It saddens me that the politics of race in America has strayed so far from logic and reason that the NAACP, an organization once dedicated to the protection of minorities, is now opposing peaceful political dissidents. The organization’s campaign against the Tea Party is a glaring example of racism employed for political purposes, and the subsequent abandonment of principles. As ABC reports, the NAACP has

…unanimously passed a resolution that calls on Tea Party members to repudiate what [NAACP President Ben] Jealous says are “ultra-nationalist and racist factions within the organization.”

The resolution said the Tea Party members have used “racial epithets,” have verbally abused black members of Congress and threatened them, and protestors have engaged in “explicitly racist behavior” and “displayed signs and posters intended to degrade people of color generally and President Barack Obama specifically.”

For my own part, I consider these accusations to still be in question. Conclusive proof of their validity has yet to be demonstrated. But regardless of whether or not the specific allegations made by the NAACP are true, they have very little bearing on the Tea Party itself. So far, the accusations of racism have only concerned isolated incidents – there is no evidence (or even credible accusations) whatsoever of institutionalized racism within the Tea Party. And given the nature of the Tea Party – decentralized, national, and highly heterogeneous – it is not surprising that some isolated incidents of improper behavior may have occurred.

In such a vast, grassroots movement comprised of individuals from diverse backgrounds, it is almost a certainty that some undesirable elements will be found – but the nature of the organization itself should not be impugned because of the actions of a few rogue individuals. Furthermore, the fact that there is such a large section of the population proclaiming their discontent so loudly is immensely alarming.

Civil unrest does not arise spontaneously. In cases of populist uprising against an established government, there is almost always a sound reason for the unrest. And in this case, the reason is certainly sound. President Obama’s expansion of government is unprecedented and a direct threat to the individual rights of Americans.

Two main points should be kept in mind when considering the NAACP’s accusations against the Tea Party:

1) No proof of any kind has been brought forth against the Tea Party. All that exists at this point are unfounded accusations – and last time I checked, people are still innocent until proven guilty in the United States of America.

2) The Tea Party is bigger than a few (supposedly) racist individuals. It is an immense rejection of President Obama’s policies by a large portion of the population. To suppress peaceful political dissidents through character assassination is a slap in the face to the ideals that America once represented.

One of the key problems in this case is that the NAACP is collectivist in nature. Instead of fighting for the liberty of all citizens, the NAACP is only fighting for the rights of a specific group – causing further schisms in our society. The NAACP is currently doing nothing to advance the cause of minorities – its only accomplishment is the continued collectivization of American society. Instead of viewing our fellow citizens as individuals (independent of their race, religion, etc.), the NAACP and like organizations are keeping America trapped in the racist mindset of our past.

One last point to make: if the NAACP is truly focused on individual rights, why is it more concerned with isolated, unproven allegations of racism than it is with the clear case of racially-motivated voter intimidation perpetrated by the Black Panthers?

Bear in mind that even if the accusations against the Tea Party are true, no individual rights have been violated. Abhorrent as racist speech is, it should still be protected under the First Amendment. However, the Black Panthers, through the use of force, robbed American citizens of their right to vote. So while the NAACP is jumping at shadows in order to further their partisan/collectivist agenda, they have blatantly ignored an actual violation of civil rights.

A new paper published by the Institute for Futures Studies addresses the effects of immigration on the wages of low income Swedish-born workers.

This paper addresses potential effects of immigration on wage income of predominantly low income Swedish born workers. Using unique individual full population panel data for two time-periods, 1993- 1999 and 1997-2003, we estimate two fixed effect models controlling for both individual and local labor market characteristics as well as individual and regional fixed effects. The models are tested for a range of population sub-groups, the compulsory and upper secondary educated and workers within certain shares of the local income distribution (using different below median percentile levels as population cut-off points). The estimates show mainly a positive relationship between increasing shares of foreign born and wage income of Swedish born workers.

In the figures below, the authors play summarized labor market average wage income and average share of foreign born migrants for periods 1993-1999 and 1997-2003 respectively. The figures “both show a clear positive relationship between these two variables.”

The authors conclude:

The analysis conducted previously shows that increasing shares of foreign born at the level of the local labour market are related to increasing real wage income for the vast majority of the native born population within our different sub-groups. This conclusion holds regardless of time period and sub-population analysed.

Another excellent editorial cartoon by Michael Ramirez:

Gulf coast residents such as myself are tentatively excited that British Petroleum has finally deigned to stop the destruction of our environment. President Obama is certainly tentatively excited that, perhaps, this political nightmare is past. But I hope that Americans do not soon forget the utter lack of concern that President Obama showed for the people he is charged to protect.

That’s what former Pink Floyd manager Peter Jenner says. “Attempts to stop people copying are clearly a waste of time,” Jenner told a a Westminster e-Forum.. “Not only are they a waste of time, they make the law offensive. They are comparable to prohibition in the US in the 1920s,” he added.

“It’s absurd to expect ordinary members of the public to think about what they’re allowed to do [with CDs, digital downloads, etc]… and then ask themselves whether it’s legal or not.” Jenner said the music industry was resisting the economics of the internet.

“The marginal cost of a digital file is essentially zero,” said Jenner. “That means the market is going to be pushing the cost of digital files to zero. This is an inescapable fact.”

“We’re fighting against the tide, we’re fighting against economic reality.”

Proposals to subsidize substitutes for gasoline, like biofuels, are not economically sound alternatives, as a new CBO estimate illustrates:

The costs to taxpayers of using a biofuel to reduce gasoline consumption by one gallon are $1.78 for ethanol and $3.00 for cellulosic ethanol.

Once again, practical reality takes a backseat to wishful thinking. This dangerous subordination of reality to wish is at the core of many of our current economic woes. Inflation, the housing bubble, soaring debt – all arise in part from an uncontrolled desire to deny the hard facts of reality. But reality is its own avenger. Sooner or later, our debts of faith will come due. For my own part, I believe it will be sooner if drastic changes are not made.

HT: Greg Mankiw