My wife just returned from a Food Emporium supermarket on the upper west side of Manhattan. She tried to buy light bulbs but all the light bulbs had been sold except for two packs in which one light bulb was broken each. Likewise, her best friend just returned from her house in Hawaii and said that there is rice rationing there. As well, my wife has repeatedly been unable to purchase spa and beauty products at our health club in Ulster County, New York and has been told by the sales people that there are backlogs on orders across the board. Suppliers have not been shipping. This is the first time that we have seen a shortage of light bulbs in the supermarket.
These shortages are directly attributable to Fed policy, specifically of the Greenspan-Bernanke Fed. Across the board shortages and price inflation result from malinvestment attributable to excessively low interest rates that fund Wall Street and the commercial banking industry. Thus, the public has subsidized Wall Street to build houses that no one can pay for. The inflationary consequences of the Greenspan-Bernanke policy over the next 30 years will cause many headaches. Although a shortage of spa products or light bulbs are inconvenient, and I can hedge by buying commodities indexes and the like, the Greenspan-Bernanke Fed's three decade-long Christmas for Wall Street, hedge funds and real estate developers has resulted in the death of children in the third world and significantly lower incomes for the average American worker.
It distresses me that double talk--e.g., blaming the results of the Fed's decades-long inflationary stance on third world trade--that characterized discussions about the inflationary recession of the 1970s is again appearing, this time among "conservatives". Social-democratic conservatives seem eager to claim that the interventionist Fed policies of the last three Republican and Clinton administrations have not caused across-the-board inflation in commodity prices, flat wages of workers, wealth transfers to speculators, and child starvation in the third world. They are the friends of big government.
The only solution to flat earnings, reduced wages, inflation and shortages is to get government out of our money supply. That means establishing the kind of gold standard in which Woodrow Wilson believed when he established the Federal Reserve in the first place in 1913. Wilson had voted as a "Gold Democrat" for the New Democratic (Gold) Party in 1896. He did not anticipate that the New Deal coupled with the social democratic (Roosevelt-Rockefeller-Nixon-Bush) wing of the Republican Party would declare against the gold standard. And who would have thought that following Richard ("We are all Keynesians now") Nixon, so-called conservatives have become bigger apologists for government control, regulation and debasement of our money supply than their left-wing social democratic colleagues.
Friday, May 9, 2008
David Horowitz's Legal Response to U Wisconsin Anti-semitism
We have sent the following attorney's letter to the University of Wisconsin in connection with the anti-Semitic attacks on me and the obstruction of my speech.
The Becker Law Firm
23801 Calabasas Road, Suite 1015
Calabasas, CA 91302
May 9, 2008
BY FACSIMILE AND BY REGULAR MAIL
Dr. Carlos E. Santiago, Chancellor
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
P.O. Box 413, 2200 E. Kenwood Blvd.
Milwaukee, WI 53201-0413
Re: David Horowitz
Dear Dr. Santiago:
This firm represents David Horowitz and the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Mr. Horowitz was invited by The Conservative Union, a student organization, to speak on your campus on April 30, 2008. His visit met with an unusually malicious campaign orchestrated by students aligned with the Muslim Students Association (“MSA”) to disrupt it and to prevent his message from reaching its audience.
Colleges and universities have a duty to protect free speech on campus and to take reasonable steps to protect on-campus speakers and organizations from conduct intended to obstruct and undermine peaceful expressions of viewpoints that may be unpopular. In all candor, the tactics employed by the agitators, as detailed below, distinguish your institution as particularly hostile and indifferent to civil liberties and First Amendment protections. The purpose of this letter is to request UWM’s rules, regulations, policies, procedures and guidelines pertaining to visiting speakers and hate speech, and specifically instructions for handling demonstrators, including investigation and arrest policies and procedures. As set forth below, we also request additional information about the University's relationship with MSA.
A search of UMW’s web site does not yield the university’s policies but does generate a revealing statement of university policy contained in a report from the late 1960s:[1]
“The University of Wisconsin has a long-standing and consistent record of support for civil liberties, particularly the First Amendment freedoms of speech, press, and assembly.
“The University’s commitment to civil liberties is not only a commitment to popular causes, but involves (1) freedom for controversial persons invited to the campus to speak, and to communicate, and (2) the freedom of those who would join together with them to talk, listen, and engage in dialogue.
“Such freedoms of assembly, speech, and press are violated when unpopular speakers are banned from campus [and] when controversial speakers invited to campus are not permitted to be heard. . . .
“University policy permits peaceful, non-disruptive, protest – even peaceful picketing which does not interfere with the University’s orderly conduct of its affairs. However, University policy does not – and cannot – condone those actions undertaken either by a tiny minority of students, or by an overwhelming majority, which would violate the rights of other students (or faculty) to assemble, speak,, and exchange ideas and information. . . .”
The report observed that the American Civil Liberties Union “considers it important to emphasize that it does not approve of demonstrators who deprive others of the opportunity to speak or be heard, or physically obstruct movement, or otherwise improperly disrupt … legitimate educational or institutional processes.”
The report also noted that a proposed draft of a student bill of rights of AAUP “takes precisely the same position” and that “this position has been endorsed by many other groups in higher education.”
Is this the university’s current policy, and if it is, where can it be found and how is it enforced?
These questions bear on the rights of Mr. Horowitz, the Conservative Union, who sponsored the event, the students who were deprived of attending the event due to obstructive activities, and those who peacefully attended the lecture, whether their rights were violated and whether university policy was ignored or selectively enforced.
According to Mr. Horowitz and to officers of the Conservative Union, the following disruptive activities occurred in connection with the event:
A flyer titled “Getting to Know David Horowitz,” and featuring a section headed “Who is David Whorowitz?” at the top of the page was posted on a bulletin board outside the office of the Muslim Students’ Association. The flyer additionally featured a cartoon depicting Mr. Horowitz as an anti-Semitic caricature of a Jew in the classic style familiar from the Nazi posters of the 1930s, which have become ubiquitous in the Arab world. The Jew in the cartoon was standing in a garbage can with the cover on his head, dressed in a Nazi uniform, with an armband marked “H” for “Horowitz.” The caption read “Horowitz Awareness Week.” On the side of the garbage can one could read a series of false statements concerning Mr. Horowitz that have been given currency by radical professors and the secular left on college campuses: “Muzzling Academics, Blacklisting, Hate Mongering, Race Baiting, Spying…” The flyer describes Mr. Horowitz as an “Israeli apologist” and “Judeofascist”, and incorrectly claims that he ran an ad in the university newspaper “alleging that a UWM student group, the Muslim Students’ Association, is an extremist organization engaged in violent jihad.”The character depicting Mr. Horowitz states in the cartoon: “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the most fascist of them all?” The flyer goes beyond legitimate parody or editorial comment and purports to imitate the views Mr. Horowitz develops through rigorous research and scholarship. However, while purporting to mock Mr. Horowitz’ claims concerning Islamofascism, it offers no evidence of legitimacy and, instead, maligns Jews while casting Mr. Horowitz in a false light. (The flyer is attached to this letter.)
Prior to Mr. Horowitz’s appearance, members of the MSA had torn down approximately 2,000 flyers that had been posted to advertise the event.
Members of the MSA surrounded students distributing the Conservative Union’s pamphlet at a table. They shouted,“cancel the speech.” Because of these tactics, a threat of violent behavior at Mr. Horowitz’s lecture was taken seriously, and campus security ordered metal detectors and a security force of a more than dozen officers and staffers for the event.
Numerous individuals interrupted Mr. Horowitz’s remarks with the goal of silencing him. More than a dozen individuals associated with the MSA tried to drown out Mr. Horowitz’s comments, were warned to stop, and had to be ejectedfrom the Student Union auditorium.
It is our understanding that the university funds MSA, whose activities involving Mr. Horowitz’s appearance clearly transgressed the rights of students, Jews, Mr. Horowitz and others. We request information concerning the university’s financial relationship with and support of the MSA chapter, which, by virtue of the cartoon and comments described herein, appears to promote, endorse and engage in hate speech as well as other activities that violate the constitutional rights of speech and assembly.
We are advised that although campus security took some steps to avoid violence and disruption, it failed to gather the names of individuals who disrupted the lecture or to otherwise discipline them. We would also like to know why university policy appears not to have been enforced in connection with this event, or why the individuals who disrupted a peaceful assembly evidently have not been investigated.
In the interest of promoting robust First Amendment protections on the UWM campus, we thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
The Becker Law Firm
William J. Becker, Jr.
cc: David Horowitz, David Horowitz Freedom Center
Manny Klausner, Individual Rights Foundation
wjb/gm
Attachment
The Becker Law Firm
23801 Calabasas Road, Suite 1015
Calabasas, CA 91302
May 9, 2008
BY FACSIMILE AND BY REGULAR MAIL
Dr. Carlos E. Santiago, Chancellor
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
P.O. Box 413, 2200 E. Kenwood Blvd.
Milwaukee, WI 53201-0413
Re: David Horowitz
Dear Dr. Santiago:
This firm represents David Horowitz and the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Mr. Horowitz was invited by The Conservative Union, a student organization, to speak on your campus on April 30, 2008. His visit met with an unusually malicious campaign orchestrated by students aligned with the Muslim Students Association (“MSA”) to disrupt it and to prevent his message from reaching its audience.
Colleges and universities have a duty to protect free speech on campus and to take reasonable steps to protect on-campus speakers and organizations from conduct intended to obstruct and undermine peaceful expressions of viewpoints that may be unpopular. In all candor, the tactics employed by the agitators, as detailed below, distinguish your institution as particularly hostile and indifferent to civil liberties and First Amendment protections. The purpose of this letter is to request UWM’s rules, regulations, policies, procedures and guidelines pertaining to visiting speakers and hate speech, and specifically instructions for handling demonstrators, including investigation and arrest policies and procedures. As set forth below, we also request additional information about the University's relationship with MSA.
A search of UMW’s web site does not yield the university’s policies but does generate a revealing statement of university policy contained in a report from the late 1960s:[1]
“The University of Wisconsin has a long-standing and consistent record of support for civil liberties, particularly the First Amendment freedoms of speech, press, and assembly.
“The University’s commitment to civil liberties is not only a commitment to popular causes, but involves (1) freedom for controversial persons invited to the campus to speak, and to communicate, and (2) the freedom of those who would join together with them to talk, listen, and engage in dialogue.
“Such freedoms of assembly, speech, and press are violated when unpopular speakers are banned from campus [and] when controversial speakers invited to campus are not permitted to be heard. . . .
“University policy permits peaceful, non-disruptive, protest – even peaceful picketing which does not interfere with the University’s orderly conduct of its affairs. However, University policy does not – and cannot – condone those actions undertaken either by a tiny minority of students, or by an overwhelming majority, which would violate the rights of other students (or faculty) to assemble, speak,, and exchange ideas and information. . . .”
The report observed that the American Civil Liberties Union “considers it important to emphasize that it does not approve of demonstrators who deprive others of the opportunity to speak or be heard, or physically obstruct movement, or otherwise improperly disrupt … legitimate educational or institutional processes.”
The report also noted that a proposed draft of a student bill of rights of AAUP “takes precisely the same position” and that “this position has been endorsed by many other groups in higher education.”
Is this the university’s current policy, and if it is, where can it be found and how is it enforced?
These questions bear on the rights of Mr. Horowitz, the Conservative Union, who sponsored the event, the students who were deprived of attending the event due to obstructive activities, and those who peacefully attended the lecture, whether their rights were violated and whether university policy was ignored or selectively enforced.
According to Mr. Horowitz and to officers of the Conservative Union, the following disruptive activities occurred in connection with the event:
A flyer titled “Getting to Know David Horowitz,” and featuring a section headed “Who is David Whorowitz?” at the top of the page was posted on a bulletin board outside the office of the Muslim Students’ Association. The flyer additionally featured a cartoon depicting Mr. Horowitz as an anti-Semitic caricature of a Jew in the classic style familiar from the Nazi posters of the 1930s, which have become ubiquitous in the Arab world. The Jew in the cartoon was standing in a garbage can with the cover on his head, dressed in a Nazi uniform, with an armband marked “H” for “Horowitz.” The caption read “Horowitz Awareness Week.” On the side of the garbage can one could read a series of false statements concerning Mr. Horowitz that have been given currency by radical professors and the secular left on college campuses: “Muzzling Academics, Blacklisting, Hate Mongering, Race Baiting, Spying…” The flyer describes Mr. Horowitz as an “Israeli apologist” and “Judeofascist”, and incorrectly claims that he ran an ad in the university newspaper “alleging that a UWM student group, the Muslim Students’ Association, is an extremist organization engaged in violent jihad.”The character depicting Mr. Horowitz states in the cartoon: “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the most fascist of them all?” The flyer goes beyond legitimate parody or editorial comment and purports to imitate the views Mr. Horowitz develops through rigorous research and scholarship. However, while purporting to mock Mr. Horowitz’ claims concerning Islamofascism, it offers no evidence of legitimacy and, instead, maligns Jews while casting Mr. Horowitz in a false light. (The flyer is attached to this letter.)
Prior to Mr. Horowitz’s appearance, members of the MSA had torn down approximately 2,000 flyers that had been posted to advertise the event.
Members of the MSA surrounded students distributing the Conservative Union’s pamphlet at a table. They shouted,“cancel the speech.” Because of these tactics, a threat of violent behavior at Mr. Horowitz’s lecture was taken seriously, and campus security ordered metal detectors and a security force of a more than dozen officers and staffers for the event.
Numerous individuals interrupted Mr. Horowitz’s remarks with the goal of silencing him. More than a dozen individuals associated with the MSA tried to drown out Mr. Horowitz’s comments, were warned to stop, and had to be ejectedfrom the Student Union auditorium.
It is our understanding that the university funds MSA, whose activities involving Mr. Horowitz’s appearance clearly transgressed the rights of students, Jews, Mr. Horowitz and others. We request information concerning the university’s financial relationship with and support of the MSA chapter, which, by virtue of the cartoon and comments described herein, appears to promote, endorse and engage in hate speech as well as other activities that violate the constitutional rights of speech and assembly.
We are advised that although campus security took some steps to avoid violence and disruption, it failed to gather the names of individuals who disrupted the lecture or to otherwise discipline them. We would also like to know why university policy appears not to have been enforced in connection with this event, or why the individuals who disrupted a peaceful assembly evidently have not been investigated.
In the interest of promoting robust First Amendment protections on the UWM campus, we thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
The Becker Law Firm
William J. Becker, Jr.
cc: David Horowitz, David Horowitz Freedom Center
Manny Klausner, Individual Rights Foundation
wjb/gm
Attachment
Vote Every One of Them Out
The perspicacious JammieWearingFool has a useful suggestion:
"This has now gotten out of hand. Our U S Congress is the biggest collection of worthless, oxygen thieving parasites still being allowed to exist."
Definitely perspicacious, and articulate as well.
"This has now gotten out of hand. Our U S Congress is the biggest collection of worthless, oxygen thieving parasites still being allowed to exist."
Definitely perspicacious, and articulate as well.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Jobs for Ulster County
Lance Matteson is president of the Ulster County Development Corp. and his job is to find Ulster County jobs. Recently, County Legislature Minority Leader Glen Noonan called Matteson’s job oxymoronic. But sustainable economic development is achievable. To create jobs, Ulster County needs to break bad habits. Like New York State as a whole, too much of Ulster County’s jobs strategy has depended on large-scale government funding. These include the $117 million Woodland Pond development in New Paltz, the $1 million Kings Highway project and the $8 million Solar Energy Consortium that depends on federal and state funding. These are worthy projects. But a better and more sustainable approach would be a micro-jobs strategy. The entrepreneurial spirit of the County’s hard working and creative citizens could be supported through encouraging loans and tax breaks to entrepreneurial business start ups rather than to big developers.
Capitalizing on Ulster County’s cultural and natural treasures requires creativity that builds on institutional and human capital. Museums, resorts and support for the arts are some of the directions a jobs strategy might take that amplify the County’s strengths. We can all imagine arts centers, Catskill museums and new IBMs reappearing in Kingston. But big ideas are not enough. In corporate America, for every product idea that succeeds, seven fail. Why should Ulster County be different? Many small ideas offer a better and more sustainable strategy than a few big ones rigidly controlled. Why focus on home run sluggers when Ulster County can encourage many base hitters?
Of all of Ulster County’s wonderful assets, its most important is its hardworking, entrepreneurial and imaginative citizenry. The best jobs strategy would not only amplify their skills and human capital, but would build on their imagination through a technique known as micro finance. Micro finance is a way to rebalance the economy’s bias toward big developers, large corporations and big banks back to individuals. It is the individual that made America great, not big business. What we remember as the biggest firms, Standard Oil (Exxon), McDonald’s and Dell Computer, started as ideas that were funded through personal saving. Exxon was founded by John D. Rockefeller, who in three years as an accounting clerk was able to save one year’s salary and bought his first store in Cleveland. McDonald’s was started by the McDonald brothers who closed their hot dog stand to open the first scientific-management designed restaurant. Dell Computer was started by a college student named Michael Dell. But in the past six decades New York has sacrificed its entrepreneurial spirit to big developers and state eminent domain schemes. High taxes discourage private citizens from saving the capital they need. And the capital is transferred to big firms like Bear Stearns that often squander it. Howard Schultz, born in Brooklyn, moved to Seattle to make Starbucks a great firm.
For too long New York State has relied on government solutions to economic problems. The result has been a consistent pattern of economic decline. The reliance on big government development comes from the State’s early and ambitious adoption of the Progressive ideas of Theodore Roosevelt, Al Smith and Robert Moses. More than other states, New York has relied on private use eminent domain, high taxes and subsidies to big business. The Progressive model has failed.
New York State’s population has grown by a 30 percent over the past 40 years and since the 1970s much of that growth is due to immigration. In contrast, the US population has doubled, a growth rate three times that of New York’s. In the post-World War II period, New York has lead the nation in both the numbers of people leaving the state and in the number of private use eminent domain actions taken. Upstate New York has become a ghost land of deserted factories and impoverished but hard working citizens while New York has consistently ranked among the top three states in taxation.
The State has relied on a flawed model of urban renewal and economic development that involves public subsidies to large projects. The Progressive model that Al Smith and Robert Moses pioneered assumed that the chief problem confronting society was to replace individual initiative with government intervention. New York advocated higher taxes, greater degrees of regulation and greater government involvement in the economy.
Among the most important of the policies replacing individual initiative with large institutions have been those that inhibit individual capital formation, savings, by private individuals. But private savings is how most of the nation’s important businesses, from Standard Oil to Dell Computer, have been formed. A jobs formation strategy ought to focus on re-orienting banks and public policies away from taxation and toward financing entrepreneurial start ups. This would involve encouraging banks and other lenders to finance and support start ups within Ulster County.
Economic growth comes not from attracting large businesses into Ulster County, but from creating conditions whereby Ulster County’s entrepreneurial, academic, artistic and idealistic spirit can best express itself. This can be done by re-balancing access to credit from big developers to small business and start-up entrepreneurs.
Microfinance is the idea that financial institutions can be encouraged, supported or created to provide financial services to entrepreneurs that enhance their ability to start businesses. The recent fiasco in the national credit market suggests that financial insitutions have lacked competence in assessing the best credit risks. They have tended to exclude small borrowers and taken reckless gambles that have ended up requiring public support. The scorning of entrepreneurial start ups by the nation’s financial institutions has caused the inefficient allocation of financing away from entrepreneurs toward real estate, big box retail and hedge funds.
A meaningful jobs strategy would start with Ulster County’s development of a loan guarantee program, much like student loans, whereby banks would be encouraged to lend to entrepreneurs along with arrangement for tax abatements and refunds for individuals who start businesses.
Capitalizing on Ulster County’s cultural and natural treasures requires creativity that builds on institutional and human capital. Museums, resorts and support for the arts are some of the directions a jobs strategy might take that amplify the County’s strengths. We can all imagine arts centers, Catskill museums and new IBMs reappearing in Kingston. But big ideas are not enough. In corporate America, for every product idea that succeeds, seven fail. Why should Ulster County be different? Many small ideas offer a better and more sustainable strategy than a few big ones rigidly controlled. Why focus on home run sluggers when Ulster County can encourage many base hitters?
Of all of Ulster County’s wonderful assets, its most important is its hardworking, entrepreneurial and imaginative citizenry. The best jobs strategy would not only amplify their skills and human capital, but would build on their imagination through a technique known as micro finance. Micro finance is a way to rebalance the economy’s bias toward big developers, large corporations and big banks back to individuals. It is the individual that made America great, not big business. What we remember as the biggest firms, Standard Oil (Exxon), McDonald’s and Dell Computer, started as ideas that were funded through personal saving. Exxon was founded by John D. Rockefeller, who in three years as an accounting clerk was able to save one year’s salary and bought his first store in Cleveland. McDonald’s was started by the McDonald brothers who closed their hot dog stand to open the first scientific-management designed restaurant. Dell Computer was started by a college student named Michael Dell. But in the past six decades New York has sacrificed its entrepreneurial spirit to big developers and state eminent domain schemes. High taxes discourage private citizens from saving the capital they need. And the capital is transferred to big firms like Bear Stearns that often squander it. Howard Schultz, born in Brooklyn, moved to Seattle to make Starbucks a great firm.
For too long New York State has relied on government solutions to economic problems. The result has been a consistent pattern of economic decline. The reliance on big government development comes from the State’s early and ambitious adoption of the Progressive ideas of Theodore Roosevelt, Al Smith and Robert Moses. More than other states, New York has relied on private use eminent domain, high taxes and subsidies to big business. The Progressive model has failed.
New York State’s population has grown by a 30 percent over the past 40 years and since the 1970s much of that growth is due to immigration. In contrast, the US population has doubled, a growth rate three times that of New York’s. In the post-World War II period, New York has lead the nation in both the numbers of people leaving the state and in the number of private use eminent domain actions taken. Upstate New York has become a ghost land of deserted factories and impoverished but hard working citizens while New York has consistently ranked among the top three states in taxation.
The State has relied on a flawed model of urban renewal and economic development that involves public subsidies to large projects. The Progressive model that Al Smith and Robert Moses pioneered assumed that the chief problem confronting society was to replace individual initiative with government intervention. New York advocated higher taxes, greater degrees of regulation and greater government involvement in the economy.
Among the most important of the policies replacing individual initiative with large institutions have been those that inhibit individual capital formation, savings, by private individuals. But private savings is how most of the nation’s important businesses, from Standard Oil to Dell Computer, have been formed. A jobs formation strategy ought to focus on re-orienting banks and public policies away from taxation and toward financing entrepreneurial start ups. This would involve encouraging banks and other lenders to finance and support start ups within Ulster County.
Economic growth comes not from attracting large businesses into Ulster County, but from creating conditions whereby Ulster County’s entrepreneurial, academic, artistic and idealistic spirit can best express itself. This can be done by re-balancing access to credit from big developers to small business and start-up entrepreneurs.
Microfinance is the idea that financial institutions can be encouraged, supported or created to provide financial services to entrepreneurs that enhance their ability to start businesses. The recent fiasco in the national credit market suggests that financial insitutions have lacked competence in assessing the best credit risks. They have tended to exclude small borrowers and taken reckless gambles that have ended up requiring public support. The scorning of entrepreneurial start ups by the nation’s financial institutions has caused the inefficient allocation of financing away from entrepreneurs toward real estate, big box retail and hedge funds.
A meaningful jobs strategy would start with Ulster County’s development of a loan guarantee program, much like student loans, whereby banks would be encouraged to lend to entrepreneurs along with arrangement for tax abatements and refunds for individuals who start businesses.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
