How the Left's Racial Politics BackfiredGet out the Doritos. Pop the top on your Bud Light. Go down to your man cave, plop down on your La-Z-Boy, invite your friends over and turn on the Packers game. Normally, white people just don't think much about race. But they are now surrounded by a culture obsessed with both race and gender. Here come the White people. CNN commentator Van Jones, clearly upset by the results coming in last night, claimed that Democrats got “White-lashed.” In a way, he was right. But he has only himself to blame. The problem with liberals is that they want all the advantages of racial politics and none of the detriments. They have succeeded in weaponizing entire racial groups, but when they find that they have inadvertently weaponized the ones who vote the other way, they get upset. Nate Cohn at the New York Times said something interesting about Trump's win to which everyone should pay careful attention. He said that “white working class voters just decided to vote like a minority group. They're [over] 40% of the electorate.” The White Minority In a sense, I think a large part of Donald Trump's vote consisted of people who felt like saying, “You want racial politics? We’ll give you racial politics!” These people are not racist. They’ve got too many other issues to deal with that really matter. Under normal circumstances, white people just don't think very much about race. They have always been the default ethnic group, so they've never had to think about race. But they are now surrounded by a culture obsessed with both race and gender. And they are regularly lectured by the liberal elites who just got spanked at the polls that they should think about it all the time. Black Lives Matter, but your little White honky life is politically meaningless. Go help your children finish their Black History Month coloring assignment from school and shut up. And don't even think about touching that Peach crayon. If your finger even touches anything lighter than Burnt Sienna we'll cut it off. This is what many Whites think they hear. They may be wrong or right, but that is beside the point. And when other things in their lives make them feel undervalued—the loss of their manufacturing job, the collapse of their marriage, the effect of drugs on their family, the bad schools their kids have to go to—when this is the reality of their lives, then watching television and hearing about how everyone except you deserves more attention and assistance becomes just a little hard to bear. And when you are forced toward sentiments you don’t really think you should have by a self-righteous cultural establishment that is always telling you how you should feel, you tend to get a little cranky, and when you get cranky you end up as the beer frame at the bowling alley. And you take it out on someone who represents this establishment at the polls. The problem is that when Whites are forced to think about race, they are also forced to act like a minority. So Hillary did serve some purpose. Just look at where Trump was the strongest: in the Appalachias and the rust belt. There’s a reason J. D. Vance, author of Hillbilly Elegy, is the man of the hour. It is he who has presented the liberal Democrats with their causa mortis. He’s the one who, by mere reflection on the plight of the White middle and underclass—and its underappreciation—did more to predict what happened yesterday than all the sophisters and calculators manipulating the polling data. Race did play a role in Trump's win, but not in the way that the liberal media thought. Through their control of what Richard Weaver called the “great stereopticon”—the media construct by which we are all propagandized—we are told that we should think about race and gender everywhere all the time. The problem is that when Whites are forced to think about race, they are also forced to act like a minority—as Cohn points out, a very large one. The problem here is that the result is almost exactly the opposite of what the purveyors of racial politics intended. Quite frankly, it serves them right. And when you add gender into the mix, it becomes nitro to the racial glycerin. Liberal Democrats victimized themselves on election night. They need to think harder about whether they really want the kind of culture they have been trying to create: one divided along lines of race and gender. What they found out on election night is that it doesn't always work to their advantage. Republished from Intellectual Takeout. Martin CothranMartin Cothran, the author of Memoria Press’ Traditional Logic, Material Logic and Classical Rhetoric programs, is an instructor of Latin, Logic, Rhetoric, and Classical Studies at Highlands Latin School. This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article. MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
0 Comments
Don't forget to check out our Official "Drain the Swamp" Tracker here!
When it comes to the national security team Trump is likely to bring with him, some pretty awful names have been leaked, including John Bolton and John Yoo.
And here's what we read from the Daily Caller: "Like Sessions, former GOP Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers, formerly the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, appears likely to have influence in the Trump administration. He is being considered for both national security advisor and assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. His former chief of staff, Andy Keiser, is also being considered for the position of deputy national security advisor. "Two other people listed for national security advisor are retired Army Lt. Gen. Micheal Flynn, who served as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency under President Barack Obama, and Stephen Hadley, who served in the same role under former President George W. Bush. Flynn, Rogers, and Hadley are all hawkish. Flynn has called for the destruction of the Syrian city of Raqqa, Hadley served as deputy national security adviser during the invasion of Iraq and Rogers said in 2014 that ground troops should be deployed to fight the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq." Well, you can't drain the swamp and also bring these people with you. You can't criticize recent U.S. foreign policy and then bring its architects on board. Even Roger Stone seems concerned, tweeting out that Trump didn't defeat Jeb Bush so he could bring on Bush's team. Well, duh. At the end of today's episode of the Tom Woods Show, Scott Horton gives out some good names for a non-crazy national security team: http://www.tomwoods.com/781 It's Veterans Day. Let's push for this team, so we can minimize membership in Veterans of Future Wars. Scott Horton's past shows Previous Appearances Ep. 768 Syria, Russia, and the American Candidates: Scott Horton Gives Us the Scoop Ep. 652 That Donald Trump Foreign Policy Speech Ep. 499 What to Tell Your Friend Who Says Saddam Really Did Have WMDs Ep. 448 The Iran Deal and Rand Paul's Response Ep. 438 What Should Be Done About ISIS? Ep. 396 Iran Update, Plus: Rand Paul's Best Strategy Ep. 304 The Torture Report, and What It Left Out Ep. 246 The War on ISIS: Another Round of Idiocy Ep. 188 Iraq: The Chickens Come Home to Roost Ep. 107 The Lies of Iraq, 11 Years Later - Plus Ukraine Ep. 79 What Bush and Obama Accomplished Potpourri: Be sure to check out the next episode (#60) of Contra Krugman, my other podcast, which will be coming out this weekend. We'll be joined by David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under Ronald Reagan, and an absolutely great guy who's become a hardcore Austrian since the 1980s. David will talk about the economic ramifications of the Trump victory. You'll know Trump really wants to drain the swamp if he appoints Stockman as Secretary of the Treasury. You'll know it's business as usual if it's just another bankster. Tom Woods "Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day." Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
You aren’t scared of Trump the person. Trump has been on this earth for 70 years and other than a general distaste for him, no one ever feared for their life because Trump walked the earth. He could do what he wanted because he didn't affect your life. He had no control over you. What you fear is the power he now wields. What if government had no power over your personal life? Republicans felt the same way eight years ago when Obama was elected, only for them, it was gun rights and religious persecution. We all remember the mass hysteria that drove gun prices up 200 even 300 percent. Obama called them bitter clingers; many others called them crazy right-wing conspiracy theorists. Those of you on the progressive left fear Trump because he is going to have control over you. He has the power to affect your personal life and the lives of those you love and he has threatened to use that power in a way you find unthinkable. But what if government had no power over your personal life? What if Trump could make all the threats he wanted, but had no means to act on his evil desires? See, everyone loves the benevolent dictator or even a brutal one, as long as his wrath is pointed in the other direction. Everyone loves the advancement of their own personal agenda, as long as the not so nice parts are pointed elsewhere. We are far too quick to trade our freedoms and liberties on the promise that our compassionate leaders will crush our evil opposition. But every power used to control our political and social enemies can also be used to control us. Progressives cheered Obama when he used his unilateral power of executive orders to fast track a left-wing agenda, circumventing our system of checks and balances, and blamed the other side for “holding back progress” and blocking government from “doing more.” But now that same power rests in the hands of a man who may use it to persecute them. It's scary. The liberties we trade for security and the powers we grant government are never returned. We, as a people, must be vigilant in ensuring that we are not tricked into trading away our individual liberties for the promise of a benevolent government, because one day that government may turn tyrannical and dictatorial. Our philosophy is simple and just – we don’t hurt people and we don’t take their stuff. So, whether you woke up the next morning with a renewed sense of hope, or one of deep despair, if we want to ensure that our elected officials never have the power to persecute those they serve, we must work together to limit the size of government and the power our officials wield. As libertarians, we believe the government has no business in telling you what you can buy, who you can love, or who you can associate with. Our philosophy is simple and just – we don’t hurt people and we don’t take their stuff. If you believe in those ideas, even in principle, then I think you’ll find a vision of a world that you would like to live in, regardless of your political leanings and that we have far more that unites us than divides us. Jason StapletonJason Stapleton is a leading voice of liberty today. Jason is a former US Marine, has his own premier trading education service, and began his own libertarian podcast. Find out more at jasonstapleton.com.
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
Wow. I don't know what else to say. Almost all the experts said Trump couldn't win the GOP nomination. Then the expert consensus was that Trump had virtually no chance of winning the White House. Now, for better or worse, he's going to be America's next President. Barack Obama has been a disaster for Democrats. What about my 2016 prediction? Well, other than my guess that Michigan might go for Trump (outcome still not confirmed), I don't look very prescient. At the very least, I missed Pennsylvania, Florida, Wisconsin, and North Carolina. For what it's worth, I did better with Congress. Depending on the outcome of the Senate contest in New Hampshire, my prediction for a 51-49 GOP majority may be spot on (though I generally wasn't right about the seats that would change hands). But who cares about my prediction. It's downright remarkable that Republicans held on to the Senate, something that seemed improbable considering that the GOP was defending more than twice as many seats as Democrats.. Moreover, the leading Tea Party-type Senators from the 2010 election - Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Ron Johnson, and Pat Toomey - were all reelected. And we may not know the final number for a few days, but my guess that there would be 239 House Republicans also will be very close. Again, the accuracy of my prediction is trivial compared to the fact that the GOP will have lost fewer than 10 seats when they were defending their largest majority in almost 90 years. A stunning outcome. So what does the election mean? The political answer is that Barack Obama has been a disaster for Democrats. I joked back in 2010 that Libertarians should name him as "Man of the Year" for restoring interest in the ideas of limited Government. Republicans should turn that joke into reality since Obama turned a dominant Democrat Party (majority of senators, representatives, governors, and state legislators) into a hollow shell. The policy answer is a bit more difficult. I've fretted many times that Trump doesn't believe in economic liberty. Some folks say that doesn't matter since House and Senate Republicans can drive the agenda. But, as indicated by this slide that I shared in several recent European speeches, I don't think that's realistic. It's highly unlikely that Trump will embrace comprehensive entitlement reform, but he might be open to reforming "means-tested" programs. A Republican Congress almost certainly isn't going to push policies unless they get some sort of positive signal from the White House (remember how the Bush years led to lots of statism, notwithstanding a supposedly conservative House and Senate). The real mystery is predicting the signal Trump will send. Here's what I hope for - and what I'm afraid of - in the next four years. My Fantasy Outcome Given his disappointing rhetoric, it's highly unlikely that Trump will embrace comprehensive entitlement reform. It's especially doubtful that he will touch the programs (Social Security and Medicare) that provide benefits to seniors. But it's plausible to think he might be open to reforming the "means-tested" programs. Even if he simply decided to support the block-granting of Medicaid, that would be a big achievement. And repealing Obamacare would be great as well. He did propose a rather attractive tax plan as part of his campaign, though I didn't get too excited since a large tax cut seemed unrealistic in the absence of a concomitant plan to limit the growth of spending. But if Trump can get one or two of the big provisions approved, most notably a lower corporate rate and death tax repeal, that would be a very positive step in the right direction. And if he actually gets serious about the "Penny Plan," that would give him a lot more leeway for big tax cuts. Needless to say, I also hope his protectionist campaign rhetoric doesn't translate into actual proposals for higher taxes on trade. My Feared Outcome In his acceptance speech, Trump focused on two policies. More infrastructure spending and helping veterans. This is not a good sign. Regarding infrastructure, my nightmare scenario is that he pushes a giant stimulus-type scheme that would increase the federal government's role in transportation. On the issue of veterans. I'm not aware of any specific plans, but my fear is that he will simply throw more money at the failed VA system. Let's also not forget he has endorsed a higher capital gains tax on "carried interest." And if he does decide to push protectionist legislation, that could wreak a lot of havoc. In the long run, I'm also worried that Trump will commit a "sin of omission" by leaving entitlements untouched. And if we wait another four - or eight - years to address the problem, the slow-motion train wreck may turn into an about-to-happen train wreck. Last but not least, what if Trump gets to the White House and feels that all his big plans for tax cuts and new spending aren't feasible because the numbers don't add up? Will he then decide that he needs a big revenue plug like a value-added tax? Sounds crazy, right, but don't forget that Rand Paul and Ted Cruz were seduced into adding VATs to their plans, so why wouldn't Trump be susceptible to the same mistake? A horrifying, but not implausible, scenario. This is why I like federalism. States can innovate and experiment. Now perhaps you understand why, in yesterday's column, I focused on the potential silver lining of a Hillary victory. It's because I don't like to dwell on the potential downside of a Trump victory. Ballot Initiatives Let's close with a quick review of the major ballot initiatives I highlighted last month.
As you can see, a mixed bag. Some good results, but also some bad choices. But this is why I like federalism. States can innovate and experiment, constrained by the fact that really crazy policies will eventually lead to California-style decline. And I'd rather have a couple of states in a death spiral rather than the entire nation. Republished from Dan Mitchell's blog. Daniel J. MitchellDaniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review. This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.
"Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day."
Most of us learned politically correct U.S. history in school. The economics was at least as bad. It's never too late to learn the truth. At Liberty Classroom, you can learn real U.S. history, Western civilization, and free-market economics from professors you can trust. Short on time? No problem. You can learn in your car. FIND OUT MORE HERE MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
Ok so Trump won.
Now that the election is over, what do we do now? Those of us searching for a Hero of Liberty during the primaries held our noses Election Night or didn't vote at all. Jason Stapleton tells us that we need is to be uncompromising. Now. Progressivism has slowly eroded our freedoms. They demand all guns be banned and then compromise toward a position that has less freedom and liberty than where we started. Our goal should be what some would call 'obstructionist'. Not one more inch. Progressivism is successful becuase they are playing the long game.
Check out Jason Stapleton's quick take on how we should be orienting ourselves as Liberty Lovers who believe in Free Markets, Limited Government, Peace, Tolerance, and Individualism:
MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
The election is tomorrow, and today the final polls came rolling in. For those who are curious the night before the election, these two are generally the most accurate sources for determining where elections stand:
(1) Real Clear Politics (2) FiveThirtyEight To see where public opinion stands on the eve of the election on a range of issues impacting voting preferences, this is the best source: (1) Gallup Finally, to see how states have trended in prior elections and leading up into this one, this is a very useful reference. Select the year(s) you want to see from the dropdown box: (1) 270 to Win's Election Timeline For some late-night bedside reading about the entire election season, see the first source below. Additionally, for those who have been asking about the Electoral College, the second link contains all of the electors' names as well as additional links for further information. (1) Election 2016 Wikipedia (2) 2016 Electors Wikipedia Finally, I know that many people are very skeptical of public opinion polls. I would caution you against that though because the major polls have historically been quite accurate, and averaging them together is generally even better. (This is why all candidates - including the two current ones - talk about polling frequently and even administer their own polls.) To clear up one thing, the actual "numbers" that polls report grab headlines and are what most people quote (e.g., "candidate A" is polling at 47%), but they are not, however, the actual projection of the poll. The projection is a margin of error, and all scientific polls report margins of error. So if polls peg "candidate A's" support at 47% but the poll has a 4-point margin of error, then the poll was accurate as long as "candidate A" earned between 43% and 51% of the vote. Here are two sources to that effect. As can be seen, public opinion polls have historically been quite accurate, and rarely are results outside their margins of error (first link). To get an even starker idea, Gallup's presidential polling is generally among the more inaccurate of the major ones, yet results are almost always within even Gallup's margin of error (second link). (1) Investor's.com (2) Gallup's Election Poll Accuracy I hope that these references were a helpful primer in the eleventh hour. If you're an informed citizen, then don't forget to vote tomorrow! Feel free to share this if you think it would be helpful to anyone. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
"Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day."
Most of us learned politically correct U.S. history in school. The economics was at least as bad. It's never too late to learn the truth. At Liberty Classroom, you can learn real U.S. history, Western civilization, and free-market economics from professors you can trust. Short on time? No problem. You can learn in your car. FIND OUT MORE HERE How are you going to feel when you wake up on November 9th and either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is the next president-elect of the United States? Although many of us might predict that we will feel awful, our prediction is probably wrong. Most of us discount our ability to bounce back from hard times and cope with problems. Psychologists Tim Wilson and Daniel Gilbert, in their paper Affective Forecasting, found that people were much less impacted than they thought they would be by the 2000 election between Al Gore and George Bush. Bush supporters were far less happy than they thought they would be when Bush was elected; when Gore lost, his supporters were far less unhappy than they had predicted they would be. Impact bias is what psychologists call the human mind’s tendency “to overestimate the emotional impact an event will have on us, either positively or negatively.” In their book Happiness: Unlocking the Mysteries of Psychological Wealth, psychology professors Ed Diener and Robert Biswas-Diener observe, “A major reason we overestimate the impact of the things that will happen to us just around the bend is that we underestimate our own resilience. Most of us discount our ability to bounce back from hard times and cope with problems.” For those who value freedom the coming years are likely to be challenging. We can all meet that challenge better by increasing our resiliency. Resiliency is a renewable resource; if we are currently low on resiliency, we can get more of it. Here are three ways to increase resiliency in our current polarized political environment. In her book Rapt: Attention and the Focused Life, Winnifred Gallagher explains psychology’s “negative bias theory.” Simply, “we pay more attention to unpleasant feelings such as fear, or anger and sadness because they’re simply more powerful than the agreeable sort.” Gripping our negative thinking is like grinding cut glass in our closed fist and then wondering why we are bleeding. As bad news rolls in in the coming years, it will be natural to have thoughts such as: “Freedom is lost for good.” “The economy will never recover from these terrible policies.” “I fear for my children and grandchildren.” It will be common to have angry thoughts of blame towards politicians who have, over many decades, allowed the principles that support freedom and prosperity to erode. We can have those thoughts, but we don’t have to allow those thoughts to have us. Research shows that trying to suppress unwanted thoughts leads to more unwanted thoughts. But we don’t have to fuse with our thinking in this way. According to physician and therapist Russ Harris, in his book The Happiness Trap, when we fuse with our thinking, we give these thoughts our full attention and they become all-consuming. We may find ourselves spending hours a day reading articles about why Trump or Clinton is a terrible person doing terrible things to the country. We may frequently check our Facebook feed and feel satisfaction when someone posts a denunciation that confirms our thinking. We can defuse our thinking and simply allow our upsetting thoughts to pass harmlessly through our heads. We don’t need to block our thinking or change our thinking; we just need to release our grip on our thinking. Gripping our negative thinking is like grinding cut glass in our closed fist and then wondering why we are bleeding. Release the glass, and the hand will begin to heal. Release negative thoughts, and new and more positive thoughts will naturally arise. Some people believe it’s a good thing to focus on their negative thinking. They tell me, “After all, why else would I be motivated to work to change the situation?” Often, I hear this basic confusion. The truth is, the more you are consumed by negative thinking, the less responsive you are. Why? Your mind is already occupied by the negative thoughts; there simply is no bandwidth left with which to respond to life based upon your highest values. Negative thinking lowers your resiliency. In her book Positivity, psychology professor Barbara Fredrickson notes, “the most pivotal difference between those with and without resilient personality styles was their positivity.” Positivity doesn’t mean having your head in the sand, it consists of a “whole range of positive emotions — from appreciation to love, from amusement to joy, from hope to gratitude, and then some.” Live Your Highest Values Political realities may be unpleasant, but so what? What does that have to do with our moment by moment decision to live by our highest values? The values by which we live our lives in the coming years will help determine the future of liberty. Can a President Clinton or President Trump impact our decisions to value honesty, accountability, responsibility, trustworthiness, or curiosity? Can the president impact our decision to continue to learn? To be grateful? To be generous? In his book Get Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life, psychologist Steven Hayes provides a useful definition of values as “intentional qualities that join together a string of moments into a meaningful path.” Values are “unfolding actions.” “If they are something you do (or the quality of something you do), they never end. You are never finished.” For example, if one of your values is to be a loving person, “this doesn’t mean that as soon as you love someone for a few months you are done… There is more loving to do — always.” In the same way, valuing freedom is a direction for the path we take. Human progress has never steadily climbed without interruptions. However, the values by which we live our lives in the coming years will help determine the future of liberty. Increased levels of resiliency are generated by living from our highest values. If we get trapped by our thinking about the political reality in which we are living, we begin to live our life based on our feelings and not on our values and principles. If we don’t understand that feelings are transitory and unreliable, feelings can occupy our mind and depress our resiliency to life’s challenges. In Shakespeare’s As You Like It, Duke Senior, his throne usurped, has been exiled into the Forest of Arden. Even so, he allows, life is not all bad, for “sweet are the uses of adversity.” Duke Senior does not say he’s glad for adversity; but he prefers to use his adverse circumstances wisely, rather than to spend his life complaining. Respect that Others See the World Differently Getting upset that others “don’t get it” reduces your capacity to be resilient. After election day you will encounter colleagues, friends, and family members who are happy about the results. Most of these people are not stupid or on the government’s payroll. Some of the people we criticize for their political views may be more responsible, more productive, and happier than we are. You can silently or publicly berate them, or you can take another path. You can be curious about their beliefs that drive how they see the world. Your respectful curiosity will help you be a more effective communicator of your own ideas. Everyone interprets the events of life differently, or as educator Jane Nelsen puts it in her book Serenity, through “the filters of his or her unique [thought system]. Everyone has personal memories, or interpretations and beliefs that act like filters through which present events are seen.” If we understand that interpreting the world differently is normal, we could be more curious about how others see the world. As we truly listen to others with compassion and respect, others are more likely to listen to us. I recommend that you become a student of the beliefs of other people. Everyone thinks they are seeing the world logically, and only by addressing their beliefs with respect will they ever change their mind. Getting upset that others “don’t get it” dampens the spirit, corrodes relationships, and reduces your capacity to be resilient to life. Remember, in America’s DNA is the idea that everyone has the potential to lead a responsible and happy life. Today, some may not understand the principles that promote liberty and prosperity; but increase your resiliency today and perhaps you will play a part in helping them understand those principles tomorrow Barry BrownsteinBarry Brownstein is professor emeritus of economics and leadership at the University of Baltimore. He is the author of The Inner-Work of Leadership. He delivers leadership workshops to organizations and blogs at BarryBrownstein.com, and Giving up Control. This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article. More from libertyLOL:Today the sun is shining during my commute home from work. But this weekend, public service announcements will remind us to “fall back,” ending daylight saving time (DST) by setting our clocks an hour earlier on Sunday, Nov. 6. On Nov. 7, many of us will commute home in the dark. DST simply shifts when the sun rises and sets relative to our society’s regular schedule and routines. This semiannual ritual shifts our rhythms and temporarily makes us groggy at times when we normally feel alert. Moreover, many Americans are confused about why we spring forward to DST in March and fall back in November, and whether it is worth the trouble. The practice of resetting clocks is not designed for farmers, whose plows follow the sun regardless of what time clocks say it is. Yet many people continue to believe that farmers benefit, including lawmakers during recent debates over changing California DST laws. Massachusetts is also studying whether to abandon DST. Changing our clocks does not create extra daylight. DST simply shifts when the sun rises and sets relative to our society’s regular schedule and routines. The key question, then, is how people respond to this enforced shift in natural lighting. Most people have to be at work at a certain time – say, 8:30 a.m. – and if that time comes an hour earlier, they simply get up an hour earlier. The effect on society is another question, and there, the research shows DST is more burden than boon. No Energy Savings Benjamin Franklin was one of the first thinkers to endorse the idea of making better use of daylight. Although he lived well before the invention of light bulbs, Franklin observed that people who slept past sunrise wasted more candles later in the evening. He also whimsically suggested the first policy fixes to encourage energy conservation: firing cannons at dawn as public alarm clocks and fining homeowners who put up window shutters. To this day, our laws equate daylight saving with energy conservation. However, recent research suggests that DST actually increases energy use. Poster celebrating enactment of daylight saving time during World War I, 1917. Library of Congress/Wikipedia This is what I found in a study coauthored with Yale economist Matthew Kotchen. We used a policy change in Indiana to estimate DST effects on electricity consumption. Prior to 2007, most Indiana counties did not observe DST. By comparing households’ electricity demand before and after DST was adopted, month by month, we showed that DST had actually increased residential electricity demand in Indiana by 1 to 4 percent annually. The largest effects occurred in the summer, when DST aligns our lives with the hottest part of the day, so people tend to use more air conditioning, and late fall, when we wake up in the dark and use more heating with no reduction in lighting needs. Other studies corroborate these findings. Research in Australia and in the United States shows that DST does not decrease total energy use. However, it does smooth out peaks and valleys in energy demand throughout the day, as people at home use more electricity in the morning and less during the afternoon. Though people still use more electricity, shifting the timing reduces the average costs to deliver energy because not everyone demands it during typical peak usage periods. Other Outcomes are Mixed DST proponents also argue that changing times provides more hours for afternoon recreation and reduces crime rates. But time for recreation is a matter of preference. There is better evidence on crime rates: Fewer muggings and sexual assaults occur during DST months because fewer potential victims are out after dark. Heart attacks increase after the spring time shift, possibly because due to lack of sleep. So overall, the net benefits from these three durational effects of crime, recreation and energy use – that is, impacts that last for the duration of the time change – are murky. Other consequences of DST are ephemeral. I think of them as bookend effects, since they occur at the beginning and end of DST. When we “spring forward” in March we lose an hour, which comes disproportionately from resting hours rather than wakeful time. Therefore, many problems associated with springing forward stem from sleep deprivation. With less rest people make more mistakes, which appear to cause more traffic accidents and workplace injuries, lower workplace productivity due to cyberloafing and poorer stock market trading. Even when we gain that hour back in the fall, we must readjust our routines over several days because the sun and our alarm clocks feel out of synchronization. Some impacts are serious: During bookend weeks, children in higher latitudes go to school in the dark, which increases the risk of pedestrian casualties. Dark commutes are so problematic for pedestrians that New York City is spending US$1.5 million on a related safety campaign. And heart attacks increase after the spring time shift – it is thought because of lack of sleep – but decrease to a lesser extent after the fall shift. Collectively, these bookend effects represent net costs and strong arguments against retaining DST. Pick Your Own Time Zone? Spurred by many of these arguments, several states are considering unilaterally discontinuing DST. The California State Legislature considered a bill this term that would have asked voters to decide whether or not to remain on Pacific Standard Time year-round (the measure was passed by the State Assembly but rejected by the Senate). Arizona's residents have not changed clocks’ times for over 40 years. On the East Coast, Massachusetts has commissioned research on the impacts of dropping DST and joining Canada’s Maritime provinces on Atlantic Time, which is one hour ahead of Eastern Standard Time. If this occurred, Massachusetts would be an hour ahead of all of its neighboring states during winter months, and travelers flying from Los Angeles to Boston would cross five time zones. Countries observing daylight saving time (blue in Northern Hemisphere, orange in Southern Hemisphere). Light gray countries have abandoned DST; dark gray nations have never practiced it. TimeZonesBoy/Wikipedia, CC BY-SA These proposals ignore a fundamental fact: Daylight saving time relies on coordination. If one state changes its clocks a week early, neighboring states will be out of sync. One legislator stated, “I like daylight savings. I just like it.” But politicians’ whims are not a good basis for policy choices. Some states have good reason for diverging from the norm. Notably, Hawaii does not practice DST because it is much closer to the equator than the rest of the nation, so its daylight hours barely change throughout the year. Arizona is the sole contiguous state that abstains from DST, citing its extreme summer temperatures. Although this disparity causes confusion for western travelers, the state’s residents have not changed clocks’ times for over 40 years. In my research on DST I have found that everyone has strong opinions about it. Many people welcome the shift to DST as a signal of spring. Others like the coordinated availability of daylight after work. Dissenters, including farmers, curse their loss of quiet morning hours. When the evidence about costs and benefits is mixed but we need to make coordinated choices, how should we make DST decisions? When the California State Senate opted to stick with DST, one legislator stated, “I like daylight savings. I just like it.” But politicians’ whims are not a good basis for policy choices. The strongest arguments support not only doing away with the switches but keeping the nation on daylight saving time year-round. Yet humans adapt. If we abandon the twice-yearly switch, we may eventually slide back into old routines and habits of sleeping in during daylight. Daylight saving time is the coordinated alarm to wake us up a bit earlier in the summer and get us out of work with more sunshine. Republished from The Conversation. Laura GrantLaura Grant is an Assistant Professor of Economics, Claremont McKenna College This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article. More from LibertyLOL:
A professor at the University of Toronto is being attacked and harassed, and accused of violating the country's human rights laws, because he refuses to use gender-neutral pronouns like "zhe" and "zer" with students who request them.
Jordan Peterson, who was a professor of psychology at Harvard University before moving to the University of Toronto, says the whole "70 genders" thing is ridiculous and anti-scientific, and he won't acquiesce in it. He notes that there is zero scholarly support for the "gender identity" craze, noting that some of the scores of genders claimed to exist don't seem to have even a single person who belong to them. The left-wing tolerance crowd is of course disrupting his events. Others are trying to get him removed from the University of Toronto on the grounds that refusal to use the pronouns is a violation of Canadian law. Professor Peterson is my guest tomorrow. Still haven't subscribed to the Tom Woods Show? It's free, and you get a dose of liberty on your device every single day. Click here for iTunes and here for Stitcher. Tom Woods More from LibertyLOL:Recent news has proudly informed us that U.S. graduation rates are rising. Unfortunately, rising grad rates don’t tell the whole story. If one truly wants to know how American students are doing in school, a look at the Nation’s Report Card might offer a better picture. Those numbers tell us that not even half of America’s high school seniors are proficient in any subject. The area they rank the worst in? U.S. History. The fact that only 12 percent of U.S. high school seniors are proficient in history was recently reflected in another survey put out by YouGov. That survey asked Americans of all ages how familiar they were with famous leaders, many of whom were prominent Communist leaders from the last century. As the chart below shows, a number of millennials described themselves as “unfamiliar” with these leaders. Perhaps that’s also why these same millennials were unfamiliar with the number of people killed under Communist leadership. In fact, 32 percent of millennials and gen-Xers believed that more people were killed under George W. Bush during his time in office than were killed during Joseph Stalin’s time in power.
But so what, right? History is a boring subject full of old, privileged white men. Does it matter if the current generation of students have no clue whether or not one leader killed more people than another from a rival government? According to Thomas Jefferson, it certainly does. In 1807 he wrote, “History, in general, only informs us what bad government is.” In other words, if we expect our nation to stay on a straight course, then we need to make sure our students have a clear knowledge of governments throughout history – what worked and what didn’t. Is it possible that our nation is in its current state because recent generations have not learned the lessons which past empires and nations teach us through the history books? This first appeared at Intellectual Takeout. Annie HolmquistAnnie is a research associate with Intellectual Takeout. In her role, she writes for the blog, conducts a variety of research for the organization's websites and social media pages, and assists with development projects. She particularly loves digging into the historical aspects of America's educational structure.
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article. "Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day." Most of us learned politically correct U.S. history in school. The economics was at least as bad. It's never too late to learn the truth. At Liberty Classroom, you can learn real U.S. history, Western civilization, and free-market economics from professors you can trust. Short on time? No problem. You can learn in your car. FIND OUT MORE HERE More from LibertyLOL: |
Search the
libertyLOL Archives: Archives
December 2020
Search and Shop on Amazon.com!
Tom Wood's Liberty Classroom"Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day...."
At Liberty Classroom, you can learn real U.S. history, Western civilization, and free-market economics from professors you can trust. Short on time? No problem. You can learn in your car. Find out more! |