Who knew? Well, most free market economists argue that. The Cato Institute’s Daniel Griswold has published a new study confirming this cherished belief:

Contrary to public perceptions:

* Trade has had no discernible, negative effect on the number of jobs in the U.S. economy. Our economy today is at full employment, with 16.5 million more people working than a decade ago.

* Trade accounts for only about 3 percent of dislocated workers.Technology and other domestic factors displace far more workers than does trade.

* Average real compensation per hour paid to American workers, which includes benefits as well as wages, has increased by 22 percent in the past decade.

* Median household income in the United States is 6 percent higher in real dollars than it was a decade ago at a comparable point in the previous business cycle. Middle-class households have been moving up the income ladder, not down.

* The net loss of 3.3 million manufacturing jobs in the past decade has been overwhelmed by a net gain of 11.6 million jobs in sectors where the average wage is higher than in manufacturing. Two-thirds of the net new jobs created since 1997 are in sectors where workers earn more than in manufacturing.

* The median net worth of U.S. households jumped by almost one-third between 1995 and 2004, from $70,800 to $93,100.

Ex World Champion Chess master Garry Kasparov has decided to run for President in Russia in March of 2008. He is heading a coalition called “The Other Russia”, which is pushing for more substantial democratic change to Russia. An editorial of Kasparov in the WSJ shows his judgment of Putin:

Mr. Putin’s government is unique in history. This Kremlin is part oligarchy, with a small, tightly connected gang of wealthy rulers. It is partly a feudal system, broken down into semi-autonomous fiefdoms in which payments are collected from the serfs, who have no rights. Over this there is a democratic coat of paint, just thick enough to gain entry into the G-8 and keep the oligarchy’s money safe in Western banks. But if you really wish to understand the Putin regime in depth, I can recommend some reading. No Karl Marx or Adam Smith. Nothing by Montesquieu or Machiavelli, although the author you are looking for is of Italian descent. But skip Mussolini’s “The Doctrine of Fascism,” for now, and the entire political science section. Instead, go directly to the fiction department and take home everything you can find by Mario Puzo. If you are in a real hurry to become an expert on the Russian government, you may prefer the DVD section, where you can find Mr. Puzo’s works on film. “The Godfather” trilogy is a good place to start…

Also, a nice excerpt from an interview with Bill Maher is available over at Reason.TV.

Kasparov recently published a book called “How Life Imitates Chess”. In it he describes how chess can help in analyzing one’s decision-making processes. That reminds me of Ayn Rand’s letter to chess champion Boris Spassky, in which she wrote:

…Oh yes, Comrade, chess is an escape – an escape from reality. It is an “out,” a kind of “make-work” for a man of higher than average intelligence who was afraid to live, but could not leave his mind unemployed and devoted it to a placebo – thus surrendering to others the living world he had rejected as too hard to understand. …You, the chess professionals, are taken as exponents of the most precious of human skills: intellectual power – yet that power deserts you beyond the confines of the sixty-four squares of a chessboard, leaving you confused, anxious, and helplessly unfocused. Because, you see, the chessboard is not a training ground, but a substitute for reality. (Philosophy: Who needs it, pp. 54-57)

Ah, the irony! In that letter Rand proclaims her support for Spassky’s opponent Bobby Fischer, since the game between Spassky and Fischer was seen as an ideological match between Russia and America. And now, a Russian chess champion is working politically to achieve a free society in Russia.

I have come across the fascinating argument that the Bush presidency is influenced by Machiavellian ideas, particularly Machiavelli’s emphasis on a strong and energetic executive power. Harvey Mansfield, a leading scholar of Machiavelli, has defended Bush’s increased use of the executive power. Here are some questions I thought of reading his piece.

To counter enemies, a republic must have and use force adequate to a greater threat than comes from criminals, who may be quite patriotic if not public-spirited, and have nothing against the law when applied to others besides themselves. But enemies, being extra-legal, need to be faced with extra-legal force. …A strong executive is one that is not confined to executing the laws but has extra-legal powers such as commanding the military, making treaties (and carrying on foreign policy), and pardoning the convicted, not to mention a veto of legislation.

If I am not mistaken by my reading of the Constitution, these are not extra-legal powers but specifically granted. How is Mansfield using “extra-legal” here?
Further:

In Machiavelli’s terms, ordinary power needs to be supplemented or corrected by the extraordinary power of a prince, using wise discretion….We need both the rule of law and the power to escape it–and that twofold need is just what the Constitution provides for.

Well, if the Constitution provides those “extralegal” powers, how are they not within the rule of law? That is, if the Constitution provides a way to circumvent it, does it not allow that circumvention? And, if the constitution does allow for emergency or extraordinary powers given to the executive in times of emergency, is that not a better way than simply to give the executive discretionary use of power when necessary? By employing the check of those extraordinary powers through Congress for example, do we not ensure that those powers are used judiciously instead of abused? Discretion seems to be a naive policy given history’s track record of abuses of power even within republican regimes.
And:

The Framers made a strong executive in order to have both power and security, and they took note of emergency occasions when more power gives more security.

This may be so, but does that justify the current increase in executive power (i.e. enemy combatants, Patriot Act)? Part of the problem is that the nature of the security threat is very different from that faced by republics in the past. The war against terrorism is is no ordinary war; it is more like a prolonged state of disease which we cannot cure but only alleviate. How should that affect executive prerogative? Permanent expansion of executive power on the basis of such a war seems more dangerous than the six months dictatorial rule the Roman republic had at some point in time.
Finally:

We note that President Bush’s critics do not want him to stop surveillance; they just want him to do it legally–as if legality could guarantee success and morality could make our enemies give up.

I don’t think that the arguments against the President’s surveillance use is that legality would ensure success. The point is rather that when someone acts within the realm of legality, he is acting on a power specifically granted to him. We grant powers because we think they are necessary powers to have in order to govern well.
Here are some more links on this topic:
Future of Freedom Foundation
darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com
Economist

Apparently, J.K. Rowling intended one of her characters of the Harry Potter Series, the great old wizard Albus Dumbledore, to be gay. Admittedly, I did not pick up on that at all reading the books. So, why would younger readers do so? Consequently, what good would such a message do if many readers do not see it? Of course, gay rights advocates call this a great revelation and a step toward greater acceptance of homosexuality by society. Well, maybe, maybe not.

Race, gender and gay rights activists continuously want to draw special attention to their plight. And the problem is that those who demand equal treatment regardless of their race, gender or sexual orientation, are often so focused on it that any inclusion of race, gender or sexuality in public works is hailed as a victory and any offense they take is characterized by them as a racist, misogynist or homophobic attack. It seems to me that making a fuss about what does and what does not advance acceptance of homosexuality only adds fuel to homosexuality’s extraordinary (and contentious) issue status instead of what it probably really is: a normal biological occurrence. As such it is not to be used as a basis of discrimination or special status. No further comment is necessary.

So, who cares whether Dumbledore is gay or not. It does not add to or detract from my reading experience of the Harry Potter series.

McDonald’s was just ordered by a Kentucky jury to pay 6.1 Million Dollars in a case involving a hoax call to a local McDonald’s restaurant. The caller identified himself as a police officer and ordered a McDonald’s assistant manager and her fiance to strip search and to subsequently sexually assault 18-year old Louise Ogborn, an employee. The assistant manager was fired, charged with unlawful imprisonment and received one year of probation. Her fiance received five years in prison for sexual assault. The caller, after it had been determined that this incident was just one in a sequence of hoax calls to fast-food restaurants, was tried for solicitation of sodomy and impersonating a police officer. However he was acquitted of all charges! The victim sued McDonald’s for 200 Million Dollars.

McDonald’s’ basic defense was that it had warned employees of the hoax calls and also had general policy statements in place regarding the legitimacy of strip searches. Their duty should have ended there, emphasizing that McDonald’s as a corporate entity cannot be held liable for the failure of individual restaurant managers to exercise good judgment. But unfortunately, according to ABC’s 20/20, McDonald’s’ lawyers topped off their defense with an assessment of the victim’s psychological trauma, which in my opinion had nothing to do with the question of whether McDonald’s as a corporate entity is to be held liable:

In one of the most explosive moments from the trial, a psychologist hired by McDonald’s testified that Ogborn had “grown in some way” from the horrific incident. Forensic psychologist Alan Friedman, who was paid more than $50,000 by the fast food company, acknowledged that [Ogborn] experienced post-traumatic stress, but asserted that she has grown from the experience and is more assertive and self-reliant than she was before the 3½-hour humiliating ordeal. Friedman reportedly stated that after interviewing Ogborn and performing a number of tests on her, “It’s not the ideal way to come to new growth, but some people grow through their trauma.”

USA Today reports that the assistant manager “who led the search…[asked] for $50 million, saying she was convicted of unlawfully detaining Ogborn because of the company’s failure to warn.” The jury awarded the assistant manager 1 Million Dollars! She was also not held liable in a suit the victim brought against her and other McDonalds managers. Apparently lack of common sense, downright stupidity and, of course, blaming big corporations makes money these days.

I checked out the Drew Carey Project. You can access a preview by entering the password “sizzle” (although it is only good until 10/8/07). I didn’t realize Drew Carey was a free market guy. So I poked around to find who else big and famous has seen the light.