Monday, March 11, 2019
Saying Goodbye to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Michael Gianaris
I congratulate Erie County's Assemblyman David DiPietro (R-NY) for introducing A05498, a bill that would divide New York into three autonomous regions: New Amsterdam, New York City, and Montauk. It proposes regional governors and legislators, and it limits statewide taxation to a sales tax. It also proposes that state court and prison systems be separated.
In an emailed press release, the Divide NYS Caucus Inc. says that under the bill a token New York State government would remain, with most taxing power transferred to regional governments. About three-fourths of state laws would become regional laws. Each region would have its own legislature and regional governor.
When I lived in Northern New York (the region north of the Adirondacks, running along the Canadian border from Plattsburgh to Watertown) in the early 1990s, I scoffed at some who advocated separating upstate from New York City. Most of the state's revenue came from Wall Street and other New York City industries. Nevertheless, since the 1910s the city has eliminated growth in upstate New York. Some of this is the aim of elite upstate landowners such as Kingsman Gould and the Rockefeller family, who will almost certainly be opposed to this proposal because it would end their environmentalist bullying of the people of the Adirondacks and Catskills.
My own neighborhood, the Town of Olive in Ulster County, has been subject to the rapacious theft of land to build reservoirs and impose costly regulation that saves the city's inhabitants billions each year. The city's corrupt, imperialist history is outlined in Professor David Soll's Empire of Water.
The plugging of fracking proposals for the Southern Tier handed Pennsylvania massive economic opportunities and had zero effect on the environment. New York consumes the same amount of natural gas as it would have, only it buys it from Pennsylvania instead of producing it. Better that the people of the Southern Tier should be forced onto the welfare rolls and forced into long-term poverty than they should earn good wages in the energy business. The people of New York City are true geniuses, as they frequently claim about themselves.
More recently, the grotesque performance of Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Michael Gianaris with respect to Amazon.com gives new meaning to the term "jerk." Given New York's national leadership in taxation and bloated state and city governments, after the $3 billion in tax breaks, Amazon would have probably been paying more in taxes than the majority of Fortune 500 corporations. That's a brilliant reason to deprive the state of 25,000 jobs that pay $150,000 on average. (Disclaimer: I own an apartment 1.8 miles from the site on the Long Island City/Ocasio-Cortez border on the Long Island City side, and I saw my property value rise and then sink by 20%.)
With the media attention paid to Ocasio-Cortez, the people of New York City look like jerks now more than ever. It is time to end the pain that they are imposing on upstate New York.
In an emailed press release, the Divide NYS Caucus Inc. says that under the bill a token New York State government would remain, with most taxing power transferred to regional governments. About three-fourths of state laws would become regional laws. Each region would have its own legislature and regional governor.
When I lived in Northern New York (the region north of the Adirondacks, running along the Canadian border from Plattsburgh to Watertown) in the early 1990s, I scoffed at some who advocated separating upstate from New York City. Most of the state's revenue came from Wall Street and other New York City industries. Nevertheless, since the 1910s the city has eliminated growth in upstate New York. Some of this is the aim of elite upstate landowners such as Kingsman Gould and the Rockefeller family, who will almost certainly be opposed to this proposal because it would end their environmentalist bullying of the people of the Adirondacks and Catskills.
My own neighborhood, the Town of Olive in Ulster County, has been subject to the rapacious theft of land to build reservoirs and impose costly regulation that saves the city's inhabitants billions each year. The city's corrupt, imperialist history is outlined in Professor David Soll's Empire of Water.
The plugging of fracking proposals for the Southern Tier handed Pennsylvania massive economic opportunities and had zero effect on the environment. New York consumes the same amount of natural gas as it would have, only it buys it from Pennsylvania instead of producing it. Better that the people of the Southern Tier should be forced onto the welfare rolls and forced into long-term poverty than they should earn good wages in the energy business. The people of New York City are true geniuses, as they frequently claim about themselves.
More recently, the grotesque performance of Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Michael Gianaris with respect to Amazon.com gives new meaning to the term "jerk." Given New York's national leadership in taxation and bloated state and city governments, after the $3 billion in tax breaks, Amazon would have probably been paying more in taxes than the majority of Fortune 500 corporations. That's a brilliant reason to deprive the state of 25,000 jobs that pay $150,000 on average. (Disclaimer: I own an apartment 1.8 miles from the site on the Long Island City/Ocasio-Cortez border on the Long Island City side, and I saw my property value rise and then sink by 20%.)
With the media attention paid to Ocasio-Cortez, the people of New York City look like jerks now more than ever. It is time to end the pain that they are imposing on upstate New York.
Friday, March 8, 2019
Letter to President Trump in Support of Free Speech Mandate for Colleges
Dear Mr. President
I applaud your announcement that you will sign an executive order mandating adherence to the First Amendment by colleges and universities that receive federal funds. I support extending First Amendment mandates to all colleges, private and public, that receive federal money. However, I suggest that a limitation be placed on religious colleges when free speech would violate the religious beliefs to which the college adheres. In other words, freedom of religion should receive deference equal to freedom of speech.
I was surprised to see that my good friends at the National Association of Scholars take issue with mandating that private colleges adhere to the First Amendment. I cannot imagine that a college that wishes to restrict freedom of speech deserves public support--with the exception of religiously affiliated or otherwise religious colleges for whom certain forms of speech will violate their religious beliefs.
Otherwise, I urge you to extend the First Amendment mandate as far as possible. Private colleges, especially elite ones, have led the march toward intolerance and suppression, and they should be included in the mandate.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
I applaud your announcement that you will sign an executive order mandating adherence to the First Amendment by colleges and universities that receive federal funds. I support extending First Amendment mandates to all colleges, private and public, that receive federal money. However, I suggest that a limitation be placed on religious colleges when free speech would violate the religious beliefs to which the college adheres. In other words, freedom of religion should receive deference equal to freedom of speech.
I was surprised to see that my good friends at the National Association of Scholars take issue with mandating that private colleges adhere to the First Amendment. I cannot imagine that a college that wishes to restrict freedom of speech deserves public support--with the exception of religiously affiliated or otherwise religious colleges for whom certain forms of speech will violate their religious beliefs.
Otherwise, I urge you to extend the First Amendment mandate as far as possible. Private colleges, especially elite ones, have led the march toward intolerance and suppression, and they should be included in the mandate.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
Sunday, February 17, 2019
Decline in Media, American Culture
The New York Post reported last week that employment in the media declined by 15,000 in 2018. Much of the reason, according to the Post, is substitution of social networking advertising for traditional media advertising. Technology available through Facebook and Instagram enables advertisers to directly go to consumers rather than rely on media to serve as intermediaries. The decline in the economic stability of the media comes at a time when its credibility is questioned by conservatives and even by the president. Yet, news organizations hope to convince consumers that they offer unbiased news so that consumers will subscribe.
Perhaps there are opportunities for new forms of news. I subscribe to two online newspapers, but I read them infequently. I more often rely on subscription newsletters like Jim Rickards's Strategic Intelligence and David Stockman's Deep State Unclassified as well as specialized investment sites like Morningstar and Kitco.
A Lockean or conservative alternative to the leading newswire services might energize individual conservatives to start their own newsletters and blogs. The advantage the socialist-and-pro-Fed press has is its funding base, which enables it to obtain breaking news. A news service that is made available at low cost to conservatives might help break the left's monopoly on news and information.
I have been listening to the audio version of Tucker Carlson's Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution. As I've previously reported, the book is well written. I disagree with Carlson's take on economics, but his account of American culture upset me. Carlson seems to be making a case for New Deal-Roosevelt "liberalism" (I prefer the term "social democracy") to become the new conservatism, which is a mistake. Many of today's core problems, such as income inequality, are the direct result of Progressivism and of New Deal centralization and subsidization of special interests. Also, immigration restrictions, which are central to Carlson's narrative, are not the solution, although I increasingly see immigration as a cultural threat, albeit one that could be eliminated by an education system that, unlike the current one, emphasizes a shared American culture.
At the same time, Carlson eloquently tears apart militarists Max Boot and Bill Crystal, and his caricature of Chelsea Clinton, dumbed-down child of white privilege, is hilarious. His depiction of American elite ideology as a version of left-wing extremism mixed with militarism and some liberalism (as in immigration) suggests a convergence of Democratic and Republican elite ideology, and the elite's selfish indifference to the harm its money printing and confused economic policies have caused is why Trump won. Unfortunately, while I like Trump, while I admire his courage in the face of media attacks, while I admire his contempt for both the media and policy elites, his emphasis on protectionism and immigration restrictions won’t change much, and protectionism will make things worse if not corrected down the road.
Carlson's book scores many points when it comes to American culture, which is in disarray. Unwed mothers have become a critical voting block, and the policies that they advocate will be corrosive to economic growth and progress. On a social and cultural level, I'm now convinced that immigration poses a serious threat to American culture and American freedom. The attacks on boys and men, the intolerance of feminist extremists, the absurd environmentalist religion—none of this is news, but put it all together, and it seems that the country is in serious moral trouble.
At the same time, Carlson's premise is ultimately elitist. He concludes that elites need to do a better job of caring for the average American. In a free country without a Fed, big government, or the other Progressive paraphernalia of Progressivism and the New Deal, Americans would be able to care for themselves, as they did in the 19th century.
Perhaps there are opportunities for new forms of news. I subscribe to two online newspapers, but I read them infequently. I more often rely on subscription newsletters like Jim Rickards's Strategic Intelligence and David Stockman's Deep State Unclassified as well as specialized investment sites like Morningstar and Kitco.
A Lockean or conservative alternative to the leading newswire services might energize individual conservatives to start their own newsletters and blogs. The advantage the socialist-and-pro-Fed press has is its funding base, which enables it to obtain breaking news. A news service that is made available at low cost to conservatives might help break the left's monopoly on news and information.
I have been listening to the audio version of Tucker Carlson's Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution. As I've previously reported, the book is well written. I disagree with Carlson's take on economics, but his account of American culture upset me. Carlson seems to be making a case for New Deal-Roosevelt "liberalism" (I prefer the term "social democracy") to become the new conservatism, which is a mistake. Many of today's core problems, such as income inequality, are the direct result of Progressivism and of New Deal centralization and subsidization of special interests. Also, immigration restrictions, which are central to Carlson's narrative, are not the solution, although I increasingly see immigration as a cultural threat, albeit one that could be eliminated by an education system that, unlike the current one, emphasizes a shared American culture.
At the same time, Carlson eloquently tears apart militarists Max Boot and Bill Crystal, and his caricature of Chelsea Clinton, dumbed-down child of white privilege, is hilarious. His depiction of American elite ideology as a version of left-wing extremism mixed with militarism and some liberalism (as in immigration) suggests a convergence of Democratic and Republican elite ideology, and the elite's selfish indifference to the harm its money printing and confused economic policies have caused is why Trump won. Unfortunately, while I like Trump, while I admire his courage in the face of media attacks, while I admire his contempt for both the media and policy elites, his emphasis on protectionism and immigration restrictions won’t change much, and protectionism will make things worse if not corrected down the road.
Carlson's book scores many points when it comes to American culture, which is in disarray. Unwed mothers have become a critical voting block, and the policies that they advocate will be corrosive to economic growth and progress. On a social and cultural level, I'm now convinced that immigration poses a serious threat to American culture and American freedom. The attacks on boys and men, the intolerance of feminist extremists, the absurd environmentalist religion—none of this is news, but put it all together, and it seems that the country is in serious moral trouble.
At the same time, Carlson's premise is ultimately elitist. He concludes that elites need to do a better job of caring for the average American. In a free country without a Fed, big government, or the other Progressive paraphernalia of Progressivism and the New Deal, Americans would be able to care for themselves, as they did in the 19th century.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
