Pay Gap = BS

I took on the subject of the gender pay gap last week. Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune has also written about the subject.

As the report acknowledges, women with college degrees tend to go into fields like education, psychology and the humanities, which typically pay less than the sectors preferred by men, such as engineering, math and business. They are also more likely than men to work for nonprofit groups and local governments, which do not offer salaries that Alex Rodriguez would envy.

As they get older, many women elect to work less so they can spend time with their children. A decade after graduation, 39 percent of women are out of the work force or working part time -- compared with only 3 percent of men. When these mothers return to full-time jobs, they naturally earn less than they would have if they had never left.

Even before they have kids, men and women often do different things that may affect earnings. A year out of college, notes AAUW, women in full-time jobs work an average of 42 hours a week, compared to 45 for men. Men are also far more likely to work more than 50 hours a week.

That my friend is called truth. I know it doesn't fit into the liberal template of America being racist, sexist, and homophobic, but it is truth.

There was one other sentence in the article that stuck out to me. Always remember that when liberals use words like fairness, what they mean is more legislation and less liberty.

The three leading Democratic presidential candidates have all endorsed legislation to fix the problem.

Of course they have.

Capitalism Is Freedom

John Norris Brown has been kind enough to respond to my request, and has written an excellent definition of conservatism. The reason I say it is excellent is because it sounds a lot like mine, which was of course perfect.

Not only do I want to comment on a specific passage in JNB's definition, but I also want to criticize AC Kleinheider's criticism of it. The Appalacian Scribe wrote:

I believe that capitalism is the most moral and just economic system. I recognize that it is not perfect, but it is as close as any human system is likely come.

As a response to that passage, AC wrote:

This love of capitalism, bowing at the altar of free trade, all of it. It is not conservatism. Capitalism, Socialism, Comunism are not moral or immoral. They are amoral. Communism is the godless, souless ideology that Reaganites said it was but if Communism is the devil then Capitalism is one of his minions.

Oh my goodness, where does one start?

Economics is more than numbers. Economics is a study of human nature. The best economists are the ones who tend to understand human nature the best. Capitalism is not some type of economic system imposed on people by government. In fact, if there were no government involvement at all, people would naturally be capitalists. Capitalism is the result of individuals being free. Socialism or communism, on the other hand, go against human nature. The only way that the Utopian ideas of Karl Marx could ever be implemented is by the point of a gun. Regardless of how good they sound, human beings are not naturally collectivists.

Obviously capitalism is not perfect. That is because free people are not perfect. Would you rather they not be free though? Would you prefer that the masses be controlled by some large intrusive government, ran by only a few powerful men?

There is no such thing as freedom without economic freedom and capitalism is economic freedom. More government always means less freedom and there can be no socialism without big government.

AC goes on to say:

Conservatism is about preserving the good of tradition. It is about recognizing the imperfectability of man and the human condition and going on from there.

When I was about 21, the local paper published an editorial that referred to the hard line communists in Russia as conservatives. I wrote a letter to the editor that blasted them for using that term to describe people who subscribe to communism, which is a left wing economic philosophy. For me, the conservatives were the ones wanting to get rid of communism and bring about capitalism, which meant freedom. In my mind, communist equals liberal. Maybe I was wrong. Based on AC's definition, the hard line communists were "preserving the good of tradition". They were "recognizing the imperfectability of man and the human condition".

No wonder some people shudder when they hear the word conservative. I believe in traditional values, but more than anything, I believe in freedom. I believe in individual liberty. I don't believe that mankind is perfect. But I especially don't believe that a government, which is also made up of men, is better suited to correct those imperfections.

If AC is conservative, then I am liberal. Not only that, but modern liberals are also conservative, for it is they who want to maintain the status-quo, which is New Deal/Great Society socialism. No wonder he gets along with them so well.

The Tragedy of Modern Environmentalism

John Stossel writes about how much technology has improved the environment. He even suggests that the environmental movement should be cheering technology and the free market, instead of working against it. Of course deep down, Stossel knows as I do, that the "environmental movement" is not really about the environment at all. It is actually more about stopping the growth of capitalism.

One thing that Stossel doesn't mention in his article is how much technology and development could benefit the people who live on the continent of Africa. "Environmentalists" though, would rather the African people be poor, undeveloped, and with shorter life spans. Africa is the real tragedy of the environmental movement.

The so called "environmentalists" of today happen to be the same people who support high taxes on high income earners. Go figure. Notice that they never support raising taxes on wealth, only taxes on income. You see they already have their fortune. The same is true as far as their "environmentalism" is concerned. They already have the modern luxuries that come from increased technology. They already have a high standard of living. They never propose to get rid of any of their "stuff" though, do they? But they feel so good about themselves when they fly into Africa and spend time convincing Africans that it is better for them to use solar electricity, a source of power that only keeps their small hospitals working for a few hours a day. Then they get back in their limousines, ride back to the airport, get on their big jets and fly back home and enjoy a little bit of air conditioning. Oh, but they "feel" so good about themselves.

Collective Guilt versus Individual Responsibility

Thomas Sowell writes about the aftermath of sixties collective guilt.

During the 1960s, the idea spread like wildfire that whatever you were lacking was someone else's fault -- society's fault. If you were poor, whether at home or in some Third World country, you were one of the "dispossessed" -- even if you had never possessed anything to dispossess you of.

He also touches on the subject of gun control.

Since murder is illegal everywhere, why would someone who is unwilling to obey the law against murder be willing to obey a law against getting a gun -- which is easy to get illegally?

That sentence seems seems so logical to a logical person. How can anyone think otherwise? I just can not understand the way these people's minds work. If you outlaw guns, do you really think that criminals are not going to acquire guns? Do drug users have a hard time finding dope? Would outlawing porn get rid of the porn industry? What about gambling or even prostitution? Why can't you apply the same rationale to guns that you do to things like porn and drugs?

Conservatism Defined By Glen

I have always considered myself to be a conservative. As early as I can remember, I was interested in politics. I was ten years old when Ronald Reagan was elected in a landslide. During my teen years, I was probably the only kid in my school that had a subscription to National Review. I became a huge fan of William F. Buckley and my favorite show was Crossfire, which featured Patrick Buchanan.

So what is my definition of the word conservative?

My definition of the word conservative is almost synonymous with the classical definition of the word liberal. As much as a I criticize people today who call themselves liberal, I actually consider myself to be one. Not only that, but I consider modern liberals to really not be that liberal at all. By calling myself conservative or libertarian (more on that word later), I am simply giving in to the fact that over the last century, certain words have taken on different meanings.

I believe in a small, less intrusive government. No I am not an anarchist. I believe that some government is necessary for any society. The role of government, as I see it, is to protect it's citizenry. Taxes should be collected for that simple purpose, as well as the day to day costs of government. When governments spend tax receipts on wealth redistribution and the subsidizing of farming and industry, government increases it's power and the individual loses power. That word individual, is very important to my definition of conservatism. I believe in individual rights as opposed to collectivism. Equality at the starting gate is one thing, but when a society seeks to achieve equality at the finish line, individualism and the incentive to produce is undermined.

My belief in individualism and personal liberty influence my belief that capitalism is the true manifestation of liberty. I have been accused of being an advocate of business, but that is not true. I am an advocate of free market capitalism. To only be an advocate of business, I would have to support tariffs and corporate subsidies. I do not and I do not believe that subsidizing business is in any way conservative. I believe in free markets and free trade with our neighbors, while still supporting the sovereignty of the United States of America.

As far as immigration is concerned, I believe that our economy can only benefit from increased immigration. If it were not for the welfare state, immigration would probably not even be an issue. We have an immigration problem in this country because we have a demand for immigrant and migrant workers. I am not for open immigration, but I do support making it much easier for immigrants to enter this country. We should liberalize our immigration laws and then increase our border security. Unlike most conservatives, I believe it is silly to try to deport all 20 million illegals. In fact it is logistically impossible. We should grant them amnesty, liberalize our immigration laws, put up a fence, and then start enforcing the new laws.

Foreign Policy, Libertarianism, and Neo-Libertarianism

If what I have written so far sounds like libertarianism, then that is fine. I am quite alright with the term libertarian. In fact, many people who call themselves social conservatives share very little in common with me. I do not believe that government should enforce morality and pass laws that protect people from themselves. I do not believe in outlawing sin, or forcing people to give to the poor. That doesn't mean that I think people should practice a sinful lifestyle or be selfish with their blessings. Government should only pass laws that keep order and protect individuals from violent acts. I realize though, that in a republic, representatives will inevitably pass those intrusive laws because it is the will of the people. Knowing this, I accept that we sometimes have to be pragmatic. I don't believe that politics is an all or nothing game. Sometimes you have to take what you can get. This doesn't mean that I have abandoned my principles though. Like Milton Friedman, I oppose the existence of the Fed, but I also realize that the Fed isn't going away. Some institutions, like the welfare state, are too embedded into our culture. To end them would cause a crisis for the dependent. The best we can really do is to stop their growth, rather than end them.

Although others have labeled me a neo-conservative on foreign policy, I disagree. If everybody that supported the Iraq War four years ago was a neo-con, then the majority of this country and British liberal Tony Blair would be neo-cons. I was at first puzzled about going into Iraq, but Colin Powell's presentation at the UN changed my mind. Maybe I was snookered and made into a fool, but it doesn't matter now. Maybe in a few years I will write about the mistake of going into Iraq, but I will never disagree with the idea of fixing that which we broke. Leaving now would be bad for America and bad for the world. We have to get the country on it's feet and then leave. Hopefully this will happen sooner, rather than later.

So what is my foreign policy philosophy? As far as I am concerned, I am just a standard realist. I am not an isolationist and I do not believe in aggression. I dislike war. Perhaps you think that entering Iraq was an act of aggression, an example of preemptive war. I disagree. If you have ever been in a fight on a playground, then you know that the fight starts long before the first punch is thrown. When you are standing there staring at each other, you better hit first if you expect to win. Of course you can still win by waiting for him to hit you, but why would you want the black eye when the fight was inevitable anyway? In hindsight, Iraq obviously wasn't much of a threat. But at that time, we didn't have the luxury of hindsight. This experience has taught me to be much more cautious in the future. Still though, regardless of whether I support future intervention or not, I do think we should always adhere to the pottery barn rule.

This is what I consider conservatism to be. I am very interested in finding out what others think. I am sure that many disagree. I am going to ask Nathan McIntyre, Bob Krumm and Roger Abramson, Patrick Joubert, Nick, Daddio, Jay Bush, John Norris Brown, Katherine Coble, Mark Rose, Nathan and Sarah Moore, MCO, Blake Wylie, Right Truth, T-Man, Terry Frank, Rob Huddleston, AC Kleinheider, Clark Stooksbury, Bill Hobbs, and Nate to maybe tell me what they consider conservatism to be. I realize that many of you completely disagree with my definition. I am just interested in some good discussion. If you weren't mentioned above, but would like to respond, please go ahead. I apologize for leaving you out.

The Offended Culture

Our present day culture has morphed into something strange and weird. Rather than showing outrage over real substantive issues, we spend unlimited amounts of energy on a person's words. Everyday we sign onto the Internet or pick up the newspaper, somebody has offended somebody else and is having to apologize.

There are some really serious issues out there facing the black community today, but the two self appointed leaders of black people, have spent the last week trying to bring down some shock jock. Almost 2/3 of every black child today is born into a single parent home, which is about a 50% higher rate than in 1960. If Al and Jesse cared at all about black people, they would be screaming at the top of their lungs for black men to take responsibility for the children they helped bring into this world.

Imagine how much good these two men could do if they directed their energy toward something that matters. But prison ministries and Promise Keeper conventions don't pay as well and they don't make you nearly as famous.

Global Warming Hysteria Harms Africa More Than Global Warming Ever Will

The thing that I find most interesting about this "climate change" report released by the world socialist organization (the UN), is that it predicts a bleak, horrible future for the people of Africa. I say BS. If the UN gave one iota about the people of Africa, they would support the development of that continent. They would allow the people of that continent to drill for oil and to mine for coal. They would encourage them to use electricity and to build hospitals. Global warming hysteria, rather than global warming itself, is what is harming the people of Africa. These UN "scientists" met in Kenya a while back. They flew into the country in jet planes, and rode into their meetings in limousines. Meanwhile, they were encouraging the people of Africa to use only solar power and wind power, which provides very little electricity. What a disgrace!