The Professional Staff Congress, CUNY's faculty union, has elected the "New Caucus", a group of left-wing extremists to its leadership. In his latest Patriot Returns, Sharad Karkhanis, who has been harassed with a law suit by "Sue" O'Malley, a member of the extremist group, takes the union to task. Karkhanis writes:
The concerns of Barbara Bowen and her fellow New Caucasians have never been limited to such issues as higher salaries, lower teaching loads, and better benefits, of course. These mundane matters often seem of secondary importance to larger political goals, such as ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and preventing one with Iran. Indeed, the Dear Leader was one of the featured speakers at United for Peace and Justice's October 27th march to Foley Square...
Karkhanis has a point, and once again, as always, serves a major public service through his newsletter. If New Caucus leader and union president Barbara Bowen expects to win Eliot Spitzer and his fellow Democrats over, might she not leave the attacks on the Democrats to Republicans? Bowen's combative approach has repeatedly failed. As a result, I have invited Randi Weingarten to commence a merger of her United Federation of Teachers with the Professional Staff Congress.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
An Open Letter to Randi Weingarten, President of the United Federation of Techers
203 Watson Hollow Road
PO Box 130
West Shokan, New York 12494
Ms. Randi Weingarten, President
United Federation of Teachers
52 Broadway
New York, NY 10004
Dear Ms. Weingarten:
I am an associate professor at Brooklyn College, a campus of the City University of New York (CUNY). At present, the Professional Staff Congress, a NYSUT unit, represents the CUNY faculty. The Professional Staff Congress, in part for reasons of lack of bargaining power and in part for reasons of poor leadership has been unable to bargain effectively with the State and City of New York.
I wanted to inquire if the UFT would consider an unfriendly takeover of the PSC's unit based on a unit decertification/certificaton. Alternatively, would you consider contacting the leadership of the Professional Staff Congress and suggesting a friendly merger of the UFT and PSC?
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
PO Box 130
West Shokan, New York 12494
Ms. Randi Weingarten, President
United Federation of Teachers
52 Broadway
New York, NY 10004
Dear Ms. Weingarten:
I am an associate professor at Brooklyn College, a campus of the City University of New York (CUNY). At present, the Professional Staff Congress, a NYSUT unit, represents the CUNY faculty. The Professional Staff Congress, in part for reasons of lack of bargaining power and in part for reasons of poor leadership has been unable to bargain effectively with the State and City of New York.
I wanted to inquire if the UFT would consider an unfriendly takeover of the PSC's unit based on a unit decertification/certificaton. Alternatively, would you consider contacting the leadership of the Professional Staff Congress and suggesting a friendly merger of the UFT and PSC?
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Peter Levine's "New Progressive Era"
I had previously blogged about Peter Levine's New Progressive Era when I was starting it. Now that I've finished it, I conclude that my initial reaction was correct. The ideology of the progressives, and of Levine, ignores long run effects; bounded rationality; processes of experimentation that are necessary to innovation; the importance of private property and the private sphere; the importance of individual rights to be free from the progressives' endless taste for attacking the individual; and the importance of free markets to create a wealthy society.
Deliberation and democracy are only beneficial if there are limits set to their scope. As de Tocqueville argued, tyranny of the majority is the chief threat to American democracy.
Having grown up in New York, the state and city where the deliberative state has grown most extensively, I grew up seeing the failure of Levine's ideas first-hand. In New York, progressivism degenerated into Robert Moses's capricious abuse of power. Although Levine argues that the earlier progressives were ambivalent about unions, Levine is very pro-union. In New York, I watched the business base disappear; property values soar to the point of crippling unaffordability; and the growth of the rat population in the subways. (The city had confiscated the subways during the post-progressive era thanks to the moronic deliberation of that era). The City has increasingly become an elite playground that excludes the middle class thanks to the practical effects of Levine's ideas, specifically, special interest pressure to support public sector unions who have fought for high taxes; special interest eminent domain actions that have closed small factories and destroyed inexpensive housing; and the use of urban renewal and the tax system to squelch start-ups that have yet to prove themselves.
Despite its claim to be democratic, progressivism is anti-democratic. It is anti-democratic because it aims to apply democratic deliberation inappropriately to economic issues and so must fail. Levine does not appear to grasp the concept of marginalism or marginalist decision making; nor does he leave sufficient room for the possibility that an artist, intellectual, inventor or entrepreneur might have ideas which the majority would rather suppress because it does not understand them. This has been the consistent failure of progressivism. Deliberation and progressivism are fine in the limited scope of public decision making as defined in the nineteenth century. The slightest expansions make them untenable. In areas like monetary policy, which are not that complicated, special interests leap to make the topics seem complicated, and the public is easily bamboozled. The result is the special interest constituencies, which Howard S. Katz has called the "paper aristocracy" in the case of money supply, who argue vehemently for the "stabilization of credit markets" and similar kinds of meaningless, self-serving nonsense in order to justify public subsidies. The public is deferential toward the quack claims of academics, and so democracy becomes a matter of special interest, privilege and fake authority.
The public is simply not equipped to engage in debates about engineering; economics; architecture; construction; manufacturing, etc., etc. This is understandable because no one has the mental capacity to absorb all of these issues. In arguing for the public to engage in debates about such a wide range of issues, Levine and his fellow progressives are paving the way to totalitarianism. This is not surprising because it happened in Germany, the first country to adopt a progressive policy.
The end result of Levine's progressivism is dictatorship. Far from being a reform movement, the "new progressivism" leads to the kind of totalitarianism to which Bismarck's progressivism led Germany.
There are more than a few evidences of authoritarianism in Levine's book. For instance, Levine implies that those who "admire the market" should not "have disproportionate political power as a result of their wealth". But this kind of distinction leads to suppression of speech. For instance, is it fair that people with higher IQs have disproportionate political power and so can manipulate the government to serve their interests as the financial community has been able to do with the Federal Reserve Bank and as business has been able to do with the department of labor and the federal trade commission? The fact is that Levine singles out business as a manipulator, when the only conceivable outcome of his progressivism is manipulation by special interest groups.
Given the repeated failure of the progressives' ideas, one would hope that their ideas would have been consigned to the trash bin. But their emotional hatred of business, which they cannot dominate and control, inspires their endless speculation as to how to suppress entrepreneurs and those who do not pay attention to their stale ideas.
Deliberation and democracy are only beneficial if there are limits set to their scope. As de Tocqueville argued, tyranny of the majority is the chief threat to American democracy.
Having grown up in New York, the state and city where the deliberative state has grown most extensively, I grew up seeing the failure of Levine's ideas first-hand. In New York, progressivism degenerated into Robert Moses's capricious abuse of power. Although Levine argues that the earlier progressives were ambivalent about unions, Levine is very pro-union. In New York, I watched the business base disappear; property values soar to the point of crippling unaffordability; and the growth of the rat population in the subways. (The city had confiscated the subways during the post-progressive era thanks to the moronic deliberation of that era). The City has increasingly become an elite playground that excludes the middle class thanks to the practical effects of Levine's ideas, specifically, special interest pressure to support public sector unions who have fought for high taxes; special interest eminent domain actions that have closed small factories and destroyed inexpensive housing; and the use of urban renewal and the tax system to squelch start-ups that have yet to prove themselves.
Despite its claim to be democratic, progressivism is anti-democratic. It is anti-democratic because it aims to apply democratic deliberation inappropriately to economic issues and so must fail. Levine does not appear to grasp the concept of marginalism or marginalist decision making; nor does he leave sufficient room for the possibility that an artist, intellectual, inventor or entrepreneur might have ideas which the majority would rather suppress because it does not understand them. This has been the consistent failure of progressivism. Deliberation and progressivism are fine in the limited scope of public decision making as defined in the nineteenth century. The slightest expansions make them untenable. In areas like monetary policy, which are not that complicated, special interests leap to make the topics seem complicated, and the public is easily bamboozled. The result is the special interest constituencies, which Howard S. Katz has called the "paper aristocracy" in the case of money supply, who argue vehemently for the "stabilization of credit markets" and similar kinds of meaningless, self-serving nonsense in order to justify public subsidies. The public is deferential toward the quack claims of academics, and so democracy becomes a matter of special interest, privilege and fake authority.
The public is simply not equipped to engage in debates about engineering; economics; architecture; construction; manufacturing, etc., etc. This is understandable because no one has the mental capacity to absorb all of these issues. In arguing for the public to engage in debates about such a wide range of issues, Levine and his fellow progressives are paving the way to totalitarianism. This is not surprising because it happened in Germany, the first country to adopt a progressive policy.
The end result of Levine's progressivism is dictatorship. Far from being a reform movement, the "new progressivism" leads to the kind of totalitarianism to which Bismarck's progressivism led Germany.
There are more than a few evidences of authoritarianism in Levine's book. For instance, Levine implies that those who "admire the market" should not "have disproportionate political power as a result of their wealth". But this kind of distinction leads to suppression of speech. For instance, is it fair that people with higher IQs have disproportionate political power and so can manipulate the government to serve their interests as the financial community has been able to do with the Federal Reserve Bank and as business has been able to do with the department of labor and the federal trade commission? The fact is that Levine singles out business as a manipulator, when the only conceivable outcome of his progressivism is manipulation by special interest groups.
Given the repeated failure of the progressives' ideas, one would hope that their ideas would have been consigned to the trash bin. But their emotional hatred of business, which they cannot dominate and control, inspires their endless speculation as to how to suppress entrepreneurs and those who do not pay attention to their stale ideas.
West Shokan's General Store
The West Shokan Curmudgeon reports that the West Shokan General Store will close. According to the Curmudgeon, the owner of the store, Ruth Marzulli, has:
"offered to compromise on the rent and to extend the initial rental agreement. The Mansfields feel that it’s impossible to make the store viable even if the rent is almost nothing. I’m sure there’s a compromise in all this, but it doesn’t seem that the parties will figure it out."
The Curmudgeon suggests that a group might open the store in Snyder's, a bar famous for appearing in the film Wendigo, which has apeared on the Independent Film Channel and elsewhere.
Babs and Phil Mansfield, who moved up from the city to run the store (Phil is a professional photographer as well as a retailer) have done a great job with the store. The food is very good and they sell alot of neat stuff like milk in the old fashioned glass bottles that is organic (bottled by a local farmer), organic eggs and world-class soups, pot pies etc. The store is much more crowded than it was when Weber owned it and much more crowded than when the Marzullis operated it themselves.
Ruth's late husband Jerry had purchased Weber's store and refurbished it about 5 or 6 years ago. Unfortunately, rumor has it that the price was somewhat too high to be justified by the volume. The economics of the area may be that commercial properties cannot command the prices that would seem appropriate elsewhere, such as New York, because of insufficient traffic. It is understandable that Ms. Marzulli does not wish to rent or sell at a loss, and it is also understandable that Mr. and Ms. Mansfield cannot operate at a loss to cover Ms. Marzulli's cash flow gap.
As the Curmudgeon points out, the store is a major asset to the hamlet of West Shokan. For those who do not drink (Snyder's is a commodious alternative hangout if you do drink)it is the only "third place" to meet others in West Shokan.
Ms. Marzulli would probably be wise to compromise on the rent, especially if the Curmudgeon's concern that the West Shokan post office might close if the store closes again is true. If the p.o. does close, Ms. Marzulli will lose that rent as well as the store's rent. If so, she will be holding an expensive property with no tenant and will have to carry the interest (or imputed interest) as well as pay the taxes and maintain the property without any revenue.
It would make more sense for Ms. Marzulli to cover her variable costs and at least part of her fixed costs by offering the Mansfields a lease at a market rate. By market rate I mean a rate that is limited to the store's net income less a reasonable estimate of profit and wages for the Mansfields. I sincerely doubt that another buyer will be able to generate more traffic than the Mansfields have. Commercial properties on Route 28 in neighboring Boiceville have been sitting empty for years.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
