Byung Kyu Park's Personal Website

I am finally back from my trip, and as things got really busy towards the end of my stay at RRI, I haven’t been able to talk more about articles I’ve read that made an impression on me. Some of them are really outdated by now (about a month old) so I can’t really talk about them individually, but I guess if you combine enough of them together, it could make for a blog post. So, here’s the dump of all the articles (all from WSJ, as that’s the newspaper I get on my Kindle) I wanted to comment on in the last month:

• The More, The Better: this is why I feel optimistic about America in the long run. This is a mighty country, based on a mighty continent. And we are still growing, unlike the old countries in Europe or some in Asia.
• “They recommend that doctors ask themselves honestly about their intent in conducting the search and whether the outcome might compromise the trust and relationship between the doctor and patient. Doctors, they say, should consider asking the patient for consent.”: I don’t know. If they have to ask, they probably shouldn’t. Or, at least on an individual basis, it would be a creepy question to ask: “May I google you from time to time?” Such question is better placed on a form with all those waivers, like one of those privacy opt-out things. On another note, doctors googling their patients is especially creepy—while the information they find is supposedly public, because doctors have privileged information about their patients, they may be able to piece together the whole, probably private, picture better than random strangers could.
• Basically an Optimist—Still: “Today nobody believes that, except maybe in North Korea. You go to China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, even Western Europe. Most of the economists under 50 have a free-market orientation. Now, there are differences of emphasis and opinion among them. But they’re oriented toward the markets.” A new hope? Liberal-socialism is becoming, year by year and decade by decade more intellectually bankrupt. While the tide is still against us, we may be able to reverse it—in our lifetime.
• Vallejo’s Painful Lessons in Municipal Bankruptcy: Well. Here’s a city I should remember never to move into, regardless of how attractive some rentals seem.
• Harvesting Lunar Soil For Energy Bonanza: “What’s so special about lunar soil? It contains helium-3, a non radioactive isotope that fuels clean nuclear fusion.” Sounds like science fiction. In particular, this science fiction.
• Business Bids to Shape Health Changes: “The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is planning a broad effort to blunt the health overhaul by trying to shape its regulatory language and spending heavily to unseat vulnerable Democrats who voted for it.” ‘Wish they started the fight earlier. Instead, Obamacare is marked with special deals for big businesses, such as Big Pharma, at the cost of everyone else.
• Militia Chief’s Mistrust Festered, Friends Say: “While he rarely attended church, he studied the Bible nightly, memorizing long passages, said Ms. Harsh, his ex-fiance.” A slight problem: For Christians, belonging in a community of believers is not merely recommended; it’s required. So by any measurable standard, this militia leader was not a Christian.
• The ObamaCare Writedowns—II: “In other words, CEOs who must abide by U.S. accounting laws under pain of SEC sanction, and who warned about such writedowns for months, are merely trying to ruin President Obama’s moment of glory. Sure.” Aye. On the other hand, investors would be wise to discount these writedowns as they do with most one-time charges in trying to predict future earnings.
• The Superstar Effect: Interesting. Would the same effect exist in a cooperative situation as well? i.e. Mr. Best will be carrying most of the load; why should we work hard?
• Corruption You Can Count On: (I also can’t find it online) “But to the discomfort of development economists and anti-corruption crusaders, some of the great economic success stories of the past half-century have taken place in the most corrupt economies on earth. In Transparency’s first corruption ranking in 1995, the two countries that ranked as the most corrupt were Indonesia and China. Yet these ratings came amid decades-long economic booms.” Not too surprising. As long as bribes are consistent, are they really different from rush processing fees you pay at various places in U.S.?
• Fire and Fumes Can’t Drive Indians From Hellish Village: “But many of the government’s more ambitious plans to help its most vulnerable citizens are failing because they are poorly conceived and executed. Even as the government has poured billions of dollars into an initiative to employ unskilled rural workers, the program has been plagued with charges of corruption and mismanagement.” Well. There’s always the saying; rising tides raise all boats. Perhaps those billions would be better spent cutting taxes and encouraging growth (and in some aspects, Bangalore seemed to have more vibrant free market than the Bay Area).
• More Americans Sever U.S. Ties as IRS Gets Tougher: “According to public records, just over 500 people world-wide renounced U.S. citizenship or permanent residency in the fourth quarter of 2009, the most recent period for which data are available. That is more people than have cut ties with the U.S. during all of 2007, and more than double the total expatriations in 2008.” Appalling but I guess encouraging: even if 2,000 people did give up U.S. citizenship annually, that’s much fewer than the number of people getting naturalized annually (although it must hurt that most people giving up U.S. citizenship must be far richer than average immigrants).
• Mr. Dimon Goes to Washington: ‘The incessant broad-based vilification of the banking industry isn’t fair and it is damaging,” Mr. Dimon said. “Punishing whole industries, whether you were reckless or not, just isn’t the way to do things.”‘ ‘Would’ve been more convincing for him to say that it wasn’t government’s business to mess with the market, either in bailing out or punishing. Instead, Mr. Dimon comes off as if he’s saying government help is welcome but its welcome has worn out when it wants to exact payments.
• In the Search for a Hot Job Title, Enter the Ninja: “In finance, ninja has a more dubious meaning—it’s an acronym for a kind of loan in which a bank hasn’t verified an applicant’s income, job, or assets. After the housing bubble, many of these sorts of loans ended up in default, with their borrowers disappearing like ninjas.” Oh, interesting. Perhaps CS ninjas will end up the same way.
• Not All Differences in Earnings Are Created Equal: “But do women really earn that much less than men? It depends on how you interpret the numbers.” Numbers always lie. When you work with statistics, you can always massage the numbers to make them give you the result you want.
• Taliban Capitalize on Afghan Logging Ban: “Deforestation, in turn, leads to soil erosion, flooding, and air pollution—which is why the Afghan government, with the support of international environmental groups, imposed the 2006 prohibition.” Yet another misguided leftist project—imposing our standards on another nation.

Well. This covers the articles I had clipped up ’til April 15th, when I got stuck at Frankfurt. I’ll look over what I missed and post another article dump, if necessary.

Here’s yet another email from my beloved union (private email addresses redacted):

From: UAW 2865 Berkeley <berk...@uaw2865.org>
To: xxxx...@xxxxx.com
Subject: June 8th Primary Election Recommendations
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 16:58:20 +0000 (UTC)

Dear UAW 2865 members,

The June 8th Primary election is just around the corner, and many of you are
already receiving your absentee ballots.

As public employees, it is crucial that we stay engaged in the electoral
process, as the decisions that are made by our public officials impact our lives
as workers, students as well as residents. We work to elect, and hold
accountable, pro-labor, pro-higher-education candidates.

Below you will find recommendations from UAW and the California State
Federation of Labor on statewide and local races and ballot measures.

Governor
Jerry Brown

United States Senator
Barbara Boxer

Lieutenant Governor
Janice Hahn

Attorney General
No Recommendation

Secretary of State
Debra Bowen

Treasurer
Bill Lockyer

Controller
John Chiang

Superintendent of Public Instruction
Tom Torlakson

Insurance Commissioner
DUAL: Hector De La Torre and Dave Jones

Board of Equalization
District 1 - Betty Yee
District 2 - Chris Parker
District 3 - No Endorsement
District 4 - Jerome Horton

Proposition 13 - Tax Assessment for Seismic Retrofit
Recommendation: Vote YES
This proposition is an important tax reform that, if passed, will create jobs
and make our buildings safer.

Proposition 14 - Top Two Primary
Recommendation: Vote NO
This proposition, if passed, will eliminate partisan primaries, limit voter
choice, bar small parties and independents from competing in the general
election, and lead to more personality-driven, less issue-driven politics.

Proposition 15 - California Fair Elections Act
Recommendation: Vote YES
This proposition, if passed, will create a pilot program to publicly finance
elections for Secretary of State.

Proposition 16 - Two-Thirds Approval for Local Public Power
Recommendation: Vote NO
This proposition is a blatant power grab by PG&E to maintain their monopoly and
if passed, will make it harder for local communities to take control of their
energy production.

Proposition 17 - Alter Auto Insurance Company Regulations
Recommend: Vote NO
This proposition is an initiative backed by a single major insurance company that,
if passed, will lead to higher insurance rates for many drivers.

US Congressional Representatives
9th District Barbara Lee

13th District Fortney “Pete” Stark

CA State Assembly
14th District Nancy Skinner
16th District Sandre Swanson

Alameda County Supervisor
District 2 - Nadia Lockyer
District 3 - Wilma Chan

Alameda County Sheriff
N/A

Alameda County District Attorney
N/A

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
UAW 2865 Berkeley
2070 Allston Way, Suite 205
Berkeley, CA 94704
phone: (510) 849-1628  /  fax: (510) 549-2514
berk...@uaw2865.org  /  www.uaw2865.org

mail-list.com    1302 Waugh Dr. #438    Houston, Texas    77019    USA

This message was launched into cyberspace to xxxx...@xxxxx.com

Maybe it’s just me, but I think it’s … revealing how my beloved UAW 2865 is recommending me to vote in Democratic primary. In other words, unions are just nothing but partisan organizations working on behalf of Democrats (for the record, I am a registered Libertarian, and I am regretting that choice this particular election season, as I cannot vote in the Republican primary for my favored candidates (e.g. Mr. DeVore)).

On the non-partisan matters (i.e. propositions; although I am not entirely sure what the point of primary voting for propositions is; do the defeated propositions not appear in the general ballot, or do the propositions simply lose the support of the party?), I am distressed that I agreed with UAW 2865′s positions on Props. 13 and 14, but I am glad that I voted the right way for the remaining propositions. Three out of five ain’t so bad.

A friend of mine was complaining that the drug cartel violences just across the border weren’t getting enough media attention.

Well, here’s one less reason to be so worried:

From: Jonathan Poullard Dean of Student <adpa...@berkeley.edu>
Subject: Travel to Mexico Advisory
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:06:14 -0700

Dear UC Berkeley Students,

In response to the recent security concerns in Mexico, the U.S.
Department of State has issued a travel warning to U.S. travelers
traveling to and living in Mexico. Please read carefully the full
advisory notice at

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_mexico.html

Accordingly, UC Berkeley strongly advises against travel to Mexico
during Spring Break. We encourage students to discuss your travel plans
with family, friends, and other concerned parties as appropriate.

Should you have any further questions regarding your decision to travel,
please contact the Dean of Students Office at 642-6741.

Jonathan Poullard
Assistant Vice Chancellor/Dean of Students

Even if the liberal media is burying the story, afraid what the stories of violence in Mexico (and extending to U.S. citizens) would do to the sentiments towards immigrants and immigration, it looks like at least students at Berkeley will be well informed.

Of course, it’s another question whether the information would fall on deaf ears, but, well, let him who has ears to hear hear.

Update: In the interest of full disclosure, the update email:

From: "Harry Le Grande, Vice Chancellor - Student Affairs (campuswide)"
        <CALm...@berkeley.edu>
To: "Students, " <CALm...@berkeley.edu>
Subject: Travel Advisory to Mexico
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:44:57 -0700

Dear UC Berkeley Students,

On Tuesday, March 15, 2009 you received an email from me regarding travel to and
in Mexico during Spring Break. In recent days legitimate concerns have been
expressed that our initial message seemed to suggest that travel to any part of
the country would be ill-advised. This was not my intention. We are, in fact, in
complete agreement with a recent State Department Advisory that warns only
against travel to areas of Mexico that border the United States.

I would ask that you read the full advisory at:

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_mexico.html

I also encourage you to discuss your travel plans with family and friends. Your
safety and well-being is an important priority for us, and we just want to be
sure that you have a great Spring Break, no matter where you go.

Should you have any further questions regarding your vacation plans, feel free
to contact the Dean of Students Office at 642-6741.

Jonathan Poullard
Assistant Vice-Chancellor for Student Affairs
and Dean of Students
Campus Life and Leadership
326 Sproul Hall
UC Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720-2426
ph: (510) 642-6770
fax: (510) 642-7167
poul...@berkeley.edu

I can’t see how anyone could have misunderstood the first email to mean that the entire country of Mexico is unsafe. I mean, that’s like thinking the entire Indian subcontinent is unsafe just because Kashmir is not a place a tourist would want to go to. But, well, some people don’t know coffee at McDonald’s is hot, so.

I finally made the visit to FRO/FRRO (I’m not sure what FRRO would stand for) to register. I’ve done something similar in Russia so at least I’m familiar with the concept—for certain types of visas, they want to make sure that I entered the country in the manner I said I would, for the purpose that I said it was for. Despite numerous warnings about how painful this experience would be, it turned out to be a relatively smooth process, if lengthy, and I am happy about that. One thing that stood out is a sign that was hanging in the Foreigners’ Registration Office (I didn’t take a picture out of respect (and fear that I might get kicked out; at least in U.S. government offices are so … paranoid about cameras in the office), but I have the sign’s wording in verbatim):

ATTENTION

ALL THE VISITORS WHO ARE VISITING
FOREIGNERS REGISTRATION OFFICE, BANGALORE
CITY, FOR THEIR OFFICIAL WORK ARE HERE BY
INFORMED THAT IN CASE OF ANY DEMAND FOR
MONEY FOR OFFICIAL WORK OR UNNECESSARY
DELAY BY THE OFFICIALS MAY PLEASE CONTACT
ASST.COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (FOREIGNERS
SECTION) OR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
(F.R.O) BANGALORE CITY.

I guess they are trying to crack down on corruptions of the kind prevalent in developing countries, such as Mexico and South Korea (I have no direct experience with either, only anecdotes involving police officers and busy government offices).

I can’t say I’ve seen any … overt acts of corruption in my visit to FRO or elsewhere in India. There was some guy who was ushered in front of me at FRO with the, shall we say, bouncer recognizing him as “74″ (I had number 72 and there was another guy behind me who did really have 74), but aside from that, everything seemed relatively well-run, although busy and somewhat lacking in directions (it didn’t help that around the time my number came up, it was lunch time so many people were away at lunch).

So far, my short experience in India points to this place as being a region in transition: lanes are mostly ignored, but there are signs that admonish drivers to “Maintain lane discipline”. Roads are dusty in many places, but then, there are these trendy cafes that do serve expensive (compared to local food prices, for example) drinks. Perhaps in good time, India will come to be a place not too different from U.S. or Europe—I just wonder how the world economy would change with 1 billion more people in a well-developed market economy (for comparison, U.S. has only 300 million people).

More like a survey, but, well. I guess they are taking a little artistic license here, but there is nothing really that deceptive, as you can see in this form (personal information redacted, as usual):

I think I will … choose to get counted, just to make my opinion known, but I don’t feel like donating to GOP. I’ll donate to select GOP candidates that I feel like donating to, when the time is right and situation permits.

Mr. Owens tries to make an argument for keeping the “Don’t ask; Don’t tell” policy, but unfortunately, his theoretical arguments are refuted by both modern and ancient real-life examples.

The congressional findings supporting the 1993 law (section 654 of title 10, United States Code) reflect the common-sense observation that military organizations exist to win wars….

This they do by means of an ethos that stresses discipline, morale, good order and unit cohesion. Anything that threatens the nonsexual bonding that lies at the heart of unit cohesion adversely affects morale, disciple and good order, generating friction and undermining this ethos. Congress at the time and many today, including members of the military and members of Congress from both parties, believe that service by open homosexuals poses such a threat.

The one problem is that our military has been already dealing with such a threat: women. Unless Mr. Owens is also arguing that we should not allow women into military—or that if we do, they should be kept in a separate regiment or, if they are allowed into troops with men, then they should only have non-combat duties, like staying in kitchen—his argument that somehow openly gay men pose new threat to this non-sexual bonding isn’t convincing. Presence of women, in however small numbers, already ruined that, for whatever it’s worth. For the consistency’s sake, Mr. Owens needs to oppose presence of openly female women in the military, as well as openly gay men (or lesbian women, as long as women are in the army). Is he willing to do that?

Accordingly, the military stresses such martial virtues as courage, both physical and moral, a sense of honor and duty, discipline, a professional code of conduct, and loyalty. It places a premium on such factors as unit cohesion and morale. The glue of the military ethos is what the Greeks called philia—friendship, comradeship or brotherly love. Philia, the bond among disparate individuals who have nothing in common but facing death and misery together, is the source of the unit cohesion that most research has shown to be critical to battlefield success.

I am surprised that Mr. Owens, being so versed with Greek, is unaware of the sacred band of Thebes, a.k.a. the fierce Greek regiment of gay lovers. Mr. Owens is quick to condemn eros,

Philia depends on fairness and the absence of favoritism. Favoritism and double standards are deadly to philia and its associated phenomena—cohesion, morale and discipline—are absolutely critical to the success of a military organization.

The presence of open homosexuals in the close confines of ships or military units opens the possibility that eros—which unlike philia is sexual, and therefore individual and exclusive—will be unleashed into the environment. Eros manifests itself as sexual competition, protectiveness and favoritism, all of which undermine the nonsexual bonding essential to unit cohesion, good order, discipline and morale.

And perhaps he is right. After all, it makes so much theoretical sense. But, even if he is right about eros, in particular, the heterosexual jealous kind of love between a man and a woman, the fact is whatever historical evidence we have regarding presence of gay love in a troop and the troop’s performance is not consistent with the conclusion Mr. Owens draws from eros’ supposed property. Perhaps Mr. Owens is, after all, wrong about eros, or gay love is nothing like eros as we understand it. Either way, it makes poor argument against eliminating the “Don’t ask; Don’t tell” policy.

If anything, Mr. Owens makes a great argument for repealing this policy:

To maximize the chances of battlefield success, military organizations must overcome the paralyzing effects of fear on the individual soldier and what the famous Prussian war theorist Carl von Clausewitz called “friction” and the “fog of uncertainty.”

And removing DA;DT policy will do exactly what Mr. Owens wants: it will remove the fog of uncertainty. Today, straight men in the army have to constantly wonder if his colleague is gay or not—after all, if he had been gay, he wouldn’t have told anyone, if he valued his service in the army at all. With DA;DT repealed and gay men left with no reason to hide their sexual orientation, straight men can be positive that their colleagues are probably not gay—or, for those that are, he knows who they are. Repealing DA;DT will allow the military to prepare their forces more effectively—for missions where eros, even homosexual eros, can really interfere (perhaps in ones involving long-term isolation from the main group), they can now form a troop consisting only of heterosexual men, a task currently impossible with a degree of certainty.

So, with all the good reasons gone, is Mr. Owens left with “many foolish reasons to exclude homosexuals from serving in the armed services”? Does he have nothing other than “simple antihomosexual bigotry” to justify his continued support of DA;DT? I would like to know.

Another message from my beloved union (private address redacted):

From: UAW 2865 Berkeley <berk...@uaw2865.org>
To: xxxx...@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Healthcare Negotiations Beginning; Vote on Initial Demands Feb.
        3rd or 4th
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:45:37 +0000 (UTC)

January 20, 2010

Dear UAW 2865 members,

UAW 2865 is preparing to open our current contract with University of
California in order to negotiate improvements to the Graduate Student
Health Insurance Program. We consider UC’s agreement to enter
negotiations on GSHIP as a victory in our years-long struggle to improve
the quality of healthcare that academic student employees receive. In
recent years this struggle has included UC providing vision and dental
coverage as part of all GSHIP plans and the establishment of a UAW-UC
committee which has explored how best to make healthcare
improvements.

All members are encouraged to attend a meeting with bargaining
committee members and to vote on our initial healthcare bargaining
demands on February 3rd or 4th. Campus-specific dates, times, and
locations will be sent out next week.

We are opening healthcare now so we can negotiate changes that would
take effect in August for the 2010-2011 academic year. This would not be
possible under the already scheduled negotiations, because our current
contract expires September 30, 2010 and no changes take effect until the
entire contract is settled and ratified. We still plan to begin our full
set of negotiations in the spring, and there will be a separate process
where members will have a chance to vote on those initial demands as well.

If you have any questions or would like to get involved, please contact us
(info below).

In solidarity,

Bargaining Committee, UAW Local 2865

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
UAW 2865 Berkeley
2070 Allston Way, Suite 205
Berkeley, CA 94704
phone: (510) 849-1628  /  fax: (510) 549-2514
berk...@uaw2865.org  /  www.uaw2865.org

mail-list.com    1302 Waugh Dr. #438    Houston, Texas    77019    USA

This message was launched into cyberspace to xxxx...@xxxxx.xxx

So far, I haven’t participated in any union votes, mainly because I didn’t want to be part of (and hence, at least at my personal level, legitimize) the farcical imitation of democracy, but maybe I should vote.

Why? Well, let’s just say … I’m heartened by the ballot heard around around the world yesterday. If Massachusetts voters can vote for a small-government Republican, perhaps UAW 2865 members can finally say enough is enough—or at least, one day we will get to the bottom of what dirty tactics my beloved union uses to get 99% approvals on its measures.

… it must be identical to the old shoe:

I don’t like change. Change is what destroys societies, and changing my shoe is what destroys my feet.

Change be damned!

Devilstower at Daily Kos misrepresents conservatism

Liberalism grew as a response to the changes in society brought on by the industrial revolution and the rise of industrial corporations. Workers were no longer apprentices working directly with the people whose position they expected to hold some day. Instead they were separated from the owners of these new industries by many levels, and often their work gave them no experience useful for moving up in this structure. Liberalism formed around efforts to mend this new rift in society by using government as an instrument of egalitarianism.

Conservatism holds the opposite end of the field. From its foundations in 18th century Europe through the violent sex fantasies of Ayn Rand, the position of conservatism has been the same: stop liberalism. Rather than attempt to smooth out the inequities of society, conservatism seeks to maintain these chasms, and where possible to open them wider. The whole basis of conservatism is that this structure — a wealthy elite holding the reins — is the natural, desirable state.

I accept his explanation of liberalism, although I dispute some of the facts—working class of Industrial Revolution were by no means comparable to skilled artisans of earlier times; they were more like subsistence farmers; Industrial Revolution may have made some fabulously rich, but it did not make anyone poorer than they would have been otherwise, save by comparison to those who are now fabulously rich—I just wish he could have the same sense of fairness for conservatism. I will save you the rant about necessity of representing opposition in its strongest possible form as a prelude to any civilized discourse. However, I do need to clarify the term: given the context, I assume by “conservatism”, Devilstower means American conservatism, as there is a significant difference between, say, European conservatism and American conservatism. I know nothing of European conservatism, especially one that sought to protect the monarchy and aristocracy, and I don’t care to defend them. I do wish to defend American conservatism against the liberal misrepresentation.

Nothing that stands only in opposition to another lasts. John Birch Society is a good example: it had little to define itself save by its anti-communism (and these days, anti-globalism, anti-etc.). I would not be a conservative if I thought conservatism could only be defined as opposition to liberalism—what a miserable existence it would be, where the defeat of my opponent also means destruction of my self-identity!

Conservatism does stand by itself, independently from liberalism or any other political philosophy, and in terms of specific principles, not such generalities as “oppose change” (although that is the semantic meaning of the English word “conservatism”, as a political term, it is inadequate). In as few words as possible, conservatism is the classical liberalism, and little else—after all, we are conservatives; “Don’t fix it if it ain’t broken” is our motto.

In particular, the single most important principle in conservatism is individual rights: we hold that individuals have rights that are natural, in the sense that it is not granted by a government (artificially) and that a just government is obliged not to infringe upon them. “Life, liberty, and property” are these very basic, fundamental rights which a government is empowered only to protect, never to infringe. Other rights (such as freedom of speech and right to arm oneself) we consider essential in U.S. can be derived from these fundamental ones—in fact, libertarians go farther in the other direction and derive everything, including life and liberty, from property rights, but I’ll save you the details.

Holding these individual rights more important than any social institution, conservatives reject causes such as egalitarianism or social welfare as justification for infringement of these individual rights, especially that of property rights, although life and liberty are implicated as well, as you might have experienced if you tried withholding your property from the IRS.

So, if I consider the anchor, “propelling neither society nor the economy”, whose “whole reason for being is to slow change of all sorts and keep the current situation in place for as long as possible for those who benefit most from the current system”, as an inadequate metaphor for conservatism, what else could conservatism be?

I propose the sail. It is true conservatism doesn’t seek to “propel” anything on its own—we conservatives do not tend to agitate; we are a pretty happy lot when we are left on our own—however, at the same time, we embrace the natural laws of society as a sail embraces the wind. And the wind takes us where it might. Although we might tack against the wind at times, as you can with a sail, we don’t pretend that the wind, which is the natural laws of society, is not there. In opposition to conservatism, the metaphor I nominate for liberalism is the row. Take what you will from the metaphor, but I would like to point out that somebody has to be working the row, and they are not always willing participants.

Aside from our staunch defense of individual rights, we are primarily concerned with the natural laws of society I referred to before. No one knows all these laws—the same way no one knows all the natural laws of this physical world—but some things seem to happen again and again. Some of these laws are encapsulated in maxims such as “power corrupts” (hence our distrust of governments, single largest concentration of power), “there ain’t no such thing as free lunch” (hence our distrust of … utility of taxes and other government actions in the face of actual scarcity of resources), and so on. Even the liberals agree to many of these maxims. Our difference is that we conservatives keep these laws in mind, while liberals ignore them—or at least do their best to overcome them.

But what is not one of these natural laws is this: “those in power tends to stay in power.” A case in point: every empire eventually falls, if not by external threats, then by internal disintegration. Although conservatism is sometimes misunderstood as defense of the rich and the powerful, that is not the case: in the U.S. today, those who hold the most influence in the academia (university professors) and in the culture (Hollywood) are overwhelmingly liberal, not conservative. It is not even strictly defense of the corporations. Because corporations more often works by voluntary contracts than coercion (whereas with the government the opposite is true), conservatives hold more favorable view of corporations than government, but corporations themselves stand on the side of liberalism as often as they do on the side of conservatism. Just look at the current health care reform debate and how all the corporate players are for the admittedly liberal reform, even as conservatives vehemently oppose the bill.

I personally believe in conservatism because I am an individualist—I do not want to have anyone beholden to me, nor do I wish to be beholden to anyone else. Do some use conservatism simply to hold onto their power? Probably. But then, even though some use liberalism for their own selfish purposes, as in “something for nothing” welfare state, for the welfare recipients, or the monopolists whose monopoly depends on an enlarged government and its power, it would be dishonest for me to claim that that’s all that liberalism amounts to. Just as it is dishonest to claim that conservatism exists only “to maintain these chasms, and where possible to open them wider”.

I just got this email from my beloved union (private email redacted):

From: UAW 2865 Berkeley <berk...@uaw2865.org>
To: xxxx...@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: UAW Job Opportunity
Date: Wed,  6 Jan 2010 00:07:12 +0000 (UTC)

January 5, 2010

UAW is now hiring for social media jobs related to getting the word out about
its various campaigns. If you have experience with social media and think
you have what it takes to make UAW campaigns “go viral,” please send a CV
or resume along with a cover letter that highlights your experience in these
areas to uaw2...@uaw2865.org; attn: Christine Petit. Please also include
your availability for work (part-time or full-time; if part-time
approximately how many hours per week).

Applicants who get their materials in by 5pm on Thursday, January 7 will
have top priority; but because UAW has many ongoing campaigns, we will
consider applications received after that date as well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
UAW 2865 Berkeley
2070 Allston Way, Suite 205
Berkeley, CA 94705
phone: (510) 849-1628  /  fax: (510) 549-2514
berk...@uaw2865.org  /  www.uaw2865.org

mail-list.com    1302 Waugh Dr. #438    Houston, Texas    77019    USA

This message was launched into cyberspace to xxxx...@xxxxx.xxx

Er, what? Getting the word out about “its various campaigns”? If I know the kind of policies UAW 2865 has supported in the past, I am sure these are the policies I donate money to candidates (usually $100 at a time, when I can afford to) to oppose.

Is this what my dear union wastes my union dues on? Weren’t they supposed to be taking $10 a month from my salary so that they can fight for us at our workplace, not advance radical left-wing agenda? Or am I just expecting too much from the corrupt union leadership?

P.S. No, getting out of the union won’t really fix this problem. Their idea of “fair share” for non-union member is something like $9 per month instead of $10 per month. Either way, it’s more than the amount I pay for any utility besides rent (my cell phone service being the only one, for which I pay $100 a year).