North Coast Online

American Values

Ginny has a good post on Europe's misunderstanding of America. They don't "get" our individualism, our religiosity or our insistence that the government isn't the best vehicle for dispensing charity.

Of course, our culture and charity, as with our religions, tend to splinter and fracture- charities & literary magazines rise and fall.  That bodes well for those of us who find such diversity fruitful, but as for so much that is American, our diversity may appear chaotic to outsiders and our open marketplace anarchic. I suspect, in some ways, it is. Some of our popular culture & our splintered denominations have their problems.  Our popular culture has not always made this world a better place. But, in the long run, these quite various pieces demonstrate that it is in our diversity and individualized responsibility that the best of our values (as well as our art and charity) lie.

And to those uncomprehending and often haughty Euros, commenter John replies.

Sure, we’re tacky. I score about 40% on Jeff Foxworthy’s Redneck test and I’m proud of it. Yes, I’ve shot a varmint out of my bedroom window. And yes, there’s been crime scene tape on my bathroom door.

But we have not given the world anything close to Marxism Leninism, Stalinism, or Nazism. Every time a Russian acquaintance starts going off about Russian Culture and European this or that, I remind them rather forcibly how little their “great” culture has done to curb their barbarism.

Touché, indeed.

Dying Languages

The Irish are quite proud to have rescued their almost extinct language.  In the last couple decades a lot of money has been spent by the Irish Republic to encourage its rebirth and now thousands claim to have mastered it.  It was recently announced that the European Union will add Gaelic to its list of official languages.

In the US there is a lot of worry about native American languages that are nearly dead and much the same effort has gone on within tribes to revive them.  Hebrew was once a dead language; and it, too, was revived when Israel was founded.  To all of which I have to ask, why?  And, I'm pleased to say, John McWhorter agrees.

Yet the conventional wisdom is that we must strive to have as many future Hebrews as possible, since supposedly one's language determines one's cultural outlook. But a simple question shows how implausible that notion is. To wit, precisely what "cultural outlook" does English lend its speakers?

Thinking about the broad heterogeneity of people using this language, it is obvious that the answer is none, and the academic literature on the topic yields little but queer little shards of faint support for the "language is culture" idea. Which brings us back to languages as, simply, languages.

The language revivalists yearn for — surprise — diversity. What they miss is that language death is a healthy outcome of diversity.

If people truly come together, then they speak a common language. We can muse upon a "salad bowl" ideal in which people go home and use their nice "diverse" language with "their own." But in reality, almost always the survival of that "diverse" language means that the people are segregated in some way, which in turn is almost always due to an unequal power relationship — i.e., precisely what "diversity" fans otherwise consider such a scourge.

I certainly understand the attachment to one's roots that motivates people to learn the language of their ancestors and I admit that I'm fortunate in that respect.  My forebears were English and so I already speak their language and can read their ancient journals and books by default.  I am, though, fascinated by Latin, so I do have an interest in "dead" languages and can certainly understand the importance of documenting them.

But, as McWhorter points out, the disappearance of a language (especially the unwritten ones) is not the same as the extinction of a species.  Man developed many languages because he was once so isolated.  As that isolation has ended, it's only natural that a social animal would learn to speak the language that would give him the widest possible contact with the rest of the world.

That it's ended up being English was an historical accident.  The British Empire and then the United States were the dominant world-wide military and economic powers during the time that communications and technology ended that isolation.  I wonder sometimes if that isn't really what bothers the language preservationists.

Eye-Opening

Here's something out of Australia I haven't read in the US press, though I can't imagine the situation will be any different here.  In fact, given what we know about the cost of expanding the Tonawanda power station, I guess we knew it already.

THE switch to "clean green" energy sources will cost households up to 40 per cent more on their power bill, Federal Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane has said.

Mr Macfarlane said it was inevitable there would be "big jumps" in power bills, but said most people were unaware of the looming increases.

"I don't think the consumers fully understand the price tag associated with lower greenhouse gas emissions," he told The Courier-Mail in an exclusive interview.

"There is no doubt that if we are going to lower greenhouse gas emissions then electricity is going to cost significantly more – for consumers it will be anywhere between 20 and 40 per cent."

Mr Macfarlane said the price rise would occur during the next decade as the nation moved to cleaner, but more expensive energy sources such as clean coal technology.

Wouldn't it be refreshing to hear an American politician stand up and say that?  Hey, maybe Australia can do what New York does -- have the government pay for it.  Then the public will be spared the extra expense!  Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.

Oh, Really?

E.J. Dionne claims that Conservatism seems to have run its course.  I'd advise the left to hold off on popping the champagne.

Rest In Hell

I was never even interested in watching videos of the murder of Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg.  But in the case of Saddam Hussein, I'll admit that I gave in.

I can only hope that Fidel Castro is on deck.

Room For All

Some will no doubt interpret the successful Christmas season for Lancaster retailers as more evidence that East Aurora is right to legislate who may do business there.  Others, myself included, will see it as evidence that small businesses can compete if they'll only bother to find a way.

Why Punish Us Instead Of Rewarding Them?

The Rainbow, Whirlpool and Lewiston-Queenston (or is it Queenston-Lewiston) bridges are raising tolls for those paying in American currency.  The reason given is the dropping value of the American dollar and, after all, they must be scrupulous about such things.

If you are paying with American money, tolls will increase by 50 cents for passenger cars on the Rainbow, Whirlpool Rapids and Lewiston-Queenston bridges as of Feb. 1.

For those using Canadian money, rates will remain the same.

The prolonged weakness of the U.S. dollar against other world currencies is the reason for the increase, the first since 1998, according to the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission.

"We look at it as an adjustment rather than a toll increase," said Thomas Garlock, general manager of the bridge commission.

Round-trip passenger car tolls will go from $2.50 to $3 U.S. They will remain at $3.50 Canadian.

Now, in mathematical terms, they're perfectly correct to do so.  As it turns out, at today's exchange rates, the $3.50 Canadian toll equals almost precisely $3.00 American.  But I have to wonder, while the American dollar is dropping in value, it's also true that the Canadian dollar is rising.  One currency's loss is another's gain after all.

Wouldn't it make just as much sense to adjust the tolls from Canada downward to $2.90 to account for their dollar's sudden rise and leave our tolls alone? 

Ah, but Grasshopper, the bridge commission would be taking in less revenue under that scenario. This is the perfect cover them.  Blaming currency fluctuations makes a toll increase sound like nothing more than a year-end bookkeeping entry. Who could possibly complain about that? 

If You Don't Know What A Free Market Is, How Can You Create One?

A Buffalo News article today on fines levied against New York wine and liquor retailers includes a quote from Eliot Spitzer that reinforces my extreme doubts that he is capable of improving the state's business climate.

Seven of the area's largest liquor stores will pay fines totaling $150,000 and agree to refrain from longtime illegal buying schemes under a final agreement announced Friday by state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.

The local retailers are among 31 liquor stores across the state that will pay more than $700,000 in penalties as Spitzer's crackdown on liquor and wine purchases comes to a close before he becomes governor on Monday.

Now, before I get to Spitzer's statement, let's be clear that New York State's liquor laws are unlike those regulating any other retail business in the state.  They were passed in large part in the 1930's after the repeal of Prohibition and were designed to eliminate any possibility of Mafia influence -- the mob having controlled liquor sales up till then.

Over the years, though, the laws have been modified to protect small liquor stores from competition by larger ones.  The so-called Mom-And-Pops have a surprisingly large lobby in Albany and have managed to keep things their way.

In other industries, it's perfectly normal business practice to offer discounts to favored customers -- usually your largest. That's how business is done and it's one of the reasons that the best are able to get better and grow even more.  But New York's liquor laws essentially prohibit that. 

But in New York, if a wine or liquor wholesaler offers a discount, then he must give it to all his customers. This is one of the reasons why we see so few big discount liquor retailers along the lines of Premier in Kenmore.  The laws are concocted specifically to make it difficult for them to exist.

And so, the efficiencies of scale that we enjoy with supermarkets and Target, for example, can't work in New York when it comes to wine and liquor sales.  A lot of New Yorkers heartily approve of this regulation, believing mistakenly that it helps average citizens make a living and encourages more neighborhood retailing.  But what it really does is cause the consumer to pay more for a smaller selection. 

In short, New York state has set up a rigged system, a controlled market that benefits one group of retailers while hindering the best who would grow larger and benefit the rest of us.  Eliot Spitzer, of course, is perfectly right to defend those laws.  That was his job as Attorney-General and this liquor store investigation was on much more stable ground than his Wall Street fishing expeditions, but here's what worries me.

Spitzer said he launched the investigation into practices by liquor retailers, wholesalers and suppliers because illegal pricing had prevented a free market that would lead to lower prices for consumers.

In this case, of course, "illegal" pricing means  "low" pricing.  Charging too much for gasoline may catch the Governor's eye but so does charging too little for alcohol.  And, he goes on, this low pricing prevented a free market!    

If Eliot Spitzer believes that New York's onerous and consumer-harming liquor regulations create a "free market" than I cannot believe that he has the ability to do what it will take to improve the economy in New York State.  He's sounds like nothing but another government-obsessed planner who thinks he knows better than the rest of us what we need to prosper and will make sure that we do it his way.

He'd made some good noises about the economy lately, and I hope I'll be proved wrong, but I think that one statement sums up Eliot's attitude toward business quite accurately and succinctly and it doesn't inspire confidence.

 

The Celebrity Disease

Kathleen Parker is almost Mark Steynesque today -- and yes, I consider that a good thing.

Katie Rees, Miss Nevada USA, didn't fare so well. She lost her crown for a photo collection that showed her baring breast and thong, and mock-kissing other women where the sun doesn't shine — unless you're Spears or Lohan.

Heh.

Plus Ça Change

Thoughts on the election.

Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.

Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached “the gospel,” in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism.

Now, it is possible we have been persuasive to a greater degree than we had ever realized. Few, if any, Democratic party candidates in the last election ran as liberals. Listening to them I had the eerie feeling we were hearing reruns of Goldwater speeches