Repost: Anti-Unionism

I'm too tired to write much tonight, so I've decided to repost something that I posted several months ago when I first started the blog (and had fewer readers).

Most libertarians and conservatives, with the exception some paleocons and left-libertarians, are staunch opponents of trade unions. Warner Todd Huston, a rather eccentric "conservative" (and from his picture, evidently a donut-eating contest winner) has said "unions are inherently unAmerican", a belief not uncommon on the mainstream right. Libertarian/anarcho-capitalist Lew Rockwell even titled a UAW-related blogpost "Another Criminal Strike". Indeed, the LewRockwell.com writers in general frequently refer to unions as criminal gangs.

As a libertarian, I oppose the privileges granted to unions by the federal government, but nor do I like the privileges granted to corporations and groups of corporations by all levels of government, including eminent domain takings, tax increment financing, subsidies, and insane copyright laws such as the DMCA (which in no way "promote(s) the Progress of Science and useful Arts", but that's a topic for another day). Corporations themselves are government creations and receive special protections and privileges from governments. Now, I realize that libertarians criticize corporate welfare and Big Business, but it is ludicrous that conservatives and Chamber of Commerce libertarians will call Big Labor criminals and anti-American while at the same time verbally fellating Big Business, which can be pretty criminal and anti-American itself (i.e. hiring illegal immigrants).

Sure, the SEIU is probably close to being a criminal organization, but I doubt anyone could honestly call the bricklayers union a group of thugs. In some trades, joining the union means higher wages and better benefit, so it makes sense for the workers to join unions, just as it makes sense for different corporations of certain fields to form trade associations to protect their interests and for white-collar workers to join professional organizations (for example, the IEEE).

The union most frequently targeted by conservatives is the National Education Assocation (NEA). The conservative hatred of the NEA is comparable to the liberal hatred of Wal-Mart. Yes, the NEA is dominated by liberals and feminists, but whenever a conservative bashes the NEA, inevitably they bring up its policies that affect "urban students." These commentators correctly note the fact that urban schools, well, suck.

However, the fact that urban schools suck has nothing to do with the NEA. Suburban students are taught by NEA members and they have decent test scores. The fact is, urban schools suck because they are predominantly black and Hispanic, while suburban schools are attended by whites and Asians. Blacks have a mean IQ of 85, Hispanics 89, Whites 103, and Asians 106. Lower IQ students will simply do worse in school than higher IQ students. Neither the liberal solution, spending more gigadollars on urban schools, nor the conservative solution, abolishing the NEA (and giving the black kids vouchers), will solve this.

Yes, this post was supposed to be about anti-unionism, but I wanted to point out how far conservatives will go just to prove that they are not racist to liberals who will hate them anyways and blacks who will never vote for them.

Originally posted here on February 10.

The Arians of Alternative Right

I had thought that the Arians had vanished in the middle of the 1st millennium, but evidentally they have reappeared at Alternative Right.

Over at Hip Hop Republican (don't laugh, please, I'm trying to be serious here), a rather large black woman named Cleo E. Brown, who holds "a Master's Degree in Contemporary African-American History" has written a "rebuttal" to Alternative Right entitled "No Auschwitz in the USA!" It is full the usual stuff we've come to expect from black writers, albeit this one labels herself a Republican rather than a Democrat. She writes about how she didn't receive a doctorate in the early 1990s, just a master's degree, because of racism and sexism, but lost when she filed a complaint. In the end her "rebuttal" turns into a massive reductio ad Hitlerum. So this is what conservatives mean when they talk about black outreach? How joyous. Now we get to have Republican black race hustlers, too!

The crowning jewel of her piece is the very last sentence: "And, unfortunately, Alternative Right is obsessed with the idea of Arian Superiority." Now, I realize that everyone makes spelling mistakes and typos, but it's pretty sad that someone with a master's degree can't tell the difference between the followers of Arius and the peoples originating from the Pontic steppe.

Pro-Life Race Hustlers

Happy Pi Day. I haven't posted anything since Wednesday, so today I will be posting two or three entries.

I've argued that the Religious Right has a lot in common with progressives. They were essentially the same movement in the early 1900s and late 1800s. This is especially apparent with the issue of abortion. Pro-lifers often focus on the fact that "abortion harms women" or that "abortion exploits women." The laws they pass target abortionists, not the women who get abortions. This is essentially the feminist worldview - women can't be held responsible for their actions.

Now they've decided to play the race card. For weeks now, there has been controversy over pro-life billboards in Georgia stating "Black children are an endangered species." Now Republicans in Georgia are working to pass a law that would ban abortions based on race or gender. What a waste of time. The courts would probably just strike it down as unconstitutional.

Catherine Davis, director of minority outreach for Georgia Right to Life, the group behind the billboard campaign, told FoxNews.com that she supports the legislation that she says will address an issue that has "such a disproportionate impact on the black community rather than every other community in Georgia, as well as the nation."

So the pro-lifers are relying on disparate impact - the same theory that has led to dumbed-down schools, public safety departments staffed by unqualified people, and the destruction of effective policing.

Aside from looking stupid, if conservatives begin using the idea of disparate impact, it could harm many of their political arguments. Conservatives (even mainstream ones) often criticize the fact that liberals use disparate impact theory to argue that schools and the police are racist, arguing that equal opportunity is not equal outcome. If conservatives use disparate impact in the issue of abortion, liberals could argue that conservatives are hypocrites on this issue (which would be true).

Davis noted that in 2008, blacks made up 30 percent of the population in Georgia but more than 57 percent of the abortions.

"Those numbers are so horrific," she said. "There has to be something else contributing to this number."

Yeah, it can't be the fact that black women tend to be poor, less educated (or uneducated), and have premarital sex more than white women. It has to be white racism. I'm used to this kind of ignorance coming from liberal racial egalitarians, but not from alleged conservatives. This story is starting to remind me of the story about how in the 1980s a rumor sprung up among blacks that the KKK owned KFC and put a chemical in chicken to sterilize black men. Her fear also seems rooted in the black distrust of doctors as a result of the Tuskegee syphilis study, which ended forty years ago.

"I believe it's deliberate," she said, citing Oregon as one example where most abortion clinics are located in black neighborhoods despite an overwhelming white population in the state.

But Ross dismissed that out of hand.

"I can't find facts to fit their conspiracy theory," she said, arguing that abortion clinics are located where there are clients.

It's kind of sad that liberals, who are known for their economic illiteracy, have a better understanding of how businesses operate than conservative pro-lifers. If black women are more likely to have abortions then white women, then it follows that more abortion clinics will be located near black neighborhoods than white.

"Because of health disparities, less access to birth control, less access to sex education," [Ross] said. "We have a higher rate of childhood sexual abuse. … And so when you have those types of disparities, you'll have unintended consequences.

Once again, the liberal is making more sense than the conservative.

Davis, who is black, said she just wants to see an end to what she called a racially motivated practice.

"If they will stop targeting my people, I will fade softly into the background," she said.

Here the fully story comes out. This "abortion is racist" campaign is being spearheaded by a black woman. So essentially Georgia Right to Life has been hijacked by a Michael Steele wannabe. Although I'm sure Georgia RTL wouldn't consider it a hijacking. They are undoubtably overjoyed about the fact that their campaign is now "diverse."

This is the result of years of conservative outreach to blacks: instead of there being only left-wing race hustlers, now there are conservative race-hustlers. Of course, I'm sure the Republican Party is overjoyed. Don't forget that the Bush administration was full of this mentality. For example, Condolzeea Rice once compared the Iraq War to the civil rights marches in Alabama, with the implication that critics of the Iraq War were racists.

I have no problem with people who support their racial or ethnic interests, but only if they do so with well-thought arguments. Davis is just a third-rate race hustler powered by black distrust of the healthcare system who is using the idea of disparate impact to make ludicrous claims.

It's bad enough when liberals play the race card, but when conservatives do it they just look like condescending, pandering hypocrites.