination. Likewise, Asians who outperform blacks and Hispanics are beneficiaries of “privilege.” Sowell shows how diversity dogma generally ignores discrimination against Asians and Jews, high achievers despite centuries of persecution in many countries.
At the same time, the intellectuals of the left “pay no price for being wrong, no matter how wrong, or with what catastrophic consequences for millions of other people.” That dynamic was on display in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, where socialist Bernie Sanders chose to celebrate his honeymoon, and the Soviet client states in Eastern Europe and Cuba, an all-white Stalinist dictatorship. The American left championed them all, and they now keep the faith as Venezuela’s socialist regime starves and oppresses the people, who flee by the millions.
Sowell, who turns 89 this year, knows that socialism is guaranteed to wreck America. He is troubled by the fathomless ignorance of “rising star” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her fellow Democrat socialists. The great economist may be back in the fight, like Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca, but unlike Victor Laszlo, Sowell is not sure we will win this time.
With willful ignorance, intolerance and bad ideas on the rise, Sowell has “a great fear that, in the long run, we may not make it.” On the other hand, as he said in his 2016 “Farewell” article, “let us hope that we can learn something from the past to make for a better present and future.”
To that end, everybody should get to know Thomas Sowell, whose books on economics, race and affirmative action, should be part of high-school and college curricula across the nation. If we are going to have a better present and future, as Sowell explained on Fox Business, everybody will have to “test ideas against facts.”

Thursday, August 23, 2018

Immigration


Immigration

By Rick Adamson
8.17.18




Historically, the vast majority of past legal immigrants changed their values, 
not America’s, when they came to this country. They came here to become 
American, not only in terms of language, citizenship, and national identity, 
but also in terms of values. Similarly, the vast majority of illegal residents came 
for work and returned home when the work was done.

They came to pursue the American dream; one of freedom and opportunity.


What happened?


Well,  everything changed in 1964-5. The Immigration and Nationality Act 
of 1965 (the Act), also known as the Hart–Celler Act, changed the way 
legal immigrants were selected by ending the National Origins Formula 
that had been in place in the United States since the Emergency Quota Act 
of 1921. The focus became skills of immigrants and/or their family relationships 
with U.S. citizens and residents (chain migration). 

Here is an article entitled "The Legacy of the 1965 Immigration Act."


Further, in 1964 President's Johnson's "Great Society" began with the war 
on poverty pursuant to which welfare policy changed drastically, e.g., for the 
first time food stamps were made available along with Federal aid for K-12 
education of the poor, etc.


The result? Rapid increases in the foreign born population. Here is a 
summary:
√  Between 1960 and 2016 the number of foreign born residents (1) of the 
Country increased by approximately 33,000,000 people and represented 13.5 
percent of the population (a total of about 43.7 million- which is four times 
the number of any other Country).(2)
√  The average growth rate of foreign born residents for the five decades 
between 1960 and 2010 (after the Act) was 34 % (the average Growth for the 
five previous decades (1920 -1960) was a negative 6 %).
√  Historically legal immigration amounted to approximately 250 thousand 
per year but since the Act was passed it it has averaged over 670 thousand 
people per year. In 2016 1,184,000 people obtained lawful permanent residency. (3) 
This is in spite of the finding by a study which concluded that 400,000 
is about the right number. Funny, without chain migration (the ability 
of a skilled-much needed immigrant-to sponsor family members without 
regard to their skills) the 1.2 million would be approximately 400,000.
√  Many of those coming for work have decided not to return home due to 
the newly created welfare State which includes citizenship for children born 
on U.S. soil, children's education, school meals and welfare for poor children 
(if citizens) of foreign born residents, etc.
We are a country of immigrants and immigration is important. But smart 
immigration policy would dictate that the levels be managed so as to fulfill
the Country's needs for workers, and perhaps other legitimate purposes, 
but so as not to harm our existing citizens. Such purposes do not include 
intentionally changing the composition of the electorate for political reasons.


Mass immigration is fueling unprecedented population growth which 
depresses the wages of poorer Americans, overcrowds our schools and 
strains our already fragile environment.


Today's immigration is extremely costly. Unlike previous eras of 
immigration, today's immigrants are 50 percent more likely to use welfare 
than native-born Americans. Providing for the needs of immigrants costs 
American taxpayers as much as $20 billion a year. We cannot provide 
high quality education, healthcare, and retirement security for our own 
people if we continue to bring in endless numbers of poor, unskilled immigrants. 
America is still working to meet the challenge of assisting our own poor 
and disadvantaged; mass immigration compounds the problem and 
impedes efforts to raise the standards of living for all.


And That’s that!


For more of this subject click here.


Notes:
(1)  The term "immigrants" (also known as the foreign born) refers to 
people residing in the United States who were not U.S. citizens at birth. 
This population includes naturalized citizens, lawful permanent residents 
(LPRs), certain legal nonimmigrants (e.g., persons on student or work 
visas), those admitted under refugee or asylee status, and persons illegally 
residing in the United States.
(2)  https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-
immigrants-and-immigration-united-states
(3)  https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2016/table1

Thursday, August 2, 2018

Communism/Socialism


Communism
© 2018 Rick Adamson  

By Rick Adamson 5.2.18
I saw this on a cousin’s wall and, although I do not know its original 
context, it struck a chord.

If people truly believe what the poster says then they have been poorly 
instructed and have no earthly idea what they are suggesting.

Having had the pleasure of knowing and hearing the stories of a Russian immigrant I can tell you that unless you want the government deciding whether you can attend college, where you work and live and how much you earn you do not want communism. Although, it might eliminate some anxiety as there would be less angst’s over not being born rich because everyone would be earning the same $2.00 an hour.

It might sound good on paper or in discussions but it doesn’t really work that way and produces an inherently unfair society. I wish these young people would learn a little history and stop replacing reason and logic with ‘feelings’, ‘emotions’, and the denial of all traditional truth claims.

I am reminded of a quote by Jordan Peterson as he describes how lucky we are: “The highly functional infrastructure that surrounds us...is a gift from our ancestors: the comparatively uncorrupt political and economic systems, the technology, the wealth, the lifespan, the freedom, the luxury, and the opportunity.”
 
Are things perfect, of course not? We are human beings; flawed and 
discontent with an almost insatiable desire for things we do not possess.

I would remind these youngsters that for most of mankind’s existence 
extreme poverty was the standard as it is for much of the world’s 
population today. That means lack of food, clothing and shelter as 
opposed to the American definition which equals middle class in most parts of the world.

The secret of America’s success is the opportunity it has provided its people. The opportunity to do as one pleases only limited when one infringes on another’s rights.

“In no society have all regions and all parts of the population developed equally.” Fernand Braudel

“Those who have promoted the prevailing social vision, in which lags, gaps or disparities to the detriment of “certain” people are the fault of “other” people, are trapped in the corollary that these lags, gaps or disparities should disappear, once those “other” people are constrained by civil rights laws and policies. But nothing of the sort has happened in the wake of the civil rights revolution of the 1960s.
However dramatic the increase of political representation of “certain” people at local and national levels, there were no correspondingly dramatic reductions in economic disparities”. Thomas Sowell


The goal of society should be to provide freedom and opportunity. The struggle for the individual should be to be the best person one can be; not to be ever happy or to have some government give you happiness-it isn’t going to happen.


People must develop their human capital (skills), work hard and be 
responsible if they want to live a happy and purposeful life in pragmatic 
America.

But, for those who really want communism, I suggest a stint in Russia, Venezuela, Cuba or China. Go ahead give it a try. If after a few years in one of these places you still believe there will be plenty of folks that will listen to your pitch.

Peterson says of Postmodernists (like the one pictured), “...are obsessed with the idea of oppression, and, by waging war on oppressors real and imagined, they become oppressors themselves.”

He sees liberals, or leftists, or ‘postmodernists,’ as aggressors, think “Antifa”. The danger, it seems, is that those who want to improve Western society may end up destroying it.

And That's that!

Wednesday, August 1, 2018

Russian Election Meddling

Russian Election Meddling
© 2018 Rick Adamson
By Rick Adamson 7.16.18



Although I am outraged the Russians interfered in our elections their money investment was not significant (less than $50 Million vs. $2+Trillion spent by the campaigns.) Face book ads vs. 52 major newspaper endorsements for Hillary vs. 2 for Trump.


And to the hacking and leaks-what was leaked? Email from John Podesta’s (Hillary’s campaign manager) gmail account and email from the Democratic National Committee’s computers. These sources were not government controlled and contained no secret government data but, rather, embarrassing spurious correspondence which was of very little interest.


What would be more interesting would be to know more about the
Democrat’s interference/sabotage of Sanders campaign. What hypocrites!

The leaks occurred in the summer of 2016 by which time most people had
already decided for whom they would vote.

Every interested party tries to affect elections. That’s not new. We just need
to understand what the foreigners did, how they did it and stop them.

As to all these indictments-Surprise Surprise. We were told in Nov. 2016
and again in Jan. 2017 by our intelligence agencies that Russia had been
messing around with our system.

Interestingly, although these shenanigans began in 2014 nothing was done
about it and you would know nothing of it today if the election had turned
out differently. Go figure.

And That's that!


Moral Self-Licensing
By Rick Adamson
Moral Self-Licensing: When Being Good Frees Us to Be Bad,” from Social and Personality Psychological Compass by Anna Merritt, Daniel Effron, and Benoit Monin.

"Research shows that people tend to reward themselves after they do a good deed — so-called moral licensing. So if people vote to redistribute other people's money, perhaps they feel less guilty about not giving away their own money.

For example, people eager to help the poor may not feel they have enough money or skill to contribute to the poor, but by voting for higher taxes (to redistribute the income of others) they believe they are helping. From this perspective, they have fulfilled their moral obligation."

"Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio, provide good examples of this kind of self-deception. They fly private jets spewing carbon dioxide while admonishing the public to limit carbon emissions, as if their crusade for the greater good exempts them from the very thing that they insist is immoral.” ..... The Upside of Inequality: How Good Intentions Undermine the Middle Class by Conard, Edward

As Jordan Peterson said as he considered his beliefs: "Anyone who was out to change the world by changing others was to be regarded with suspicion.” And of the people he knew: "their beliefs and modes of being seemed to disguise frequent doubt and profound disquietude." [I would add perhaps Dysphoria or Rumination or both.]

I heard a radio talk show host say the other day that being liberal licensed a person to hide behind liberal causes while, at the same time, pursuing opposite courses of action. For example, Eric Schneiderman just resigned as New York Attorney General amid assault claims by four women, even though he was investigating the Weinstein companies (for the same charges) and advocating for the #MeToo movement.

Now look, we are all human. We are all flawed and imperfect, but if one must grandstand from their soapbox, shouldn't they at least live by what they preach?

And That's that!