Partnership for a Drug-Free America Subsidizes Pro-Drug Use Author

Imagine my surprise to see an ad from the Partnership for a Drug Free America next to a blogpost by my former colleague Jacob Sullum (Click to enlarge):

For those of you that may be unaware, several years ago, Jacob wrote an excellent book entitled "Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use."

I'm all for reaching out to new audiences, but I'm doubt too many Hit and Run readers are going to flip their stance on drug prohibition because a banner ad told them that drugs are, like, ya know, bad.

But hey, if they want to give money to reason, more power to them! Maybe AHIP will start buying ads on Cato@Liberty next to Michael Cannon's posts on insurance company welfare "health care reform."

Malcolm X and Capitalism

Over at Hit & Run, Damon Root dropped a little hate on intimated some unpleasant things about Malcolm X, a personal hero of mine:

Rather than serving as the villains caricatured by Malcolm X, Manning Marable, and others on the left, classical liberals provided essential intellectual, political, moral, and financial firepower in the battles against slavery, Jim Crow, imperialism, and racial classifications.

Now, as I put in the comments there, this may be less Damon's fault than of the historian Marable that he quoted at the beginning of his piece:

In a 1992 speech at Colorado's Metro State College, Columbia University historian Manning Marable praised the black minister and activist Malcolm X for pushing an "uncompromising program which was both antiracist and anticapitalist." As Marable favorably quoted from the former Nation of Islam leader: "You can't have racism without capitalism. If you find antiracists, usually they're socialists or their political philosophy is that of socialism."

But one quote of Malcolm's does not sum up his political or economic philosophy. The fact that Malcolm wasn't familiar with free market theories and the protectionist anti-profit motive that supported segregation and other Jim Crow policies does not diminish his accomplishments as a proponent of civil and economic freedom for blacks.

As I noted in an earlier comment, what was touted as "capitalism" in Malcolm X's America was not a free market or an example of economic freedom. It was a nation governed, in part, by a racist minority in the Senate which simultaneously protected business interests and fought tooth and nail for the "Lost Cause." If that was capitalism*--I'd be vocally opposed to it as well.

Furthermore, it's hardly a secret that one of the major draws of blacks and other minorities into a socialist/communist fold was their (false) promise of racial equality. Socialists actively promoted their agenda by pointing out the racist, hypocritical policies of the U.S. and other "capitalist" countries--as if it were the capitalism itself that was racist. The unfortunate fact that Malcolm at least partially bought into this is, I believe, due to an ignorance of economic theory, not a preference for socialism. Indeed, in every speech I've read or heard of Malcolm's, he always referred to socialists in the third person. Free market theory means little to those who see business and government acting together to maintain a status quo which holds their people back by business practice, social custom, and law.

His pro-freedom message is very much borne out by the themes dominant in the majority of his speeches: personal responsibility, an inherent mistrust of the government, self-ownership and self-defense, the promises of (not actions under) the Constitution, and--most tellingly--black entrepreneurship. He couldn't have been clearer on the point that blacks should get into business: the "capitalism" of the day, however, shut many blacks out of starting private enterprises.

It is unfortunate and--I fully agree with Damon here--all too common for Malcolm to be hailed as a voice of the Left on college campuses. The facts, however, don't really bear out in this regard if you read and listen to what the man said and not rely on what is said about him.

*I think this is yet another case of conflating "business interests" and "market principles"--a businessman who benefits from/supports regulatory capture is hardly a free marketer; so too is it problematic to compare the "capitalists," as Malcolm understood them, with "classical liberals."

I've Been Busy

Sorry I haven't done much in the way of blogging recently. Post-election political apathy and news dominated by the trillions of dollars of bailout funding have left me less inclined to comment on the stories of the day--oh yeah, and that whole "work" thing too.

Seriously though, my old Chevy Corsica started smoking--coincidentally right after I quit smoking myself (it'll be a solid month without a cigarette tomorrow!) and really screwed up my transportation routine. I took it to a shop and they told me for me to attempt to fix it would be throwing good money after bad...and I took this as a metaphor for the situation GM and the other U.S. automakers generally find themselves in now. It also made me think that perhaps my mechanic* should be picked to replace Hank Paulson.

Anyway, I got another car, so my schedule should be flexible enough again so I can blog and work without one cutting into the responsibilities of the other.

And I did manage to put a piece together on Plax's fiasco up in NYC for reason. It's about time I published again. Check it out here.

See you soon!

JPB

*Upon recommendation from the Agitatrix--the Agitator's fairer half--I took the car to Wiygul Automotive Clinic. These guys are great and honest. If you're in NoVa or the DC area, I recommend them whole-heartedly.

Get Used to More of This

I've already documented cases of racism rearing its ugly head in this campaign, but as the election draws closer, it is predictably amplifying:



Oh wait, there's more:



And in my adopted home state, this loveliness (click on image for clarity):


It's people like this that make me fear for Obama's safety. I always thought that the first black president would have to be a Republican, and even then, he wouldn't be safe. I fear for my country.

Via Dave and Radley

The Science of Race

Over at reason, Ron Bailey notes a recent psychological study which asserts that whites are uncomfortable talking about race and that, in turn, makes them appear "racist" to black peers.

Duh.

I know Ron is a decent guy and doesn't mean anything by posting what he did and agreeing with the findings; nor do I assume that the researchers had anything but good intentions in going through with the study. Nevertheless, I can't help but feel annoyance with studies like this and the very predictable reactions to them. I don't appreciate analyzing every aspect of human behavior--particularly as it pertains to the social construct known as "race"--as if there is a) some sort of universal (or nearly so) "black" behavior or perception that can be broken down in an artificially controlled environment; b) any evidence that whatever pool they used was indeed representative of black people generally; c) anything of consequence, save new tools for an even more insulting "diversity" workshop, that will come of this. Science is a uniquely valuable tool for humans to understand the world around them--but social "science" such as this is strictly masturbatory mind fodder for panels, papers, and faculty room discussions. (And, of course, the inescapably ignorant, often insulting, yet rarely provocative comment pages of libertarian blogs.)

Let's assume that this study is correct: white people don't want (read: are afraid) to be seen as racist, but nevertheless appear so as they tiptoe around the race issue. This is not surprising, given that black people tend to be (quite understandably) more sensitive to racial bias, discrimination, and prejudice. Yet, what qualifies as each of these varies from region to region and even--gasp!--person to person. (You'd think libertarians, of all people, could distinguish between individuals and assigned collective characterizations, but I digress.)

Some people say "black." Older folks say "colored." The ubiquitous term today is "African-American"--though you rarely see that on this forum for reasons I'll get into at another time. "Negro" and "Afro-American" were used interchangeably (at least, where I went to school) when I was growing up in the 80s. It is not at all surprising, then, that a lot of whites are hesitant to bring up race: many have had their heads bitten off by some well-meaning but less-than-compassionate brotha or sista who got offended when they called them "black." (Which is usually followed up by the innocent but very poorly worded question: "Then what are you people supposed to be called?")

This speaks to a larger problem as we tackle race relations in America: so many of us want blackness to be recognized and celebrated but still hold onto this Utopian "ideal" of a "colorblind" society. These ideas, of course, cannot coexist--let alone the fact that most black people look very different from your typical white person (this author notwithstanding) and such well-intended drivel crashes horribly when one contemplates reality. So many of the PC set just want to wish such inconvenient (for their purposes) differences like pigment and hair texture away for the sake of some unattainable and self-delusional harmony.

Put simply, if white people want to know how to deal with black people, they should talk to black people. In doing so, however, it should be with the explicit understanding that not one of us can speak for the rest of the race. Because, frankly, thinking like that often gets you people into trouble later.

Non-Violent Riots?

My friend Michael Moynihan has a good post over at H&R commenting on race riots in France:

A brother of one of the dead teenagers, Omar Sehhouli, said the rioting "was not violence but an expression of rage".

Reginald Denny wasn't beaten by violent thugs -- he was a victim of "rage expression."

And speaking of riots, Kevin DuBrow, lead singer of the 80s band Quiet Riot, was found dead today in his home.

Cojones Grande!

Radley has a great post over at reason (money quote):

But to call for tossing online gamblers in prison while pushing for new casinos in the same bill? Points to Patrick for testicular fortitude, I guess. And for at least being open and transparent about his bald protectionism.