Le Cygne Gris

Book Review

2012-02-22T07:39:00.000Z

How To Answer “"Do These Pants Make My Ass Look Fat?" And Get Laid Like Tile! by Athol Kay

Longtime readers won’t anything new in this book, as it is more or less a collection of Athol Kay’s self-selected best posts. He covers a lot of fundamental subjects, like the definitions of alpha and beta, as well as the roles the respective traits the two play in marriage. He also covers some aspects of his personal life, as well as providing plenty of examples of how he Games Jennifer on a day-to-day basis. For some reason, there seems to be a disproportionate number of sci-fi references in this book as well.

More importantly, this book serves as a decent substitute to his blog, so that people can find his more relevant and insightful works quickly. It’s like holding all of his better posts in hand, as a convenient reference and/or review.

While, as mentioned before, this book is basically a bunch of his better blog posts (which means that its contents can be found on his blog), it is still worth buying for two reasons. First, it’s a convenient reference that can be filled with notes and highlights (which is especially easy with a Kindle). Instead of bookmarking a bunch of his posts, you can have easy access to his best posts and you can add to them in a manner of speaking a well as highlight his more profound or applicable observations.

Second, this book would serve as a great introduction to Game. His first primer is better geared to those who have already accepted the reality of Game (though it can serve as an introduction), but this book is less threatening, and more humorous than the Primer. As such, it should serve as a fairly innocuous introduction to Game, and would likely make a good wedding present.

Also, buying the book is a good way to support Athol for his wonderful contributions to the manosphere. He’s written quite a bit worthy of recommendation and appreciation, and buying his book is probably easier than buying him a cold one. Also, he doesn’t handle alcohol so well (or so says the book), so buying the book would probably be better received.

In all, the book is a fun, engaging read, much like his blog (quelle surprise, non?). There is a lot of good stuff in the book, and it’s an easy way to read the highlights of the blog. There isn’t anything new, of course, but what’s there is worth revisiting from time to time, and the book makes it easy to do so.

Movie Review: Moneyball

2012-02-22T07:17:00.000Z

I have a review of Moneyball at Allusions of Grandeur. An excerpt:

Even though the movie is fundamentally about statistical analysis, the attempts at humanizing the story largely work. Beane is presented as somewhat quirky (he never watches a game in person, preferring instead to work out), and he is also portrayed as regretting his decision to enter the majors instead of going to college because he ended up being a wash even though he was considered one of the best prospects of his time. Beane eventually warms up to his players throughout the movie, taking time to get to know them, to coach them (with the help of statistical analysis, of course). It helps that Beane is played by Brad Pitt, who brings a wonderful human warmness and complexity to this role.

Brand is played by Jonah Hill, he does an excellent job of playing the shy, nerdish stats geek. Beane encourages Brand to become more involved with the players, and Hill gets the initial awkwardness of Brand’s antisocial tendencies just right. Hill also brings some depth to Brand, in subtly portraying him as a bit of an overachiever who often seems embarrassed by his ambition and passion for stats and baseball.

The rest is here.

Guaranteed Failure

2012-02-22T06:51:00.000Z

I agree with everything in this post, except for this:

In short, men will man up when women woman up. Because women, as the gatekeepers of sex, get the men they deserve. And, more often than not, what they deserve is what they want.

This paragraph seems highly ironic coming from a man whose blog continually makes and reinforces the point that men need to take the lead if they want to be successful with women. The constant advice for initiating, demonstrating confidence, keeping frame, and passing fitness tests can all be boiled down thusly: you’re the leader in the relationship; act like it.

That men are most successful with women when they take the lead is certainly true on a micro level. It stands to extrapolation, if not reason, that men will most successful with women on a macro level if men take the lead. And thus, the call for women to take the lead and “woman” up is somewhat misguided.*

Think about it. The fundamental problem is that men accepted and complied with women’s frame. How then can one think that the problem will be solved by men accepting and complying with women’s frame? The problem is not the specifics of the frame, it is the compliance. If this mess is going to be solved, it will only be solved by men taking the lead.

Now, to be sure, part of men’s leadership should be telling and expecting women to act like women, which is to say that women should be expected to be submissive, supportive, feminine, and pretty (among other things). But ultimately, women will only “woman up” if men make this the frame with which women comply. And this means that men will have to man up and take the lead. If they don’t, then all the calls for women to “woman up” will inevitably end in failure.

* The taking the lead part, not the “woman up” part.

What Can Women Do To Help Men Take the Lead?

2012-02-22T06:31:00.000Z

I had originally asked Olive to help me out with this, but it seems now that it’s more appropriate to just go ahead and say what needs to be said. But first, an observation from Olive:

What I've found, interestingly, is that as I become more feminine and less obnoxious (don't argue, don't nag, just let my BF do his own thing and make his own decisions), he becomes more "alpha"...which is actually not how he's been throughout most of our relationship (something my brother was pointing out to me tonight, but with different words). The change is gradual, but it's there.

In a prior post, I had made the argument that men will have to take the lead and, to use a phrase, “man up” if the problems caused by feminism are going to be fixed. Now, I suppose that there are some who are wondering what women can do to help this process along. I have another post planned that deals with specific behaviors, but for now I just want to make a couple of general points.

First, women should avoid taking the lead. This seems obvious, but I’m actually referring to something a little more subtle. Specifically, women should never tell, command, or even ask men to take the lead. The reason for this seems obvious to me, but nonetheless I will spell it out just to make sure we’re all on the same page. Telling someone to take the lead can never, by definition, be obeyed because attempted compliance to the command is an implicit acceptance of someone else’s authority.

Second, women must generally refuse to take the lead. This doesn’t mean they can never give advice or counsel, only that they can’t make the final decision. Always let the responsibility for the final decision remain with your husband or boyfriend.

Third, stop fitness testing as much as possible. I know this is difficult, as it is in women’s natures to do this in order to test a man’s fitness. But doing this can undermine his confidence and his leadership, and he may then decide that he doesn’t to take the lead anymore, thus finding porn and video games to an acceptable diversion from women.

Fourth, be supportive. When he makes a decision, back it 100%, even if you think it’s wrong (and remember, it’s not like you’re right all the time either). He may end up being right; he may end up being wrong. Either way, the important thing is that you support him.

Finally, be a woman. Heartiste has an excellent post on this, and I recommend starting there. Proverbs 31 and Titus 2:3-5 also provide some really good pointers as well. Understand that the process of getting men to become the leaders they need to be is not going to happen overnight, and will likely be an unsure, somewhat painful promise. But if women are acting as the submissive, supportive, feminine women they ought to be, it will make the process much easier.

In closing, let me note that it is entirely possible that men will refuse to take the lead (see here for proof). If men still refuse to take the lead, even after women do what they can to make taking the lead as easy as possible, then all the calls for women to “woman up” are for naught. And, ultimately, those who have called for women to “woman up” will be revealed as nothing more than the weak, spineless betas they really and truly were. And they will have no right or reason to complain.

Paragraphs to Ponder

2012-02-22T05:37:00.000Z

Jason Whitlock says it more eloquently than I ever could:

Jeremy Lin is a great story.

From the point-guard position, he has imposed his personality, his values, his culture and his style of play on the New York Knicks and, for the moment, those attributes have transformed the formerly underachieving Knicks into winners.

Amar'e and 'Melo should be embarrassed. They have more raw talent than Jeremy Lin. They should wonder what is it about their personalities, their values, their culture and their style of play that didn't allow them to impose a winning imprint on the Knicks.

Lin's success, even if it disappears, should not be dismissed. There is something to be learned from the results of his play and the absence of two star hip-hop, AAU athletes, 'Melo and Amar'e.

Yes, I played the hip-hop culture card. Hip-hop music is a capitalistic success. Hip-hop culture is an utter failure. The me-first, rebellious, anti-intellect culture directly contradicts all the values taught in team sports and most of the values necessary to sustain a civilized society.

The rest is very much worth reading.

Keynesian Tautologies

2012-02-22T05:32:00.000Z

From Paul Krugman:

Watching Europe sink into recession – and Greece plunge into the abyss – I found myself wondering what it would take to convince the chattering classes that austerity in the face of an already depressed economy is a terrible idea.

After all, all it took was the predictable and predicted failure of an inadequate stimulus plan to convince our political elite that stimulus never works, and that we should pivot immediately to austerity, never mind three generations’ worth of economic research telling us that this was exactly the wrong thing to do. Why isn’t the overwhelming, and much more decisive, failure of austerity in Europe producing a similar reaction?

Let’s lay out some definitions first: GDP, by definition, includes government spending; success, according to Keynesians, is some amount of economic growth (measured over arbitrary time periods and in the aggregate); austerity, by definition, will generally require cutting government spending. Now, Keynesians generally don’t care where increases in GDP come, so long as increases occur. Austerity, though, very much emphasizes balancing government budgets, which generally means cutting spending since it is rare for a government to a) be running only a minor deficit and b) raise tax rates enough to cover the current deficits. Thus, austerity usually requires a significant cut in government spending, and thus a cut in GDP (since government spending is a component of GDP). Thus, complaining that austerity doesn’t immediately lead to economic growth is like complaining that water is wet, in that we’re only really dealing with definitions.

Furthermore, austerity does not directly concern itself with growth. As was mentioned before, austerity is mostly about balancing a government’s budget (to put it crudely). Trying to evaluate austerity in Keynesian terms, then, is somewhat disingenuous as austerity does not have Keynesian goals, nor does it concern itself with the Keynesian analytical framework. Rather, austerity focuses on paying back government creditors, and that is thus the framework by which it should be analyzed. To use Keynesian metrics and goals to measure the success of austerity measures is akin to analyzing quarterbacks by their OBP. In both cases, the analytical framework simply is not suited for the thing being analyzed. Therefore, it is safe to say that only a fool, an ignoramus, or a liar would judge austerity by the economic growth it provides.

Houston, We May Have A Problem

2012-02-22T05:14:00.000Z

Ron Paul may not be as scrupulous as he appears:

Roll Call reported Feb. 6 that Paul was repeatedly paid twice for flights between Washington, D.C., and his Congressional district, receiving reimbursement from taxpayers and also from a network of political and nonprofit organizations he controlled, according to public records and credit card statements for an American Express card in Paul’s name.

Spokesman Jesse Benton said then it was “possible that wholly inadvertent errors were made in a handful of instances” in which flights were reimbursed twice, but he maintained that “absolutely zero taxpayer funds were ever misused.”

But James’ recollection and new documents obtained by Roll Call suggest Paul was aware that he was often being reimbursed twice for individual flights. In all, Roll Call found 26 flights in which several layers of documentation show double payments: credit card statements that detail the ticket purchases, a payment to Paul from his taxpayer-funded House account for reimbursement of a flight and Federal Election Commission records or copies of checks that verify a second payment from a separate group for the same flight.

Roll Call obtained copies of checks from the Liberty Committee to American Express that paid for Paul’s expenses. The records obtained by Roll Call cover about 17 nonconsecutive months. Beyond the 26 flights, documents show an additional 31 flights where it appears Paul was double-reimbursed but the records lack sufficient detail to prove duplicate payments. [Hat tip: Karl Denninger.]

Now, I like Ron Paul, and he has built up a large amount of goodwill with me, and I am therefore inclined to wait and see if there is some sort of misunderstanding, or lack of documentation that explains how this happened, or even an opportunistic staffer that decided to commit a host of other fraud. However, if it is the case that Ron Paul has been defrauding the taxpayers, then there is no way that I can continue to support or otherwise endorse him.

I say this because it is the little things that demonstrate a man’s character. A wise man once said that “he who is faithful over little will be faithful over much.” Conversely, one who defrauds others for small amounts is one who will defraud others for large amounts.

Furthermore, it is hypocritical for Ron Paul to complain about the massive fraud perpetrated by Washington and The Fed when he himself contributes to it. He’s not part of the solution, he’s part of the problem. And while he may not play as large a role in the problem as others, he plays a role nonetheless, and he cannot therefore be trusted to contribute to the solution.

Now, it is my hope that Roll Call is wrong or mistaken, and it is also my hope that Ron Paul is in the clear on this matter. But if he is not, then it is time to simply accept the fact that there is no one who can lead us out of this mess.

Obamao the Fraud

2012-02-22T04:59:00.000Z

It isn’t news that Obamao is a statist masquerading as a pro-Civil Rights leftist. It is news, though, that his statism has taken a turn for the drug war:

But over the past year, the Obama administration has quietly unleashed a multiagency crackdown on medical cannabis that goes far beyond anything undertaken by George W. Bush. The feds are busting growers who operate in full compliance with state laws, vowing to seize the property of anyone who dares to even rent to legal pot dispensaries, and threatening to imprison state employees responsible for regulating medical marijuana. With more than 100 raids on pot dispensaries during his first three years, Obama is now on pace to exceed Bush's record for medical-marijuana busts. "There's no question that Obama's the worst president on medical marijuana," says Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project. "He's gone from first to worst."

The federal crackdown imperils the medical care of the estimated 730,000 patients nationwide – many of them seriously ill or dying – who rely on state-sanctioned marijuana recommended by their doctors. In addition, drug experts warn, the White House's war on law-abiding providers of medical marijuana will only drum up business for real criminals. "The administration is going after legal dispensaries and state and local authorities in ways that are going to push this stuff back underground again," says Ethan Nadelmann, director of the Drug Policy Alliance. Gov. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, a former Republican senator who has urged the DEA to legalize medical marijuana, pulls no punches in describing the state of affairs produced by Obama's efforts to circumvent state law: "Utter chaos."

The drug war is a losing proposition for a variety of reasons. First, it does nothing to eliminate (or, apparently, even reduce) demand for drugs. Second, the incentives posed by the drug war strongly incentivize increasing the black market for drugs. Third, the drug war contributes to political corruption and increases state power and violence. As such, the drug war is all costs and no benefits.

Additionally, the drug war fundamentally ignores human rights. As long as one’s actions do not directly interfere with anyone else’s exercise of personal rights, then one can do whatever one wants. The consumption of marijuana is not inherently an infringement on someone else’s rights, and should therefore not be outlawed.

Finally, medical marijuana—the issue at hand—is no more problematic as a drug than morphine, oxycontin or vicodin. If these drugs can be used legally, why not marijuana? After all, people have getting addicted to morphine, oxycontin, vicodin, and other powerful painkillers. And it’s not like marijuana isn’t a painkiller. If one generally non-deadly pain reliever can be permitted, then all generally non-deadly pain relievers can also be permitted. To do otherwise is nothing more than hypocritical moral posturing.

At this point, it should be clear that Obama is continuing the moralist’s war on marijuana, and continuing the statism that has been encroaching on US citizens’ liberty for decades. As such, it is time for him to go.

Imagine That!

2012-02-21T06:03:00.000Z

Here’s an explanation of why Americans are less inclined to riot in this day and age:

"So why," Katz asks, "had collective violence more or less disappeared from the streets of American cities?"

He tackles this question in a new book, Why Don't American Cities Burn?, which he discussed Friday in Washington at a forum hosted by the New America Foundation. What's so striking about his answer is that many of the trends implicated in our quiet streets are not necessarily good ones. It's true, American cities aren't burning. But we shouldn't pat ourselves on the back just yet.

Some of Katz' explanations are good news: Previously marginalized groups that once felt they had no other outlet now have more voices in the political process. White flight ceded whole cities – and their governments – to African Americans in the U.S. And this left neighborhood boundaries less contentious, Katz argues, eliminating one of the causes of urban friction. In the 1960s, by contrast, large numbers of African Americans were moving into the city at a time when whites had not yet left.

So, racial homogeneity corresponds with reductions in riots? Who could ever have guessed it? Anyway, it looks like diversity is not all that it’s cracked up to be. Maybe, then, we shouldn’t try to force the issue. Maybe, then, we should simply let people decide who they want to live with and who they want to live near to. And maybe we should leave those people alone.

More On The Ethics of Receiving Government Benefits

2012-02-21T05:53:00.001Z

From Think Markets:

In addition Mr. Krugman cites evidence suggesting large percentages of Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries are confused about their use of these government programs. They don’t seem to think they’re getting handouts.

Maybe that’s because they’re in fact not getting handouts. As they were reminded every time they looked at their paycheck stub and saw the Social Security and Medicare tax deductions, they were forced to sacrifice part of their income for these programs through their working lives. The programs are compulsory; there is no opting out of them; the taxes come out of your paycheck whether you like it or not.

Therefore the notion that people who don’t like big government should not get Social Security and Medicare is utter nonsense. What are they supposed to do? Refuse the benefits that they already paid for? You’d have to be rich to do that. But one can see why left-liberals keep bringing up this humbug. People who don’t share their love of big government are labeled inconsistent for doing what by law they are coerced to do, mocked for complaining about a government apparatus from which they can’t escape.

And Paul Krugman:

But why do regions that rely on the safety net elect politicians who want to tear it down? I’ve seen three main explanations.

First, there is Thomas Frank’s thesis in his book “What’s the Matter With Kansas?”: working-class Americans are induced to vote against their own interests by the G.O.P.’s exploitation of social issues. And it’s true that, for example, Americans who regularly attend church are much more likely to vote Republican, at any given level of income, than those who don’t.

Alternatively, as I proposed before, they may simply see this as sunk costs to be recovered. They can’t avoid paying taxes, so they might as well try to recover as much as they can. Furthermore, opposing the political program one uses makes sense because political programs tend to be monopolies for the poor. If the government offers medical care for poor people, they are going to have an impossible time trying to refuse it, especially since taxes (both direct and indirect) eat up a decent portion of their budget. In a sense, the only people who can refuse government programs are the sufficiently wealthy because they can afford to bite the bullet on taxes while also avoiding government programs. The poor cannot do this. The only way a poor person can opt out of a suboptimal government program is vote against it. Thus, it should make sense that some poor people oppose the government programs from which they receive benefits because they would much prefer to simply not go through the government to get their benefits.

Correcting Markets

2012-02-21T05:38:00.000Z

From the Mises Institute:

And so began the downward trend in America's free market in medicine. With fewer medical schools — and thus fewer doctors — wages can be kept higher than would exist in a market dominated by free enterprise and the unobstructed entry into practice. Consumers, who ordinarily determine the success of producers, have lost out as they face higher costs on top of being deemed too ignorant to choose an adequate doctor without the aid of the state. Rent seeking becomes ingrained in an industry that must devote increasing amounts of financial resources to appease public officials.

At first, the problem was presumably that doctors weren’t getting paid as much as they truly deserved because they had to compete with hacks. Therefore, the government had to step in to ensure that doctors got paid the proper amount of money. This led, unsurprisingly, to increasing health care costs, and so the government was asked to step in again to reduce the costs of medical care, this time in the form of subsidy. And so the government obliged.

The lesson to be learned from this is that once the government interferes in the market, it must continue and increase its interference in the market so as to preserve equity. What’s interesting, though, is that governmental interference, when all is said and done, is only intended to produce a minor tweak. That is, the result of governmental interference is only supposed to lead to a result that is only slightly different from the market result. What actually happens is that the government’s result is different by an order of magnitude, which leads to more and increasing “corrections.”

At some point, though, it has to be asked of whether the slight market modification is worth the massive cost, for government interference has a tendency to spiral out of control and become very costly. As the costs of modifying the market increase while the benefits for doing so remain small, it becomes increasingly reasonable to ask whether it is better to accept the market’s perceived imperfections so as to save money and scarce resources, especially since the market is self-adjusting and will likely solve the problem more equitably anyway.

Mandated Heath Market Inefficiencies

2012-02-21T05:25:00.000Z

Karl Denninger:

We cannot permit America to be the "pay line" for every worldwide drug and device development program. The same pill sold here in America for $25 is $2 in Canada and other nations. The cost of reproduction is covered by the $2, but development is not. The free market would normally prohibit this activity since people would simply buy the drug in Canada and re-import it here, but the drug and device makers lobbied Congress to make that illegal.

A good portion of these sort of inefficiencies could be eliminated simply by removing patent protection for drugs. If the US eliminated the patent system, drug companies wouldn’t be able to prevent competitors from selling identical drugs on the cheap (although competitors would not be able to recreate any placebo effects that occur with brand names).

Of course, this action is opposed because it would lead to less drug research, particularly in the treatment of rare diseases. But, were this the case, the market would work as effectively as it should. One of the problems the US faces in regards to medical care is that everyone wants a drug to solve their medical issues. Between patent law, health insurance mandates, and anti-competition laws, the US government has managed to effectively subsidize research for diseases that would not ordinarily merit research.

One effect of this effective subsidy has been the increase in unhealthy behaviors. Since people are implicitly promised health care and medicine no matter what, it would be reasonable to expect people to take more health risks. And, given the current obesity epidemic, it seems that this is certainly the case. As such, removing the effective subsidy of drug research would help to encourage people to live healthier because drug companies would be much less inclined to research drugs that cure rare or complex diseases. Thus, by removing subsidies, health becomes cheaper.

Societal Fitness Test

2012-02-21T05:08:00.001Z

This post as been a long time in the making, but something Elusive Wapiti wrote has served as the inspiration needed to finish putting my thoughts together:

In short, this movie offers much of the same as Fireproof, only with a slightly different twist. It was steeply exhortative of men, while speaking little to women's needs for behavioral reform. Moreover, the movie's stance on paternal abandonment is simply not consistent with the facts, and unfortunately repeats some of the same incorrect pap we've had to endure for two generations now.

I view feminism as a macro-level fitness test. Women, on a society-wide scale, tested the resolve of men and found them wanting. Women demanded to be treated equally (in a positive-rights sense), they demanded to be given power, and they demanded to be taken seriously. And now, the results speak for themselves.

Women should have been put in their place, they should have been told—by men—that they were not going to be given power, treated as equals (again, in a positive-rights sense), or be taken seriously. Men, in general, failed this test was it was presented to them. From the suffragette movement to the temperance movement to the sexual revolution, and many times in between, women have made demands of men that should have simply been denied. They were not, and the results speak for themselves.

As has been well-established by the Dark Lord of the Crimson Arts, women want strong dominant men. The evidence, whether it be personal experience or a scientific study, proves time and again that women want men that won’t capitulate to their solipsistic whims. This is certainly generally true on an individual level, and I suspect it’s true on a macro level as well. And so, when society’s men were tested by women, they failed, and failed miserably. The men caved to the women’s demands, and now the results speak for themselves.

Who, then, can blame women for engaging in their current behavior? Many men are simply too unmasculine to merit feminine women. It has been said by many that men and women always deserve the other. And since leadership always starts with men, it would stand to reason that many modern social ills are a result of men abdicating their God-given authority to women. Again, the results speak for themselves.

So what does this have to do with Elusive Wapiti’s review of Courageous? Well, EW laments that it is always men—never women—who are told to improve, to fix society, to fix the problem. Here’s the thing, though: men are the natural fixers, the natural problem-solvers. What is that women always complain* about: men never listen to their problems, instead men always try to fix their problems.

This time is no different. Men will have to step up and fix the problems wrought by feminism. Men, in failing to stand up to the societal fitness test thrown at them by women through the political movement known as feminism, allowed to mess to be made. To be sure, men did not initially make the mess, but they allowed it to happen when they could have easily prevented it.

Men’s natural role is that of leader and women’s natural role is that of follower. Women will comply to men’s frames as long as men stick to their frames. If men want women to improve, they will have to expect women to improve, and they will also have to demand that women improve. And expecting women to take the lead on this matter is ludicrous because women are simply not designed to lead. They are, after all, the helpmeet. Thus, men need to be men in order for women to be women.

Some women have even recognized this fact, calling for men to man up, the ill-received Kay Hymowitz op-ed being but one example. And though women might recognize the problem (as I believe Ms. Hymowitz has), they are generally ill-equipped to solve the problem. For one, as the aforementioned op-ed by Ms. Hymowitz readily indicates, women are not good at providing solutions that strike at the root of the problem. For two, it is utterly absurd and counter-productive for women to tell men to take the lead.

Ultimately, the problem with men is that, by and large, most of them simply are not ready to lead. Many young men, as Ms. Hymowitz suggested, lack direction in their lives. They are content to work dead end jobs and play video games, foregoing real, meaningful accomplishments. Incidentally, it’s not hard to see why the younger generation would do this; they grew up watching their dads being emasculated by their moms (and society), and have rationally concluded that marriage—maybe even relationships with women in general—is a terrible, costly idea (and not only that, they have been constantly told that men are worthless, and that men are crap). And while there is a certain rationality to their actions, what’s undeniable is that these sort of actions are not the hallmarks of leaders; they are the hallmarks of quitters.**

Thus, solving the problems brought upon society by earlier men’s failures will require that men take the lead and refuse to yield to solipsistic desires and protests of women. Men need to give up the quitter’s mindset and once again take their rightful place. This means that men need to act, to be confident, to do, to have a plan, to have a sense of direction. This means saying goodbye to dead-end jobs, to hours wasted on pointless video games, to living in virtual worlds, to accumulating massive amounts of anime. This means taking on the responsibilities of leadership.

Fixing the problems caused by the long-ago failures of men is not going to be accomplished by a handful of men; it requires everyone. Hopefully the current generation is up to it. But if it is not, the problem will eventually resolve itself. Thanks to the sexual revolution, women are now in a better position to have sex with attractive men. Attractive men are usually those that refuse to put up with a woman’s nonsense. The sons of these men will likely inherit this same ability, which means that, over time, truly masculine men will once again be in abundance, and will thus effectively pass women’s fitness tests, both on an individual and social level. And so, even if the current generation decides that it’s better to surrender than fight, all is not lost, for these problems have a way of fixing themselves. And, ultimately, it is men who will fix this problem.

* As always, what women say they want and what women actually want can be two different things. There is no reason to believe that it is different when it comes to men listening to their problems.

** To be clear: quitting, in this context, is not irrational. However, the implicit surrender to women is not going to make the current problems brought about by feminism go away.

Austerity and Reality

2012-02-20T06:03:00.000Z

Paul Krugman still doesn’t get it:

Watching Europe sink into recession – and Greece plunge into the abyss – I found myself wondering what it would take to convince the chattering classes that austerity in the face of an already depressed economy is a terrible idea.

After all, all it took was the predictable and predicted failure of an inadequate stimulus plan to convince our political elite that stimulus never works, and that we should pivot immediately to austerity, never mind three generations’ worth of economic research telling us that this was exactly the wrong thing to do. Why isn’t the overwhelming, and much more decisive, failure of austerity in Europe producing a similar reaction?

Here’s the simple answer: austerity is not about promoting growth, it’s about getting one’s fiscal house in order, which is to say that austerity is all about reducing government spending and government debt. More to the point, there are a couple of flaws worth pointing out here.

First, there is the obvious flaw of growth measurements. Growth measurements include government spending so, by definition, whenever government spending contracts, growth will decline. Complaining about the lack of growth in light of government budget cuts is like complaining about the definition of wet.

Second, the main problem right now is debt. Namely, that it has to be paid. When you borrow from the future, you will eventually hit a point when the money you borrowed is due, with interest. And that point is here. People have to pay their debts, which is one reason why austerity is necessary.

Third, and along the lines of the second point, the current situation does not fit in any way with three generations of economic research. If one were to actually read Keynes’ policy prescription, one would find that it has very little bearing to reality. Keynes’ fundamental prescription for smoothing out economic turbulence was to raise taxes and save money when the economy was experiencing growth and lower taxes and spend money when the economy was cooling down. (Incidentally, this very thing has worked at least once in history.) The problem is that the experts in Washington only did one of those four things.

See, the only part of the policy that Washington followed was increasing spending at the start of the downturn. Washington lowered taxes during the boom, exacerbating the boom, and then failed to save money for the inevitable decline. And now that the decline is in full force, Washington is considering raising taxes. So even if the economic research is correct, it is certainly not being followed in any meaningful way. As such, appealing to this research is simply ludicrous, as it doesn’t apply anyway.

If Only There Were Some Way to Fix This

2012-02-20T05:30:00.000Z

Here’s a summary of a recent paper:

The trends in offshoring and international trade that we have described are likely to accelerate. China currently employs around 120 million people in the manufacturing sector and, although some reports indicate that wages are rising in China, those wages are still only a tiny fraction of wages in the United States. Moreover, China is expanding its manufacturing base to low-wage countries across the globe through a series of overseas economic zones. The implication for American workers is that in order to regain ground, they will need to find jobs outside of manufacturing where wages are comparable to those in manufacturing.

I know I’ve harped on this plenty of times before, so I’ll be brief: Given the current regulatory regime in place at the federal and state level in the United States, it makes absolutely no sense to have free trade with China. Given that citizens of the United States are legally prohibited from competing for jobs on price, ad given that employers in the United States are expected to comply with onerous regulations, it is safe to say that there is no free market in the United States. As such, it is equally ludicrous to say that it is possible to mimic the outcomes of the free market by partially freeing up foreign import restrictions, and it is politically foolish (not to mention heartless and unpatriotic) to enact an economic policy that has had a measurable effect on closing part of the labor market to Americans.

Apatocracy*

2012-02-20T05:28:00.000Z

That’s what America has:

Our democratic process requires an effective system for maintaining accurate voter registration information. Voter registration lists are used to assign precincts, send sample ballots, provide polling place information, identify and verify voters at polling places, and determine how resources, such as paper ballots and voting machines, are deployed on Election Day. However, these systems are plagued with errors and inefficiencies that waste taxpayer dollars, undermine voter confidence, and fuel partisan disputes over the integrity of our elections.

Voter registration in the United States largely reflects its 19th-century origins and has not kept pace with advancing technology and a mobile society. States’ systems must be brought into the 21st century to be more accurate, cost-effective, and efficient.

Seeing as how there are more stringent ID requirements for buying Sudafed, I think it is safe to say that the requirements for voting are rather lax. The reason for this is obvious: politicians are less concerned about the identity of voters than allergy-sufferers.

Stated another way, it’s harder to fraudulently buy allergy meds than it is to vote. Since politicians find voter fraud to be more personally profitable than drug fraud, the other obvious conclusion to be drawn for this current state of affairs as regards the lax ID requirements for voting is that politicians are dependent on committing voter fraud to win elections, which is why they make committing voter fraud so easy. That politicians are corrupt is not news, by any means, but at least now it is provable. And thus, it can be concluded that democracy in America is nothing more than a pretty lie and a complete fraud.

* “Apatocracy” is taken from the Greek word apati and kratos, which mean “fraud” and “rule,” respectively. “Apatocracy,” then, refers to rule by fraud. Kratos is also one of the rood words of “democracy.”

When No Plan Is Better than One

2012-02-17T23:10:00.000Z

Source. Pay attention around the 1:40 mark.

A lot of libertarian and conservative pundits have been upset about Geithner’s remarks. I can sympathize, but only to a limited extent. Why? Because I’m getting tired of central planning.

In fact, I would actually prefer Getihner’s lack of plans to Ryan’s plan. Ryan, like all the other politicians in this game, is hindered by the fatal conceit. Namely, that they can plan, or in any meaningful way manage all or even a significant portion of the economy.*

My proposal, then, is this: let’s only spend what the constitution permits the federal government to spend, and stop trying to plan so much of the economy. Ryan’s plan won’t work, in the long run; neither will Geithner’s, when he finally puts his together. Both plans are based on the pretense of knowledge, and both plans ignore the role of knowledge in the economy. Top-down, major plans like these will always be doomed to failure, so it is best to give up on them and simply let people plan their futures for themselves.

* By definition, current federal spending accounts for 15% of GDP, which certainly means that managing the government means managing a significant portion of the economy. Walmart, in comparison, only accounts for .1% of GDP, and they’re one of the largest domestic businesses.

CBO Nonsense

2012-02-17T22:54:00.000Z

From the CBO Director’s blog:

Many factors are responsible for the rise in unemployment in general and in long-term unemployment:

-Weak demand for goods and services, as a result of the recession and its aftermath, which results in weak demand for workers;

The better question is: what is causing weak demand? Could it be that people are realizing that it’s fiscally unhealthy to spend lots of many that they don’t technically have? Could it be that the extend-and-pretend games of the last thirty years are starting to catch up to us? Could it be that, having pulled demand forward for so long, the future is now finally catching up to us?

-Mismatches between would-be employers’ needs and the skills or location of the unemployed;

This is actually a valid point, although it’s probably helpful to look at a couple of points that contribute to this situation. The declining value of an American education certainly contributes to mismatched needs and abilities. Interestingly, the sheer vapidity of modern American education is mostly due to Boomer tinkering. Also interesting is that Boomers are now in charge of major businesses, just in time to find out how terribly awry their experiments in education have gone. Furthermore, their arrogance and blind trust in their educational model prevented them from doing the one thing that would currently save their companies: hiring bright kids out of high school and training them on the job instead of waiting for them to get a college diploma. (Of course, it probably didn’t help that Boomers made employment testing illegal.)

Regarding location, I think there are three reasons people refuse to move for work. First, government benefits currently make staying in the same place to wait for a new job feasible. Second, I would theorize that most of the once-employed are intelligent to suspect that government benefits may not be around forever, and therefore it is best to stay where one is, since one will have more social capital at one’s current location than at a new location. Finally, the increasingly transient nature of jobs discourages employees from travelling, particularly in light of government benefits. Why endure moving a thousand miles away only to lose your job after a year? Especially when, after moving costs and loss of social capital are accounted for, you’re fiscally worse off than if you’d been on government benefits?

-Incentives for people to stay in the labor force and continue searching for work that result from extensions of unemployment insurance benefits; and

This is more of a technical point, as unemployment statistics are calculated by dividing the number of unemployed workers by the total labor force. The issue is defining the labor force (if memory serves me correctly, the government has six or seven definitions). Some metrics only consider adults that are currently looking for work as part of the labor force, and so the claim being made by the CBO is that rates are artificially (or, more accurately, tautologically) high because there are some who are looking for work instead of just giving up.

-The erosion of unemployed workers’ skills and the belief of some employers that people who have been unemployed for a long time would be low-quality workers (a phenomenon sometimes called stigma).

This is pretty much the same as above. As the social stigma that comes with long-term unemployment wears off, more of those workers who were at one time out of the labor force will come back into the labor force (by seeking jobs) and tautologically drive up the unemployment rate.

In all, the CBO is blaming increased unemployment rates on the fact that Americans are finally realizing that man cannot live by debt alone and on an increasing number of people who have the gall to seek employment again. In essence, the CBO would prefer that people continue to spend money they do not have and just go back to being lazy and unproductive. And that’s how the government plans on reducing unemployment.

The Ethics of Receiving Government Benefits

2012-02-17T22:20:00.000Z

James Kwak:

Many liberals like to point out the apparent hypocrisy of the people featured in the article, who rail against big government, demand lower spending, and simultaneously rake in benefits from the federal government that they hate. The central figure in the article, Ki Gulbranson, works hard yet has barely enough money to support his family, even with the earned income tax credit* and reduced-price school lunches for his kids. His conclusion: the country is going bankrupt, but people don’t make enough money to pay more taxes, so we should have smaller government. He would rather go without his current benefits—but he can’t imagine retiring without Medicare and Social Security. [Ed.—the rest of the article is worth reading as well.]

I have no opposition to people pursuing or receiving government benefits if they’ve paid into the system, even if they oppose the offering of those benefits. There are two reasons for this.

First, if you’ve paid taxes, you should be able to recoup them because the government is supposed to act in your interests. Some benefits will be indirect (military spending, e.g.), some are indirect (highway construction, e.g.), and some are direct (welfare, e.g.). The problem with government is that all benefits are part of the same basket; you can’t opt out of paying for any of the benefits. As such, there is little reason to opt out of receiving any benefits because you’ve already paid for them and, as is the case in a democracy, they belong to you (what with it being a government of the people, by the people, for the people and all).

Second, the government does things that incentivize the receipt of direct benefits. Taxation is one example, in that taxation prevents you from taking care of things for yourself. More people would be able to afford their own health care if the government cut health spending and the corresponding taxes. Another example is regulation (which is in many cases not enacted democratically), which also makes many things more expensive. More people could more easily afford the things they need if regulatory compliance costs were reduced.

Now, political principles are indeed wonderful things, as they give us some idea of where we want to go. But we should never mistake political principles for political reality. It would be great if there weren’t any unconstitutional government programs and their corresponding taxes. But that is currently not the case, and our ethical considerations need to account for the various distortions that come at the hands of the government. If the government is going to force you to make bricks, there’s no principled reason to refuse their straw.

* Caveat 1: while I argue that people shouldn’t be considered hypocrites for receiving government benefits that they argue against, they should also be aware that there are costs to qualifying for government benefits, and that they should be prepared to comply with them.

Caveat 2: this ethical analysis only applies to people who have paid taxes. Those who haven’t paid a dime in taxes should not receive a dime in benefits.

Still Not Learning

2012-02-17T21:59:00.001Z

John Hawkins had a brilliant article giving five reasons why “Gay Marriage” isn’t a big deal. Just kidding, he had a terrible article giving five reasons why gay marriage should be opposed:

1) Gay marriage is incompatible with Christianity (and for that matter, Islam & Judaism).

Here’s the thing: congress isn’t allowed to make any laws respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof. A random sample of state constitutions (Texas, California, and New Jersey) finds similar language. The conclusion to be drawn from this is that church and state are not the same, and that there is to be a wall of separation between the two. The government (federal and state) is not to enforce religious laws and beliefs. So, while gay marriage is undeniably incompatible with Christianity, it is not at all incompatible with government.

2) Gay marriage will end up infringing on religious freedom.

A long time ago, there was a Jewish carpenter that said that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. Religious folk, for a long time, used the government to persecute homosexuals (think: sodomy laws). Once you give the government the power to do this, it should not be surprising when the government reverse course. While religious freedoms should not be infringed upon in a just society, it is hard to claim that a society which infringed upon others’ rights is a just society, and it is therefore difficult to have sympathy for them.

3) Civil unions could confer every "right" that marriage does.

If this is the case, then why do conservative parents never tell their children to grow up and enter a civil union? More to the point, if there is no practical legal distinction between marriage and a civil union, why bother with a semantic distinction? (Hint: see point number one, above.)

4) Gay marriage may be where it starts, but it wouldn't be where it ends.

Actually, gay marriage is most certainly not where it starts. The present course was started upon many years ago when the government was given control of marriage. It belonged in the hands of the church, but the church shirked its duty and handed it off to the state. At first, there wasn’t much of a problem, as the state’s law closely mirrored divine law. Then the state began to loosen the rules of divorce, while also incentivizing hypergamous behavior in women, which has led to the current state of affairs.

Gay marriage would certainly continue the trend, which would probably extend to incestuous marriages and polygamy. But the trend did not begin with gay marriage, and gay marriage wouldn’t actually do that much more damage, comparatively speaking. At this point, the institution of marriage has become meaningless. The only fix is to reverse course and wrest marriage away from the state. Halting just short of gay marriage won’t fix anything.

5) Marriage already has enough problems as it is without gay marriage.

This is true. Gay marriage certainly won’t help fix them. But, as per above, unless conservatives are going to argue that marriage should be taken from the state and given back to the church, there’s no point in even having this argument. Preventing gays from getting a piece of paper from the government declaring them to be married is not going to fix the messes caused by decades of no-fault divorce, or in the increased cheapening of the value of marriage that has been the result of the sexual revolution.

Ultimately, arguments like these show quite clearly that conservatives are, by and large, mostly unserious about fixing marriage. The main reason they make gay marriage a big deal is to signal cultural beliefs. There is nothing wrong with signaling one’s group affiliation, but doing so in the political arena can be dangerous, especially if you’re in the minority, or if you lose your power.

The Saga Continues

2012-02-17T21:28:00.000Z

With the Chris Brown “scandal”:

Public fury over Chris Brown's recent Grammy appearance and his apparent lack of remorse over beating ex-girlfriend Rihanna is rooted, at least in part, in the fact that his career not only has survived but thrived in recent years. Whether on his own songs or as a guest on other artists' tracks, Brown is the closest thing to a sure thing on urban radio right now. Now even Rihanna is looking to exploit Brown's commercial clout—the troubled couple is set to make a musical reunion on Rihanna's forthcoming single, "Birthday Cake (Remix)." Apparently Brown will sing on one verse and rap on another, and presumably promise not to beat anybody in exchange for sexual favors. In addition to this collaboration, Brown reportedly attended Rihanna's birthday party recently. "Birthday Cake (Remix)" is expected to be released next week.

It appears that Rihanna has forgiven Chris Brown. And if Rihanna has already forgiven Chris Brown for his mistreatment of her, why shouldn’t everyone else?

But, more to the point, this ongoing story should serve as evidence that there are actually some women who like violent thugs. There’s probably not a lot that can be done to change this. As such, the best thing to do is simply let those women have their rough-love thugs and leave them be.

Incidentally, if “society” doesn’t want men to act like thugs, it would be more effective to shame the sluts that willingly have sex them than to shame the thugs themselves. After all, why would any thug care what society thinks of him as long as he’s getting laid regularly? Conversely, why would any man act like a thug if he could never get laid as a result? Thus, if society wants men to stop beating the crap out of women (and other assorted thuggery), the best course of action would be to shame the ~~whores~~ women who sleep with said thugs.

The David Brooks Fallacy

2012-02-17T04:44:00.000Z

David Brooks, in an article titled “The Materialist Fallacy,” comes to this hilarious conclusion:

The American social fabric is now so depleted that even if manufacturing jobs miraculously came back we still would not be producing enough stable, skilled workers to fill them. It’s not enough just to have economic growth policies. The country also needs to rebuild orderly communities.

So now the theory is not that Americans won't do these jobs, it's that they can't do these jobs because they're so messed up. If only someone had thought to test this theory. Oh wait, someone did. Alabama decided to crack down on illegal immigrants and miraculously their unemployment rate went down. Funny how that works.

The larger issue with Brooks’ fallacy is that, in my opinion, he gets causality wrong. Communities don’t have unemployment because they’re disorderly; if anything, it’s high unemployment that begets disorderliness. If orderliness were the issue (and it presumably is, seeing as how Brooks is implying that foreign labor have more orderly communities), then you would expect productivity, not wages to be the deciding factor. But, for the most part, foreign labor competes primarily on price, not productivity. As such, the issue of community “orderliness” is quite irrelevant, and appears to be nothing more than a pretty lie that the pro-immigration crowd needs in order to feel good about making life more difficult for their fellow citizens.*

* On a tangentially related note, how come free traders and free laborers argue more fervently on behalf of foreign business and labor interests than domestic business and labor interests? Couldn’t they channel all the energy and righteous indignation into arguing for deregulation of domestic businesses and labor, which would benefit their fellow citizens?

Automation and Guaranteed Minimum Income

2012-02-16T20:49:00.000Z

Here’s a comment Glowing Face Man left on a blog post titled “It’s No Coincidence”:

You (and the supermajority of pundits) labor under the false assumption that everybody needs jobs, that a healthy economy involves 90%+ employment. This simply is not consistent with the reality of automation, it will become less and less consistent in coming decades. Immigration and outsourcing are small factors next to automation. Within a couple generations, almost everything is going to be automated, and a realistically healthy economy would have single-digit EMployment, rather than UNemployment. The proper fix is a completely unconditional universal guaranteed basic income.

I’ll be upfront about my biases as they relate to this subject. First, as a Christian, I believe that man was created by God to work, and therefore it is wholly unnatural for man to not work, and therefore man will always need to have a way of working. I also believe that the unemployment statistics are a useful—though imperfect—barometer of whether people are actually working, as would natural for them. There are obviously some differences between the ideal of work and its reality, but they can be ignored for the time being.

Now, as to the topic at hand, it is entirely true that I assume that a healthy economy is one where everyone works. But it is also true that those who argue for complete automation are making some assumptions of their own. In many ways, the proponents of a guaranteed minimum on the basis of the automation of production (which renders human labor unnecessary) are making several assumptions of their own, some of which may or may not turn out to occur.

The first and most obvious assumption is that the current trend towards automation will actually continue. If the business cycle is any indication, it is not only possible that the trend of automation ceases at some point in the future, it is likely. Just as innovations in papyrus production were superseded by paper production, which was then superseded by the various digital formats, so too is it possible that the current trend towards automation may be superseded by something else altogether.

A second assumption is that advances in technology won’t hit a serious point of diminishing returns. Imagine, for example, the sheer amount of technology that would be necessary to automate, say, apple picking or painting houses. It certainly possible that these activities could be automated (i.e. it is within the realm of technical feasibility). But it is not necessarily possible that it would be worth the R&D costs to automate these things. And there are thousands of more activities similar to these that would have generally high costs of development.

A third assumption is that technology will able to interface with humans in such a way as to handle the vagaries and nuances of human interaction. Which is to say, it is assumed that technology will be able to, say, address customer complaints (or, more broadly, customer emotions).

A fourth assumption, as it relates to the guaranteed minimum income, is that human ingenuity will not spread beyond its current state. By this I mean that it is assumed that humans will not use the eventual automation of production as the foundation for expanding production into new, uncharted territory. Stated another way, the automation of production could enable people to simply open up new frontiers of innovation and production that are not directly based on automation (i.e. open up another level of goods).

A fifth assumption is that the economy will not collapse and undo any of the current technological advances we currently enjoy. Massive economic and cultural collapses usually correlate to technological collapses as well. See the collapse of the Roman Empire for an example. See also Neurodiversity for an in-depth look at the subject.

A sixth assumption is that status-seeking will no longer exist. Quite simply, automation should lead to decreasing prices in what were once luxury goods (see: the costs of silk stockings after the beginning of the Industrial Revolution). Things that were once the province of the wealthy will become available to everyone. As such, wealthy status-seekers will need to find a new way to demonstrate value, which simply turn into direct displays of controlling labor (the current model is an indirect display of controlling labor). Alternatively, the market could invert back to increased demand for direct craftsmanship, like that which was once seen prior to the Industrial Revolution (Etsy seems to be an indication of this trend). This could be easily accomplished with increasingly user-friendly CADs and 3D printers.

A seventh assumption is that human interaction won’t become an economic good. If prostitution is any indication, there is no substitute for another human being. Human nature, generally being a constant, suggests that there might always be demand for other people’s time, and might lead to people getting paid for it, which is simply a higher-order form of employment.

An eighth assumption is that technology will develop to the point where only a few people are needed to manage it. Also, in keeping with this, it is assumed that GUIs won’t be dumbed-down enough to the point where non-engineers can manage them. Given the massive amount of IT support needed to maintain this level of technology, it seems reasonable to conclude that increases in the ubiquity of technology will drive demand for IT, particularly as technology handles increasingly complex tasks. Now, in response, the UIs of technology should dumb down to the point where non-engineers can solve basic problems The cumulative effect of this will be an increase in demand for IT support while simultaneously enabling growth in the pool of potential labor candidates in this field.

As can be seen, there are a myriad of conditions necessary to see the complete automation of production. It is certainly possible that all of them can be met; I will leave it to the reader to determine whether it is likely and whether, by extension, a guaranteed minimum income will be necessary.

“Fat Shaming”

2012-02-16T20:08:00.000Z

That’s the title of my most recent post at In Mala Fide. In it, I take a lesbian feminist to task for hypocrisy. An excerpt:

What’s overlooked in this debate is the social benefits of fat-shaming. Now that the US has universal health care, and given that fatties tend to have more health problems and higher health costs, it behooves society as a whole to shame the fatties for being overweight because if society fails to do this, healthcare will eat more and more of the federal budget and impose increasing costs on the taxpayers. Given that health care is now a national issue, and given that a sizeable portion of aggregate health costs come from the overweight, fat shaming is no longer the patriarchy’s way of keeping women down; it’s now every American’s patriotic duty. And if fat shaming happens to increase aggregate beauty, then that’s just a bonus.

The rest can be found here.

A Possible Way to Reduce Terrorist Attacks

2012-02-16T20:02:00.000Z

Consider this abstract from a paper titled “Economic Conditions and the Quality of Suicide Terrorism” (rough draft here):

This article analyzes the link between economic conditions and the quality of suicide terrorism. While the existing empirical literature shows that poverty and economic conditions are not correlated with the quantity of terror, theory predicts that poverty and poor economic conditions may affect the quality of terror. Poor economic conditions may lead more able and better-educated individuals to participate in terror attacks, allowing terror organizations to send better-qualified terrorists to more complex, higher-impact terror missions. Using the universe of Palestinian suicide terrorists who acted against Israeli targets in 2000–06, we provide evidence of the correlation between economic conditions, the characteristics of suicide terrorists, and the targets they attack. High levels of unemployment enable terror organizations to recruit better educated, more mature, and more experienced suicide terrorists, who in turn attack more important Israeli targets.

Let’s first dispense with the obvious shortcomings: the study only establishes correlation, the results are inherently tautological (though objective), and the study is very narrow in scope. The conclusion of the study is that there is a link between increased poverty and the increased effectiveness of suicide terrorism. The authors of the quoted paper recommend a foreign policy of aid to reduce terrorism.

I have another idea: How about the US stops sowing the seed of future terrorist actions by impoverishing Middle Easterners through the continual bombing and warmongering that has repeatedly occurred over there for the last twenty-five years or so? All that war has accomplished over there is keeping Middle Easterners in poverty while rapidly leading the US government to the point of bankruptcy. Not only that, keeping Middle Easterners in poverty appears to enable them to commit acts of terror more effectively. Thus, one way to combat terror more effectively is to stop combatting it at all. Let the terrorists become more preoccupied with accumulating and maintaining wealth instead of resenting the US empire, and maybe they won’t be as inclined to attack us.

Give Peace a Chance

2012-02-16T07:17:00.000Z

Jonah Goldberg, ladies and gentlemen:

The irony is that few worldviews better describe the general liberal orientation to public policy and the culture war. The left often complains about the culture war as if it's a war they don't want to fight. They insist they just want to follow "sound science" or "what works" when it comes to public policy, but those crazy knuckle-dragging right-wingers constantly want to talk about gays and abortion and other hot-button issues.

It's all a farce. Liberals are the aggressors in the culture war (and not always for the worse, as the civil rights movement demonstrates). What they object to isn't so much the government imposing its values on people -- heck, they love that. They see nothing wrong with imposing their views about diet, exercise, sex, race and the environment on Americans. What outrages them is resistance, or even non-compliance with their agenda. "Why are you making such a scene?" progressives complain. "Just do what we want and there will be no fuss."

The drug war, perhaps the most violent effort of the current culture war has been largely unsuccessful. In re: Marriage Cases was overturned by Proposition 8. Why did both these government-based, top down approaches to changing the culture fail? Because the government, fundamentally, cannot change men’s hearts or minds.

Yes, the government can impact behavior, at the margins. And yes, there is likely a self-reinforcing feedback loop to cultural change and governmental involvement (people change, leading to governmental change, leading the people to change, and so on, ad infinitum). But, fundamentally, the government cannot change men’s hearts or minds.

If someone really wants to do drugs, the government will not stop him. If someone wants to enter into a long-term relationship with someone of the same sex, the government will not stop him. If someone wants to vehemently oppose gay marriage, the government cannot stop him. The lesson to be learned from this is that, oftentimes, fighting the culture war is pointless, at least if one takes a top-down approach.

Culture is not top-down, it is bottom-up. Having a pissing contest about culture at the top is not going to accomplish anything because it doesn’t get at the root of culture. As such, it is time to call for armistice in this culture war because this war will never actually resolve anything. It can kill people (see the war on drugs, e.g.), but it cannot change their hearts. As such, there is simply no point in fighting, because there is no possibility for victory, only death.

But Wait, There’s More

2012-02-16T06:54:00.000Z

My earlier post on expanding safety net recipients has an addendum:

While the findings are not directly comparable because of differences in methodology, the new study suggests that the recent recession did not cause any significant increase in the share of benefits flowing to the poor, as might once have been expected.

The study found that older people received slightly more than half of government benefits, while the nonelderly with disabilities received an additional 20 percent. These benefits are not means-tested - indeed, better-paid workers get more in Social Security.

My general point from before still stands, as removing illegal immigrants, reducing immigration, and cutting down the guest worker program will cut the labor supply, making American workers more desirable to employers, and thus reducing unemployment, which in turn reduces safety net spending.

What’s more depressing is that a good portion of safety net spending has increased because the Boomers have finally decided to claim their government benefits. The only way to reduce this spending is to cut the benefits (which hilariously is more likely under Obama than Romney, at least if Romney is to be believed) or kill the recipients. On the hand, we’ll reduce government entitlements; on the other hand, the Boomers will be dead. Frankly, this is not a bad choice to have.

One thing’s for sure: with the increase in federal safety spending being due to changing demographics, this trend is unsustainable. The end of this trend will not be pleasant.

It’s Not That Simple

2012-02-16T06:26:00.002Z

Katie Kieffer understands the problem, but only gets the solution half-right:

A girl’s father shapes who she eventually finds herself attracted to. A girl whose father spoils her and stymies her with excessive attention will end up being irresponsible and incompetent. On the flip side, research shows that a girl whose father abandons her when she is young will prematurely reach sexual maturity and end up feeling both abandoned and sexually insecure. This insecurity could lead her to attach herself to smooth-talking bumpkins who use her and lose her.

I think the most influential man in every woman’s life is her father. Tomorrow is Valentine’s Day. Be a father figure to your daughter—or a woman who needs one. You will change the world.

Some men do need to be told to man up. Not all persecuted men are wholly undeserving of persecution. However, what prevents men from having the proper role in their daughters’ lives is not unwillingness but inability.

What Ms. Kieffer does not yet seem to realize is that a lot of fathers are prohibited from being involved in their children’s lives. Custody laws are a bitch like that.

Quite simply, the legal regime in this country is not friendly to men, nor is it friendly to fathers. Fathers have no say in whether their unborn child will be born. Fathers, if they are not married to the mothers of their children, will likely not have custody of their children, and will likely find that access to their children will be highly limited at times.

Daughters that grow up without fathers playing a major role in their lives will find their lives to be miserable, and will try to cope with the misery by seeking substitutes for the masculine, manly guidance they crave and need. And those substitutes pale mightily in comparison to the real thing. In a sense, there is no substitute for fathers.

A good number of fathers recognize instinctively that they need to be the man in their children’s lives. But they aren’t able to. Ultimately, it is often the case that it is not the fathers who desire that their daughters grow up fatherless, but the mothers and their partner-in-crime: the state. Thus, Ms. Kieffer’s message is correct; it is just directed at the wrong audience.

Why Kids Have Parents

2012-02-16T06:04:00.000Z

Here’s a fun story:

Kids usually don't think before they steal, but you can bet 13-year-old Natia Wade never thought she'd end up standing on the corner of a busy intersection holding up a hand-written sign that read, "I steal from my family." Wade, who lives in Memphis, ended up there after she racked up a record of taking things—mostly small, inconsequential things—without asking her mom. Apparently the final straw was when she took her mom's debit card and used it to reactivate her cell phone, which he mom had taken away.

Natia's aunt, Lauren Scales, was standing outside with her, and told the local news that she wasn't happy to have to shame the girl in public, but that she needed to learn a lesson.

Don't get me wrong because you never want to put your child in this situation because they're fragile. But with all of the things that are going on with kids stealing things and all the crime being committed in Memphis, she will not be one of them.

For her part, Natia does look chastened, but she said she didn't really know what she was doing was wrong. Who knows if this will have any lasting impact on her sticky fingers, but let's hope that public shaming doesn't become the next big thing in parenting—or we'll have kids with signs everywhere we look and dads shooting up laptops left and right.

When my sister was four, she decided to steal a pencil from a Christian bookstore. When my mom found out, she took her back to the store and made her return the pencil. Then my mom took my sister to the police station and threatened to leave her there, with all the other thieves. Since my sister was all of four at the time, the mere thought of not being with her parents, plus living with the shame of being a thief, was enough to scare her and make her cry. This lesson took on the first attempt, and never had to be taught again.

The thing that snarky feminists and well-meaning non-parents alike need to understand that fear and shame are the two most powerful tools in the parents’ toolbox. Fear and shame are extremely powerful motivators, and parents need to make the most of them.

Another thing that people need to learn is that crimes always start small. People start their life of crime with murder, or by burning a house. They start with considerably smaller, similarly revealing pathologies. The same is true of thieves. Does anyone think that the person who just knocked over a convenience store never stole from his family when he was a kid? Does anyone think that the person caught shoplifting never took things that didn’t belong to her when she was a child?

These pathologies start young and need to be eliminated as soon as they arise. Instilling aversion to these practices can be easily accomplished by ensuring that your child feels an intense amount of fear or shame. There’s no need to understand why kids steal, or listen to the rationalizations they make for their behavior. There’s no reason to excuse a child’s theft. The only thing that is necessary is making it clear, in no uncertain terms, that such behavior will not be tolerated.

Welcome to the Club

2012-02-15T22:01:00.000Z

Some readers may have noticed that Cranberry comments rather frequently on this esteemed blog, and that many of her comments are lengthy and insightful. She has started a blog and, unsurprisingly, it already has a couple of good posts. I’m probably biased, but this is my favorite post so far. Anyway, check her out, add her to your RSS feed manager, bookmark her blog, and check her out. If it helps, there’s a link to her blog in my blogroll on the right sidebar.

Just Get Married Already

2012-02-15T07:14:00.000Z

So there are some evangelicals who apparently want to take the licentiousness out of (St.) Valentine’s day, and they have decided to make February 14th into “Purity Day,” wherein white bread middle class evangelicals pledge to remain pure until marriage. This holiday even comes with a completely cringe-worthy video, perhaps in an attempt to embarrass takers of the purity pledge and thus test their resolve.

I, of course, completely support remaining pure until being married, seeing as how that’s pretty much God’s expectation (at least as I understand God’s condemnation of fornication). However, I think that there’s a better alternative to Purity Day. It’s called Wedding Day, when a horny young Christian male gets married to a horny young Christian female, mainly for the purpose of having sex in a non-fornicative manner, and also for sharing lives, having kids, and all that jazz.

While remaining pure until marriage is a very good and Godly thing, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to heavily push purity without also heavily pushing marriage. Haley has discussed the latter topic to some degree of depth at her blog, and the main point is this: among white bread middle-class evangelicals, there is a decent amount of pressure to wait for God to provide someone for you, which will likely happen once your life is perfect.*

The best advice, then, would be to remain pure until marriage and get married ASAP. The Purity Day initiative tacitly admits that young people have powerful sexual urges; how is “deny them indefinitely” better advice than “find a way to take satiate them morally”? Again, the mind boggles at this backwardness, wherein presumably well-intentioned people give advice that ignores half of the relevant conclusions, and will thus lead to unnecessary frustration. Thus, evangelicals need to stop saying “just keep staying pure” and start saying “just get married already.”

* Incidentally, this is terrible theology. One’s life will only ever be perfect in heaven where, as Christ noted, “they neither marry nor are given in marriage.”

Just the Tips

2012-02-15T06:38:00.000Z

Apparently the restaurant industry is terrible to teh wimminz:

Anyone who has ever worked in the restaurant industry can tell you that it can be incredibly unpleasant for everyone involved, but a new study has found that, in fact, it's an especially terrible place for women to work. To begin with, they make less money. Women servers who work full-time earn 68 percent of the salary their male counterparts make—and black women servers make only 60 percent. This disparity is explained largely by the fact that the highest-earning positions in the industry are dominated by men. For instance, only 19 percent of chefs are women.

Women tend to have the lower paying jobs, like server and host, in lower-cost restaurants. Sixty-eight percent of tipped workers are women, and tipped workers can be paid a lower minimum wage of just $2.13 an hour, as long as they make up the difference between that and the actual minimum wage of $7.25 an hour in tips (though many restaurants don't worry about whether their employees actually close the gap). According to the study, "[T]he lower minimum wage for tipped workers is essentially creating legalized gender inequity in the restaurant industry."

First off, as Chuck has already noted, servers in general tend to underreport their tips for tax purposes. Relying on this metric is problematic because the metric is known to be inaccurate, but it is not known to what degree this inaccuracy reaches. As such, women will more likely appear to earn less than men because they are in a better position to hide a good portion of their income.

Second, industries with a low minimum wage offer a better view of workers’ actual market value. This means that when people actually have to earn their money instead of relying on government fiat, we will actually know how much someone is worth. Now, if women are earning less than men in the restaurant industry, and if women are considerably more likely to actually have to earn their money directly (through the tip mechanism), then one should at least consider the idea that women workers in the restaurant industry aren’t actually that good at their jobs.

This then brings us to the crux of the matter: the assumption of equality. Maybe, just maybe, women don’t earn pay equal to men because they don’t provide value equal to men. And if they aren’t providing equal value, then it should be expected that they earn less. Thus, there are at least two distinct reasons for why women earn less than men: discrimination and lack of equal ability. The evidence is not clear enough to defend either position with certainty. As such, any definitive assertion of either position reveals more about the biases of the one make the assertion than of the study itself.

It’s No Coincidence

2012-02-15T06:15:00.000Z

Here’s Paul Krugman:

James Kwak and Larry Mishel, in slightly different ways, make a point I was planning to get to: the rise in safety net spending over the past decade does not reflect an expansion of that safety net. Instead, it reflects two things: rising health care costs, and a terrible economic slump that has put many more people in need.

Basically, the rise in safety net spending is due to increases in qualified recipients, not an expansion of average net benefits. Here’s the LA Times:

But now, as the economic rebound picks up a bit of steam, Latinos are scoring bigger job gains than most other demographic groups and proving to be a bright spot in the fledgling recovery.

While they make up only 15% of the country's workforce, Latinos have racked up half the employment gains posted since the economy began adding jobs in early 2010, Labor Department data showed.

Expanding the labor pool while simultaneously placing restraints on businesses will have the unfortunate consequence of driving down wages and preventing demand for labor from expanding. Tack on a price floor for labor, the high costs of regulatory compliance, plus the ability to easily escape onerous regulations via free trade agreements, and you have a recipe for high unemployment and low wages for those that remain employed.

Anyhow, one immediate step that can be taken by the government is to kick out illegal immigrants, eliminate the guest worker program, and cut down on legal immigration, particularly of the low-skill variety. This would reduce the labor pool, helping the currently unemployed have more opportunities to find employment, and eventually reduce safety net dependence, thus cutting government spending.

Also, given that the government is supposed to act in its citizens’ best interest, it should be a no-brainer to put the labor interest of citizens ahead of the labor interests of non-citizens. Especially since doing so will reduce government spending.

A Moderate, A Liberal, and A Conservative Walk Into a Bar

2012-02-15T05:56:00.000Z

The bartender looks up and says, “hey Mitt:”

In line with the Republican view, Romney criticized Obama this morning for doing nothing to reform entitlements. “This week, President Obama will release a budget that won’t take any meaningful steps toward solving our entitlement crisis,” Romney said in a statement e-mailed to reporters. “The president has failed to offer a single serious idea to save Social Security and is the only president in modern history to cut Medicare benefits for seniors. I believe we can save Social Security and Medicare with a few common-sense reforms, and – unlike President Obama – I’m not afraid to put them on the table.”

So conservative Mitt says we need to solve our entitlement crisis and liberal Mitt says we do that by saving Social Security and Medicare, which are the two largest federal expenditures. You know, the GOP could have an exciting primary just with Mitt running against himself.

Dear Republican Party Bosses

2012-02-15T04:58:00.000Z

Let’s cut the crap.

You want Mitt Romney to win the nomination. Who can blame you? After all, more than any other current GOP candidate, he’s the most inclined to support the status quo, fellate the banksters, and continue the panem et circenses that is the hallmark of American society.

Not only that, he’s presidential looking, has a nice family and doesn’t have any skeletons in his closet. Every attempted media smear has backfired because Romney’s a nice guy. Really, the only scandal facing Romney is that he is incredibly boring and safe. He’s not a firecracker like Gingrich, he’s not stupid like Santorum, and he doesn’t actually want any real change like Ron Paul. He’s predictable, and mind-numbingly so. And that’s the worst that can be said about him.

I get it. Romney is your guy. He’s safe, he’ll maintain GOP power, and he’s likable enough to beat Obama. That’s why you, the GOP party bosses, want him. But could you dispense with the pretext of democracy?

Look, no one likes him. You and your media acolytes keep calling him the clear frontrunner—that’s been your hype, after all. Yet, he’s only won four of the nine primaries/caucuses in which he’s participated. He got more than fifty percent of the vote in just one state, and even then just barely. No one likes him.

So, if you’re going to make him the nominee, regardless of the outcome, could you stop insulting us with this pretense of democracy? You think he’s the best candidate, the best leader, the best fit for America, the best representative of Republican values. Most Republicans disagree. So cut the crap and stop acting like the GOP is party in a democratic country.

If you want Romney to be the GOP candidate, just go ahead and do it. Quit making party members abase themselves in the futile attempt to appear like they’re participating in something meaningful. Stop lying to us, stop insulting what little intelligence we have, and just govern by fiat. Quit the charade of voting, quit the voter fraud, and just go ahead and make Romney the nominee.

Sincerely,

Simon Grey

PS- One benefit of dispensing with the pretext of caring about what party members want is that Romney can go ahead and start using Bankster money to campaign against Barack Obama, which will then force Obama to start using Bankster money to campaign against Romney. That’s the great thing about American democracy: no matter how the votes are tallied in November, the banks always win. Anyhow, let’s just go ahead and dispense with the charade.

GreyMail: Divorce and Marriage

2012-02-14T18:54:00.000Z

CC writes:

Well written article on the 3 lessons for conservatives. But I am curious, you made one exception for divorce, but what if one party does something against the law along the lines of domestic abuse? Also curious to what you think of the right for people that are homosexual to marry?

It should be noted that there are a couple of lenses through which to analyze the general subject of marriage. There is the legal aspect of marriage, the socio-cultural aspect of marriage, the religious aspect of marriage, the entertainment aspect of marriage (i.e. how marriage is portrayed in pop culture among the various media), and so on. For sake of brevity, I will only concern myself with the first three analytical lenses.

I actually deny the moral authority of state-ordained marriages, though I do recognize that legal marriages do offer certain exclusive legal rights, and make the exercising of other legal rights more convenient. As such, I think any human should be allowed to enter into a legal marriage with any number and type of other humans for as long as said human so desires. I also think that anyone should be able to terminate their legal marital contract at any time for any reason. I’m also of the opinion that there should not be any form of default alimony or child support, and that these things should only be granted when one marital party has obviously violated the terms of marital contract (note: if all or no parties violate the marital contract, then alimony and child support would be off the table). Since I don’t view the state as having moral authority in this matter, I see no reason for the state to place any restrictions on marital contracts, which I mean in the same sense that I see no reason for the state to place any restriction on business contracts.

As both a Christian and libertarian, I consider the socio-cultural aspects of marriage, particularly gay marriage, to be of no political concern. As a Christian, my duty is to preach and teach God’s word; it is not my duty to use the government to impose Biblical morality. As a libertarian, it is not my ethical duty to control other people’s lives; in fact, any attempt to do so would be unethical. Thus, if there are negative socio-cultural consequences to gays having the legal right to marry, so be it. If a majority of my fellow citizens wish to go down this path, it is certainly their choice, and I cannot coercively prevent them from doing so. I may (and should) warn them of the consequences of their decisions, but I cannot coercively prevent them from making what I judge to be bad decisions. As such, I have no desire or right to regulate marriage on socio-cultural grounds.

Finally, from a religious perspective, I should probably clarify that I’m not the one who made the singular exception for divorce. Jesus, in Matthew 19, said that, “I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,* and marries another, commits adultery.” As a Christian, I believe that God created the institution of marriage and, as such, he is the one who gets to regulate it. Jesus also teaches in Matthew 19 that marriage is intended to be one man and one woman until death does them part. I don’t get a say in determining these rules; I only get to live by them. Thus, from a religious perspective, I reject the validity of gay marriages, polygamous marriages, and adulterous marriages. If God doesn’t recognize these unions as valid, then how can I?

Regarding domestic violence, I think a couple of points are in order. First, domestic violence would be implicitly condemned in scriptures (cf. Eph. 5:22-33), and therefore has no place in marriage. However, it is not a reason for divorce (see Matt. 19:9, above). It’s also worth pointing out that men are, per a study undertaken by the CDC, more likely to be the victims of domestic abuse than the perpetrators. It’s also worth pointing out that a decent number of women seem to be attracted to violence, as evidenced by this study of rape fantasies.

I also recall seeing a study a long time ago (I was unable to find a link for it, though, sorry) that most women were able to predict the violent tendencies of men just by looking at them, which implies that most women who end up suffering domestic abuse are able to have predicted such an outcome. I have no sympathy for women who decide to marry violent psychopaths knowing full well that they are marrying violent psychopaths. If you choose a certain bed, you’re going to have to lie in it.

At any rate, I hope this answers your questions. I realize I wasn’t as clear on distinguishing between my analytical assumptions in my prior post. I do make a distinction between the legal institution of marriage and the religious institution of marriage, and have actually written extensively on how to separate the two. Ultimately, legality does not equal morality, and it is a mistake to think otherwise.

* From the Greek word porneia, which means “all illicit sexual activity.” Anyone who commits any form of fornication, then, has by definition committed adultery, and can (not “must”) be divorced. Note also that divorcing anyone on any other grounds and remarrying also constitutes adultery, which implies that one is still effectively married even when one divorces for any other reason than adultery because, by definition, only married people can commit adultery.

Electoral Shenanigans

2012-02-14T06:56:00.000Z

From the GOP:

Caucuses in Washington County that had been scheduled for Saturday were postponed until Feb. 18 because of a major snowstorm that blanketed the region. Earlier, party Executive Director Michael Quatrano said county officials had been told the results of that caucus would not count toward the total.

Incidentally, Ron Paul polled very well in Washington County. And, given the low turnout of the state caucus, some have suggested that the results from Washington County alone would have been enough to tip the state his way.

That aside, it’s extremely troubling that the GOP is acting in this matter. Suddenly deciding that some people’s votes don’t count is simply unbecoming. Anyway, the lesson to take away from this is that party members’ votes will always count as long as members vote for the party boss’s preferred candidate. And that’s how democracy works, folks.

Three Lessons Conservatives Need to Learn

2012-02-14T06:45:00.000Z

From gay marriage:

Gov. Christine Gregoire signed legislation on Monday to make Washington the seventh state to legalize same-sex marriage, but opponents said they would try to seek its repeal through a ballot measure. Ms. Gregoire, a Democrat and a Roman Catholic, said, “I’m proud of who and what we are as a state.” Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont recognize same-sex marriage, as does Washington, D.C. The measure will take effect 90 days after the legislative session ends.

First, conservatives need to learn that the government cannot be trusted to uphold traditional values. The reason why conservatives, particularly social conservatives need to stop making social matters a political issue is because, in the long run, they always lose. The government is evil, supports evil, loves evil, and traffics in evil. Evil is the currency of government, which is why no one should ever look to it to uphold traditional morality. Everything about politics and government works in the opposite direction of traditional morality. Getting the government to uphold traditional values is always short-lived, with the government eventually going in the opposite direction. Thus, trusting the government to uphold traditional values is like trusting a fox to guard a henhouse: only a fool would do it.

Second, conservatives need to learn that this sort of immorality does not happen overnight. Gay marriage is not the first, nor the worst assault on the institution of marriage. Feminism and the sexual revolution were earlier and did more damage. Feminism worked against marriage by making it easier for women to divorce their boring husbands, and get paid (i.e. receive alimony) for doing so, and all without having to lose the kids. Then the sexual revolution came and completely eliminated the need for marriage since women were no longer shamed for riding the carousel. As such, women had no reason to marry except to lock into guaranteed income, which would exist even after a divorce. These two elements, then, have completely destroyed marriage; there’s not much left for the gays to do to it.

Third, conservatives need to learn when and how to quit. At this point, the legal war has been lost. The gays will pretty much all be able to get a piece of paper from the government saying that they’re married. This will be inevitable. But the culture war hasn’t been lost—and needn’t be—as long conservatives play their cards right. The first step is to stop going to the government for marriage. Don’t get marriage certificates or licenses; instead, get married by religious officials in churches and simply take your vow before God and a handful of witnesses. The second step, in conjunction with the first, is to make sure that churches who marry people enforce the marriages, which means no divorces except for the cause of adultery, and no alimony (I’d make an exception for child support, to be paid by the adulterous spouse). Once this is in place, conservatives can then feel free to mock government-issued marriage licenses as worthless pieces of paper, and refuse to recognize immoral marriages. For what it’s worth, I seriously doubt that conservatives would undertake this, mostly because conservatives aren’t actually as concerned about marriage as they claim.

Why the Tea Party Fizzled Out

2012-02-14T04:17:00.001Z

This picture should explain pretty clearly why the conservative revolt was so easily co-opted by Washington:

Source.

The chart shows what percent of the average state’s citizen’s income is comprised of federal money (i.e. how much of one’s income comes in the form of federal handouts). As is clear, conservative states receive a larger proportion of federal handouts.

However, it needs to be noted that there are two serious shortcomings to this analysis. First, the analysis is relative, not absolute. It may be that liberal receive more federal money in absolute terms but it is distributed among a larger population. Second, the analysis is on a state level, instead of a county or individual level. I’m not inclined to believe that the analysis would change dramatically if measurements were absolute and at an individual level, though it is possible.

Anyhow, if this analysis is to be believed, the reason why the Tea Party never actually managed to get the federal government to cut spending is because the conservatives that comprised the Tea Party are just as big government as the liberals they claim to oppose.

The Chris Brown Scandal

2012-02-14T04:06:00.000Z

Some people are apparently upset that Chris Brown performed at the Grammys:

I’m sick and tired of people acting like it’s no big deal that Chris Brown will be performing at the Grammys.

I’m frustrated that the mainstream media is covering this story like it’s any comeback story, like an exiled prince’s return to a former glory, like this is another political timeline — as though some rich and powerful old white men in the music business have not just issued an enormous ‘f**k you’ to every woman who has been, is or will be on the receiving end of domestic violence.

We should be furious.

Why aren’t we?

Well, I can’t answer for everyone, but there are two reasons why I’m not upset about this. First off, Rihanna is back with Chris Brown. If she’s forgiven him for his domestic violence why shouldn’t I?

Second, the Grammys are about music, not supporting the victims of domestic abuse. While I’m not a fan of Chris Brown’s “music,” I can’t say that it’s all that problematic that a music artist (a phrase used loosely in this context) was invited to participate in an awards show in which he was nominated for an award. He was being awarded for his music, not his relationship skills.

Also, the most relevant question to ask is why Rihanna wasn’t furious about Chris Brown’s invite. After all, she was expected to be in the same venue with him. And, again, if she’s not upset about this, why should I be?

The Military and Rape

2012-02-14T03:55:00.000Z

From Jezebel:

Trotta apparently believes that the way to prevent rape in the military is to simply take all the women away rather than try to do something to help these women who are being "raped too much." But has she considered that maybe something is wrong with the male culture of the military that the men can't seem to stop raping? Nope!

First off, the culture of the military is such that men (and presumably women) are expected to commit what would generally be considered profoundly immoral acts (i.e. murder) without a moment’s thought or hesitation. This is pretty much the whole point of the military: to do heinous things without concern for morality. Thus, if men are trained to kill others without spending a lot of time in quiet introspection to determine whether killing is justified in the specific context in which it would occur, it shouldn’t be at all surprising if rape gets added to the list of actions that are generally immoral but soldiers do without reflecting upon first. This is not to justify the rape of women serving in the military, only to explain that the military is not an entity that is best suited to not-raping women.

Second, there are a limited number of ways to prevent women from being raped while serving in the military. In an earlier post, I showed how the government can prevent crime, and those principles can be applied here, such that the government using the penal system to deter and passively prevent crime. Since military law already forbids rape and prosecutes rapists, there isn’t much more that can be gained here.

That, then, leaves just two other ways the government can prevent women from being raped in a military context: Forbid women from serving in the military or change the culture of the military to the point where men are strongly hesitant to do immoral things. Obviously, enacting the latter will greatly reduce the effectiveness of the military, perhaps to the point where having a military is kind of pointless. Thus, the only real solution to preventing women from get raped in the military is to prevent women from serving in the military in the first place.

While forbidding women from serving might sound unfair, it is really the only way to have both a military that does what militaries do and prevent women from being raped while in the military. If one wants women to serve in the military without reducing the effectiveness of the military, then one will have to accept the fact the some number of rapes will simply be inevitable.

Natural Monopolies and Cap and Trade

2012-02-14T03:35:00.000Z

Note: this post is intended as discussion of economic theory. The use of certain analytical tools should not be construed as approval or said tools, nor should assertions and arguments be construed as advocacy. This is simply an exercise in economic analysis.

Taking the mainstream definition of natural monopolies, and assuming that the human-produced carbon dioxide that inevitably results when producing electricity does contribute to global warming, I think it’s safe to say that cap-and-trade schemes are superfluous.

In the first place, note that natural monopolies are generally defined are markets that have high entrance costs with minimal variation in products. Landline telephone service would be an example of this, as the infrastructure necessary for building a market is extremely expensive, while the product available generally doesn’t vary (i.e. you get to call people). In contrast, mass-market retail (think: Walmart or Meijer) is not a natural monopoly because the costs of market entry are not necessarily high—insofar as they can be localized—and there can be quite a variation in products available. For purposes of analysis, electricity is considered a natural monopoly since market entrance costs are high and the product is uniform.

In the second place, note that one common assertion made by mainstream economists is that natural monopolies are anti-market (or, more accurately, anti-consumer) because they impose what is assumed to be artificially high prices on consumers, which in turn requires consumers to lower electricity usage or reduce other forms of spending to afford their electrical bills. As such, the argument is that the government needs to interfere in this market so as to make sure that consumers do not have to make difficult decisions about economic tradeoffs. In doing so, the government lowers the price of electricity, and increases the amount of electricity consumed.

In the third place, producing electricity exacerbates global warming. Most electricity in the US is produced from fossil fuels (i.e. coal, crude oil, and natural gas). Fossil fuel refinement and usage releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which traps heat.

In the fourth place, there is a proposed solution for carbon-dioxide-based global warming: cap-and-trade. This seeks to discourage the use and refinement of fossil fuels by imposing a tax on carbon usage and production.

Now, here’s where things get confounding: if natural monopolies could simply exist and charge consumers higher prices for electricity, then there would be no need for cap-and-trade since the market would solve that problem naturally by the price mechanism. Not only that, this would also help to ensure the long-term stability of carbon-based energy prices, as this would further ensure that demand is not pulled too far forward (which is what happens when the government artificially lowers prices). Of course, allowing natural monopolies to do this means that money goes to businessmen instead of politicians, so the real reason for cap-and-trade is to a) correct for a government-caused market inefficiency and b) enrich politicians. Isn’t it amazing how all that works out?

Bad Parenting

2012-02-13T07:23:00.000Z

Why American parents suck:

Yet the French have managed to be involved with their families without becoming obsessive. They assume that even good parents aren't at the constant service of their children, and that there is no need to feel guilty about this. "For me, the evenings are for the parents," one Parisian mother told me. "My daughter can be with us if she wants, but it's adult time." French parents want their kids to be stimulated, but not all the time. While some American toddlers are getting Mandarin tutors and preliteracy training, French kids are—by design—toddling around by themselves.

I'm hardly the first to point out that middle-class America has a parenting problem. This problem has been painstakingly diagnosed, critiqued and named: overparenting, hyperparenting, helicopter parenting, and my personal favorite, the kindergarchy. Nobody seems to like the relentless, unhappy pace of American parenting, least of all parents themselves. [Hat tip: Mangan]

I do not have children, or any theories for raising them. I have no idea how much of a role nurture plays in child development. I can’t even begin to anticipate the sort of messes kids can get themselves into.

However, I do know that overparenting annoys me. Whenever I see some parent trying to micro-manage their brat, I want to go up to them and punch them in their face.

Kids are, for the most part, boring little turds. They have nothing of value to say, and rarely offer insight. The wisdom of children is the wisdom of adults, except in a cute voice, and without as many rationalizations. I do not see how anyone finds giving their undivided attention to children to be rewarding because kids are, simply put, annoying.

And yet, American parents are, for the most part, hyper-involved in their kids’ lives. Look, we all get that you care, that you want what’s best for your kids, etc. But here’s the thing: children are humans, not accessories. And they do not need your undivided attention to make it to adulthood.

My parents would probably have been considered neglectful because I simply did not receive much attention from either of them. And I was homeschooled through sophomore year. By the time I was nine, I was expected to be out of bed by 8:00 AM, and started on schoolwork by 9:00 AM. I was supposed to do my own work without prompting or supervision, and only ask for my mom’s attention if I needed help with something. Once I was done with school, I was pretty much free to do whatever I wanted with the rest of my day, provided I got my chores done without prompting. When dad came home from work, we work expected to leave him alone so he could spend time with mom “talking about his day.”

I managed to make it to adulthood without any emotional scarring, or other major consequences of parental neglect. I assume I’m one of the lucky ones. I feel bad about myself now, having been deprived of a childhood with overbearing parents that wanted to micromanage my life. How ever was I to rebel?

Anyway, parents in America have turned this country into a bizarre Benjamin Button world, where you become more childish as you age. Normally, it is the children who focus on the parents. In America, though, it’s the opposite: the parents focus on the children.

I think that’s what most annoying about American parents. Their lives are so devoid of personal value that they use their kids for social status. That’s why they always focus on their kids, signing them up for sport every season, plus music and language lessons, not to mention play dates and worthless academic competitions. American parents have nothing to show for their years wasted at colleges and in cubicles, so they live vicariously through their children, turning them into narcissists in the process, only to set themselves up for inevitable disappointment once the kids finally realize they don’t want to be prodigies.

This culture is so dysfunctional. Kids can’t be kids because adults won’t be adults. Kids have to be artists, athletes, and academics, and parents have to be their kids’ personal trainers, managing every second of their lives.

The worst conversationalists in the world are American mothers. They are devoid of personality. They have no life of their own; only of their children. All they talk about is their children, or things related to their children. When you talk politics with them, it always comes back to their children. Cooking, art, clothes, etc., it always comes back to their children.

The dads don’t say much, though. Probably because they’re always at work, earning money to be spent on their kids’ activities. They don’t know much about their kids, about their dreams, about their interests. They only know about their activities.

What’s sad about all this is that American parents get parenting completely wrong. They overparent, but not where it counts. They are over-involved in their children’s lives when it comes to superfluous things, like sports and art, but they are never involved enough to actually discipline their children and mold them into functional adults. They give their children license where boundaries are needed and boundaries where license is needed.

Res ipsa loquitur.

Big Ag Attacks Freedom

2012-02-13T06:39:00.000Z

More like the United Statists of America, amirite?

Senate Bill 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act, has been called "the most dangerous bill in the history of the United States of America." It would grant the U.S. government new authority over the public's right to grow, trade and transport any foods. This would give Big brother the power to regulate the tomato plants in your backyard. It would grant them the power to arrest and imprison people selling cucumbers at farmer's markets. It would criminalize the transporting of organic produce if you don't comply with the authoritarian rules of the federal government.

"It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one's choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God." - Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada Health whistleblower.

This tyrannical law puts all food production (yes, even food produced in your own garden) under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security. Yep -- the very same people running the TSA and its naked body scanner / passenger groping programs.

First, I don’t see how homegrown food is a concern of DHS. What, are they afraid of literal homegrown terrorists? Because I’m pretty sure it doesn’t work that way.

But more to the point, people have been growing and cultivating their own crops for thousands of years. If the current global population of 7 billion is any indication, we’ve done a decent job of growing food. In fact, there isn’t much that’s complicated about, you plant a seed in the ground, water it, pull the weeds that spring up around it, water it some more, then harvest it. Humans have been this without issue for thousands of years with no government oversight. I think we’ll be able to manage for a few more decades before we need our nominally omniscient overlords to tell us how to make food to eat.

This bill was originally sponsored by Ted “The Dead” Kennedy way back in 2009, though getting a thorough history of the bill is nearly impossible (it’s almost as if senate.gov is designed to be deliberately unhelpful). Anyway, S.510 tracks through 2010, then kind of vanishes from there, except in individual senator’s personal senate sites. It also appears that Senator John “Dingleberry” Dingell is a current co-sponsor. For what it’s worth, his largest campaign contributor a lobbying firm that lobbies on behalf of various agricultural interests, which is probably just coincidental.

At any rate, I can’t be bothered to actually prove who’s behind all this because I can simply infer the answer to that question simply by asking who stands to profit from this. Big Ag, obviously, because it increases fixed costs for producers, which makes margins thinner for small competitors. Big-government democrats (but I repeat myself) and big-government Republicans (there I go again) are obviously sponsoring it because those big-government types like big government.

And so, the land of the free takes another step closer to becoming the home of the slave. The majority doesn’t care because it doesn’t impact them directly, and also Snooki is on right now so could you just shut up about stupid politics already?

Spot the Fallacies

2012-02-13T06:03:00.000Z

I count three:

Capitalism is currently undergoing its most serious crisis since the Great Depression. The solutions offered by the Right are the same as they were then: Do nothing and let the natural cycle of business (the invisible hand of the free market) straighten itself out. Well, that’s not going to work. Hoover did that for three years and had nothing to show for it. Rooseveldt’s [sic] approach of course made sense. Recessions and depressions mandate an activist state and its massive intervention, otherwise, you’re in Hell forever. But then, I’m a Keynesian, eh?

First, we have a little bit of term conflation to start things off. If capitalism is defined as anything approaching the free market, then what’s happening right now in America is not a crisis of capitalism. Corporatism, maybe. Or the-electorate-wants-all-the-benefits-of-socialism-without-actually-paying-for-it-or-allowing-the-government-to-regulate-them-ism (aka magical-rainbow-unicorn-ism). At any rate, the current crisis is not one of capitalism, the free market, or laissez-faire, because none of those actually exist outside of theory in America these days.

Second, Hoover was not laissez-faire by any stretch of the imagination. Unless laissez-faire now means interventionist statism. The difference between Hoover and Roosevelt is like the difference between Bushitler and Obamao: it’s of degree, not kind.

Third, the solutions offered by the right are not, so far as I know, “do-nothing.” They might be non-interventionist, but that now requires removing market impediments (which, it should be noted, is the very definition of doing something). At any rate, most of the right’s proposals ten to be along the lines of reducing* taxes, deregulating* businesses, and reducing* spending.

There are probably other fallacies I’ve overlooked. If so, point them out in the comments.

* Note that all of these words are verbs, which are action words. In essence, each of these words means doing something.

Athol Kay's New Book

2012-02-12T05:48:00.000Z

Athol Kay has a new book out called Do These Pants Make My Ass Look Fat? It's available on Amazon in Kindle and dead tree format. Show him some support by buying the book. I did, and I'll have a review up sometime soon. Anyway, buy the book, read it, and swing by Athol's blog to let him know what you think.

PS: clicking on the one of the Amazon links on my blog helps support me, so if you buy the book through my blog, you get to help two of your favorite bloggers for the price of one. What a deal!

More on Preventing Crime

2012-02-12T04:10:00.000Z

Charles Murray:

Cumulatively, however, two things happen. First, more and more of the “dirty 7 percent” of offenders who commit about 50 percent of all crime end up in prison. They cannot commit crimes, except against other criminals. Second, the cumulative impact of much higher imprisonment rates does make an impression—the idea that crime doesn’t pay is no longer completely a joke. For violent crime, the tipping point occurred in 1992, when imprisonment rates were heading straight up. By the time that the imprisonment rate for violent crime reached its 1960 level in 1998, the downward trendline was well established.

Since violent crimes are, by definition, property crimes, it would seem that having the government focus on incarcerating violent offenders would do a pretty efficient job of minimizing crime. Couple this with the increasing tendency to make things crime-proof (see here), and there’s a pretty compelling utilitarian case for the government to avoid active prevention of crimes.

Follow the Money

2012-02-12T03:55:00.000Z

Here’s why there’s so much talk about Iran:

If you want to know what’s wrong with our campaign finance laws – and our political system in a more general sense – look at the way Sheldon Adelson is buying the Republican nomination for his sock puppet, Newt Gingrich.

…

He and his allies have been campaigning for war with Iran for years, not only here but in the Middle East. Adelson is a major financial backer of Israel’s ultra-nationalist Likud party, which calls in its platform for a “Greater Israel,” and he has backed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the hilt. The 16th richest man in the world, with his casino empire stretching from Macao to Las Vegas, he thought nothing of giving $60 million to Israel’s anniversary celebration. He is also a major backer of AIPAC, the most important pro-Israel lobbying organization – but downsized his contribution when the group signed on to the two-state solution advanced by both Republican and Democratic presidents – on the grounds that the plan means Israel is “committing suicide.” He supports the extremist – and increasingly violent – “settler” movement, and is the money-bags behind the “Clarion Fund,” which is responsible for flooding the US with anti-Arab propaganda.

I wasn’t even in high school when the US went to war with Iraq, on the grounds that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and posed an imminent threat the US. I was in middle school at the time, and my parents were (and remain) staunch conservatives. As such, I strongly supported the war in Iraq, right up until Saddam was killed, and it was revealed that there were no WMDs.

Even then, I still supported the war, just not as strongly as before. By the time college rolled around, and I was forced to sign up for Selective Service, I no longer supported the war in Iraq. It was costly, predicated on a lie, and was getting bogged down in lots of generally meaningless fighting.

My aversion to war with Iran stems from my limited experience with Iraq. While there are quite possibly significant military risks posed by Iran—just as there were with Iraq—there is also a lot of big talk surrounding the debate. The politicians seem quite confident in their analysis of the threat, just as they were with Iraq, with Vietnam, with Afghanistan, and with all wars prior. But the simple fact of the matter is that no one is omniscient, and that any one’s predictions about the future are probabilistic.

Once you factor in how much support he’s receiving from a PAC dedicated to supporting Israel and encouraging war, you have to question just how much Gingrich’s certainty about Iran should be trusted. Yes, Iran may be a threat, as Iraq once was supposedly was. But when analysis of the threat consists primarily of hyperbolic doomsday scenarios and propagandistic warmongering, as it did with Iraq, you have to wonder if attacking Iran will reveal that there wasn’t ever a real threat, as was the case with Iraq. And you have to wonder if invading Iran will turn into an expensive debacle, as it did with Iraq.

Ultimately, my aversion to war with Iran stems from a distinct feeling of déjà vu, as if I’ve seen this before. I’m not interested in seeing history repeat itself, at least in this instance. Plus, I’m not interested in being fooled again, either. When we went to war with Iraq, it was because George Bush fooled us. If we go to war with Iran, it will be because we fooled ourselves.

Paragraphs to Ponder

2012-02-11T07:54:00.000Z

From Heartiste:

Chew on that. Realize what is being said here. If you do, you should feel a shudder descend your spine. Individualism and freedom of thought are the enemies of the very values and morality which gave birth to them and elevated them to primacy among advanced nations.

What libertarian, conservative OR liberal could read and accept the above premise and not feel at least some elemental — some PRIMAL — part of his worldview shatter into a million pieces. Libertarians: laissez faire means the cementing of intractable human hereditary differences into antagonistic classes and milieus. Conservatives: freedom and prosperity mean a slackening of external behavioral motivators and the erosion of commonality and shared values and the means with which to argue for them. Liberals: nonjudgmental individualism means a collapse of social capital and a surrender of any moral or aesthetic authority.

None of this is to say that people would, or should, prefer to live in less prosperous, backward nations. I don’t see too many Westerners clamoring to move to Zimbabwe for the quality of life. And yet, there has to be a recognition among the cognoscenti that a deeply embedded human nature exists, and that this nature — immutable, unalterable, suppressed only with great effort — when allowed to fully express or, alternately, when stifled at great psychic expense guarantees the slow unwinding of the very prosperity it desires and refuses to relinquish when it achieves.

The Lion King was right: It’s the circle of life. Prosperity sows the seeds of decline. Decline sows the seeds of destruction. Destruction sows the seeds of prosperity. Ad infinitum.

Humanity is never content. This lack of contentment is a double-edged sword which kills and by which one is killed. Man’s lack of contentment causes him to pursue new ideas, in the hope of increasing prosperity. Man will try freedom until it fails to produce the desired results, or produce the desired results fast enough. Then man will slavery, until that fails to produce the desired results, or produce the desired results fast enough. Man will always oscillate between the two, believing that the grass is always greener on the other side.

Strangely enough, the grass is always greener, until it’s over-consumed. And so, having razed one field, man will go back to the other, in search of greener pastures to raze again. Back and forth, back and forth, man always swings between two extremes, never content, always experimenting. This is why man succeeds and, paradoxically, why he fails.

Because man is never content, man must always try new solutions to the problems that continuously plague man. Sometimes humanity’s lot will improve; sometimes humanity’s lot will decline. At this point, humanity is poised to decline.

Bozell the Bozo

2012-02-11T07:16:00.001Z

Here he is, putting the blame where it doesn’t belong:

Super Bowl XLVI was a good football game, marred once again by the bohemian elite at NBC. NBC could have prevented, but failed to stop, the broadcast of a female rapper "flipping the bird" at 114 million viewers during Madonna's halftime show. It was another "fleeting expletive" of the hand-gesture variety, and somehow, despite elaborate rehearsals, no one at NBC could seem to stop it.

Unless I’m mistaken (note: I’m not), neither NBC nor the NFL forced anyone to watch either the Super Bowl or the Super Bowl Halftime Show. (I certainly wasn’t.) As such, the only person who is at fault for watching M.I.A. extend her middle finger during the Super Bowl halftime show are those who actually made the choice to watch M.I.A. extend her middle finger during the Super Bowl halftime show.

Get a clue already, Brent.

Q: How do you know when something distasteful is going to happen at the Super Bowl halftime show?

A: A woman is headlining.

For some reason, Bozell the bozo has not yet grasped that woman are far less decorous and well-behaved than men, at least in this day and age. “Like a Virgin” wasn’t sung by The Who, it was sung by Madonna. The Who are famous primarily for their music (and Keith Moon was primarily known for his off-stage antics), whereas Madonna is famous for being shocking. How then does it surprise anyone when something shocking happens during Madonna’s Super Bowl halftime performance? For crying out loud, her stage name was intended to be sacrilegious. Of course her on-stage behavior is going to be boorish.

Thus, it was easily predictable that something terrible would happen during the halftime show. (That’s why I didn’t bother to watch it. Or any other Super Bowl halftime performance. Ever. I even missed the Janet Jackson slut show.) The easiest way to handle this problem is ridiculously simple: change the channel.

Plus, what’s that old saying? “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” After Janet Jackson’s performance, you should have made a point of not getting fooled again. In this case, it means boycotting, at the least, the Super Bowl halftime show. So, how about instead of complaining about things you can’t control, you take matters into your own hands and change the channel once the Big Game hits halftime?

The Take Over, The Break’s Over

2012-02-11T06:57:00.000Z

Now, back to my woman-hating ways:

The Colorado teenager who made national headlines when her racy senior pictured was rejected by the editors of her school yearbook has been the victim of bullying and discrimination and will continue to fight after the school rejected a third photo and used her school ID photo instead, her mother says.

Miki Spies, the mother of Durango High School senior Sydney Spies, told Westword magazine that she and Sydney's father plan to file a complaint with the Durango, Colo., school board and superintendent in the hope that they "acknowledge that there's been a lot of mishandling of this situation."

"Sydney feels very bullied, by the entire school, basically," Spies, 44, told Westword. "The school has been awful and the kids have been awful. She's received very little support in any way from anybody. There's been a ton of cyber-bullying, where people can say whatever they want without looking the person in the eyes. It's been extremely hurtful for our entire family."

I hope the whole school continues to ~~bully~~ shame this little slut. Frankly, it is not at all unreasonable for Sydney’s classmates to want to have their school represented well. If this means precluding a slut from having her slutty, whorish, prostituting pictures precluded from the yearbook, then so be it. If she wants to attention-whore, she can do what all high school attention whores do: sign up for a Facebook page.

There’s more to life than oneself, as slutty Sydney has apparently yet to learn. Her school picture does not only reflect on her, but on the whole school as well. If her classmates don’t want a whore for a school mascot, that is certainly their prerogative. Slutty Sydney needs to quit whining and just accept the fact that not everyone likes to be known for going to a school that has a serious prostitute problem.

In many ways, this smells just like a woman’s normal form of testing. My hope is that school officials keep their balls and stand up to this little whore and continue to tell her no. The whole world knows there is at least one slut at the school; what’s the point in making sure there’s permanent photo evidence of this?

A Brief Respite

2012-02-11T06:46:00.000Z

From my normal cynicism, misanthropy, and pessimism. Here’s why:

But just two years after winning her “wings,” the 21-year-old brunette has retired her lingerie, as she revealed the entire time she was struggling inside to reconcile her revealing career with her Christian faith.

“Victoria’s Secret was my absolutely biggest goal in life, and it was all I ever wanted career-wise,” Bisutti is quoted as saying by IBT. “But the more I was modeling lingerie, and lingerie isn’t clothing, I just started becoming more uncomfortable with it because of my faith. I’m Christian, and reading the Bible more, I was becoming more conflicted about it.”

Kylie, who married shortly before she won the model search in 2009, also admits her role as a wife and someone that was looked up to in her church body played a large part in her choice to quit.

“My body should only be for my husband and it’s just a sacred thing,” she said. “I didn’t really want to be that kind of role model for younger girls because I had a lot of younger Christian girls that were looking up to me and then thinking that it was okay for them to walk around and show their bodies in lingerie to guys.”

I can’t think of much more to say about this, other than it’s refreshing to see a Christian woman take her faith seriously, to the point where she’ll turn down a sizeable amount of income to live in accordance with God’s word.* It’s also nice to see a woman show this sort of concern about her relationship with her husband, and how her career would impact that. You know what? It’s just nice to see that somewhere in America, there’s an attractive Christian wife who is thoughtful, considerate, and actually concerned about what God says.

* Cf. I Tim. 2:9-10; Titus 2:3-5; I Pet. 3:1-4; Phil. 2:12; and II Tim. 2:15.

Madness, Sheer Madness

2012-02-10T07:24:00.000Z

This time in regards to second-hand smoke:

A study just released by the CDC (see here) characterizes second-hand smoke as the latest threat to “safety” – and of course, “the children.” It urges what you’d expect: That it be made illegal to smoke in your own car, at least, if “the children” are present and possibly even if they’re not. For as any smoker knows – as anyone who has shopped for used cars knows – any car that has been smoked in retains the essence of the Marlboro Man for years, even decades after the last butt was crumpled in the ashtray. There is no way to objectively tell whether a car was smoked in last week – or 10 minutes ago. Hence, it is likely that any evidence of smoking – ever – will presently become sufficient excuse for the police to issue tickets, stop people at gunpoint and perhaps even confiscate their vehicles (as is routinely done when another form of smoke is discovered).

Let’s take the logic of this proposition to its logical conclusion: If it should be illegal for a someone to smoke a cigarette in a car if a child is present because the secondhand smoke of said cigarette poses a serious health threat (i.e. a serious, potentially life-ending illness), shouldn’t it also be illegal to drive children anywhere, given the likelihood of them dying in a car wreck? If you can act the former law in the name of children’s safety, how can you not enact the latter? After all, not all cars, nor car drives, involve inhaling second-hand smoke, whereas all cars and trips are at risk for involvement in an accident. As such, suffering from second-hand smoke inhalation while riding in a car is a subset of the general health risks associated with riding in a car. And if you ban the subset, you must ban the set in order to be logically consistent.

At any rate, it should be clear just how absurd this law really is. In the first place, it hasn’t even been proven that secondhand smoke actually kills people.* In the second case, even it had been proven that secondhand smoke kills people, it doesn’t make sense to ban smoking in cars in the name of safety without also banning both a) smoking in general and b) cars.

* This hilarious website claims that over 53,000 people are killed annually by secondhand smoke. It then cites its methodology. First commenter to correctly identify the logical fallacy demonstrated in the assertion wins.

Here’s The Problem

2012-02-10T07:08:00.000Z

In case it hadn’t been made clear before:

No Child Left Behind requires all students to be proficient in reading and math by 2014. Obama's action strips away that fundamental requirement for those approved for flexibility, provided they offer a viable plan instead. Under the deal, the states must show they will prepare children for college and careers, set new targets for improving achievement among all students, develop meaningful teacher and principal evaluation systems, reward the best performing schools and focus help on the ones doing the worst. [Emphasis added.]

The reason the college bubble exists is due in large part to the federal government’s actions, predicated on politicians’ assumptions that college is a universal good to be enjoyed by everyone. This is, of course, predicated on several fallacious assumptions, including the belief that a college education increases one’s knowledge, that a college education improves one’s intelligence, that a college education is either evidence of or brings improvement in one’s work ethic, and that there is a general correlative or causal link between a nation’s collective level of education and its economic output. As such, this continued emphasis on college will only lead to higher college costs, and have nothing to show for it.

“Overreaching His Authority”

2012-02-10T06:58:00.001Z

From Yahoo:

In September, Obama called President George W. Bush's most hyped domestic accomplishment an admirable but flawed effort that hurt students instead of helping them. He said action was necessary because Congress failed to update the law despite widespread bipartisan agreement that it needs fixing. Republicans have charged that by granting waivers, Obama was overreaching his authority.

Seeing as how Obama swore an oath to uphold the constitution (you know, that one document that Republicans claim isn’t living and breathing), and didn’t take an oath to uphold congressional legislation, it seems that the relevant question is: does the constitution authorize NCLB? If not, than Obama is under no obligation to uphold the law, and can therefore grant exemptions to it, both formally and informally. In fact, one could make the case that Obama, per his oath of office, should grant all states exemptions, and otherwise make no attempt to enforce the law.

Emotional Reason

2012-02-10T06:49:00.000Z

I’d like to appropriate this from John Hawkins:

4) Make Emotion-Based Arguments: Don't get me wrong: both liberals and conservatives make emotion-based arguments. However, it may be 25% of what conservatives do, while it makes up 98% of liberalism. What so many conservatives don't seem to get is that as a general rule, a powerful emotional argument will usually beat a sound, logical argument. Put another way, you can be right and still lose. It happens all the time. So while conservatives shouldn't discard logic-based arguments, we need to work much harder to tie in emotions. This isn't actually all that hard. Ask yourself whom a program benefits or hurts and explain it in emotional terms. "You support Affirmative Action? Oh, so you believe black Americans are inferior to whites and need a hand up to compete with them? That's disgusting." "You think we should turn a blind eye to illegal immigration? Why do you want to put American workers out of jobs?" "Dry and sciencey" may appeal to think tank wonks and "Big L" Libertarians, but it isn't ultimately going to be enough to move the American people our way.

Hawkins is entirely correct in both his observation and prescription. Humans are, in fact, emotional creatures who often act solely because their actions make them feel good. There is no sense ignoring this fact, and plenty to be gained from exploiting it.

Also note that it is not more moral or honest to appeal to emotion instead of or more than reason. Both are valid reasons for action, and therefore appeals can be made to both. While it might feel, to some, that it is dishonest to appeal to emotion instead of reason, note that most people prefer to act on emotional, and view emotionally-driven actions to be valid. If one views emotion-driven actions valid, then it is not in any way unethical or otherwise immoral to appeal to their emotions instead of their intellect.

If one is going to make an emotional appeal, one must have the right balance. Praise and emphasize those things that are considered good, like freedom and liberty, and ignore those things that are bad, like inequality of outcome. While some might support, say, smoking bans, you can counter by asking if they want the freedom to do whatever they want. Argue from there, and always point out the fact that it always and ever is about freedom. Even if you don’t like what might potentially be banned, wouldn’t you rather be free?

Really, the appeal to emotion seems to be a tool that is often overlooked by libertarians when they make their arguments. While many libertarians seem rather cerebral, relatively speaking, what many often neglect is to appeal to that visceral part of man that longs to be free. And this appeal is almost always an appeal to emotion.

Federal Lies

2012-02-10T06:32:00.000Z

Consider the Algiers Accords:

The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs. [Page 1]

If recent federal actions are any indication, this is nothing more than a bold-faced lie. Of course, that diplomatic treaties are so quickly and easily disregarded by any country when so doing is in their best interest comes as no surprise, but the fact that a government’s promise is meaningless certainly explains why foreign affairs have devolved into such meaningless trivialities.

No one can be trusted. As such, negotiating is worthless. Why should Iran negotiate with the United States when the US has already demonstrated a willingness to break its promises? And is it not reasonable for Iran to seek nukes, since doing so gives them more negotiating power with the United States? As Denzel Washington once said, in Man on Fire, “a bullet always tells the truth.” People may lie, especially if they are politicians or diplomats, but weapons keep everyone honest.

Ultimately, the United States’ foreign policy problems boil down to not acting in good faith, not acting honestly. Dishonesty begets more dishonesty, begets paranoia, begets fanciful rationalizations. US foreign policy has all these hallmarks. The nations with the US negotiates lie directly to us. The US then begins to imagine that other countries are out to get them (hmm, I wonder why?), and then rationalizes reasons to go to war with its perceived enemies.

Perhaps war with Iran is inevitable; perhaps they were always going to attack us; perhaps honest diplomacy would have failed. We’ll never know. But was it a good idea to give Iran legitimate reasons for its actions?

Book Review

2012-02-10T05:50:00.001Z

In Defense of Women by H.L. Mencken

For those familiar with the game-o-sphere, reading In Defense of Women is like getting a double whammy of Heartiste’s philosophizing on the greater socio-sexual implications of gender dynamics and Ferdinand Bardamu’s screeds against the general terribleness of modern American women. Of course, Mencken’s style is a little more archaic and erudite (not dissimilar from, say, Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s whimsically erudite style) than Heartiste’s and Bardamu’s, and more enjoyable to boot.

Defense is an impressive book, not solely for its content, but also for its presentation. Were one to attempt to distill the wisdom of modern-day philosophers into an easily digestible treatise on the subject, it would strongly resemble Mencken’s work. This is to say, those familiar with Game will not find anything new in the book, per se, but they will find the wisdom of the ages neatly distilled, logically expounded, and concisely explained.

But more than that, the entire book is not merely a useful reference to the way of the woman, but it is quite quotable. Consider his stance on man-hating feminists:

The man-hating woman, like the cold woman, is largely imaginary. One often encounters references to her in literature, but who has ever met her in real life? As for me, I doubt that such a monster has ever actually existed. There are, of course, women who spend a great deal of time denouncing and reviling men, but these are certainly not genuine man-haters; they are simply women who have done their utmost to snare men, and failed.

And his stance on female calculation:

the average woman is well-aware that marriage is far better for her than celibacy, even when it falls a good deal short of her primary hopes, and she is also well aware that the differences between man and man, once mere money is put aside, are so slight as to be practically almost negligible. Thus the average woman is under none of the common masculine illusions about elective affinities, soul mates, love at first sight, and such phantasms. She is quite ready to fall in love, as the phrase is, with any man who is plainly eligible, and she usually knows a good many more such men than one.

And his views on hypergamy:

As a popular philosopher has shrewdly observed, the objections to polygamy do not come from women, for the average woman is sensible enough to prefer half or a quarter or even a tenth of a first-rate man to the whole devotion of a third-rate man. Considerations of much the same sort also justify polyandry—if not morally, then at least biologically. The average woman, as I have shown, must inevitably view her actual husband with a certain disdain; he is anything but her ideal. In consequence, she cannot help feeling that her children are cruelly handicapped by the fact that he is their father, nor can she help feeling guilty about it; for she knows that he is their father only by reason of her own initiative in the proceedings anterior to her marriage. If, now, an opportunity presents itself to remove that handicap from at least some of them, and at the same time to realize her ideal and satisfy her vanity—if such a chance offers it is no wonder that she occasionally embraces it.

And his views on the legal system:

Now view the situation of the husband. The instant he submits to marriage, his wife obtains a large and inalienable share in his property, including all he may acquire in future; in most American states the minimum is one-third, and, failing children, one-half. He cannot dispose of his real estate without her consent; He cannot even deprive her of it by will. She may bring up his children carelessly and idiotically, cursing them with abominable manners and poisoning their nascent minds against him, and he has no redress. She may neglect her home, gossip and lounge about all day, put impossible food upon his table, steal his small change, pry into his private papers, hand over his home to the Periplaneta americana, accuse him falsely of preposterous adulteries, affront his friends, and lie about him to the neighbours—and he can do nothing. She may compromise his honour by indecent dressing, write letters to moving-picture actors, and expose him to ridicule by going into politics—and he is helpless.

And his views on feminism and politics:

Once the women of Christendom become at ease in the use of the ballot, and get rid of the preposterous harridans who got it for them and who now seek to tell them what to do with it, they will proceed to a scotching of many of the sentimentalities which currently corrupt politics. For one thing, I believe that they will initiate measures against democracy—the worst evil of the present-day world. When they come to the matter, they will certainly not ordain the extension of the suffrage to children, criminals and the insane in brief, to those ever more inflammable and knavish than the male hinds who have enjoyed it for so long; they will try to bring about its restriction, bit by bit, to the small minority that is intelligent, agnostic and self-possessed—say six women to one man. Thus, out of their greater instinct for reality, they will make democracy safe for a democracy.

Truly, In Defense of Women is not mere commentary; it is prophecy (it was published in 1918). Moreover, it is horror. Mencken rightly predicted what would happen when women were given equality (he even foretells the sexual revolution), and he correctly observes the true nature of women. This book, then, provides a sobering read, for it begs the question of what would have happened if people had actually taken the time to listen to him, way back in the day. Could this mess have been avoided?

At any rate, Defense is a highly recommended read. It is brilliant, insightful, and sobering, and also somewhat brief. Best of all, it is available for free in Kindle format at Amazon.

Such a Big Difference

2012-02-09T06:49:00.000Z

Between Liberals and Conservatives:

The poll shows that 53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats — and 67 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats — support keeping Guantanamo Bay open, even though it emerged as a symbol of the post-Sept. 11 national security policies of President George W. Bush, which many liberals bitterly opposed.

Hey, remember how all the lefties were criticizing Bushitler for keeping Guantanamo Bay open? Why aren’t they doing the same to Obamao? Oh, it’s because liberals aren’t actually different from conservatives at all when it comes to principles and policy? Could’ve fooled me, what with all the political rancor between the two sides…

The Racism of the Legal System

2012-02-09T06:38:00.000Z

I think Chuck misses some of it:

If we look at Paul as strictly a viable option for the Presidency, this would pose a problem. But if we look at Paul as a messenger – which is how I view him – then we should not be surprised or taken aback by his strategies to leverage various alliances to spread his core message of fiscal stability, liberty over equality, limiting bureaucracy, ending wars, and, most importantly, auditing/ending the Federal Reserve. Whether we accept the entire package that Paul offers – and I don’t (characterizing the justice system as racist is a political ploy and ignores statistics) – we have to recognize that he is injecting arguments into the debate that nobody would be discussing. [Emphasis added.]

I’ve heard Ron Paul make two claims regarding the racism of the legal system. The first is that the legal system is racist for putting a disproportionate number of black criminals to death. Of course, blacks commit a disproportionate amount of capital crimes, so it is not racism that explains why blacks face a disproportionate number of capital punishments. Ron Paul’s claim on this matter is simply wrong and indefensible.

However, Paul’s second claim is that blacks are too often charged with violating laws not tied to property rights (i.e. drug laws). Given how often blacks are charged with violating drug laws, particularly relative to whites, it is reasonable to say that this law (though not necessarily the prosecution thereof) is racist. To a libertarian, there is no reason for the state to regulate people’s personal lives if their actions do not in any way directly infringe on another’s property rights. In a sense, drug laws (or laws regulating sex between consenting adults) are immoral. If no one’s rights are being harmed, then the law is immoral. And, given that these immoral laws are used to prosecute blacks, it is reasonable to conclude the legal system is racist.

Personally, I’m inclined to say the law is classist in nature, for most people who are convicted of violating drug laws strongly tend to be lower class. (Of course, blacks are disproportionately lower-class, so it stands to reason that they would be disproportionately represented in drug-related arrests and prosecutions.) But, it does seem that drug laws are used to prosecute poor people whose private behaviors disgust the middle class majority. Whenever poor proles get out of hand, the middle class sends their elected sheriffs to clean up the riffraff, usually by arresting them on drug charges.

Of course, it is difficult to determine whether drug law prosecutions correspond better with a theory of racism or a theory of classism, and so until it is clear which is the case, Ron Paul should at least be given the benefit of the doubt for his assertion that the enforcement of drug laws is racially motivated. After all, it’s not like there weren’t ever any racially-motivated laws on the books at some point in America’s past.

How Should the Government Prevent Crimes?

2012-02-09T04:46:00.000Z

Assuming that the government should be in charge of enforcing laws, and assuming that the only laws on the books concern property crimes (i.e. not the asinine anti-drug or anti-prostitution laws), one necessarily comes to the following question: what should the government do to prevent crimes? Answering this question requires, in the first place, an understanding of what is meant by prevention.

There are three ways to prevent crimes: active prevention, passive prevention, deterrence. Active prevention consists of attempting to determine who might possibly commit crimes in the future and prevent them from actually happening; a good example of this is found in the movie Minority Report. Passive prevention occurs when incidentally prevents a criminal from future action; an example of this would be locking up a criminal, for a criminal necessarily cannot commit crimes when detained. Deterrence occurs when ones actions against criminals discourages others from attempting crime; an example of this would be someone witnessing an execution and then deciding to avoid that fate.

Since it is assumed that the government should prosecute property crimes, the government is duly authorized to deter crimes since prosecution necessarily leads to some level of deterrence. While harsher punishments appear to correlate to increased deterrence, the causality of this relationship is not known with any degree of certainty. However, if there is a causal link between deterrence and punishment, then authorize the government to do the former necessarily authorizes the government to do the latter. As such, the government should certainly attempt deterrence as a means of preventing crimes.

Though it is assumed that the government should prosecute crimes, it does not necessarily follow that the government should engage in passive prevention, since there is nothing inherent to prosecution that demands that the government jail people upon conviction. The government could, hypothetically, simply fine criminals, instead of jailing them. However, if one decides to violate the rights of another (i.e. commit a property crime), it can be considered ethical to forfeit the rights of those who ignore the rights of another.* Assuming that this is the ethical principle governing criminal prosecution, the government may therefore prevent crime passively if it so chooses, since jailing duly convicted criminals implicitly authorizes passive prevention.

Active prevention of crimes, though, is not at all related to the prosecution of crimes. Active prevention necessarily occurs prior to the crime, whereas prosecution occurs after the occurrence of a crime. As such, active prevention and prosecution are entirely unrelated since succeeding at one will, by definition, preclude succeeding at the other.

Furthermore, the government should not be authorized to actively prevent crimes, since active prevention requires knowing what a person will do in the future. This seems like a relatively minor quibble, but the future is not completely knowable (else no plans would ever go wrong), and indicators of the future are imperfect.

Additionally, the most obvious indicator of future behavior is an individual’s intentions, which are not a guarantee of future behavior. For example, many people occasionally feel like committing a property crime at some point in their life (e.g. wanting to punch someone in the face for embarrassing you at work). Going strictly by intent would lead to one getting arrested. Furthermore, since everyone has felt like committing some sort of property crime at some point in their lives, relying solely on intentions to determine the possibility of future crime is tenuous, to say the least, because feeling like doing something and actually acting on that feeling later on are two completely different things.

Furthermore, one does not violate another’s property rights simply by desiring to do so. For example, I might covet my neighbor’s Corvette, but unless I use it or do something to it without my neighbor’s permission, I have not violated his property rights in any way.

Furthermore, the active prevention of crimes is predicated on the presumption of guilt. If we are to be consistent with this standard, then every person should be in jail because all of us will at some point in our lives have the motive for a property crime, and the odds are that each one of us will at some point have an opportunity and means to carry out said crimes. Locking everyone up is, of course, impossible, so the only other philosophically consistent stance to take is that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty of violating the law, and therefore it should not be presumed that any given individual will commit a crime, therefore requiring some sort of active interference.

At this point, then, it should be clear that the government will, in carrying out its assumed duties as prosecutor of crime, passively prevent and deter crime. However, attempting to actively prevent crime leads to a situation wherein people are assumed guilty prior to any wrongful action, and can therefore be deprived of their rights at any time. As such, the government should refrain from actively preventing crimes, and should only engage in passive prevention and deterrence, and only insofar as doing so is in keeping with the more general authority to prosecute crime.

* Note: the assertions of the ACLU to the contrary, criminal law rights exist to protect the innocent, not the guilty. Once one is determined to be guilty of violating the law, his rights are no longer considered in effect because he has presumably violated the rights of another.

Where Are All the Good Men?

2012-02-08T06:35:00.000Z

Some Evangelichick named Ruthie Dean has a question:

The resounding question I hear from many single women today is: “Where have all the good men gone?”

And what, exactly, prompted this question:

“Wanna grab a burrito 2nite?”

The melody of the Atlanta symphony’s instruments flowed through the auditorium. I didn’t have high expectations for dating at 23, but a text containing the word burrito wasn’t exactly what I had in mind (and with 1 hour notice). I liked him, but couldn’t escape the mental picture of showing up in a swanky outfit to an establishment where my entrance would be announced in a jubilee of “Welcome to Moe’s!”

Somehow, I doubt this complaint would have been voiced if the guy asking her was the 26-year-old guitar-playing youth group leader. You know, the one with the menacing tattoo that ever-so-slightly peeks out from under his polo sleeve, letting you know that he has a dark past that’s fortunately behind him. Obviously, this girl is complaining about a beta.

And not only is she complaining about a beta, she’s complaining about a beta who has the temerity to want to spend time with her (note: the horror!). And on short notice to boot. What an inconsiderate lout.

I’m not sure what evangelichicks have been reading (not the Bible—zing!) that has caused them to think that every date has to be mind-blowingly awesome and exceed every possible and impossible expectation. I’m not sure how to break the news to these hopeless romantics, but here in the adult world, not all time spent together is just one glamorous moment after another. In fact, a lot of it is mundane. Indeed, that’s what a good portion of marriage (or, more appropriately, life) consists of: lots and lots of mundane moments punctuated occasionally by extremely emotional moments.

Thus, Ruthie Dean’s real problem is that she suffers from unrealistic expectations. She’s dating a human being who she “likes” (read: a nice, possibly cute, guy), but is not making every moment magical and exciting. She wants to wear “swanky outfits,” and go to the corresponding restaurants, probably to feel that her life is more glamorous than it really is, and her poor boyfriend simply isn’t up to the task of making her feel like the special princess she undoubtedly is.

Anyway, to answer the question, the good men haven’t gone anywhere. Because they don’t exist. At least in reality. The good men of which Ruthie speaks exist only in her mind, and that’s where they currently reside.

There are still some bad boys available, though, and they’ll be happy to let you ride their carousel (if you know what I mean). There might even be a couple nice alphas in the church, but they tend to get snapped up by the submissive hotties pretty early on, so if you’re wondering where they went, you’re probably out of luck. There are also some nice guys hanging around, but they’re busy getting rejected by girls who find eating burritos to be demeaning. I hope that answers the question.

Faith Inaction

2012-02-08T06:06:00.000Z

First off, here’s Haley:

It seems to me that Christian media sets just as high a bar a fantasy for Christian women as the mainstream media does, if not higher just due to the fact that a staunch Christian woman is far more likely to hold out for “God’s best.” I feel like we are constantly assured that God is going to give us his Best if we just have faith and wait for it. This especially includes marriage. Don’t settle for less than God’s Best. Do you want to have a good, God-honoring marriage? Then hold out for His Best. You’re 25? You have time. You’re 30? Keep praying for God’s Best. 35? Keep trusting God to bring you his Best. 40? God’s Best doesn’t have a timetable. 45? Nothing is impossible for God, who is writing your love story. God will bring his Best to you in his perfect timing. 50? Sometimes God’s Best doesn’t include a husband, but that doesn’t mean it’s not God’s Best for you.

Now, here’s something interesting: when God provided a wife for Isaac in Genesis 24, he didn’t magically bring in some random chick from afar. There was work involved.

First, the man had to do some things (of course, Isaac conducted this by proxy). The man had to have a plan (v. 12ff.), approach the woman (v. 14), stick to frame (vv. 14, 22), compliance test the woman (v. 14), and be able to demonstrate value (v.22).

The woman also had to do some things. She had to be beautiful (v. 16), pure (v. 16), compliant/submissive (v. 18), respectful and well-mannered (v. 18), industrious (v. 19) and hospitable (v.25).

And keep in mind that the man and woman in question had to do all these things on their own for a marriage that God himself had arranged. Now, if God’s providence doesn’t extend so far that even those whom he providentially helps are free from their obligation to act intelligently in their own best interest, then why on earth would any Christian today think that it would be any different for them?

This same principle is illustrated in the New Testament. Christ, when teaching his disciples to pray, commanded them to ask God for their daily bread. And yet, the Apostle Paul said that “if a man shall not work, neither let him eat.” Therefore, even when one asks God for something in faith, one must still act to get that which one asks from God.

God is not man’s servant. As such, man does not simply get to sit around issuing God orders, and simply wait passively for them to be fulfilled. Even when a man asks for something in faith, he must still actually go out and do something to get it. Trusting in God is never a passive activity.

Thus, the failure of the church today is readily apparent: there has been no proper teaching on faith. Instead of explaining how faith and works go hand in hand, faith has devolved into a sort of mysticism, wherein one asks God for things then sits back and hopes that God will eventually deliver the goods. Ultimately, this is not faith in God; it is wishful thinking, and it is bound to disappoint.

Idiots and Statistics

2012-02-08T05:21:00.000Z

Here’s a perfect example of the two combining:

Spanking children can cause long-term developmental damage and may even lower a child's IQ, according to a new Canadian analysis that seeks to shift the ethical debate over corporal punishment into the medical sphere.

…

"What people have realized is that physical punishment doesn't only predict aggression consistently, it also predicts internalizing kinds of difficulties, like depression and substance use," said Durant. [Emphasis added.]

In the first place, the mere presence of the words “may” and “can” couched around the conclusions points rather obviously to the study establishing simple correlation, and nothing more. I haven’t got my hands on a copy of the original study, but I’d bet $50 that all the study proves is basic correlation. And, as anyone who ever paid attention in a statistics class knows, correlation is not causation.

In the second place, causation cannot be established for the very simple reason that one simply cannot know how the subjects would eventually behave had they not been spanked as children. Spanking is a binary condition (either one is or is not spanked as a child), and so it is impossible to say how much better or worse behaved one would be had he been spanked or not been spanked as a child. Quite simply, there is no way to adequately compare.

Finally, the researchers appear to have neglected to ask one very simple question: why do parents spank their children? Most parents, if asked, would say that they spank their children in order to punish their children for misbehavior, generally in the hopes of preventing that behavior from occurring again.

Now, assuming this is the case, and also assuming that the frequency of such punishment directly correlates to the frequency of misbehavior, then it should stand to reason that the more inclined a child is to misbehave, the more spankings he would receive. As such, it is plausible—though not guaranteed—that one explanation for the correlation between spankings and depression and drug abuse later in life is that children aren’t spanked enough when they are young.

Therefore, there are at least two possible explanations for the correlation between being spanked as a youth and having problems later on in life: either spanking is counterproductive or most parents do not use it effectively. Thus, the conclusion of the research paper is more indicative of the researchers’ biases than of reality.

Where Are the Handcuffs?

2012-02-08T04:12:00.000Z

For this blatantly illegal act:

The Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC) has made it official: After its latest two day meeting, it announced its goal to devalue the dollar by 33% over the next 20 years. The debauch of the dollar will be even greater if the Fed exceeds its goal of a 2 percent per year increase in the price level.

The law says, quite clearly, that such action is ILLEGAL:

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. [Emphasis added.]

The black letter of the law mandates stable prices. “Stable,” by the way, is defined as:

a : firmly established : fixed, steadfast <stable opinions>

b : not changing or fluctuating : unvarying <in stable condition>

Quite simply, the Federal Reserve is commanded, by law, to maintain stable (i.e. not fluctuating or changing) prices. Failure to do this is a clear violation of the law.

Now, there is no way to argue that debauching the dollar by 33% over 20 years will maintain stable prices because the economics of the situation is very simple: If you increase the supply of money without a consequent increase in the production of consumer goods, prices will increase. That is, prices will not be stable. The laws of supply and demand always apply, and money is no exception. Increasing the amount of currency in a system will, ceteris parabis, lead to an increase in nominal prices. Always.

As such, the Federal Reserve System is in clear violation of its charter. It should have its charter revoked and be disbanded, and those who acted to violate its charter should be arrested for violating the law.

With Liberty and Justice for All

2012-02-08T03:52:00.000Z

Not:

A US couple and their son are fighting for custody of a baby born to a woman charged with sexually abusing their son, who was 15 at the time of conception.

A paternity test shows that the teen is the father of the baby born April 7 to Jane C. Crane, who was 19 when she became pregnant. Now, a judge has ordered him to pay $50 a month in child support and set visitation at seven hours a week.

Crane, meanwhile, faces criminal charges. A Fairfield County grand jury indicted her last month on two counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, a fourth-degree felony. Conviction carries a maximum sentence of 18 months in prison and a requirement to register as a sex offender for 25 years.

First off, it should be obvious that the US legal system is complete garbage, at least when it comes to regulating sexual interaction. A 19-year-old should not be punished for having consensual sex a 15-year-old, regardless of the gender of the minor. It’s biologically normal for older teenagers to have sex with each other. There’s nothing magical about waiting until one is eighteen to have sex.

Second off, it should be noted that women are conniving bitches that are sometimes too clever by half. This chick is asking her (statutory) rape victim to pay child support? If she wanted child support, she should have put a ring on it first. As such, she forced the guy to play his hand when she decided to sue for child support, and his rational response would be to have her prosecuted for rape. So, is being a registered sex offender worth $50 per month, plus potential jail time?

It is amusing, though, to see the legal system contorted in this way. When you have immoral statutory rape laws come up against immoral child support laws, it is certainly interesting to see the courts contort into a position where a rape victim ends up paying his rapist child support. But such is the bizarre world known as the United States’ legal system.

The Cost of Signaling

2012-02-07T07:04:00.000Z

Like this isn’t an attempt to split a non-existent hair:

The segregation model predicts that as the society gets wealthier, the dollar cost of college will get higher. The signaling model would not necessarily predict that. In fact, it would predict that the market would try to find less expensive signals.

It’s like Kling has never heard of anyone signaling their status through conspicuous spending. As anyone who has ever observed human beings can readily attest to, there are plenty of people who spend money just to show that they have money to spend. Why shouldn’t this form of signaling extend to higher education?

Let us suppose that college serves as a way for young people to be sorted into their societal roles. Those who go to more prestigious (read: expensive and/or exclusive) colleges will likely come from families that are relatively wealthy.* They will also spend a lot on their education, relatively speaking.

Signaling theory would suggest the exact same thing, for there is a) a general correlation between the cost of college and its prestige and also b) a general correlation between family wealth and college choice. That is to say, the children of wealthier parents are more likely to buy social prestige at college, and will be charged a lot to do so. Now, given the limited number of prestigious colleges and universities, it should be the case that more prestigious universities command a higher price, and that students from higher-class families are able to pay them. Thus, signaling theory predicts an outcome extremely similar to segregation theory.

What Kling neglects, then, in attempting to differentiate segregation from signaling is that some signals do not become “cheaper” over time because some signals only work because they are expensive. What Kling must prove, then, is that the signaling theory of post-secondary education is flawed because college is not a cost-driven signal. Until then, his assertion regarding the predictive ability of signaling theory is incorrect, and his attempt to differentiate between signaling and segregation is pointless.

* There are some general exceptions to this, obviously, as even impoverished minorities can occasionally make it to Harvard. But, for the most part, the people who go to pricier colleges can generally pay for them.

Paragraphs to Ponder

2012-02-07T06:35:00.000Z

From Theodore Dalrymple:

Americans like to think that they live in a classless society, which seems to accord better with the egalitarian promises of the Declaration of Independence. But this is nonsense: The Declaration promises people the right to the pursuit of happiness, not to happiness itself, much less to equal happiness.

The problem, however, is that marks of distinction and the fruits of effort tend to be hereditary, passed on from one generation to the next. Indeed, one of the reasons that people try to distinguish themselves in the first place is that they want to ease or improve the lives of those who come after them, particularly their own descendants.

So Americans uneasily both accept and reject the hereditary principle, a contradiction that's uncomfortable for them but very productive.

I’ve remarked on equality before, so I will simply say that equality is non-existent, at least in a material sense. What’s strange is how Americans try to ignore this easily observed fact in the pursuit of fairness. Even more intriguing is how this pursuit of egalitarian fairness leads to grave injustices.

Obligatory Nevada Caucus Post

2012-02-06T05:34:00.000Z

Romney won, but did not get more than 50% of the vote, which surprises me. Ron Paul finished a disappointing third, but received an encouraging 18.6% of the vote. Gingrich was second and Rick “Santorum” Santorum was fourth.

Romney should win the nomination, unless he completely falls apart or say something racist, like how he doesn’t care about poor people. Ron Paul still has a shot at influencing the election ,but will not get the nomination , thankfully enough. Gingrich still has a shot at winning, though it’s a rather long one at this point. Santorum’s continued presence makes me think he’s angling for a cabinet position at this point.

At this point, the Republican nomination process looks to be pretty straightforward: Romney will be the nominee, and he’ll likely have to placate either Gingrich or Santorum with a cabinet post. The GOP bosses will find a way to mishandle the Ron Paul situation, which will then blow up in their face. Come November, Romney will lose to Obama. Hopefully it will be entertaining in the interim.

The Hamster Conquers All

2012-02-06T05:23:00.000Z

Mark Trueblood, in a post titled “Men are boorish and lazy.Why won't they marry us?,” offers this observation:

Millions of fabulous, strong, and independent single women have a problem: They can't find a man to marry. Numerous blogs and articles have been popping up all over the place on this troubling issue.

"Where Have The Good Men Gone?" This infamous article by Kay Hymowitz (which I reviewed here) purports to explain why so many modern, perfect, goddess-like females are loathe [sic] to sully themselves with their lowly male counterparts.

Of course, there is a lot of humor in seeing women spend so much time complaining about how terrible men are only to turn around and wonder where all the marriageable men are. It’s ironic on several levels.

Interestingly, this love-hate relationship is reminiscent of another group of people: MGTOWs. MGTOWs tend to complain about how lazy and shallow women are, yet if you were to ask them if they would marry a beautiful, submissive* woman, most of them would say yes.

The problem, then, that most MGTOWs and carousel riders face is that of relative scarcity. Well, that and sour grapes syndrome. Anyhow, relative scarcity refers to a market condition when a highly demanded item—in this case, a desirable marital partner—is in such low supply that few can afford to attain it. In the carousel riders’ respective cases, their tendency to slut it up radically diminishes their SMV, in part because most carousel riders are past their prime when they decide to settle down, and in part because men generally prefer, ceteris parabis, that their prospective wife have a low partner count, which highly desirable men can generally get because of their own market value. In the case of MGTOWs, they are simply too beta, which thus diminishes their market power and hampers their ability to acquire attractive, submissive women.

Ultimately, the problem is that there aren’t enough good alphas or attractive, submissive women to go around. As such, the sexual marketplace tends to sort itself out quite efficiently, and the losers are, generally, lesser betas/omegas and sluts. The former become MGTOWs and the latter turn into shrieking harpies that demand men to “man up.”

Interestingly, the response of MGTOWs and sluts are generally similar: instead of upping their value, they decide to blame the market. The difference between the two groups is that MGTOWs leave the market while carousel riders simply lower their price (i.e. offer easier sexual access). Both routes end in misery, and both endings can be avoided by making choices that increase one’s value. In essence, the sexual market failure is the fault of its participants. They’ll never admit to it, though, because it’s easier to blame an abstract entity than to actually admit that a good portion of one’s problems are one’s own fault.

* “Submissive,” of course, referring to those qualities that minimizes or eliminates a woman’s tendency to divorce her husband.

Fashion and Future

2012-02-06T04:38:00.000Z

From TakiMag:

Much like a film can be placed in time by its visual feel, so too can fashion, providing a winsome record of the world at large. In the 60s, we see the greater political outlook reflected in bohemian blouses and floral patterns. The 80s, with big shoulders and garish colors, evoked the revival of laissez-faire capitalism and political grandstanding. According to Garavani, fashion reflects the time in which we live. He says “it must also, like a movie or music, inspire and make people dream.”

If these two posts at The Sartorialist are any indication, fashion has taken a dark, fascist turn. The fashions modeled at these shows are filled with dark colors and militaristic cuts. The models look grim and soulless. If this is the future, then it is a utilitarian future, largely devoid of hope. And full of ugliness to boot.

Are Federal Employees Underpaid?

2012-02-06T03:50:00.000Z

I think not:

The wages of federal workers are 2 percent higher than similar private-sector workers, on average.

The benefits of federal workers are 48 percent higher than similar private-sector workers, on average.

The total compensation (wages plus benefits) of federal workers is 16 percent higher than similar private-sector workers, on average.

I guess the relevant question is this: are federal services so efficiently provided and in such high demand that federal employees are truly deserving of a 16% wage premium? If not, federal employees are definitely overpaid.

An alternative question is this: would federal employees be paid as well for doing the same job in the private sector? If not, federal employees are overpaid.

Obama Gets Something Right

2012-02-06T03:32:00.000Z

And it’s about Iran:

President Barack Obama said on Sunday there were important risks to consider before any military strike against Iran and made clear he does not want to see more conflict in the oil-producing Gulf region.

In a television interview, Obama also said he did not believe Tehran had the "intentions or capabilities" to attack the United States, playing down the threats from Tehran and saying he wanted a diplomatic end to the nuclear standoff.

"Any kind of additional military activity inside the Gulf is disruptive and has a big effect on us. It could have a big effect on oil prices. We've still got troops in Afghanistan, which borders Iran. And so our preferred solution here is diplomatic," Obama said.

Not that we should get rid of the proverbial “big stick” or anything, but I think Obama is wise to take the diplomatic route first. Obviously, diplomacy could fail, and the government could underestimate the risks posed by Iran, but given the current costs of federal military ventures and how thinly spread US troops are right now, rushing into war is not a particularly good idea right now. As such, it is best to try diplomacy and see where that leads.

Obligatory Super Bowl Post

2012-02-06T03:26:00.000Z

I didn’t watch any of the game, seeing as how my preferred outcome—both teams losing—was technically impossible. The next best scenario was a Giants win, which was exactly what happened. I don’t know how it happened, I don’t know any of the thrilling highlights, and I don’t know which, if any, commercials were funny. I did get some homework done in the peace and quiet of an empty house, which was nice.

Also, there was another halftime incident this year. M.I.A. apparently shocked the Naptown crowd by flipping them off. (I’m so shocked—I’ve never heard of women behaving crudely in public before!) I guess this incident, coupled with Janet Jackson’s pap flap from a couple years ago just serves as evidence that the NFL should never invite women to perform the Super Bowl halftime show. They just can’t be trusted to comport themselves with a modicum of decency.

Church and State

2012-02-05T21:33:00.000Z

Obama, on the national day of prayer:

Speaking to more than 3,000 people at the annual breakfast, Obama said "faith and values" should play as much as role in tackling the nation's challenges as sound decision-making and smart policies.

He said, for example, that his own call for fairness in the tax code – a central tenet of his State of the Union address and his 2012 campaign – is both economically sound and consistent with the teachings of Jesus…

He also said the Wall Street reform he championed both "makes the economy stronger for everyone" and abides by God's command to "love thy neighbor as thyself" because it helped people who had been hurt or treated unfairly by financial institutions.

And Obama said he believed in a "biblical call" to care for the poor and to follow "the responsibility we're given in Proverbs to `Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.'"

For some reason, I was under the impression that church and state were to be kept separate. I wonder if I could get someone familiar with constitutional law to weigh in:

Why Democracy Fails

2012-02-04T18:36:00.000Z

From Ferd:

The modern American, regardless of ideology, is a raging narcissist; when he looks into another man’s eyes and doesn’t see himself reflected in them, he becomes angry. Both LIEbrals and CONservatives select their politicians on the basis of how much they remind them of themselves. LIEbrals, being smug, patronizing pedants who think they’re smarter than they actually are, voted for Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton because he was a smug, patronizing pedant who seemed like he was smarter than he actually was. Obama being a sainted minority was also part of it. CONservatives swarmed around George W. Bush because his public image was of an uneducated, cowardly yokel. If given the choice between a well-groomed, articulate success and a fat, slovenly failure, CONservatives will pick the failure every time.

The reason why democracy always turns into a complete failure is simple: most people get to vote, and most people are idiots. People want a leader that represents what they believe about themselves, which is why the president is now nothing more than a blank figurehead for people to project themselves onto. They aren’t interested in policies, except as a way to signal their beliefs, and they don’t care if the leaders that represent them are actually concerned about obeying the highest law of the land or acting in the long-term best interest of the country.

People think that representation means electing a figurehead that symbolizes their interests.* A string of broken campaign promises does nothing to dissuade people from their belief that their representatives actually accomplish things on their behalf. And even these failures are ignored because what’s really important is that one’s preferred politician is nothing more than a status symbol. Thus, democracy devolves to simple status-mongering.

Funnily, though, people always complain about how politicians never do anything useful once they’re elected. What they seem to forget is that a politician’s main purpose is to act as a symbol during an election, and give people a way to sort themselves into their own classes. Once that’s accomplished, a politician is no longer needed, save as a figurehead for a movement or class. And so, democracy does not exist to enable people to solve problems through citizen-based referendums, it exists to allow people to show solidarity with their self-selected class. And this is why it fails, time and again: it focuses on symbolism over substance.

* This explains Newt’s popularity after his smackdown of a CNN reporter. Newt’s actual track record—personal and political—is simply terrible, but many conservatives liked him after this incident because they were able to project their frustration with the mainstream media onto Newt’s verbal tongue-lashing. Newt was simply an empty vessel to symbolize the right’s frustration. And, in that sense, he can be said to represent them.

A Stupid Question

2012-02-04T18:17:00.000Z

From Don Boudreaux:

If Beijing’s intervention into the Chinese economy justifies U.S.-government ‘retaliation’ to ‘correct’ market distortions created by those interventions, shouldn’t the still-significant lingering negative consequences of Beijing’s interventions into the Chinese economy from 1949-1978 be considered? Shouldn’t Beijing’s artificial destruction, during the middle decades of the 20th century, of production efficiencies in Chinese factories be weighed against Beijing’s artificial creation, in the early decades of the 21st century, of such efficiencies?

In short, the answer is no.

Boudreaux, in asking the question, implicitly accepts the validity of the state and of citizenship. He must also accept that the state must act in the best interest of its citizens. While the government should seek to redress the negative effects that its citizens face as a result of foreign market intervention, it has no responsibility to address the negative effects that non-citizens face as a result of foreign intervention. China is not the US, and Chinese aren’t Americans. As such, the US government has no obligation to concern itself with addressing negative economic outcomes faced by the Chinese people that arose as a result of the Chinese government’s economic policy.

My New Toy

2012-02-04T05:58:00.000Z

I got a 9mm semi-auto Kel-Tec pistol today:

It’s A Mystery

2012-02-03T05:42:00.000Z

I wonder if anyone has ever attempted to explain this social phenomenon:

The girls complained that when they give in they get labeled. When people find out, "you're a slut," 16-year-old Josslyn Kolb told us.

Boys don't get the same treatment, according to Anya. She said, "Guys don't get labeled if they have sex with girls."

It’s almost as if women and men have different attraction triggers. Too bad no one has ever bothered to figure out those differences and explain them.

Homeschool Your Daughter

2012-02-03T05:27:00.000Z

If you don’t want her to be a fornicator:

This week's Newsweek highlights a government report that says the percentage of high school kids having sex dropped this past decade to 46 percent. Still, that's about half the kids, and more are having oral sex.

Anya said, "There's one girl at our football games that like gave oral sex to five different football players."

Students told us that some kids are having sex in school bathrooms and hallways — even in classrooms.

At a middle school outside Baltimore, Md., a couple of 12-year-olds had oral sex in their science class. Their classmates watched, but the teacher didn't see them. (The teacher was suspended and later resigned.)

Obviously, the best way to make sure that your daughter doesn’t commit fornication in middle and high school is to make sure that you instill in her a strong sense of morality and a strong character. The second best thing is to not send them at all. Even if you do a good job raising your daughter to not be a fornicator, why tempt fate by sending her to a place that will strongly encourage her to fornicate?

What’s The Point of Financial Aid?

2012-02-03T05:11:00.002Z

I suppose that the original intent of financial aid—most particularly scholarships—was to attract good scholars who would be likely to become famous and thus increase the prestige of the university. By offering intelligent, driven individuals an opportunity to be educated for reduced rates or for free, universities could be assured that they would attract some number of desirable students, and increase their prestige. Note that increasing prestige has a tendency to turn into a self-reinforcing feedback loop, which means that increasingly prestigious universities attract increasingly desirable students, thus making the university more prestigious. As such, universities engage in a sort of arms race to increase their prestige, and thus offer scholarships to scholastically-minded students.

However, the role of financial aid has morphed in recent years to serve as a marketing tool, and functions similarly to a price-sensitivity indicator.* By this I mean that financial aid is to colleges as coupons are to grocery stores. The comparison is not perfect, of course, but the general comparison is the same in that both financial aid and coupons both serve to differentiate the price-sensitive from the price-insensitive.

What’s interesting is that both the original function and the modern function of financial aid are both the same: marketing. The original form, though, is less direct and has a longer time horizon. The latter is more price-driven. This suggests that the product has changed in some way. Assuming that a postsecondary education is a way to signal employability, it should make sense that colleges emphasize affordability in their advertising because the signaling benefit has declined due to the increase in noise.

When only a few people graduate from college, there is likely an appreciable difference in the graduates of different institutions, hence the need for prestige. However, if a lot of people graduate from college, it will likely be difficult to discern a difference in the graduates of different institutions. The lesson in all this is that colleges that emphasize prestige in their marketing are colleges that will offer a clear signal of prestige while colleges that emphasize affordability are all likely interchangeable in terms of signal utility. Therefore, if you aren’t going to a prestigious university, the best course of action is to acquire a college education as cheaply as possible. And if you can’t a get a cheap college education, you are probably better off skipping college.

* I recall when I was being recruited by various colleges that many would state what percentage of students received financial aid. There were a large number of colleges that claimed that over three-quarters of their students received some sort of scholarship money.

Redistributing Wealth

2012-02-03T04:35:00.002Z

In an axiomatic sense, wealth is always distributed in some way. Likewise, any transfer or exchange of wealth is a redistribution of wealth.

Redistribution of wealth comes in two forms: coercive and voluntary. The former method of redistribution is associated with socialism and, more generally, any statist attempt at transferring the goods or wealth of an individual or group to another individual or group. The latter method of redistribution is associated with capitalism and, more generally, any form of voluntary exchange.

It is obvious, then, that wealth is continuously redistributed. People constantly desire to trade some portion of what they have for something else they desire more. Thus, redistribution of wealth occurs in the free market, and often occurs via the mechanism of exchange. However, there are some instances when wealth is redistributed freely, such as when a parent provides for his child in exchange for nothing. More generally, though, the redistribution of wealth in a free society usually requires exchange.

Therefore, what those who clamor for the redistribution of wealth actually desire is an option to acquire wealth by force in exchange for nothing. They may not be inherently opposed to trade, nor may they be totally desirous of charity—particularly if that charity has behavioral strings attached. Rather, they simply desire to have the option to have wealth redistributed to them without having to offer anything in exchange.

Can You Blame Iran?

2012-02-02T03:38:00.000Z

For wanting nukes:

Another example is the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline. The U.S. pressured India into withdrawing its participation in the Iran-Pakistan-India natural gas pipeline. Pakistan was pressured too but refused. Iran has already completed its portion. Instead, the U.S. supports an alternative liquified gas pipeline by an alternative consortium from Tajikistan through Afghanistan. The latter is not close to reality. It requires a political stability in Afghanistan that does not exist.

It is going to be increasingly difficult to argue that the United States do not deserve to be attacked by Iran when the United States pulls stunts like this. It’s one thing if Iran attacks the US out of the blue, but it’s altogether different if, prior to an attack, the US has spent years dictating trade and economic policy to Iran, particularly when that policy is detrimental to Iran.

Resentment doesn’t build up in a vacuum, and some of it is rightly deserved. In this case, the US will deserve some sort of attack if it continues to provoke Iran and undermine Iran’s sovereignty. And, since the US is a democracy, the vast majority of citizens will deserve the consequences of their actions since they will be, by definition, complicit in the US government’s decision to provoke Iran.

Additional Proof of the College Bubble

2012-02-02T03:35:00.000Z

From the Grey Lady:

Claremont McKenna College, a small, prestigious California school, said Monday that for the past six years, it has submitted false SAT scores to publications like U.S. News & World Report that use the data in widely followed college rankings.

In a message e-mailed to college staff members and students, Claremont McKenna’s president since 1999, Pamela B. Gann, wrote that “a senior administrator” had taken sole responsibility for falsifying the scores, admitted doing so since 2005, and resigned his post.

In what I’m sure is just coincidence, the current college bubble has another thing in common with the recent housing bubble: fraud. Not only are there skyrocketing costs, plenty of federal subsidies and incentive distortions, but now we have fraud as well. I’m not sure the case that college education is a bubble can be made any clearer.

The Sad State of Mainstream Economic Analysis

2012-02-01T05:11:00.000Z

I have a new post up at In Mala Fide. An excerpt:

To be honest, this sounds like a lot of pious baloney. As Michael Beckley points out in a new article in International Security, “The United States is not in decline; in fact, it is now wealthier, more innovative, and more militarily powerful compared to China than it was in 1991.”

Yep, and the Roman Empire saw continuous growth right up until it declined. A trend line is not a guarantee of future performance, as anyone with half a brain knows. Yet this clown somehow thinks that this particular trend line will continue on its path. The best way to predict the economic future is to look at fundamentals of the economy (e.g. legal system, regulatory system, tax policy, etc.) and see what effect the current policies and practices will have on the future. Of course, this is significantly more difficult than identifying a trend line and extrapolating (probably because fundamental analysis requires thinking whereas trend analysis requires Excel and rudimentary data entry skills, which many trained monkeys are capable of performing), which is why most mainstream economists never bother with it.

The rest can be found here.

What’s So Scary About Nukes?

2012-01-31T04:39:00.000Z

Here’s some interesting analysis:

China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, and the UK all saw declines in their total militarized dispute involvement in the years after they got nuclear weapons. A number of these are big declines. USSR/Russia and South Africa have higher rates in their nuclear versus non-nuclear periods, though it should be kept in mind that for the USSR we only have four years in the sample with no nukes, just as the Cold War is starting.

After accounting for a decent number of variables, the general trend still holds: acquiring nukes is more likely to lead a decrease in military activity rather than an increase. Of course, extrapolation doesn’t prove anything, but the historically observable fact is that acquiring nuke does not automatically lead a country to act more aggressively.

Incidentally, only one government has ever detonated nuclear weapons during war, and that was the United States’ government during WWII. Perhaps, then, foreign policy experts are projecting our intentions onto the Iranians.

Whatever the case, the United States does not have the authority to tell sovereign states what weapons they may or may not acquire. As such, Iran has the right to pursue nuclear weapons if they so desire. The United States, therefore, may find advantageous to start behaving with more diplomacy and less bravado when dealing with foreign powers. Especially if we go bankrupt and can’t afford a military anymore.

Global Warming Is Definitely a Religion

2012-01-31T04:27:00.000Z

And it’s based on less evidence than the Christian faith:

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. [Hat tip: Vox Day.]

The assertion that environmentalism is a religion should be considerably stronger if environmentalists who see this evidence persist in their belief in global warming. Incidentally, any persistence in believing in global warming after being shown incontrovertible proof that it didn’t happen (at least in the last fifteen years) should serve as proof that science fetishists have about as much respect for science as they allege Christians to have. Talk about projection.

The Need for Moral Elitists

2012-01-31T03:29:00.000Z

First, Charles Murray:

There remains a core of civic virtue and involvement in working-class America that could make headway against its problems if the people who are trying to do the right things get the reinforcement they need—not in the form of government assistance, but in validation of the values and standards they continue to uphold. The best thing that the new upper class can do to provide that reinforcement is to drop its condescending "nonjudgmentalism." Married, educated people who work hard and conscientiously raise their kids shouldn't hesitate to voice their disapproval of those who defy these norms. When it comes to marriage and the work ethic, the new upper class must start preaching what it practices. [Hat tip: Ulysses. Note also slumlord’s excellent comment.]

Nonjudgmentalism is the cancer that will kill society. The inability or unwillingness of the morally superior to speak out against bad values and morals will prove to be its eventual undoing. Please note that the morally superior are those who practice the good habits and morals that lead to long-term stability and well-being (in both a moral and physical sense); they are not those who pose as supreme ethicists (but are, in fact, hypocrites* of the first order).

The need for moral elitists, then, is fairly obvious. While luck does play some role in success in life, the more relevant variable is being prepared to take advantage of luck. This usually requires self-discipline, education, knowledge, self-control, drive, hard work, and consistency. As such, these behaviors need to be lauded as keys to success. The false “aw-shucks” modesty of claiming luck as the key to success doesn’t do anyone any good because a) it is generally false and b) it leaves the unsuccessful to resign themselves unnecessarily to fatalism. Or, as Doris Day once sang: “Que sera sera.”

Obviously, not all circumstances are within one’s control. On the other end of the spectrum, it is also false to say that no circumstances are within one’s control. The proper assertion, then, is that some circumstances are within one’s control while other circumstances are not, and the best way to take advantage of the things you can’t control is to first take advantage of the things you can control.

This, then, is where moral elitists are required: we need people to say “here’s what I’ve done to be successful.” The list for this is surprisingly short, and includes such difficulties as not getting pregnant outside of marriage, graduating from high school, and having some sort of regular job. This list may not sound like much, but there are already too many people who have failed to follow it. Moral elitists, then, most not only lead by example, but also by words. Moral elitists have a duty to condemn bastardy, laziness, and ignorance. And thus far, the current crop of moral elitists have failed to do so.

To reiterate Murray, the moral elite “must start preaching what it practices.”

* Bonus: some who pose as moral elitist often defend gay rights, occasionally on the ground that gays should not be persecuted for their deviant lifestyle since they may be born that way. The filthy hypocrites who defend homosexuality on the grounds that it might be genetically based will never defend homophobes on the grounds that homophobia might be genetically based. (Thus, the argument that you shouldn’t condemn gays because they’re born that way can be rejoined with the claim that you were born a homophobe and shouldn’t have your behavior blamed on genetics.)

An Interesting Question

2012-01-28T07:45:00.000Z

Chuck asks if capitalism coopted feminism, and comes to this conclusion:

The free market existed in previous eras, yet the family unit remained intact. Free-market capitalism is not a values-creating (metaphysical sense) endeavor. It reacts to prevailing values – which feminism sought to shift. Entrepreneurs will always be ready to explore new markets, and they either succeed or fail depending upon that value system. What PA would have to show is that a capitalist system can subvert social bonds. I maintain that only a larger entity i.e. the State has such power.

Really, the better question would be if the free market could adapt to feminism. This is essentially like asking if the free market can handle surplus of Oreos (the cookie, not the racial epithet).

Markets are amoral abstractions, not living entities. Markets exist solely to allocate resources in a non-coercive manner. Whatever morals markets display are merely reflections of market participants. Thus, blaming markets for moral shifts is like blaming money for greed.

Anyhow, the point in all this is that feminism cannot alter the basic functioning of markets unless it eliminates markets, which is generally impossible. At best, one can only hope to introduce some coercive element to the market, but this hardly guarantees that resources are allocated to the specific desires of those introducing the coercive element. As such, all feminism can do is alter the type and amount of things being traded in the market.

As history shows, feminism did alter the size and scope of the labor market, leading to reduced prices (a.k.a. wages) for labor. There might also have been a change of increased demand for distinctly feminine products or a reduction in demand for distinctly masculine products, but there is no data to support this claim. The more salient point is that the market still functions exactly as it always has, allocating scarce resources to where they are generally most demanded.

At this point, the human desire to trade scarce resources is so fundamental that it is highly unlikely that feminism—or any other movement, for that matter—could ever overcome. At best, a given movement might be able to alter slightly in some way, but there is no way to eliminate man’s desire to trade. The answer to Chuck’s question, then, is yes. Capitalism did indeed coopt feminism. And, in a way, this outcome was inevitable for there is no force stronger than the market.

Why Stupid People are More Prejudiced

2012-01-28T07:26:00.000Z

Yahoo reports:

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

I’ve written elsewhere on the acquisition costs of knowledge, and how they relate to prejudice. Another overlooked factor is the variance in the demand curves for knowledge. It should be no surprise that people of varying intelligence have varying demand for knowledge, for one’s ability to usefully process information is undoubtedly going to influence how much information one can reasonably attain. Stated another way, those with lower cognitive abilities are going to have a lower demand for knowledge because they cannot process it as quickly or effectively as the more cognitively gifted. As such, it should make sense that less-intelligent people are more prejudiced because their demand for additional knowledge will necessarily be lower, which in turn means that it is “cheaper” for them to rely on their prejudices than to seek new data.

Neo-Con Hypocrisy

2012-01-28T07:06:00.000Z

Suddenly, Jonah Goldberg is worried that the United States has become too enamored of militarism:

He said of the military: "At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They're not consumed with personal ambition. They don't obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together. Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example. Think about the America within our reach."

That is disgusting.

What Obama is saying, quite plainly, is that America would be better off if it wasn't America any longer. He's making the case not for American exceptionalism, but Spartan exceptionalism.

It's far worse than anything George W. Bush, the supposed warmonger, ever said. Bush, the alleged fascist, didn't want to militarize our free country; he tried to use our military to make militarized countries free.

Goldberg is trying to split hairs here. It doesn’t matter what Bush’s rationale for increased militarization was. It doesn’t matter what Obama’s rationale for increased militarization is. Why? Simply put, intentions just do not matter. Outcomes and processes are not affected by the intentions behind them.

Neo-Cons are very fond of pointing this out to liberals on matters like welfare: reality doesn’t care what lawmakers wanted to be the case. Yet, when it comes to increased militarization of the United States, suddenly intentions are relevant.

At any rate, the simple fact of the matter is that Bushitler and Obamao are both cut from the same cloth. Both want(ed) to expand the size and scope of the military, both want(ed) to use the military to intervene in other countries. If one is going to be consistent, there is no point in trying to rationalize support for Bush increasing martial power while condemning Obama for doing the same. Their intentions may be different, but the consequences are the same.

The Reality of Central Banks

2012-01-28T06:44:00.000Z

Karl Denninger:

Make no mistake, the problem does not lie with The Fed per-se. The Fed's "low interest rates" are there to permit the profligacy of the government, yet the longer it goes on and the more the government abuses this deadly embrace the further into the coffin corner The Fed and Congress go. As the debt accumulation rises the maximum interest rate that can be absorbed goes down until finally you reach the boundary where even a slight increase in rates results in instantaneous bankruptcy.

Denninger is a smart man—well-versed in the law, particularly constitutional law, and has an immense knowledge of politics and economics. And yet, here he is once again calling for enforcement of the laws governing The Fed even though history has shown repeatedly and conclusively that it is politically impossible to manage inflation through a central bank. In theory, it is possible that a central bank will act prudently and responsibly, and not inflate the currency. In reality, though, a central bank is nothing more than yet another mechanism by which the government can tax the people.

This is why the solution to inflation is ending the fed, or at least government-mandated fiat currencies, and to allow multiple competing currencies. Relying on the government to properly manage a monopolistic money supply is an exercise in futility. Though it would be theoretically better to do it this way, history has shown quite clearly that a competitive currency market is preferable to a government-controlled currency, and it is therefore better to accept the fluctuations of market-based currency system over the guaranteed degradation of a government monopoly.

Is Socialism an Ex Ante Rationalization?

2012-01-28T04:17:00.000Z

A while back, I asked if libertarian political theory was an ex post rationalization used simply to justify the cause of freedom without actually explaining why it worked. It seems reasonable to ask a similar question of socialism: is socialist political theory* simply a rationalization for pursuing a certain course of action?

At first blush, the answer is no. Socialist theory is pretty robust and generally accepted as sound. For example, one tenet of socialism is the redistribution of wealth, wherein it is theorized that poverty can be eliminated by taking money from rich people and giving it to those classified as poor. This proposition is so self-evidently true that it borders on being tautological.

Yet, every time the redistribution of wealth is put into practice, it generally tends to not eliminate poverty. Of course, poverty can never be eliminated if it is defined in relative terms. But, even when poverty is defined absolutely, there are still some who persist in living in poverty, and no government program is apparently able to change that fact.

Thus, it is to be concluded that socialism is nothing more than an ex ante rationalization. How else to explain its unmitigated and predictable failure? Incidentally, the reason why socialism continues to fail in practice is simply due to the fact that the theory is predicated on artificial class constructions, and can therefore never truly and properly account for individual motivation. It should be note, though, that libertarian political theory accounts for individual motivation but is still incapable of explaining why humans do what they do.

At any rate, the easily observed fact of the matter is that socialist political theory has little grasp of reality, and continues to fail miserably. It only use is in convincing people that there is a reason to try collectivism in spite of its miserable and repetitive failures.

* Please note that “socialist political theory” is a broad term that covers any political movement that generally tends toward increasing government power instead of limiting it. This stands in contrast to libertarian political theory, which refers to any political movement that attempts to limit government power instead of increasing it.

A Troubling Trend

2012-01-27T06:04:00.000Z

I’ve been trying to put finger on why the recent emphasis on group work is so troubling:

Solitude is out of fashion. Our companies, our schools and our culture are in thrall to an idea I call the New Groupthink, which holds that creativity and achievement come from an oddly gregarious place. Most of us now work in teams, in offices without walls, for managers who prize people skills above all. Lone geniuses are out. Collaboration is in.

But there’s a problem with this view. Research strongly suggests that people are more creative when they enjoy privacy and freedom from interruption. And the most spectacularly creative people in many fields are often introverted, according to studies by the psychologists Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Gregory Feist. They’re extroverted enough to exchange and advance ideas, but see themselves as independent and individualistic. They’re not joiners by nature.

Consider this as well:

‘You may joke about how committee meetings make you feel brain dead, but our findings suggest that they may make you act brain dead as well,’ said Read Montague, director of the Human Neuroimaging Laboratory and the Computational Psychiatry Unit at the institute, who led the study.

He explained that when volunteers in a group were told how the others performed, it lowered their problem-solving abilities.

Basically, the modern education system, which certainly includes postsecondary institutions, is sowing the seeds of Idiocracy. This is accomplished by encouraging—and in some cases demanding—group work, which has the effect of lowering intelligence. This probably happens because humans are social creatures who will generally sacrifice being correct for group conformity. But the effects of this trend are undeniable: group thinking makes us less intelligent. My own personal experience bears this out as well.

Group work, and group think, under the guise of productive collaboration is pernicious because it precludes people from introspection and reduces their willingness to take risks. When you’re around other people, you want to fit in. You focus on everyone else in your group—what they think, what they feel about you. You worry about them, and how they’ll act and how you will respond. And instead of examining yourself, instead of focusing on what you want, on what you should do, you focus on others. And you don’t take risks, for fear of offending others. And that’s why groups are so detrimental, for you never have a chance to focus on self-improvement.

This invites the suspicion that all this focus on group work is nothing more than an attempt at prepping the future generation for a leap into collectivism. For starters, people will be used to it, both in theory and in practice. But more than that, because people are trained to think in groups, few people will be independently-minded enough to reject collectivism and the inevitable problems that arise therefrom.

Of course, it’s possible that there is no secret conspiracy. There is simply an intersection of well-intentioned idiots who are unable to foresee the detrimental consequences of this policy. Either way, though, we’re dead.