Charm City's Literary Titans
POSTED May 12, 8:03 PM
 
Frank Defilippo deserves credit for inspiring this post.  
 
In my harangue about the New Deal I cited One from One Leaves Two, a poem by Ogden Nash, which satirized the absurdity of the New Deal’s centralized planning.  Frank mentioned to me that Nash was a Baltimorean, and actually lived in the Village of Cross Keys, where my daughter’s pediatrician practices. Nash lived at a couple of places in the Guilford area before moving to Cross Keys where he lived until his death in 1971. 
 
Nash tried living in New York for a brief spell, but soon returned to Charm City saying “"I could not love New York. Had I not loved Balti-more.” 
 
Growing up in the DC suburbs of Maryland we were taught that Edgar Allan Poe and HL Menken called Baltimore home. However, after perusing the Baltimore Literary Heritage Project website, I was absolutely stunned at the literary heavyweights, who called Baltimore home at one time or another. Here are a few names on the list:
 
 
Stein was famous for her quip about the city of Oakland saying “there is no there, there.”
 
During a Monday Night Football game featuring the Oakland Raiders, Jerry Rice made a spectacular touchdown reception, prompting then MNF analyst Dennis Miller to say “Gertrude there is a there, there!” I bet our own Tony Giro didn’t know that one!
One famous writer not on the list, but should be is Whittaker Chambers. Chambers may be more famous for his unmasking of Soviet spy Alger Hiss, however his autobiography Witness is one of the great works of American literature. Hiss lived on both Mt. Royal and St. Paul streets. When he broke with communism he lived in a safe house with his family on Old Court Rd. In addition to Witness, Chambers was an editor for TIME and National Review he even translated Bambi into English from the original German.  
 
Say what you will about Chambers, he did prove F. Scott Fitzgerald wrong; there are second acts in American life.
 
PS I would also argue, very strongly, that David Simon belongs on the list as well.
0 Comments: Add
 
Eugenic Skeletons In the Progressive Closet
POSTED May 9, 10:32 AM
 
Earlier this week I was a guest on the Ron Smith show on WBAL talking about my Bill Ayers op/ed in The Examiner. The topic of the conversation turned to Barack Obama and the elitist question. Both Ron and I agreed that Obama and his wife by virtue of their Ivy League educations (Columbia and Harvard Law for Barack, Princeton and Harvard Law for Michelle), and corporate work experience that they qualify as elite in American society. One caller took issue with that assessment saying that from an African-American perspective that they would not be considered elite. I’m not here to argue his claim, and to an extent it is a fair point. However, the caller brought up W. E. B. Dubois’ “talented tenth” in regard to the Obamas and other Black elites. It is Dubois’ notion that serves as the point of departure for this post and impromptu book review. 
 
I believe that ideas matter and the history of ideas, both good and bad are important to understand. As a conservative I am big believer in received wisdom and dogma as they provide a base of knowledge, which protect us from the folly of bad ideas. I also wonder in amazement at progressives’ (contemporary liberals) lack of interest in their own intellectual history and origins of their own ideas. Fortunately, Jonah Goldberg’s New York Times bestselling book Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning; ressurects that past for us, and it is not a pretty picture. Goldberg reveals that the progressive left of the early 20th century, the very foundation of modern liberalism, shares common intellectual DNA with what we know as fascism. The progressive movement also shared disturbingly similar views on race and eugenics with the worst of the Nazi raceologists, which brings us to Dubois and the “talented tenth” and the fact that there is more to the term and the history behind it than the caller understands. 
 

Goldberg writes:
But W. E. B. Dubois shared many of the eugenic views held by white progressives. His “talented tenth” was itself a eugenically weighted term. He defined members of the Talented Tenth as “exceptional men” and the “best of the race.” He complained that “the negro has not been breeding for an object” and that he must begin to “train and breed for brains, for efficiency, for beauty.” Over his long career he time and again returned to his concern that the worst blacks were overbreeding while the best were underbreeding. Indeed, he supported Margaret Sanger’s “Negro Project,” which sought to sharply curtail reproduction among “inferior” stocks of the black population.
 
Sanger, the liberal saint of Planned Parenthood was an outright racist. Indeed the magazine she edited, Birth Control Review, published articles by Hitler’s own director of sterilization, and founder of the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene, Ernst Ründin. Sanger herself gave a keynote speech at a Ku Klux Klan rally in 1926. 
 
Goldberg rightly notes that you can’t completely situate Dubois with the objectively racist, white progressives like Margaret Sanger. And for good reason, as Goldberg notes that Sanger’s Negro Project report said, “The mass of significant Negroes still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes…is in that portion of the population least intelligent and fit.” Sanger said “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister [Adam Clayton Powell Sr.] is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”  
 
Many blacks were justifiably skeptical of such motives, and rightly so given Sanger’s close friendship with white supremacist Lothrop Stoddard, who wrote the book titled The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy. Sanger invited him to join the board of the American Birth Control League. Jesse Jackson evoked this skepticism in 1977 in a message to Congress saying he considered abortion, “genocide against the black race.” Of course, he switched positions when he ran for the Democratic nomination for president.
 
We see this playing out today in Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s comments citing the infamous Tuskegee experiments as justification for his claim that the government deliberately introduced HIV into the African-American population to commit genocide. However, the history—as Wright and most in the media tell it—is completely untrue. The US government did not deliberately infect Black men with syphilis. The fact is the study recruited Black men who already had syphilis to study them, but did nothing to treat them. Just as in the examples mentioned earlier, the Tuskegee study was the brainchild of progressive notions of public health. 
 
These eugenic skeletons in the progressive closet are not limited to race. Take for example the infamous Supreme Court case, Buck v. Bell where the state of Virginia forcibly sterilized a young woman because it deemed her “unfit” to reproduce because they declared her mentally retarded (she wasn’t). The state based its decision on the assessment of a nurse who said of the Buck family, “These people belong to the shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of anti-social whites of the South.”
 
No less a liberal icon than Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote to his friend, British eugenicist Harold Laski, about his decision in the case, “I…delivered an opinion upholding the constitutionality of a state law for sterilizing imbeciles the other day and I felt that I was getting near the first principle of real reform.” In his zeal to codify eugenics in American jurisprudence Holmes wrote, “three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
 
Now it is important to note that this history does not mean that modern day progressives and liberals are all racists and eugenic minded folk. In fact they are the first to slap conservatives with those labels. Rather it is important to see, as Goldberg notes that the “edifice of cotemporary liberalism stands on a foundation of assumptions and ideas integral to the larger fascist moment.  Liberals choose to live in a house of distinctly fascist architecture.  Liberal ignorance of this fact renders this fascist foundation neither intangible nor irrelevant. Rather it underscores the success of these ideas, precisely because they go unquestioned.” 
 
Conservatives are made to own all the sins of their past, both real and imagined. However, it is high time liberals and progressives own up to their own and arguable more appalling history. Maybe then, some will realize that conservatism and its reverence for tradition and dogma is the breakwater against the treacherous tide of meddling progressive ideas, which have left only a trail of human misery, on the path to “make people better,” or create “a better world”
 
  
I know this - they will try again… A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave.
--Malcolm Reynolds
3 Comments: Add | Read
 
Celebrity Soldiers: Real and Imagined
POSTED May 8, 8:06 AM
We all get those forwarded emails with amazing stories too good to be true. Well I got this one the other day:

Dialog from 'The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson': His guest was Lee Marvin  Johnny said,    

'Lee, I'll bet a lot of people are  unaware that you were a Marine in the initial landing at Iwo Jima ...and that during the course of that action you earned the Navy Cross and were severely wounded.' 'Yeah, yeah... I got shot square in the bottom and they gave me the Cross for securing a hot spot about halfway up Suribachi... But, Johnny, at  Iwo  I served under the bravest man I ever knew... We both got the Cross the same day, but what he did for his Cross made mine look cheap in comparison. That dumb guy actually stood up on Red beach and directed his troops to move forward and get the hell off the beach.   Bullets flying by, with mortar rounds landing everywhere and he stood there as the main target of gunfire so that he could get his men to safety. He did this on more than one occasion because his men's safety was more important than his own life.

 That Sergeant and I have been lifelong friends. When they brought me off Suribachi we passed the Sergeant and he lit a smoke and passed it to me, lying on my belly on the litter and said, 'Where'd they get you Lee?'  'Well Bob... if you make it home before me, tell Mom to sell the outhouse!'  Johnny, I'm not lying,  Sergeant Keeshan was the bravest man I ever knew.  The Sergeant's name is Bob Keeshan. You and the world know him as Captain Kangaroo.'  

 On another note, there was this wimpy little man (who just passed away) on PBS, gentle and quiet. Mr. Rogers is another of those you would least suspect of being anything but what he now portrays to our youth. But Mr. Rogers was a  U.S.  Navy Seal, combat-proven in Vietnam  with over twenty-five confirmed kills to his name.  He wore a long-sleeved sweater on TV, to cover the many tattoos on his forearm and biceps.  He was a master in small arms and hand-to-hand combat, able to disarm or kill in a heartbeat

Well this isn't exactly true.  Lee Marvin did indeed serve in the Marine Corps, however he was wounded on Saipan eight months prior to the Iwo Jima landings.  Marvin was awarded the Purple Heart not the the Navy Cross, and discharged from the service.  Captain Kangaroo did enlist in the Marine Corps, but he enlisted too late to see combat in World War II.  The rumors are a fabrication of  faux secret society The Sons of Lee Marvin.  Lee Marvin in addition to starring in great films as The Dirty Dozen, The Big Red One, and Donovans Reef is buried at Arlinton National Cemetery.

As for Mister Rogers he never served in the military at all. 

 

Seriously, does this guy look like he has 25 confirmed kills!

 

Howver, there are other examples of real life celebrity soldiers who saw combat. 

Audie Murphy was the most decorated soldier in World War II ,and became a movie star after the war.  Murphy earned the Medal of Honor along with 32 other medals. He starred in the movie about his life To Hell and Back,  and appeared in over 40 movies until his death in a tragic plane crash.

 

Then there is my personal hero, Ted Williams: The Splendid Splinter, The Greatest Hitter Who Ever Lived.  In addition to being the last major leaguer to hit over .400 (.406), Williams was a fighter pilot in the Marine Corps. During World War II he served as a flight instuctor. Williams saw combat in the Korean War.  Williams nearly died when his plane took  AA fire over a target in North Korea.  He had to limp the plane back to base where it nearly exploded on landing. Williams flew 38 combat missions in Korea before being pulled from service.  Williams' military service came in the middle of his baseball career, which severely curtailed his career stats. 

Ted Williams did in real life what John Wayne only acted on screen.

 

 

2 Comments: Add | Read
 
USS Constellation Seagoing Marine Ceremony pics
POSTED May 5, 9:36 PM
Here are some photos from the United States Seagoing Marine Association ceremony commemorating the United States Marines that served aboard the USS Constellation.

Thanks to Joan Rumenap for the pics.

Marine JRTOC Color Guard.

 

USS Constellation's Marine Detachment in period uniforms.

 

 

World War II veteran and kamikaze survivor Joe Rumenap. Joe fired a different kind of cannon on the USS Langely in the Pacific.

 

 

United States Seagoing Marine Association President Bob Vanderveen and Joe Rumenap present Constellation Museum Director Christopher Rowsom with the commemorative plaque.

 

 

0 Comments: Add
 
Weather Underground Terrorist Bill Ayers and Me
POSTED May 5, 11:26 AM

Well my old job to be more accurate. I had to draw you in right! Here's my Op/Ed from this weekend's Examiner to explain it all.

An unrepentant terrorist heads a key division of a leading U.S. education research association that has immense influence over what our children's teachers study in education school.

William Ayers, the unrepentant former SDS Weather Underground bomber of the 1960s, was recently elected by the American Education Research Association (AERA) as vice president and head of its division of curriculum studies.

Apparently, AERA members have no qualms about selecting Ayers, a man who to this day remains dedicated to destroying America, to lead one of their organization's most important divisions.

Perhaps they think Ayers is merely a "professor of English," as Democratic presidential contender and Ayers friend Sen. Barack Obama would have us believe. Or maybe AERA members don't know Ayers simply transferred his revolutionary fervor from the streets to the classroom where he indoctrinates our nation's teachers.

Possibly Ayers' influence is an aberration in an organization that bills itself as "the most prominent international professional organization, with the primary goal of advancing educational research and its practical application."

Wrong. Sadly, Ayers' radical worldview permeates AERA. I know, because I am a former AERA employee. I worked in AERA's national office in Washington, D.C. from 2002-2004.

Among my duties were managing production of AERA publications, including its flagship journal Educational Researcher. Educational Researcher published deep scholarly work like UCLA education professor Peter McLaren's love song to totalitarianism, Reconsidering Marx in post-Marxist Times: A Requiem for Post Modernism. McLaren's webpage is a sick testimonial to murderous thug Ché Guevera, and a totalitarian communist ideology responsible for the murder of more than 90 million people.

I had the arduous task of editing manuscripts with titles like "So When It Comes Out, They Aren't That Surprised That It Is There": Using Critical Race Theory as a Tool of Analysis of Race and Racism in Education, and Critical Social Theory and Transformative Knowledge: The Functions of Criticism in Quality Education.

Forget for a moment the unwieldy titles, copyediting their manuscripts revealed that the authors showed a disturbingly low grasp of the English language, and its rules of grammar and punctuation. Furthermore, the manuscripts contained so much pseudo-academic jargon that after every sentence I had stop and ask myself, "What the hell did that mean?"

This leftwing radicalism is not strictly limited to AERA publications. Its annual meetings, which draw tens of thousands, offer participants such fare as: "Resisting Resistance: Using Eco-Justice and Eco-Racism to Awaken Mindfulness, Compassion, and Wisdom in Preservice Teachers."

Then, of course, there is Ayers' own 2005 presentation "Shut Up and March: Patriotism and the Threat to Democracy in America's Schools."

The "scholars" who generate such mediocrity may seem like a joke to the general public however, their ersatz scholarship perniciously affects our culture. Their kitschy Marxism, which paints America as the main source of the world's racism and oppression, is rampant in our schools of education.

Our teachers' colleges are becoming indoctrination camps for fringe left wing radicalism, which is in turn passed on to our elementary, middle and high school students.

One would think that election of a terrorist who said of his violent past "I don't regret setting bombs, I feel we didn't do enough," plus the rank ideological bent of its publications and conference offerings, would spark some concern or at least a response from AERA leadership.

It hasn't. Where are AERA's president and executive director? Are they silent because they sub rosa approve Ayers' agenda for his new position, and the indoctrination of American teachers and students in radical left wing ideology?

The truth is that Ayers has been a leading light in AERA for years. In fact, radical AERA members specifically requested that Ayers present their objections to AERA's governing council's refusal to oppose the National Council for Accreditation for Teacher Certification's elimination of "social justice" from its list of standards in 2007.

Now in his new perch as a divisional vice president, Ayers can continue his long march through academia further radicalizing our teachers and our students.

Mark Newgent is the Baltimore History Examiner and blogs for Red Maryland. He can be reached at marknewgent@comcast.net

 

 

 

0 Comments: Add
 
Speak of the Devil
POSTED May 2, 4:25 PM
I love the Examiner editorial writers, they provide so much blogging material. Yesterday, they informed us of Jim Kraft's inanity, which by the way councilman, National Review picked up on your story and they presented some facts regarding plastic bags you may want to consult. 

Today, the Examiner editorial page offer us this gem:

What’s clear is that shedding private-sector jobs while adding public-sector jobs is unsustainable — without tax increases. Government jobs do not produce money, they merely redistribute revenue produced by those in the private sector. So as the proportion of those working for the government increases, a smaller group of wealth producers must support a bigger group of redistributors. That means less money for everyone...

It means expanding government may help reduce unemployment numbers initially, but it will not help the economy.

 This coming just a day after I pointed out:

Through his intimidating tactics and rhetoric, FDR essentially bullied business and the private sector and turned government into a competitor with which they could not compete... Did the New Deal create millions of jobs? Sure it did. However, they were government created public works jobs designed to serve political ends, and they lasted only months at a time. They were not the type of private sector jobs that could have spurred real economic growth that could have pulled the rest of the economy through. 

 What was it that George Santayana said about forgetting the past?

2 Comments: Add | Read
 
Paper or Genocide?
POSTED May 1, 2:34 PM
 Baltimore politicians have said and done some really shoe-poundingly stupid things over the years, but councilman Jim Kraft takes the cake. In a recent city council meeting Kraft said: “We don’t want to be criticized by future generations for not doing enough now as were those who dealt with the Germans then."

Perhaps the good councilman is taking his queue from Time Magazine's recent cheapening of the US Marine's bloody victory at Iwo Jima?

I agree with the Examiner editorialist who said, "Kraft can serve both the environment and his constituents by changing the culture rather than the law."

However, like Time, Kraft's comment cheapens and belittles the very real horrors of Nazism, in particular the Holocaust. Whatever the dangers of plastic bags, they cannot be equated to Auschwitz. Environmental protection is not the moral equivalent of war, nor is inaction on what are very debatable policy prescriptions equal to the Final Solution, and making those comparisons shows the shallowness of a small mind.

Perhaps Councilman Kraft should step outside his office at City Hall and visit the Baltimore Holocaust Memorial just a few short blocks away to some perspective, maybe take the train down to DC and spend the day at The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum for a more vivid and visceral experience of what the Nazi's wrought.  While he is down there he could cross the Potomac River to Iwo Jima memorial  and Arlington National Cemetery and the to see what sacrifice in war to stop the Nazi genocide really means. 
0 Comments: Add
 
Regulate This Cont'd: The New Deal
POSTED May 1, 12:39 PM
 
In yesterday’s post about regulation, I quoted Jonah Goldberg, who touched on the New Deal. Goldberg wrote, “During the New Deal, FDR supposedly carried on his (distant) cousin Teddy’s crusade against the “malefactors of great wealth.” But the truth is that big business often welcomed government regulation. Clarence Darrow, surveying the National Recovery Act’s record, found that the keystone agency of the New Deal had served only to help big business.”
 
This is true, but as with anything concerning Franklin Roosevelt’s shifty impulses and slapdash policy-making, there is more to the story. 
 
I say shifty because Roosevelt compartmentalized, played subordinates against each other, haphazardly chose policy, and often advocated competing sets of policies. For example, Roosevelt set the price of gold at 21 cents, his rigorous methodology for arriving at that number: “it's a lucky number, because it's three times seven.” Once, when advisors presented him with two opposing policy prescriptions he said, “Let’s do both.”
 
Business and industry felt Roosevelt’s constantly changing impulses as he attacked them, supported them, and attacked them again over the course of his presidency. So yes, in some instances Big Business did gain from the New Deal. However, most of the time, Roosevelt used them as a scapegoat, denouncing them as “malefactors of great wealth,” “economic royalists,” “economic dictators,” and “privileged princes”, to implement the next policy that tickled his fancy. Or, to put it more accurately, as Roosevelt stated in his second inaugural address, to seek an “instrument of unimagined power for the establishment of a morally better world.”
 
What I am getting at here, is that the New Deal was not the miracle cure for the Great Depression, as it is often perceived in our popular perception of the era. In fact, when you peel back the layers of myth, the New Deal is not all its cracked up to be.
 
Not until 1937, did the nation finally squeak past the output levels seen before the 1929 crash. However, Roosevelt chose this time to assault business once again, and in doing so created the Depression within the Depression. In 1937, durable manufacturing– an important meter of the economy at the time—plummeted.  Unemployment increased from 12% to 19%.  Steel manufacturing fell 80% of capacity to below 20%.  Works Progress Administration relief rolls in the Midwest increased, in some cases as high as 434% as it did in Detroit.  The Dow-Jones did not rise to pre-Depression levels for at least a decade after Roosevelt died.  Roosevelt ran up all time record deficits after a campaign pledge of a balancing budget. He ran those huge deficits after raising the income tax on the upper classes from 59% to 75%! That bastion of right wing thought The Brookings Institution labeled the economy as “precarious?”
 
Roosevelt and the New Deal Brain Trust scared the crap out of American business and industry, and they froze.  Uncertainty caused by government harassment and prosecution tends to do that. Couple FDR’s tool of “unimagined power” together with the cumulative effects of the minimum wage act, the Wagner Act, high taxation, and Keynesian inflationist policies, and you create a situation where business had to ask itself how much it could withstand.  American business leaders, who FDR constantly derided and slandered using the same class warfare rhetoric we know today, were scared away from investing or innovating and consequently creating jobs and sparking the economy.  It did not help the economy that FDR initiated over 150 anti-trust lawsuits against businesses further discouraging investment and job growth.  Roosevelt prosecuted Andrew Mellon, the Alan Greenspan of his time, until the day he died.
 
Through his intimidating tactics and rhetoric, FDR essentially bullied business and the private sector and turned government into a competitor with which they could not compete.  This should be expected when the head of the National Recovery Agency (NRA), Hugh Johnson, threatened corporate leaders with “a sock in the nose” when they refused to follow his “voluntary” programs.  Johnson, it should be mentioned kept a portrait of Mussolini on the back wall of his office, and brought copies of Il Duce’s book to hand out at cabinet meetings.  
 
It was not just the big boys that Roosevelt hurt, but the little guys as well, the “forgotten man” if you will. The NRA harassed and prosecuted the Schechter brothers, Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn who ran a small chicken farm, for having the temerity to sell their chickens at a price lower than that set by NRA bureaucrats in Washington. The Schechter’s even went to jail for their transgression.  Their case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where they won. The NRA tossed drycleaner Jacob Maged into prison for pressing suits at 35 cents instead of the NRA mandated 40 cents. Under the New Deal, offering your customer’s lower prices was literally a jailable offense. The NRA imposed thousands of codes and regulations, which drove up prices at a time when consumers needed lower priced goods. Specifically the Anti-Chain Store Act, and the Retail Price Maintenance Act, (can you say Wal-Mart) kept the price of everyday consumer goods high. NRA’s mandatory cuts in manufacturing production and the Agricultural Adjustment Administration’s (AAA) cut’s to farm production, destroyed thousands of industrial and agricultural jobs at the very time they were needed. 
Poet Ogden Nash authored a clever poem describing the udder—pun fully intended—absurdity of centralized NRA planning in every facet of the economy:
One from One Leaves Two
Mumblety-pumbledy my red cow
She's cooperating now
At first she didn't understand
That milk production must be planned
She didn't understand at first
She had to either plan or burst
 
Did the New Deal create millions of jobs? Sure it did. However, they were government created public works jobs designed to serve political ends, and they lasted only months at a time. They were not the type of private sector jobs that could have spurred real economic growth that could have pulled the rest of the economy through. 
 
Oh but the New Deal provided hope in dark times, say FDR’s defenders. Really? What hope did Jacob Maged, the Schechter’s have sitting in jail and losing their businesses? What about the thousands of workers cut out of a job or tenant farmers kicked off their land by distant bureaucrats in Washington, DC? Some might call that a Raw Deal.
 
Categories: The New Deal , FDR
0 Comments: Add
 
Regulate This!
POSTED April 30, 3:25 PM
History and contemporary political and policy issues intersect quite often. In my other life in the blogosphere, I write for Red Maryland the “premier blog of conservative and Republican politics and ideas in the Free State.” There my compatriots and I take part in the great debates of the day regarding Maryland and national politics. 
 
The big hot button issue in Maryland politics lately is regulation, especially as it relates to the environment and electricity markets. Who isn’t feeling the pinch with increasing BGE rates and gas prices?
 
Government regulation is a bugaboo of mine.  I have written three Op/Ed pieces for the Examiner about these two related subjects. I wrote about the dangers of Governor O’Malley’s global warming bill, the mythical “consensus” on global warming oops I mean climate change, and the false salvation of California’s energy regulation policies.
 
My background and training in history definitely informs my views on current political and policy issues, in fact it has been invaluable tool of analysis for me. So let me put on my historians cap for a moment to talk about our past experiences with government regulation.
 
I generally take a dim view of government regulation. Regulation usually ends up causing the very problems it is intended to solve. The popular conception of regulation as government reigning in greedy corporations belies the truth about it. In reality, Big Business and Big Government love each other.  The relationship is mutually beneficial.  Big business uses big government to eliminate competition and get from government what it can’t get competitively in the free market. Meanwhile big government gets its taste for setting up the arrangement.  Government regulation merely invites the big boys of the corporate world in to write the rules and buy off politicians. 
 
National Review’s Jonah Goldberg points out a historical example for us:
 
According to civics textbooks, Upton Sinclair and his fellow muckrakers unleashed populist rage against the cruel excesses of the meatpacking industry, and as a result, Teddy Roosevelt and his fellow Progressives boldly reined in an industry run amok. The problem is that it’s totally untrue, a fact Sinclair freely acknowledged. “The Federal inspection of meat was, historically, established at the packers’ request,” Sinclair wrote in 1906. “It is maintained and paid for by the people of the United States for the benefit of the packers.”

Or, as historian Gabriel Kolko writes, “The reality of the matter, of course, is that the big packers were warm friends of regulation, especially when it primarily affected their innumerable small competitors”….

Meanwhile, small firms and butchers who’d earned the trust of consumers would be forced to endure onerous compliance costs, while large firms not only could absorb those costs more easily but also claim their products were superior to uncertified meats. This story played itself out repeatedly during the Progressive Era. Big Steel actually sought out government regulation because it feared free-market competition. During the New Deal, FDR supposedly carried on his (distant) cousin Teddy’s crusade against the “malefactors of great wealth.” But the truth is that big business often welcomed government regulation. Clarence Darrow, surveying the National Recovery Act’s record, found that the keystone agency of the New Deal had served only to help big business.
 
We see the same process playing itself out in our own time.

General Electric, Phillips, and Sylvania wrote the energy bill, recently passed by Congress and signed by President Bush, which outlaws the incandescent light bulb.  Who are the largest manufacturers of the twisty CFC bulb?  You guessed it, GE, Phillips and Sylvania. Who is going to buy a more expensive light bulb if they can buy a cheaper bulb, if not forced to do so my government fiat?  GE, with its largest lobbying army in Washington, is pushing hard for increased mandates for solar and wind energy. GE is the heavily invested in wind and solar energy. GE bought up its renewable energy interests from Enron after it went belly-up in 2001. Enron lobbied both the Bush and Clinton administrations to pressure the Senate to ratify the Kyoto Protocols so it could take advantage of the renewable mandates. GE owns NBC, which heavily promoted Live Earth and flogs the global warming issue daily. What does that tell you?
 
What about the subsidies that went to ethanol peddlers like Goldman Sachs and Archer Daniels Midland, which are now responsible for the current food shortages?  Lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry wrote the legislation for the Medicare prescription drug benefit.
 
We can all agree that Maryland’s 1999 “deregulation” of its electricity markets was bad law and bad policy. However, was it really “deregulation?”  How can you have true deregulation with price caps and a system, which created individual monopolies or fiefdoms for BGE, PEPCO, et al?  That isn’t deregulation; it is merely another form of regulation.  You can’t impose price caps, which outside competitors can’t afford then expect them to enter the state electricity market, or any market for that matter. The new providers would be at a severe competitive disadvantage, and they were, which is why no serious competition emerged. Maryland’s 1999 “deregulation” was nothing of the sort.  It was merely a restructuring of the regulatory relationship between the power companies and the state, not true deregulation.
 
I know electricity market differ greatly from other markets in terms of their complexity, and I understand all the calls for “re-regulation” of Constellation and BGE. However, we should tread carefully on any path of re-regulation, because as I argued above, regulation invites the big boys in to write the legislation, buy off politicians.  I agree on the need for some basic rules of fair play and government’s need to enforce them. However, we need let companies sink or swim on their own merits, without the taxpayers or ratepayers footing the bill for regulatory schemes that ensure they are “too big to fail.”
“Re-regulation” won’t necessarily lead to lower rates for consumers, what it will do however, is ensure that big government will join big business to pick winners and losers. They win we lose.
 
0 Comments: Add
 
How JR Ewing Won the Cold War
POSTED April 28, 10:40 AM
  When we think of those responsible for toppling the Soviet Union, certain names come to mind: Reagan, Thatcher, John Paul II, JR Ewing..... uhhh what?

Yes that's right .  According to Reason Magazine editors Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch,  JR Ewing, the hard drinking , womanizing, Texas oil tycoon from the CBS series Dallas deserves credit for the downfall of communism

 

 

 

Gillespie and Welch write:

Joseph Stalin is said to have screened the 1940 movie "The Grapes of Wrath" in the Soviet Union to showcase the depredations of life under capitalism. Russian audiences watched the final scenes of the Okies' westward trek aboard overladen, broken-down jalopies -- and marveled that in the United States, even poor people had cars. "Dallas" functioned similarly.

"I think we were directly or indirectly responsible for the fall of the [Soviet] empire," Hagman told the Associated Press a decade ago. "They would see the wealthy Ewings and say, 'Hey, we don't have all this stuff.' I think it was good old-fashioned greed that got them to question their authority."

In Romania, "Dallas" was the last Western show allowed during the nightmare 1980s because President Nicolae Ceausescu was persuaded that it was sufficiently anti-capitalistic. By the time he changed his mind, it was already too late -- he had paid for the full run in precious hard currency. Meanwhile, the show provided a luxuriant alternative to a communism that was forcing people to wait more than a decade to buy the most rattletrap Romanian car....

The impact of "Dallas" on people's worldviews reminds us that the "vulgar" popular culture that left-wing highbrows and right-wing cultural conservatives love to hate is every bit as important as chin-stroking politics in fomenting real social change. Whether it's the junkie-rock band Velvet Underground inspiring anti-communist dissidents in Prague, or the movie "Titanic" inspiring subversive haircut styles in Taliban Afghanistan (the theocrats' Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice regularly rounded up would-be Leonardo DiCaprios), throwaway cultural products influence far-flung cultures in ways that are impossible to predict or control, even (or especially) by the artists themselves.

As a child of the 1980s I remember watching Dallas and wondering along with the rest of the nation "Who shot JR."  That question was of such import that the Turksih Parliament adjourned early so members could get home to watch the conclusion of the cliff hanger.  The Dallas cliff hanger ranks second in the history of all time TV cliff hangers, above Twin Peaks' "Who killed Laura Palmer?" and below The Simpsons' "Who shot Mr. Burns?"

My family was a fan of the show, even though we booed it every episode.  Being a family of Redskin fans we couldn't stand the sight of the Dallas Cowboys endzone in the overhead shot of Texas Stadium during the opening credits.

 

Hat Tip to Mr. Reason at WBAL

1 Comments: Add | Read
 

More Entries (12)