1. Do you believe that education is extremely important, both for our children and for “society”?

I certainly do (and in the interest of full disclosure, I attended government schools exclusively, including several state universities).

2. Do you believe that socialism/communism/facism offers a viable economic system for any society?

Some folks apparently do, although the 20th century (or as I like to call it, the Century of Socialism) certainly saw such systems fail categorically, across cultures, nationalities and socio-economic circumstances. And that’s not to mention the over 100 million souls murdered for the “greater good”.

3. Finally, based on your answers to 1. and 2. above, please explain (in 2 words or less) how it is that the largest and most successful economy in the world, based on free market capitalism, insists on educating its children in schools owned by the government (pure socialism), funded on the basis of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” (pure communism), and enforced by compulsory attendance (pure facism).

I can’t.

If polled, I think that the vast majority of Americans would say that socialism is a failed economic system, with no hope of ever succeeding. Yet asked if children should be sent to “public” schools, a similar majority would probably say “yes”. Why the disconnect? Our public school system is completely socialist, pure and simple. As such, it cannot possibly succeed in providing a quality education to our children. Yet like Mr. Byrne, we are almost all products of that system, which has been with us so long that we no longer question it.

The answer is not protesting the higher amounts spent on students in suburban schools. Quite frankly, the lower amount spent in the city schools is still substantially higher than the cost at which private schools could provide a much higher quality of education. I don’t claim to know how to run a school, but then I’m not a central planner, so I don’t need to. Like Mr. Byrne, I am a firm believer in the value of education. But I have complete confidence that private schools, competing for our tuition dollars in a free market, could quickly replace our current socialist system with far better schooling at much lower cost.

He also makes some useful observations about the state of the debate, a couple of which I’ll repeat here:

* We know astonishingly little about every aspect of the environment, from its past history, to its present state, to how to conserve and protect it. In every debate, all sides overstate the extent of existing knowledge and its degree of certainty.

* I think for anyone to believe in impending resource scarcity, after two hundred years of such false alarms, is kind of weird. I don’t know whether such a belief today is best ascribed to ignorance of history, sclerotic dogmatism, unhealthy love of Malthus, or simple pigheadedness, but it is evidently a hardy perennial in human calculation.

You can find other interesting insights from Mr. Crichton on his website. In particular, check out his comments on complexity theory, which inspired State of Fear.

“Religious beliefs and practices must be respected, but only so far as they abide by state and federal laws.”
-The Washington Post, June 6, 2008

If you can reconcile these two statements, you’re cleverer than I. The Washington Post made this statement at the end of an editorial (here) defending the seizure of 468 children by Texas law enforcement officials in April. The state purportedly acted on a single tip from a 16 year old girl, a tip that ultimately proved to be bogus. Thankfully, it didn’t turn out like Waco this time, but 468 children? The Post is certainly correct in stating that had they not acted, the officials would have faced harsh criticism. But overreaction also deserves harsh criticism.

Only in a fascist state could mass kidnapping be equated with “protecting the children”. I am no fan of religious cults, but judging from the muted response by the main stream media, including editorials like this one, who are we? When I went to law school, the Constitution trumped state and federal laws. According to The Washington Post, that is no longer the case.

Professor Williams provides some much needed perspective on the global warming issue, with a few simple facts. It’s too bad that our main stream media can’t use these facts to apply a little critical thinking to the more ridiculous claims of the alarmists.

1. “Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere.”

So at most, CO2 emissions make up less than 5% of greenhouse gases (and in fact, a lot less).

2. “Without the greenhouse effect, Earth’s average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit.”

We were told in the 1970s that an 11 degree temperature reduction would bring on another Ice Age. Mankind could survive another Ice Age, but at zero degrees, Earth would be just another lifeless planet orbiting the sun.

3. “Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun’s output.”

And how exactly do we propose to control the Earth’s orbit or the sun’s output?

4. “And natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas annually than all human sources combined.”

Not to mention a good volcanic eruption, which probably dwarfs all human sources within its first few minutes.

In summary, we humans have developed a highly inflated opinion of our own importance on this planet. We live in big cities, so we assume the whole earth is crowded. Yes, we can damage our environment, but on balance, we do more good than harm. The “pristine environment” of our dreams never actually existed, Mother Nature is a harsh mistress. So the next time you hear predictions of impending doom, ask yourself this. Are these predictions any different than those of Paul Ehrlich in 1968, or Thomas Malthus in 1799? And are politicians today so much smarter that we should actually listen to them? The answer should be obvious.

Most people alive today weren’t even born for the first Earth Day. For those of us who were, hopefully we’ve matured enough to take claims of impending disaster with a grain of salt. After all, we’ve survived two nuclear disasters, at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, which together killed fewer people (about 50) than die in traffic accidents every day in America. (Michael Crichton has some interesting observations here.)

For those who are younger and smarter than we are, perhaps a history lesson would be helpful. The Washington Policy Center has compiled an interesting list of predictions made around the first Earth Day. With only minor wording changes, many of them could be mistaken for predictions being made today about the supposed impact of global warming. Reflecting on those, hopefully we’ll all think twice before blindly demanding that governments around the world “do something”. Especially if those actions will likely have minimal impact on the climate, but do major damage to the economy.

Here is a sample of some of the items compiled.

• “…civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind,” biologist George Wald, Harvard University, April 19, 1970.

Okay, how about 40 years?

• By 1995, “…somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.

But by 2008, the polar bear population will have increased five-fold.

• “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April 1970.

Obviously obesity should never be a problem.

So next time you read a terrifying headline, remain calm. Such terrifying predictions have been around for hundreds of years, and hundreds of years from now, our gullible offspring will still be around to worry needlessly about them.

Getting back to global warming, many people are convinced that the government must “do something” about that too. The big villain is supposedly carbon dioxide, and we are supposed to “cut emissions” regardless of the economic cost. One recent study concluded that if we reduced emissions to ZERO, it would reduce global warming by a fraction of one degree Fahrenheit over the next hundred years. The people calling for such drastic reductions have no idea what they are asking for. We are already paying dramatically higher prices for food and energy, but that is nothing compared to what they are asking for. Zero emissions would essentially return the economy to living in caves, BEFORE the discovery of fire. If we do that, we’ll need a lot more global warming!

Damaging the economy to “do something” is not just giving up our SUVs, or drinking fewer lattes at Starbucks. We are condemning hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people, those most at risk of the predicted dire consequences of warming, to remaining in abject poverty and unable to adapt if any of those predictions actually come true. Is that the socially responsible thing to do?

Objective risk-benefit analysis is almost completely lacking from the entire debate. Skeptics are vilified as flat earthers, Holocaust deniers, or believers in the stork bringing babies. Projected consequences are grossly exaggerated, while the economic costs are minimized. Even Al Gore and the IPCC admit that the “20 foot sea level rises” of An Inconvenient Truth are well beyond the realm of probability. Yet they persist, apparently in the belief that people must be terrified into demanding action.

But why? What is it about global warming that exempts it from rational, factual discussion and resolution? Could it be - a hoax? Most people with facts on their side welcome debate. Certainly on an issue as serious as they say this is, we need all of the ideas and input that we can get. Yet the alarmists want no part of debate. Apparently they think they not only have all of the facts, they have all of the solutions. Even if I had no skepticism on the science, I would have to be skeptical of anybody who thinks that they know how to control the weather. Not even the weatherman is that arrogant!

He spoke lucidly, showing no signs of senility, but his logic left me puzzled to say the least. He first pointed out that the airlines had difficulty making money when oil was $10/barrel, and still have difficulty when it is $117/barrel, so that wasn’t his reason. He pointed out that the air traffic control system is seriously inadequate, using outdated technology, and Congress was unable to agree on how to fund improvements. He then expanded his scope by pointing out that our highway infrastructure is a disaster, bridges are falling down, and we don’t have a rail system worthy of the name. His solution? The federal government needs to step up and do some serious “planning”.

Never mind that central planning worked so exquisitely well for the Soviet Union, let me see if I can unravel his logic. The air traffic control system (still run by the federal government) has major problems. The highway system (socialized for at least as long as Mr. Crandall can remember) is crumbling. And the ineffective rail system, called Amtrak, has been subsidized by the federal government for years. Obviously, therefore, if it’s hard for the airlines to make a profit in a “free” market, that same federal government should take over!

At least Mr. Crandall’s memory is not faulty. In his “good old days” of airline regulation, they did make a profit. Fares were outrageous, service was atrocious, and unprofitable routes were heavily subsidized, but airline managers could be fat, dumb, and happy and still make a profit. What Mr. Crandall is asking for is known as “rent-seeking”. Just like the electric utilities 100 years ago, Mr. Crandall has realized that competition is tough. Corporate welfare and protectionist legislation make life much easier - at least for industry fat cats. But as a passenger, I’d much rather let the airlines compete for my business.

As for the rest of our transportation woes, why don’t we fire the failures, instead of raising taxes and throwing good money after bad? Privatize air traffic control, airport operations, and especially that abominable TSA. Sell off the highway system - privatized toll roads are showing great promise. Finally, quit propping up Amtrak, and let the industry figure out how to run a railroad.