Author: Brian Carnell

Did Libertarians Help Elect Democrat Maria Cantwell to the Senate?

The big pre-election speculation was that Green Party candidate Ralph Nader would siphon off enough votes from Al Gore to elect George W. Bush, and that certainly seems to be the case in Florida. If Gore had captured only a small fraction of Nader voters in Florida, the campaigning wouldn’t still be going on.

But there’s another close race in Washington State. Democrat Maria Cantwell beat incumbent Republican Senator Slade Gorton by a mere 1,953 votes out of 2.3 million cast. The Libertarian Party candidate, Jeff Jared, received 65,000 votes — 32 times the margin of Cantwell’s victory.

Washington state’s Republican Party chairman, Don Benton told the Tacoma News Tribune, “In effect, in several races, what Libertarian candidates have done is elect someone who is opposed to everything they stand for. Libertarians and those who may feel motivated to vote Libertarian need to really look at the big picture.”

Chris Caputo, treasurer of the Washington Libertarian Party, suggests its just not that simple. He notes that Jared emphasized his support of hemp legalization — a stand that probably stripped away some Democratic voters from Cantwell’s total. Not to mention the fact that in many respects, Republicans are just as opposed to what libertarians stand for as Democrats are.

But it is a legitimate question — should libertarians worry that their vote for a Libertarian Party candidate or other third party candidate might help elect the more statist candidate? I have no idea. Personally, I didn’t see enough difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush to persuade me not to vote for Harry Browne, even though he wasn’t my ideal candidate either. On the other hand, in two close state races I did vote for a Republican and a Democrat (both of whom lost — I’m proud to say I have yet to vote for a candidate who actually won his or her race) because that candidate’s opponent was significantly worse.

What libertarians shouldn’t do is fool themselves into believing that electoral politics are an effective way to build a movement. This is the position the Left keeps deluding itself into. Ralph Nader and the Green Party think they’re building a movement, but their small electoral success is actually going to be a hindrance in much the way that Ross Perot’s success was a hindrance to the Reform Party (in both cases, the votes were more for the individual rather than for the general principles of the party). When the Libertarian Party notes that it set a record for a third party by garnering 1.6 million votes in Congressional elections, my response is so what?

It certainly demonstrates that the Libertarian Party has some very dedicated individuals working in its state parties, but it doesn’t exactly get us any closer to transforming the United States into a libertarian paradise. This wouldn’t be so bad if the Libertarian Party was frank about the reality — most Americans aren’t even close to voting or supporting the Party. Even those who score in the libertarian area of the World’s Smallest Political Quiz are more likely to vote for a non-Libertarian Party candidate according to a Rasmussen poll.

In the long run Benton might not be too far off the mark in that the best way libertarians might have an impact is through efforts that drive the Republican Party further into the free market camp.

Source:

Libertarians tip balance in Washington state. Beth Silver, Tacoma News Tribune, November 24, 2000.

Review of John Allen Paulos’ Innumeracy

Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences
By John Allen Paulos

No sense mincing words — this is the worst skeptical/debunking book that I’ve ever read. Period. How this book became a national bestseller at the end of the 1980s (and its author a mini-celebrity for awhile) is something I will never understand.

For one thing, the book is poorly written and difficult to follow. Although the title suggests that the book is primarily going to be about the abuse and misuse of statistics and other math-related issues, discussions of such things occupy only a small portion of Innumeracy. This is probably a good thing, because the math-heavy sections are confusing. If you do not already have a good handle on probability theory, for example, Paulos is likely to make you even more confused.

Innumeracy reads like it is nothing more than a few transcribed lectures that were never edited. Perhaps Paulos’ editors did not understand him, but did not want to look stupid by questioning him, and allowed the book to go straight to press. Either way, it is disconcerting to read such a disorganized book from someone arguing on behalf of organized thinking.

Aside from the poor writing, the biggest problem with Innumeracy is that it purports to advocate for sound, logical thinking only to make rash, unsubstantiated — and, in at least one case, erroneous — arguments itself.

For example, like some skeptics, Paulos argues that not only are reports of visitors from outer space almost certainly not true, but he also proceeds to argue that it is almost certain that there are no advanced civilizations capable of or interested in visiting our planet. I happen to agree with Paulos on this, but his argument is filled with unsubstantiated claims (there isn’t a single footnote or reference in the entire book).

According to Paulos,

The third reason we haven’t had any tourists is that even if life has developed on a number of planets within our galaxy, there’s probably little likelihood they’d be interested in us. The life forms could be large clouds, or self-directed magnetic fields, or large plains of potato-like beings, or giant plant-sized entities which spend their time singing complex symphonies, or more likely a sort of planetary scum adhering to the sides of rocks facing their sun. There’s little reason to suppose that any of the above would share our goals or psychology and try to reach us.

Potato people? Self-directed magnetic fields? These sort of fantastic creatures might be good fodder for a Star Trek episode, but, in the absence of evidence, Paulos here is simply making an unsubstantiated assertion. Paulos goes on throughout his book about the importance of careful thinking and then slips in meaningless phrases such as “there’s probably little likelihood” and “there’s little reason to suppose.” Similarly, Paulos ridicules psychics such as Jean Dixon and the people who believe such predictions, but concludes his book with a false prophecy of his own:

For example, when the recent decisions by a number of states to raise the speed limit on certain highways to 65 m.p.h. and not to impose stiffer penalties on drunk driving were challenged by safety groups, they were defended with the patently false assertion that there would be no increase in accident rates, instead of with a frank acknowledgment of economic and political factors which outweighed the likely extra deaths

Where I come from, if you are going to call something “patently false” you better be able to back it up — especially if you are going to put it in a book about how erroneous the thinking of other people is.

In 1995, the U.S. Congress abolished federally-mandated 55 mph speed limits and most states quickly raised highway speeds to 65 mph and higher in some places. Measured on deaths-per-mile traveled, deaths from automobile accidents in 1999 were the lowest ever recorded by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration since that agency began keeping such statistics in 1966.

Highway deaths began declining almost immediately after the repeal. NHTSA had projected an additional 6,400 traffic deaths, but by 1997 all but one state (Hawaii) had raised its speed limits, and in 1997 highway traffic deaths were the lowest ever recorded by the NHTSA up until that point.

Why the decline in deaths when everybody knows (including Paulos) that speed kills? Because the 55 mph speed limit artificially raised the differential between cars obeying the law and driving 55 mph vs. those who broke the law and drove 65 or 70 mph. As Eric Peters wrote in the Wall Street Journal in 1998,

These higher speeds are safer because they reflect the normal flow of traffic — what highway engineers call the “85th percentile” speed. This is the speed most drivers will maintain on a given stretch of road under a given set of conditions. When speed limits are set arbitrarily low — as under the old system — tailgating, weaving and “speed variance” (the problem of some cars traveling significantly faster than others) make roads less safe.

As Peters notes, the interstate highway system was designed to be safe at speeds of 70 to 75 mph, and that is the speed that the majority of cars traveled before and after the speed limit was raised.

It is this sort of stuff that makes reading Innumeracy so irritating. There are plenty of excellent books that explain common misconceptions about probability, statistics and other mathematical subjects. Innumeracy is not one of them.

Fur Farms Banned in Britain

The bill to ban fur farming the Great Britain is essentially a done deal. The 13 fur farms left in Great Britain will have to shut down by 2003; though the bill provides ample compensation for the remaining few fur farms. Ironically the ban on fur farming comes at a time when fur is making a comeback on the world fashion stage including in the United Kingdom.

In fact, the thing that comes through loud and clear about the use of fur is that animal rights activists have had almost no impact on the world fur market. Take mink, for example. In 1980, 22 million mink pelts were produced worldwide. After a boom in the 1980s that saw almost 42 million pelts produced in 1988, mink production crashed to an all-time low of 20.4 million in 1993 — due in large measure to the world-wide recession of the late 1980s. By 1997, however, world mink production had climbed back to 26.3 million pelts (although economic downturns in Russia likely lowered world production in 1998-1999).

As Richard North points out, the reality is that fur and fur farming is important only to a relatively small portion of the public. In large measure that is because the animal rights activists in their campaign against fur are inevitably forced into what Adrian Morrison calls the “muddled middle.” An editorial in the Daily Telegraph put this problem succinctly.

In singling out fur-farming for destruction, Miss [Maria] Eagle [the sponsor of the anti-fur farm bill] is trying to distinguish mink from cows, sheep, pigs and all the other animals that are farmed and slaughtered in this country. There is no real distinction: we eat or wear body parts from all these animals. … By all means let animal rights activists search out extreme brutalities in any farming process — and fur farming is no more brutal than other livestock farming — but it is wrong to demonise a particular process because of some perceived wrong in the people who wear the product.

As their noble lordships put on their cowhide shoes today, tied the cocoons of a thousand silkworms around their necks and arrange the fur of that norther stoat — the ermine — above their collars, they might do well to consider why the mink gets off so lightly.

Sources:

Fur should fly. The Daily Telegraph (London), November 13, 2000

The question for all dedicated followers of fashion: can they stomach the rage for fur? Mary Braid, the Independent (London), November 4, 2000.

Fur and Freedom: in defence of the fur trade. Richard North, Institute for Economic Affairs, January 2000.

Whither Wage Inequality?

A recent report by British researchers examining earnings inequalities between men and women in the United Kingdom comes to much the same conclusion that similar studies of the U.S. wage gap have arrived at — women make significantly less than men, but the difference is better explained by choices women make rather than sexual discrimination.

In 1998, the average full-time pay of women in the United Kingdom was 80 percent of the average full-time pay of men. As researchers J.R. Shackleton and Peter Urwin of the Westminster Business School argue, however, “Only a part of the labour market advantage enjoyed by men can be attributed to discrimination in any sense that can be addressed by public policy.”

Specifically, a major cause of the wage inequality in the UK and US is the way men and women deal differently with marriage. Single men tend to learn less than married men and tend to work fewer hours. The reverse is true for women — single women tend to earn more than married women and work more hours. A very large proportion of the difference in men’s and women’s wages is due to the fact that for a variety of reasons, women are far more likely than men to switch to part-time work or exit the work force altogether after they are married.

In fact when you hold hours worked, experience and other factors constant, the UK researchers found that women’s wages averages about 90 percent of men’s wages. In the United States similar results have been found, and in fact there are some professions where women earn higher wages on average than men.

Short of using paternalistic tax policies to force married women to work more, it is hard to see, as the report puts it, “that [wage inequality] can be addressed by public policy.”

Source:

Work inequality questioned as women catch up. Philip Johnston, The Daily Telegraph (UK), November 27, 2000.

Tajikistan on the Verge of Starvation

According to the World Food Program, the former-Soviet republic of Tajikistan is on the verge of massive starvation. Up to 1 million people are at risk of starvation following a severe draft that caused the nation’s grain harvest to fail so thoroughly that the country currently has only about 25 percent of the food it needs to avoid starvation.

Source:

New starvation warning in Tajikistan. The BBC, November 24, 2000.

PETA and Undercover Operative Sued by Veterinarian

The last year has seen a dramatic turnaround in the case of New Jersey veterinarian Howard Baker who was originally convicted of animal cruelty charges only to have his conviction vacated by an appeals court. Now, Baker is turning the tables on his accusers by suing People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and one of its undercover investigators for defamation.

The imbroglio started when Michelle Rokke was hired by Baker to work at his veterinary clinic. Rokke is a career animal rights activist who has worked with PETA on a number of hidden camera exposes. Rokke was involved, for example, in a recent undercover investigation of Huntingdon Life Sciences.

In that case Huntingdon sued PETA and Rokke after Rokke, among other things, stole over 8,000 documents from HLS. Eventually the two parties settled that lawsuit out of court with PETA agreeing to stop claiming that Rokke turned up evidence of animal abuse at the laboratory.

Rokke claims she went to work at Baker’s office simply to learn how to care for animals, but it didn’t take her long to start smuggling a hidden camera in to work in a purse over a 10-month period looking to collect evidence of animal abuse. The videotapes she made while working for Baker eventually formed the core of a case of criminal animal abuse that resulted in Baker’s conviction.

That conviction was thrown out by a New Jersey appellate court, however, and Baker charged that not only did Rokke lie about what happened in his office, but that she and PETA selectively edited the videotapes to hide the context of his actions (whether or not this is true in Baker’s case, PETA has a long history of selectively editing such videotapes.)

Now Baker has filed a suit against Rokke and PETA saying that PETA defamed him. This isn’t the first time that PETA has faced such a lawsuit. Animal trainer Bobby Berosini won a judgment against PETA after it distributed videotapes of him disciplining orangutans that were part of a live Las Vegas act. That judgment, however, was later reversed by the Nevada Supreme Court.

Baker’s case is different in one important point from the Berosini case — the Nevada Supreme Court essentially held that Berosini was in a public place and had no expectation of privacy. Rokke, however, taped Baker inside a private office and New Jersey’s state constitution explicitly recognize a right to privacy.

Neville Johnson, an attorney who advised Food Lion in its landmark win against ABC’s “Prime Time Live” for using hidden camera investigators, told the Bergen Record that the cases are very similar. “. . . You cannot commit a crime to expose wrongdoing, because then you would have these people assuming police or quasi-police powers.” Johnson went on to add that the case could do a lot of damage to PETA. “This kind of stuff, done with the approval of PETA management, could bankrupt PETA. This could be the end of them.”

Especially since courts and juries are likely to be less sympathetic to a political activist group than they would be to a legitimate news agency such as ABC News. Not to mention being more grist for the mill for any potential Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization suit against mainstream animal rights groups.

Source:

Secret agent for animals draws veterinarian’s suit. Mitchel Maddux, The Bergen Record, November 24, 2000.