The Solid Surfer.com

Misleading Statistics and the War on Poverty

Statistics can be very misleading. According to numbers newly released by the Census Bureau, the U.S. poverty rate stands at 12.6%, a virtually unchanged number from last year, and an increase from the record-low 1973 rate of 11.1%.

So does this mean Washington has utterly failed at its long-term efforts to reduce poverty? The numbers sure appear so, but in reality, that's the absolute wrong conclusion. Rather, as political economist Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute explains, the material lives of the American poor have been bettered dramatically.

Yes, 12.6% of the populace may be considered poor, but the definition of "poor" has greatly changed from 1973 to today. Today's poor may earn lower incomes compared to others, but the overall standard of U.S. living has risen so highly that even most people under the poverty line have plentiful food, sizeable homes, televisions, telephones, dishwashers, computers, microwaves, DVD players, motor vehicles, access to quality health care, and so on. This is a striking difference from 1973, when even many affluent people could not access certain of these items.

Now that's not to say poverty has been eliminated; there are indeed many people out there who, sadly, still need help. But we shouldn't let statistics mislead us into believing that nothing has been accomplished. America has been winning the war on poverty, and as our capitalistic economy continues to grow, our success should only increase.

K-Swiss on Jewish Liberalism

Hope everyone had a great Memorial Day. It's easy to view this holiday as just another vacation day from work (and don't get me wrong, that's a wonderful thing too), but we should also remember just how much it means to honor our soldiers who gave their lives to protect our nation.

I am traveling this week, so posting will be light for several days. In the meantime, though, our Washington correspondent "K-Swiss" checks in with a reflectively hard-hitting essay on the seemingly paradoxical axis of American Jews and leftist liberalism.

Jewish Liberalism in America
by K-Swiss

Last month in Washington D.C., as in many other cities around the nation, rallies were held urging the Bush administration and Congress to help end the genocide taking place in Sudan's Darfur region. While news of the actual genocide has received only occasional media attention (and in these few instances, it is very seldom mentioned that Arab Muslims are the perpetrators), the “Save Darfur” rally did attract significant coverage from both the local and national media. In the days leading up to the rally, I read many articles and watched numerous TV pieces about the timing of the rally, the purpose, the location, the celebrity speakers, etc. And within this media space, one thing in particular stood out to me: the number of Jews and Jewish organizations helping to organize the rally and in attendance at the rally. Ranging from the keynote speakers to the participants being interviewed on TV (many Jewish-sounding last names) to my own circle of Jewish friends in D.C., it seemed as though Darfur was a specifically Jewish cause.

Now in itself, this is a truly great thing. Rallying to end genocide is a noble cause and a moral obligation, and it takes on special importance to Jews in particular because of the Holocaust. But during post-rally coverage, I could not help but wonder to myself - how many of the Jews at the Darfur rally had ever attended an Israel rally? How many of them denounced President Bush at the rally even though he has arguably been the most pro-Israel President in Israel’s 58 year history? How many of these people would give anything to save Darfur, but ignore the genocidal remarks made against Israel by Iran's President Ahmadinejad?

Unfortunately, the answer seems to be too many. Having lived in D.C. the past few years, I have seen a disproportionate amount of Jews leading rallies and at the forefront of liberal causes such as abortion rights, gay rights, feminist rights, saving the rainforests, stopping the Iraq war, etc. Jews, more than any other people, seem the need to flaunt their liberal credentials at every turn. But if something is considered "non-liberal", such as the Republican Party, many of these same Jews will turn completely against it, even if that non-liberal institution greatly supports Israel.

While in the past, it was the liberals and the Democratic Party who most supported Israel, the tables have turned in the 21st century, and it is now the conservatives and the Republican Party who most vociferously support the Jewish state. Yet a majority of Jews in America have either not woken to this realization or have not bothered to pay attention to it.

Jews here in the U.S. are at a crossroads, and we must ask ourselves where our priorities lie. Does saving the rainforests take priority over supporting a strong and secure Israel? Is rallying for abortion rights more important than rallying for freedom in Iran? How Jews answer these questions and other similarly pressing quandaries will likely determine the future of the Jewish people in this country.

Let's make the right decisions.

TheSolidSurfer.com responds: K-Swiss, thank you for the piece and for your astute insights and analysis. Jews in America are indeed quite liberal as a whole, and I also feel that the community's support for Israel (as well as its general vitality) could be greatly strengthened by adopting more "conservative" positions and values. This can be accomplished, in my opinion, my addressing the root causes of this ultra-liberalism, something Dennis Prager often discusses in his writings.

Hope everyone has a great week, and I look forward to resuming regular posting once I return from my trip. (And look for other guests to potentially appear soon on the site as well.)

America and Overpopulation Myths

Ever driven across rural America and seen how much empty space is out there? Often, you'll cover hundreds of miles of land virtually devoid of people.

Contrary to the claims of many leftwingers, environmentalists, and other other doomsday population bomb types, the United States is not overpopulated. Far from it. Our 300 million people live in a geographic area about the same size as China, home to more than 1.3 billion. Many other areas of the world, including most of Europe, India, Southeast Asia, and West Africa also carry far greater population densities. Furthermore, we produce more food than we can possibly eat, and our per capita economic output leads the world (apart from Luxembourg, whose tax-haven status greatly inflates GDP).

But that doesn't stop certain leftist rants such as the one this San Francisco Gate columnist pulled on an Arkansas family that recently celebrated the birth of its sixteenth child.

Now of course sixteen kids is a lot, and certainly most people desire far fewer. But these particular parents wished for more, and that's that. End of story. There is certainly no need to publicly ridicule them for overpopulating the world (or to ridicule them for any reason, period).

The column's author may be correct in stating that one billion children around the world live in poverty, but this is entirely unrelated to the size of America's population (or, for the most part, population size anywhere). Rather, these poor children overwhelmingly live in unfree nations ruled by thugs and dictators who vastly limit their people's economic potential. South Korea, for example, has over double the population of North Korea, but the dictator-ruled North mires in dire poverty while the democratic South abounds in wealth.

Overpopulation clearly is not the drastic problem that many claim, and most certainly not in America. Our nation has plenty of room to grow, and if we choose to do so, then by all means we should.

Back Online

Dear all,

The SolidSurfer.com is back online! Hope you're having an enjoyable Labor Day, and it's great to be back on the Internet after some time without it.

Before you read any further, please take a moment to go through this page of sites to where you can donate to relief of Hurricane Katrina. The Jerusalem Post has a couple more sites as well.

Regarding the hurricane and its aftermath, a lot of finger pointing has been taking place between New Orleans residents, the state government, the federal government, police, and other various groups. On this, I can offer only a few words: The hurricane itself was a terrible tragedy, and no one person or group can be blamed for the natural/environmental force that it was. Not the people who stayed in the city because they had nowhere to go, not the Louisiana government who tried to help out as best they could, and certainly not President Bush (as Ben Stein clearly lays out here).

But the above is only with regards to the hurricane itself. As for certain actions before and after it, that's a different story. And the main culprit for this is none other than the welfare state which virtually assured that New Orleans as a city was a disaster waiting to happen. This article explains very clearly the sad truth of the matter. Of course, any city hit by a hurricane would have significant damages, but the piece explains just why New Orleans has had it so much worse. Now that the tragedy has already occurred, we can only help recover and rebuild. But after that is said and done, the most important thing is to ensure that it never happens again, and the article is an absolutely essential place to start.