The Utter Mendacity of the ‘Buy American’ Campaign

Take a look at what these gullible dumbassess over in the Snow White streets of Dallas are doing. No really. They’re emptying their home of anything foreign made. Because an “economist said that if everyone bought America made goods the economy would turn around faster.”

It’s the usual crap about how evil companies are outsourcing manufacturing jobs to third world hellholes and costing America jobs and money. (Seriously, man. You get 12 years of free education, endless community college programs, free education grants, public libraries and state level workforce training centers that are free. If after all that the best you can do is a job that an illiterate peasant living in a dirt shack can do, you have bigger problems.)

theytookourjobsThis is not just stupid. It’s absolutely wrong. Manufacturing in America is at an all time high by every measure except jobs. That’s because we’re really good at being productive, most of it is high-tech, and we have robots. Lots of robots. Robots that haven’t yet gone all SkyNet anyway.

Let me allow someone smarter to point out the obvious:

Ugh. Where to begin? Back in the “golden age” of 1960, when imports were oddities to marvel over in a disdainful way, the per-capita U.S. income was $2,914. In 2009, with imports ubiquitous, per-capita income was $46,411. (Economic Report of the President, 2010, Tables B-1 and B-34). In real, inflation-adjusted terms, even with a U.S. population increase from 181 million to 307 million, per-capita incomes in 2009 were almost triple what they were in 1960 ($42,277 vs. $15,669 in 2005 dollars—ERP, 2010, Tables B-2 and B-34). Oh, if only we could replicate the relative poverty, the limited consumer choices, the inefficient production processes, the massive trade barriers that compelled Americans to buy American, and the uneconomic work rules and wages commanded by once-powerful private sector labor unions. In 1960, before real economic liberalization spawned cultural and social liberalization, Diane Sawyer would never have dreamed of being a network news anchor, if she even dared to entertain the concept of working outside of the home. How can she pine for such an era?

It’s frustrating that so much research refuting the myth of manufacturing decline and supporting the conclusion that U.S. manufacturing is thriving—and is in fact leading the world in terms of value of output—is simply neglected by a media that is more committed to scaring than informing. Today Americans are less likely to find in their homes products manufactured in the United States because U.S. manufacturers have moved on to producing higher value products. American manufacturing isn’t focused on products that consumers find in retail stores, like furniture, hand tools, sporting goods, flatware, draperies, carpeting and clothes. American factories produce more value than any other country’s factories by focusing on producing the highest value products: pharmaceuticals, chemicals, airplanes, sophisticated componentry, technical textiles, and other items often sold directly to other businesses.

I and others have been making these points for several years, as U.S. manufacturing continues to thrive in every metric…except employment. Manufacturing employment peaked in 1979 and has been on a downward trajectory ever since. But that is the point that eludes ABC and everyone else who thinks U.S. manufacturing’s best days are in the past. Making more with less is the goal! That’s how an economy grows! The political imperative of “putting people back to work” regardless of the economic value of that work–remember the so-called stimulus?– spits in the face of economics. The fact that Americans are unemployed speaks to a mismatch of skills demanded and skills available, as well as to a business and regulatory environment that dissuades investment and hiring.

ABC’s proposition that Americans would support 10,000 new jobs by spending just $3.33 more (per year?) on U.S.-made goods obviously fails to consider the jobs lost by switching from imports to domestic or switching from savings (which is just money used for investment, which already supports jobs) to spending. Depriving foreigners of U.S. dollars just deprives U.S. producers of export sales.

Soap: The Yardstick of Civilization

Use this. Or he will kick your ass.

Use this. Or he will kick your ass.

As a magazine writer who sees how the sausage is made, I’m acutely attuned to spotting when some politically correct cause is dressed up as a fashion trend.

As Jack Shafer at Slate notes every week — “How does a journalist count? One, two, trend” and “The plural of  ‘anecdote’ is ‘trend’” — journalism is utter crap when it tries to report on trends. But it’s generally naive, lazy crap.

When it’s environmental extremism sold as a fashion trend thing, well, it’s naive crap with a purpose. And there’s nothing more odorous.

Esquire‘s “Ten Reasons Why I Don’t Shower” and The New York Times’ “The Great Unwashed” try to push it as mainly about being natural. The Guardian — twat-fodder for the great pseudo-intellectual left — is a little more honest about why they’re pushing this stink upon us.

There are, of course, environmental benefits. In a bid to reduce his carbon footprint to the absolute minimum, environmentalist Donnachadh McCarthy, 51, limits his showers to about twice a week. “The rest of the time I have a sink wash,” he says. “I believe that I’m as clean as everyone else.” It has helped him to get his water consumption down to around 20 litres a day – well below the 100 to 150 average in the UK.

Look, I don’t care how much water it wastes or that you think have a great natural aroma.

You don’t.

Everyone in the world except me and The Wife (and I’m not too sure about me) smells like sour cheese and feet. I don’t want to get to know your unique scent. No, it’s not enough to give yourself a quick whore’s bath and swipe a lemon under your arm. It’s awful.

Bathing is a relatively new thing in human history? So effing what? So are antibiotics, cell phones and computers. Deal with it and be a little more considerate to your fellow humans.

Smelly, dirty hippie is not the next fashion trend.

Grab some soap and get to work.

Crime Continues Fall as Gun Sales Soar and Gun Control Withers

swissarmyOver the past 20 years, violent crime is down 43 percent (a 35 year low) and murder is down 49 percent (a 45 year low), according to the FBI stats.

During this same period, government has been doing away with gun control laws and making it easier for people to carry guns.

Less Gun Control: Over the last quarter-century, many federal, state and local gun control laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive. The federal “assault weapon” ban, upon which gun control supporters claimed public safety hinged, expired in 2004 and the murder rate has since dropped 10 percent. The federal handgun waiting period, for years the centerpiece of gun control supporters’ agenda, expired in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported national Instant Check, and the murder rate has since dropped 21 percent. Accordingly, some states have eliminated obsolete waiting periods and purchase permit requirements. There are now 40 Right-to-Carry states, an all-time high, up from 10 in 1987.

And all the while the number of privately owned guns in America has grown by 90 million.

There are well over 250 million privately-owned firearms in the U.S., including nearly 100 million handguns and tens of millions of “assault weapons”…and the number of firearms typically rises about 4 million per year.6 Annual numbers of new AR-15s, the most popular semi-automatic rifle that gun control supporters call an “assault weapon,” are soaring. In 2008, there were more than 337,000 new AR-15s configured for home defense, competition, training, recreational target practice and hunting.7 NRA-supported Instant Check firearm transactions have increased over 10 percent annually since 2006.8

So, where’s the pained hand-wringing about how “It will be like the Wild West if people carry guns” and “There will be shootouts in parking lots” now?

Any local members of the media who made such claims back when concealed carry was passed in Texas — ahem, you know who I’m looking at — care to ‘fess up?

(hat tip: and

Reason #312 No One Takes the New York Times Seriously

Just, damn.

In a Q&A with U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul, the New York Times interviewer actually nags Paul.

NYT: But in light of your distrust of the federal government, where are you on an issue like seat belts? Federal legislation requiring people to wear seat belts could obviously save lives.
Paul: I think the federal government shouldn’t be involved. I don’t want to live in a nanny state where people are telling me where I can go and what I can do.

NYT: You shouldn’t trivialize issues of health and safety by calling them nanny issues.
Paul: The question is, do you want to live in a nanny state where the government tells you what you can eat, where you can smoke, where you can live, what you can do, or would you rather have some freedom, and freedom means that things aren’t perfect?

More Guns = Less Crime

21095You know how when people like me advocate that more people carry guns in public, up pop the Chicken Littles who claim the streets will turn into something like out of the Old West?

The truth is, you could only hope that would be the case.

How many murders do you suppose these old western towns saw a year? Let’s say the bloodiest, gun-slingingest of the famous cattle towns with the cowboys doing quick-draws at high noon every other day. A hundred? More?

How about five? That was the most murders any old-west town saw in any one year. Ever. You were way more likely to be murdered in Baltimore in 2008 than you were in Tombstone in 1881, the year of the famous gunfight at the OK Corral (body count: three) and the town’s most violent year ever.

So Much for Nuance and Diversity, Huh?

There’s a world of difference between 1) saying there are still questions about everything that happened on and leading up to 9/11 — even 9/11 commissioners have said this, and discussed how various branches of government played CYA — and 2) saying 9/11 was a U.S. government plot.

However, partisan hacks and shallow-minded editorial writers, both looking for an easy way to dismiss anyone who has different ideas on other issues (what happened to valuing diversity?) either actively blur the distinction or they let the distinction get blurred.

I don’t think I’m going to form my opinion of someone based on one group trying to slap a buzzword label on them, especially when they categorically reject the label.

That’s my 2 cents.

On Debra Medina’s Supposed Trutherism

From the desk of John Jay Myers

I have known Debra Medina for several years now, if one week ago you would have asked me “What is Debra Medina’s opinion on 9/11 truthers?” I would have said “hmmm, I have no idea, I imagine she knows nothing about it.” I wouldn’t even think it would be something on her agenda to even consider.

I think Thursday proved that to be true.
In my opinion her answer was pretty bad, but… not because she believes 9/11 was an inside job, which she doesn’t, but because she really doesn’t know anything about the conspiracy theories.

They Destroy What They Don’t Understand

I will never understand what goes on in the mind of a gun control freak.001-0801121510-gun_control

Example: A criminal fires a gun outside the Texas capitol, so therefore the first thing we should do is ban law-abiding people with concealed handgun licenses from carrying inside the capitol building and put up metal detectors.


The Death of The Suburbs Has Been Greatly Exaggerated. Again.


Every time gas prices tick up or there’s some horribly written feature about how cool urban life is becoming in Dallas, the urban yokels crow about the death of the suburbs and how everyone — everyone! — will soon be living in prole-style density and walking to their creative, carbon-neutral jobs. The McMansions will be sitting empty and it’s DART cards for everyone.

The suburbanites are giving up their quiet streets and cookie-cutter houses and functioning schools and marching like war refugees back to the city center to enjoy overpriced bridges by overhyped architects, People’s Hotels, and loft living like we’re all back in college. Hallelujah, praise the Prius, and pass the Hope and Change bumper stickers!

The only problem? It’s not true.

510q7emw6pl_sl500Despite the gleeful yokel wishes, the people of The DFW are not, in fact, moving back to the city core and away from the safe, quiet, people-stay-off-my-lawns suburbs. In fact, it’s quite the opposite.

Have a look yourself.

  • From 2007 to 2008, the city of Dallas lost 18,847 people.
  • From 2007 to 2008, the ‘Burbs gained 62,022 people.
  • From 2000 to 2008, Dallas lost about 250,000 people, while the ‘Burbs gained more than 500,000.

Bottom line:

Spin can change perceptions, but not reality. People are not moving from the suburbs to the core cities. The reverse continues to be true, even in the worst of times.

I love Dallas — Dallas itself, not just The DFW — but propaganda about the death of the suburbs isn’t going to fix what’s wrong with it.

Monday Roundup: Can I Borrow Your Towel? Just Hit a Water Buffalo

  • When most Democrats, Republicans, the media, and right-thinking people are behind something big, expensive and grand — like they are the commuter rail scheme (or the hotel, or the Trinity Parkway) — you just know it’s probably a bad idea. I’m just going to sit here maturely and sup upon the bitter disappointment from everyone who wants to tax drivers for the benefit of a single digit percentage who feel good about themselves for taking public transportation. Muhahaha.