Save jobs for SEIU?

 Will Chi’s S. Side Chatham neighborhood — “Pill Hill” for its many physician residents — get a Wal-Mart or won’t it?  Where do consumers come into the labor-union-solidarity picture anyhow?

Arnita Mock Harris, [a] resident, said she and her mother travel to Evergreen Park and Lansing to shop at Wal-Mart and would rather shop in the city if they could.

“We don’t shop in our neighborhood,” said Harris. “The prices are too high. We go to the suburbs.”

It wouldn’t be the first time black shoppers had to go suburban to find prices, not to mention goods.  But in this case, it’s unions that would be sending them there.

Lying down on back and kicking feet in air

The LA Times editor who got the ax the other day became an editor gone wild about it:

“The current system relies too heavily on voodoo economics and not enough on the creativity and resourcefulness of journalists,” O’Shea said in a farewell note to his staff that said flatly he had been fired. Too often, he said, “we’ve been dismissed as budgetary adolescents who can’t be trusted to conserve our resources.”

When quite the opposite is true?  Or are they guilty of wanting to make money without consideration of the market?

It is “simply stupid,” [Jim] O’Shea [the editor] wrote, to consider closing foreign bureaus so the Times can afford to cover the presidential campaign and the Beijing Olympics. As for Tribune Co.’s new owner, real estate financier Sam Zell, O’Shea said, “When Sam Zell understands how asinine the current budgetary system is, he will change it for the better, because he is a smart businessman.”

Zell will take business advice from O’Shea?  Please.  Instead, elementary economics from the publisher who fired him:

In an interview yesterday, [David] Hiller said the rupture came over O’Shea’s demand for a modest increase in newsroom spending, but that this was just one among many disagreements.

“It was a regrettable and unnecessary line drawn in the sand,” Hiller said. “In the environment all newspapers are facing, it is wildly unrealistic to consider a budget increase at a time when revenue is falling.”

What?  You don’t spend more when taking in less?  What sort of mentality is that?

Editor’s complaint

Moan and groan, groan and moan.

“I see Craigslist as a negative-editorial product,” says Seattle Times editorial page editor James Vesely (excerpt by Romenesko, your best source for what mainstreamers are thinking).

“Why? Because it claims the profits normally shifted to the newsroom. Without the obligations of journalism, e-commerce becomes the anti-newspaper. Media companies, especially newspapers, are by default nearly the lone agents of the democratic form of government.”


When will they learn?  When will they ever learn?  It’s capitalism, stupid, which has supplied your bread and butter for your whole life but now has places to go and new ways to supply the demand.

Maybe Notre Dame would hire him

Thomas E. Woods explaining why he’s a Catholic libertarian:

It’s not always easy these days to tell which of our two major political parties is the Stupid Party and which the Evil Party. But it remains true, as a conservative wag once said, that from time to time the parties collaborate on something that’s both stupid and evil and call it bipartisanship.

It’s hard to go wrong after a start like that, and he doesn’t.  He slams Republicans for doing nothing to scale back government, named Dept. of Ed as plan for doing from Washington what is better done at home.

Dem candidates have nothing but plans for “looting the American population.”  He doesn’t blame the Dem voter, however:

I can hardly blame someone who believes we owe our standard of living to labor unions and federal regulation: After hearing no other perspective on American history year after year, what else can the poor fellow be expected to think?

Etc.  Beware, he’s a paleo, but like others of that stripe, he’s very stimulating writer — and talker: I heard him weeks back at DePaul and he’s a hot, hot lectern-user, let me tell you.

Who he is, in part: first-place winner in the 2006 Templeton Enterprise Awards for his book The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy. I’m reading this: he’s wonderful on working over Catholics’ so-called social justice mantra.

He also has New York Times bestseller The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History plus The Church Confronts Modernity, and, most recently, 33 Questions About American History You’re Not Supposed to Ask.

For a look at a chapter of his How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization see ThomasEWoods.com

Think pink to be in the pink

Between woman preferring pink and their being better shoppers, “the connecting theme”

is that in the division of labour that forms the primordial bargain of human hunter-gatherer societies, it is the men who do the hunting and the women who do the gathering

says The Economist in a foray into evolutionary psychology provocatively titled “Sex, shopping and thinking pink.”

Furthermore, “There is a fair amount of evidence that men are better than women at solving certain sorts of spatial problems, such as remembering the locations of topographical landmarks,” says Dr. New of Yale (no Dr. No, he).  Can’t agree more: when I think map coordinates, the lady of our house goes by mostly unerring instinct while picking our way on country roads and city streets.

Dr. No, I mean New, studied performance at a farmer’s market, the nearest thing we have these days to gathering.  He found women remembered better where the most nutritious food was found, in which stall.

Two other doctors, Hurlbert and Ling, of Newcastle U., found “a biological, rather than a cultural, explanation for colour preference,” in this case going for the red stuff, which is more nutritious.

Their ancestors in cave women days got it into their system that red (and pink) is where the vitamins are, and the rest is pre-history.

How the west and east were won

U.S. was a third-world country 150+ years ago.  Consider Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia or Daniel Boone’s Kentucky.  Hernando de Soto says so in The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else (Basic, Perseus, 2000).  Squatters’ rights is his focus: how the new country and the English colony before that managed to recognize and codify them. 

Such codification of recognized practice is the essence of workable law, he implies, echoing Hayek.  Good law does that, he says.  It’s not made of whole cloth and it changes custom only in “trivial” ways, he says, quoting one of many sources he has consulted to produce his mid-book chapter, “The Missing Lessons of U.S. History.”

Sidetrack: Our civil rights revolution went astray when it moved from abolishing bad laws to making new ones that attempted too much and poisoned the well of respect for law.

Continuing the thread: Colonial Pennsylvania “connived at or permitted many usages it was powerless to prevent . . . “ (115–116)  The making of Maine, 1820: squatters made Maine too hot for Massachusetts to handle.  (118)  Squatters moved in and wouldn’t move, so Mass. said the hell with it. 

In such matters, the American revolution can be seen to be already under way, colonists refusing (pre-Lexington and Concord or Boston Tea Party) to be bound by the Crown’s property laws, which proved inapplicable in the new world.  Indeed, “local elites,” usually themselves immigrants or related to some, were sympathetic to squatters and gave them a break.

All in all, these early Americans were not easily cowed or domesticated, I say.  “Don’t tread on me” was the motto not only of the first Marines

Legislating against squatters in the first half of the 19th century, as in regard to Northwest Territory and other government-owned lands, Congress had no idea what the situation was out there, where a sheriff could be shot and the shooter exonerated if he tried to enforce their laws.

It was all in the course of the U.S. creating a body of laws that allowed entry into property ownership, says de Soto, who presents himself not as a rewriter of American history but, like his “legendary” predecessory of the same name, an explorer.  He’s a Peruvian who writes platinum-grade English without translator.  Quite an interesting book so far.