Archive for 2010

IRAN FEARS MULLETS: “True, the mullet is frightening. But if it holds power over Iran, I say surround ’em with a million mullet marchin’ army.”

MICKEY KAUS: “How many unemployed Americans could have had jobs for the last year and a half if Obama had realized the House Dems’ ‘shovel-ready’ pitch was a crock and pursued other, quicker forms of stimulus–like an instant payroll tax cut?”

MATT RIDLEY: Down with Doom: How the World Keeps Defying the Predictions of Pessimists.

When I was a student, in the 1970s, the world was coming to an end. The adults told me so. They said the population explosion was unstoppable, mass famine was imminent, a cancer epidemic caused by chemicals in the environment was beginning, the Sahara desert was advancing by a mile a year, the ice age was retuning, oil was running out, air pollution was choking us and nuclear winter would finish us off. There did not seem to be much point in planning for the future. I remember a fantasy I had – that I would make my way to the Hebrides, off the west coast of Scotland, and live off the land so I could survive these holocausts at least till the cancer got me.

I am not making this up. By the time I was 21 years old I realized that nobody had ever said anything optimistic to me – in a lecture, a television program or even a conversation in a bar – about the future of the planet and its people, at least not that I could recall. Doom was certain.

The next two decades were just as bad: acid rain was going to devastate forests, the loss of the ozone layer was going to fry us, gender-bending chemicals were going to decimate sperm counts, swine flu, bird flu and Ebola virus were going to wipe us all out. In 1992, the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro opened its agenda for the twenty-first century with the words `Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being.’

By then I had begun to notice that this terrible future was not all that bad. In fact every single one of the dooms I had been threatened with had proved either false or exaggerated. The population explosion was slowing down, famine had largely been conquered (except in war-torn tyrannies), India was exporting food, cancer rates were falling not rising (adjusted for age), the Sahel was greening, the climate was warming, oil was abundant, air pollution was falling fast, nuclear disarmament was proceeding apace, forests were thriving, sperm counts had not fallen. And above all, prosperity and freedom were advancing at the expense of poverty and tyranny.

I began to pay attention and a few years ago I started to research a book on the subject. I was astounded by what I discovered. Global per capita income, corrected for inflation, had trebled in my lifetime, life expectancy had increased by one third, child mortality had fallen by two-thirds, the population growth rate had halved. More people had got out of poverty than in all of human history before. When I was born, 36% of Americans had air conditioning. Today 79% of Americans below the poverty line had air conditioning. The emissions of pollutants from a car were down by 98%. The time you had to work on the average wage to buy an hour of artificial light to read by was down from 8 seconds to half a second.

Not only are human beings wealthier, they are also healthier, wiser, happier, more tolerant, less violent, more equal. Check it out – the data is clear. Yet if anything the pessimists had only grown more certain, shrill and apocalyptic. We were facing the `end of nature’, the `coming anarchy’, a `stolen future’, our `final century’ and a climate catastrophe. Why, I began to wonder did the failure of previous predictions have so little impact on this litany?

I soon found out. Like others who have tried to draw attention to improving living standards – notably Julian Simon and Bjorn Lomborg – I am beginning to be subjected to a sustained campaign of vilification by the pessimists. They distort my argument, impugn my motives and attack me for saying things I never said. They say I think the world is perfect when I could not be clearer that I advocate progress precisely because we should be ambitious to put right so much that is still wrong. They say that I am a conservative, when it is the reactionary mistrust of change that I am attacking. They say that I am defending the rich, when it is the enrichment of the poor that I argue for. They say that I am complacent, when the opposite is true. I knew this would happen, and I take it as a back-handed compliment, but the ferocity is still startling. They are desperate to shut down the debate rather than have it.

Indeed they are.

THEY TOLD ME IF I VOTED FOR JOHN MCCAIN, we’d be back to racial hiring bans in the public schools. And they were right!

HOW CHRYSLER killed the Hemi brand. “This badge-killing’s nothing more than Pelosi-is-watching green-washing.”

YOU THINK? “Too much crazy psychodrama.”

Related thoughts here.

UPDATE: Reader C.J. Burch writes: “Maybe it’s not Andy. Maybe it’s journalism. When the rest of us begin to slip off the rails a little someone will quietly tell us we’re developing a problem. When a journalist goes round the bend and gone ( Sullivan. Olberman, Matthews) all his hangers on and and colleagues cheerfully help him along, so long as he picks the right target.”

HMM: Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle vetoes civil-unions bill. “Gov. Linda Lingle vetoed a civil-unions bill yesterday after concluding it was the equivalent to marriage, which she believes should be reserved for a man and a woman. But Lingle described the emotional issue as too important to be decided solely by the governor or the state Legislature and recommended a state constitutional amendment be placed on the ballot for voters in 2012. . . . Voters approved a state constitutional amendment in 1998 that gave the Legislature the power to define marriage as between a man and a woman, so gays and lesbians are unable to argue for full marriage rights.” Perhaps I misunderstand, but this seems to tangle up everyone’s storylines: Gay activists usually argue that civil unions, even if they give the same benefits as marriage, aren’t the equivalent of marriage. Anti-gay marriage activists are often okay with civil unions, so long as they aren’t called marriage. Or am I missing something?

Meanwhile, I say we leave the whole gay-marriage issue to a special extra-diverse commission made up of Rush Limbaugh and Elton John. . . .

COLDEST ANTIMATTER ever produced.