Friday, July 25, 2014

Our President and his vacant "progressive in the headlights look"

When reality doesn't comport with an ideologue's elaborate worldview they tend to suffer quite a bit of cognitive dissonance which manifests itself as repeated rebooting with all its attendant whirrs and clicks.

Krathammer has a good theory for how ideological thinking is paralyzing "the Bar".

But I’d propose an alternate theory, less psychological than intellectual, that gives him more credit: Obama’s passivity stems from an idea. When Obama says Putin has placed himself on the wrong side of history in Ukraine, he actually believes it . He disdains realpolitik because he believes that, in the end, such primitive 19th-century notions as conquest are self-defeating. History sees to their defeat.

More Krathammering here.

The communal mailbox: a metaphor for our Federal stupor state

The ugliest thing in an otherwise beautiful neighborhood is a communal letter box provided by our bankrupt postal service.

Wasn't it PJ O'Rourke who argued that the public toilet was the metaphor for anything state provided? Dirty , dangerous and best avoided ?

This ugly, poorly designed and shoddily manufactured tribute to decaying service works just as well.

Thursday, July 24, 2014

America's thug government

There is growing consensus overseas that US financial regulation and taxation policies are arrogant, out of control and in a word: insane. Here's a very good essay by a middle of the road economist. Notable grafs:

BTW, London is really booming right now.  The locals believe this is partly due to its legal system, which is not corrupt (like most countries) or completely insane (like the US.)

.  I can tell when outrage is real as opposed to mere self-interest at work.  There is real outrage overseas.  It may not be justified, but it is sincere.  It isn’t just anger about tax shelters being closed down.  There is a perception that the US is trying to make its laws apply everywhere in the world, not just in the US.  That the US is a bully in the financial world in the same sort of way that Russia is a bully in foreign policy

Boris Johnson, who might well be a future Prime Minister, was (possibly?) told that he is no longer welcome to be a customer of National Savings and Investment, a major British investment company.  His crime?  He is tainted by having been born in New York.  Even though he is British, and earns money being mayor of London, the fact that he is born in New York makes him a US citizen and hence a possible target of the US government.  That’s an extreme case, but it shows the lengths to which the Treasury is willing to go

This is what rule by government lawyer looks like. Brutal, lacking proportion or fairness and objectively insane. But why should our regulators behave any more rationally than our leaders.

It's crazy time at the DC corral with no sign that the clowns of both parties are going any time soon. Read the whole thing - it's well worth your while.

Lacking broad bipartisan legitimacy, Obama's Care turns to shit

Our Federal constitution was designed to build and sustain consensus across a Continental scale empire. Occasionally there is an electoral anomaly that technically obviates this need for bipartisanship and consensus building. But you would have to be a particularly foolish and historically blind man to fall to the temptation of a 'quick win' by passing a one sided partisan outrage like the so called Obamacare..One would think that a President who was billed as "brilliant" and served at the University of Chicago as a Constitutional "scholar" would  have known better.

Because jamming a law down the nation's throat without building bipartisan consensus means relying on a bare minimum of sixty senators.  It paradoxically makes your 'extra strong' legislative position extra weak because now the loss of a single vote can kill your bill,.resulting in an almost irresistible opportunity to hold the law hostage unless every single senator in the majority's pet provision is included.. THis led to obscure and embarrassing bribes that overshadowed the good parts of the legislatioin.  And to get past the extortion you rush the bill through using legislative gimmicks and dodgy accounting, leaving huge holes for all the people who were humiliated by your one sided power play to hamstring you in the courts, in implementation and in public opinion. Which is pretty much what decisions like the Hobby Lobby and now the Subsidy Eligibility do.

How much better for the President and the nation had he pursued a less grandiose law that was supported by a bipartisan supermajority of say 75 senators.  That kind of law might not have made the hard left sing Ode to Joy but it would also have been a durable one, borne out of the participation of both parties in its crafting, passage and implementation.  UnlikeObamacare, a law law like that could have actually worked .

It's as if Barack Obama came to the Presidency with absolutely no experience in building coalitions, passing and implementing legislation or in executive leadership.  But that can't be right can it?  

The Presidency is no place for OJT.

Now it's the EPA with "the dog ate my email" excuse

And like the IRS and the FEC, the EPA lost emails pertaining to the possible illegal campaign support EPA officials gave to certain Democrat candidates for high office.  And the truly terrible thing about these incidents is that a single rogue employee couldn't possibly make their emails disappear - it takes collusion by the IT department to track down and eliminate all the incriminating copies and top management to override mandatory archive retention policies/laws.

THIS SEEMS RIGHT: Landmark Legal Foundation Seeks Sanctions on EPA for Destroying Emails, Text Messages. “Landmark Legal Foundation today asked Federal District Judge Royce Lamberth to sanction the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for destroying or failing to preserve emails and text messages that may have helped document suspected Agency efforts to influence the 2012 presidential election.”

The only plausible explanation is that these three agencies are actively covering up for systematic electioneering and harassment of Republicans and libertarians on behalf of President Obama and the Democrats. If I'm right then our constitutional republic is in deep, desperate trouble.  For why should I support a government that is actively conspiring against me?

Ugly times.


Posters in NYC, D.C. call Clintons ‘America’s Lannisters.’

I believe the Clinton moment has passed. May we never see its likes again. Story here.

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Socialism is for the little people: Michael Moores lavish lifestyle expsed

Fidel is a billionaire so why can't mega mikey have nice things to sit on and ruin too?

Another nutty Kennedy abusing his father's memory

RFK Jr. is a dangerous crank, using his name to frighten parents into keeping their kids from getting vaccinated. Even Slate says so.

It doesn’t. It just doesn’t. Everymajor scientific and medicalorganization in the country has evaluated the evidence and concluded that the preservative thimerosal is safe. The question is settled scientifically. Thimerosal, out of an abundance of caution, was removed from childhood vaccines 13 years ago, although it is used in some flu vaccines. And yet Kennedy, perhaps more than any other anti-vaccine zealot, has confused parents into worrying that vaccines, which have saved more lives than almost any other public health practice in history, could harm their children.

He's also a crank for his extreme AGW hysteria but most bien pensants are climate catastrophe addled so he's just standard garden variety nuts there.

I think a lot more than three people have died from illegal experiments in the last five and a half years

Oh, wait they're talking about some other non - Obama backer.

POLITICAL SCIENCE: Three people died in illegal human experiments carried out by John Podesta backer’s firm. “The federal judge who heard the case said the company’s ‘pattern of deception is unparalleled

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Jews banned in Boston?

Incipient pogrom in the Prog haven on the Charles? Well Boston is terribly progressive and hating Jews is the hot new cause on the left.

Details at the link.

Let Israel be Israel

Pompous self regard is the defining feature of John Kerry and when he does the pompous doo doo that he does do so well to a people being shelled hourly he needs to shut up. Here is Bibi pointing out his pathetic hypocritical mewling by demanding a US AL Qaeda ceasefire is a gem worth reading at the link.

Koo koo Kerry is so deeply committed to his own reflection that won't even get the joke.
Maroons. We are "led" by maroons.

The capital strike continues apace.

Business investment is crapulous. What a surprise.  Apparently to these gents it is because they scurry around for explanations while ignoring the most obvious: regime uncertainty. No one knows what the man in the grannies jeans or his bureaucratic minions are going to do next.

From Neil Irwin at The Upshot: Five years into the economic recovery, businesses still aren’t plowing much money into big-ticket investments for the future. Nonresidential fixed investment — what businesses spend on equipment, software, buildings and intellectual property — still hasn’t bounced back to its pre-crisis share of the economy, let alone made up for lost ground from the record lows of 2009. As Justin Lahart notes in The Wall Street Journal, equipment spending in particular has averaged 5.2 percent of the economy over the last five years, down from 6.5 percent over the previous half-century. If firms increased their spending enough to close that gap, it would mean an extra $220 billion in annual economic activity and perhaps a couple of million more jobs. But there may be even more important and lasting consequences for this lack of spending by businesses. Capital spending improves worker productivity. And worker productivity improves living standards. Less capital spending by businesses means less investment in the kinds of equipment, software and intellectual property that will make the economy more competitive over the long haul. One simple hypothesis is that it’s not worth spending more on American workers at current wage levels.  As workers, while Americans are quite good, they are just not that much better than a variety of high-IQ individuals in cheaper countries, many of whom now have acceptable infrastructure to work with. - See more at:

Is administrative law constitutional?

Kind of late to raise this given that we are alread largely governed by apparatchiks - Democrat apparatchiks, that is.

Monday, July 21, 2014

On why giving more money and power to the Feds is worse than giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

Or why the whole income inequality schtick stinks so bad. With a nod to P.J. O'Rourke who thought up the whole car keys and whiskey wheeze in the first place.

A good friend* of mine asked me in a response to another (typically over the top) post of mine by questioning why I was defending the rich. Why couldn't I make my point while acknowledging that there is room for concern about the trends of wealth and income distribution in the US?

I have two answers to this very legitimate challenge from my very serious friend, one philosophical and the other empirical.

The philosophical answer is you are demanding that I accept your premise as the basis for any discussion going forward: "of course the rich have got richer faster than everyone else in a specific period of time and this is a problem" and it's necessary but unstated First Corollary "and of course this increased wealth is due to predatory behavior of the rich because if it has been achieved due to noble or brilliant behavior that has benefited mankind then we would be insane to disincent them from doing more brilliant, noble things" or in short "the rich are rich and getting richer because they're selfish bastards who need to be taken down a peg or ten".

And then you demand that I implicitly subscribe to the unstated Second Corollary which is also absolutely essential: "Not only are the rich predatory bastards but only the central state can make them mind. So the key to reducing the power of a plutocratic 3.5 million Americans is concentrating more power and wealth in the hands of a few dozen aging incumbent lawyers who live in DC."

Once you get me to agree to your (questionable to say the least) premise then the discussion is simply when and how much more swag gets passed to our Federal gerontocrats to dispose of as they see fit (usually by passing it back in box car lots to the types of people who are demanding that I accept their premise, a whole lot of whom are well connected rich people). This is how it used to be done before "the Reagan darkness" fell upon the land. Lefties proposed, righties kicked a bit at the price and caved for 80% and then spent their days looking for loose change under the national couch cushions to pay for it all.

Not surprisingly I reject that premise. And not surprisingly having their couch cleaning dogsbody replaced by a bitching libertarian ideologue pisses the left off so much that they want to read me and the rest of the right out of polite society. By disagreeing with the 'eat the rich' premise I am proving that I am in descending order a: "Koch Stooge", "greedy", "hate filled", "racist", "sexist", "ableist" and most scathingly "For Profit". And anything I say is obviously self serving. By the way: the same thing happens with catastrophic global warming where institutions like the BBC and LA Times have announced that they won't even report arguments questioning the claims of people predicting catastrophe unless we immediately blow trillions on.....their projects. Hmmm.

So back to the empirical:

Oddly enough, there is a very quiet (muffled by the partisan press, that is) but persuasive argument that much of the gains in income the rich have experienced are spurious artifacts of tax law changes. For example, the tax boffins will tell you that at the start of the "dark times" say 1980, taxes on cap gains and dividends were very high and small and mid sized businesses were C corps who accumulated lots of cash to avoid personal taxation. With lower rates on both gains and dividends this accumulated wealth gushed out of these privately held companies - and a lot of publicly held companies. Indeed, the "Icahn/Boesky/Pickens/Leveraged buyout boom" was a recognition of the changes in investor incentives: no longer did they want to retain earnings in a tax advantaged vehicle, they now wanted their gosh darn cash while rates were low and were happy to sell their shares to any Wall Street cracker who would give it to them. So managers who had grown fat and stupid under the old system got the hard thwack of market discipline. And boy did it leave a mark.

In addition, since the beginning of "the Reagan evil" most small and mid sized businesses have incorporated first as S Corps and now LLCs which pass all earnings straight to the owners on a pro rata basis - thus income that used to be retained and not reported now gushes forth. The big and remarkably dishonest flaw of Piketty, Saenz and company (other than being irretrievably French) is their total reliance on Income Tax returns for their US data. Which makes their data crap. And since they've been the only one producing this kind of data for the US, it makes all those income inequality charts that lefties pass back and forth to each other crap as well. Of course they like crappy data infused arguments: they believe in catastrophic global warming - another area where the data is a crap sandwich of manipulation, half truths and statistical legerdemain. But I digress.

One way to test the veracity of the phenomenon of falling marginal tax rates driving recognition of locked up income is to look at the rest of the developed world: falling marginal tax rates are associated with more reported income inequality everywhere that they've been tried (effing Laffer, effing Rich). The few places that haven't cut top marginal rates (France) are still statistically speaking 'impeccably' equal. Although anyone that spends any time in La Belle France knows that is a screaming howling lie. Here's a nice piece from the Financial Times about how Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité is playing out in Paris these days and boy is the gang at the faculty club pissé about it

Anyone paying the least bit of attention should also be aware that a large proportion of the 'gains' not explained by tax changes can be attributed to the fact that the data is reported on a household basis rather than on an individual basis. As a brilliant blogger pointed out: 

It turns out that pretax and transfer individual income inequality as measured by GINI has not changed since 1960. Household and family inequality have soared as more and more people live alone or in one parent households while the cognitive elite, ever more efficiently sorted by the oh so egalitarian Ivies increasingly marry each other.

There are lots of things the plutocrats can be held accountable for - really ugly large yachts for example - but the fact that Joe six pack can get Janey six pack in the sack without the benefits of holy matrimony or a functioning condom is not one of them. Unless you're a church lady blaming it all on Hollywood. Which is fun but still....

I guess the plutocrats can be partly blamed for the third factor: massive increases in low skill immigration. Aussies and Canucks stupidly import only the highly skilled and the rich. We cleverly import the global poor and then proceed to blame the worsening income distribution that it brings on the rich. Which is rich.

There are other factors which the brave class warriors conveniently ignore that have a major impact on inequality and that can't be pinned on the plutocracy such as increasing social and ethnic diversity and an immense variance in cost of living across the United States - factors which our French Inequality-crats utterly fail to take into account in their 'analysis'.

So I would argue that at least 90% of the growth in the Rich's share of income story is bullshit. It may be that the Rich took too much of the swag back in the "days before the capitalist darkness fell on the world" but that's not the argument that the left chaps are making. They're saying that it's all a Reaganite, Bushite and even Clintonite neocon conspiracy. That changing mores, mass immigration and massive, unprecedented tax law changes are irrelevant. That it's greed and hate and racism and sexism and nasty badism that has run amuck and made rich people richer and poor people richer too and it just has to gosh darn stop before all of the prime beach and skiing spots that tenured faculty go to are filled up by the crass nouveau riche.

So they argue that the single largest, richest and most powerful institution in the world needs to concentrate even more wealth (and it's concomitant power) from millions of individuals and organizations in its enormous, grasping hands. Because a world where even more will be parceled out by a few handfuls of old incumbent lawyers from DC will be infinitely more equal, free and diverse than letting millions of blacks, browns, greens, Mormons, queers, Texans, Idahoans, Jeraboams and other bizarre categories spend, invest and donate it as they see fit.

Which seems astoundingly, profoundly insane to me even if the Feds weren't utterly venal and incompetent (and boy are they). But hey, you guys worship your God, I'll worship mine.

*This good friend suffers mightily by being a principal foil for this blog. He asks a simple question and rather than giving him a simple answer I dump the whole damned load on him here. He deserves better but of course he knows that, he's my friend. I would dump loads on other leftish friends but any time I bring anything fun up they retreat into their barricaded homes and I'm left standing in the street shouting I'll fight anyone to no one except a dog who pees on my leg. Not that I'm blaming them. Or the dog for that matter.

Left handed civil service is just a spoils system in non partisan drag

Interesting article. I didn't realize that the dog ate my hard drive had also been used to hide FEC partisanship. IRS, FEC hmm. Criminy there are lots of left wing crooks in critical parts of our government.

Consider some recent developments. The IRS was forced to pay the National Organization for Marriage $50,000 for leaking the group’s donor list. Tea-party organizations and donors were much more likely than others to be audited by the IRS. This misbehavior was not the work of a few rogue employees in Cincinnati. In general, the IRS stalled tea-party applications for status as 501(c)(4) groups.

Meanwhile, April Sands, an employee of the FEC, recently pleaded guilty to violating the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from campaigning at the office. Ms. Sands, who worked in the office charged with enforcing our election laws, recently said, “I just don’t understand how anyone but straight white men can vote Republican.” What business does such a person have in that office in the first place? Somehow the FEC managed to wipe her computer clean, weakening the case against her. Perhaps that answers our question. These cases reflect a larger pattern. Our civil service is putting a thumb on the scale of justice.

TSA fee on tickets more than doubles.

I don't think anybody minds paying more for "security theater" but if we pay we expect our fake security service to be entertaining. And these 'cats are pathetic bores.

NYT explains why colleges are far less accountable than private companies - the farce that is accreditation.

When the NYT can no longer justify the survival of left wing institutions you know things have gotten bad. Are we nearing a "Carter Catharsis"?

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Pork Barrel Journalism at its most obvious

Houston Chronicle says:  "While NASA fixates on Mars, space rivals shoot for the moon"

Hmm.  Let's unpack this little gem shall we?  NASA 'did' the moon 45 effing years ago.  Our 'rivals' didn't have a full complement of flush toilets back then.  Now that they've got their plumbing straightened out they are headed for the 'ol dead rock to amp their prestige and prove their tech.  Tech that we had...45 years ago.

So whyintheHell would we want to blow billions upon billions to redo the voodoo that we did do?  Well Houston has this big 'ol NASA facility and there ain't enough work on this gosh darn far into the future Mars mission to keep all the chappies busy.  And ever since the damned private sector got into the launch business the scope of what an inefficient and rather incompetent Federal bureaucracy can get away with has narrowed quite a bit.  But the moon hell, we could do the moon in our sleep.  We've already done the dad gum moon.  Can't screw that one up, can we?  And it'll cost a boatload.  And we need a boatload to keep this carbuncle ticking.

In short: oink oink.

Socialism degrades morality

A scholarly study finds that people who grew up in East Germany cheat more than those who grew up in the west. I've argued that private businesses are more moral than government or charities because they are more accountable. Now here is an example of what growing up in a monopolistic, unaccountable people's paradise does: it scums you up.

Perhaps the relentless expansion of our stupor state explains why we feel that while we live well we no longer live nobly.The omni(in)competent stupor state is a destroyer. Of hopes and dreams, truth and wealth and apparently basic decency. Yum, let's get more of that.

FedEx Indicted For Failing To Look Into Its Packages To See If Any Online Pharmacies Were Sending Drugs.

Making everything a crime makes everyone a criminal or at least their accomplice.  But that's what the statists want:  as Lavrenti Beria told Stalin:  "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime". Ubiquitous criminalization is the key to total social control.  Today in many poor communities half or more of all men are under formal state supervision.  And its getting worse by the day.

And to think that we vote into office the clowns that have created this and pay taxes for our 'servants' to abuse us and our children.  God help us every one. Because the government sure as hell won't.

If "profit" is theft then only criminals will profit

Professor Stephen Carter notices something strange about left wing fund raising letters lately.

It’s been weeks since the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the contraception-mandate case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, but the pace of urgent fundraising appeals has barely slackened. Several times a day, another pops up in my e-mail inbox. Some are from politicians; some are from advocacy groups; some are from various organs of the Democratic Party.

So far, the number of e-mails accurately describing the decision is, as my physics professors used to say, arbitrarily close to zero. But there’s one underlying fact they all get right: the justices ruled in favor of a “for-profit” employer. This little hyphenated term appears in e-mail after e-mail, suggesting that it’s the for-profitness that creates the perniciousness.

Now, don’t worry. I’m not going to use this column to add to the flood of arguments about whether Hobby Lobby was rightly or wrongly decided. What interests me is why exactly fundraisers believe that including the term “for-profit” will raise the ire of their contributors.

The only reasonable interpretation is that the fundraisers believe — or believe that their targets believe — that there is something wrong with profit, that the proprietors of a for-profit firm are less admirable than those who run companies pursuing other goals. True, the various religious universities whose lawsuit challenging Obamacare’s contraception mandate will be before the Supreme Court next year certainly have their critics, but they somehow don’t manage to excite the same degree of disdain as a profit-making firm. And although the National Organization for Women gamely included the Little Sisters of the Poor in its list of the “Dirty 100” seeking exemptions from the mandate, all it garnered was for well-earned ridicule.

That’s why the fundraisers have been so careful to remind their targets that Hobby Lobby is a for-profit company. They are hinting that profit is different from other motivations. Less noble. Maybe even wicked.

Wicked. I love being wicked.  Don't you?

Global income inequality is falling fast

Globalization and increasing capitalism has been very good for most of humanity is the message of this outstanding post by Lackner and Milanovic.  Here's the Quasi-non-anonymous growth incidence curve to prove it:


I just love Quasi-non-anonymous growth don't you?  But not everyone is gaining at the same rate:

Doing best are the global middle whose incomes have increased at a rate that is more than twice that of the world at large.  Most of these people live in Asia, principally in China, India, Indonesia and Vietnam.

Next best performing are those at the bottom of the global income distribution whose incomes have grown about 75% faster than the world at large.  A large portion of these people live in Africa, the Sub Continent or China.

Third best off are the global rich whose incomes have outpaced global income growth by half. These people are everywhere.  They've taken most of the initiative and done most of the actual risk taking that has led to the rapid increase in global living standards around the world.  And for that they are reviled and spat upon.  But they can afford dry cleaning bills so don't cry too hard for them.

Worst off, but still better off than before are the global upper middle income earners.  Primarily the middle and working classes of the 'rich' countries, they've seen their relative incomes dwindle in comparison to global averages.  They can't afford that luxurious a holiday to Thailand anymore - not because they are poorer in absolute terms but because the Thais are much richer so they won't work (or whore) for peanuts anymore.

Some deeply dysfunctional countries have done worse than the global growth rate but it is difficult to find countries - even those considered to be basket cases that haven't experienced real economic growth.  The rapidly falling cost of all sorts of items, including telephony, television, clothing and household goods has meant that even low productivity countries going nowhere fast have seen their standards of living rise.  For example (all numbers calculated at Purchasing Power Parity):

Haiti: $1058 up 20% in 12 years
Somalia:  $547 up 20% in last six years
Bangladesh: $1693 up 49% in last eight years
El Salvador: $6093 up 11% in last eight years

If you take a few minutes to look up from the unrelenting 'eat your peas' gloom of our oh so progressive political class and their Piketting enablers, the global situation looks less like a dystopia with plutocratic fembots devouring villagers whole than a messy rebalancing of the world economy back towards where it was before the Anglo Saxons invented everything.

Of course we in the US have had the added 'benefit' of economic leadership that for most of us has delivered worse results than the global bottom dwellers.  We've seen most of our population lose 15 to 20% of their purchasing power under the aegis of Hope 'n Change. Here's the damage to median household income by education level:

And shockingly, the downward trend appears to be accelerating. Hell even people ruled by the modern day equivalent of the Tonton Macoutte or a Central American drug lord are doing better than that.

Which might explain our confusion as to why the chap presented as our savior six short years ago should be opening the borders to millions more of the global poor as we speak.  I wonder what all those working poor and unemployed who thought Obama was going to give them a phone or pay their mortgage or usher in a new era of abundance think of his oh so 'progressive' leadership now? I mean if they can cut through the constant chanting of the Obama We Believe U cheering section that our national media have become.

The man in the silk suit hurries by. 
As he catches the poor old lady's eyes. 
Just for fun he says, 'Get the rich
That's just the way it is. 
Some things'll never change.

Colleges: a Gulag Archipelago of the mind

Except that you can check out any time you like.  All you need to do is realize that you're trapped in a small, deeply religious box filled with things that you know that 'just ain't so'.  Professor Christina Hoff Summers talking about our institutions of "higher" learning.
The Millennials have been cheated out of a serious education by their Baby Boomer teachers. Call it a generational swindle. Even the best and brightest among the 20-somethings have been shortchanged. Instead of great books, they wasted a lot of time with third-rate political tracts and courses with titles like “Women Writers of the Oklahoma Panhandle.” Instead of spending their college years debating and challenging received ideas, they had to cope with speech codes and identity politics. College educated young women in the U.S. are arguably the most fortunate people in history; yet many of them have drunk deeply from the gender feminist Kool-Aid. Girls at Yale, Haverford and Swarthmore see themselves as oppressed. That is madness. And madness can only last so long. So, I plan to continue writing books and articles, making my Factual Feminist videos and lecturing at as many campuses and laws schools as I can. American colleges have been described as islands of repression in a sea of freedom. I want to encourage rebellion among the islanders.

However I do take exception with the characterization of Oklahoma Panhandle writing.  Any woman writing from Guymon, the cow fart capital of the world would have some very pungent if not interesting things to say.

It isn't that College grads are doing better it's that everyone else's wages are in free fall.

Meanwhile the Obami have presided over a secret five fold expansion in intact family units illegally transiting the border - while loudly shouting "it's for the children".

At this point it doesn't matter whose fault it is but it's obvious that what we are doing is having disastrous consequences. A 15 to 20 percent fall in median household incomes? By everyone without a degree? And we're throwing the border wide open?

My God, my God why have you forsaken us? What? You say that you sent us the "New Jesus" to bind up our wounds and give us succor?

My God, my God why do you hate us?

Hamas "body armor"

The "child migration" has secretly turned into a family migration

Not that the "Obama We Believe U" cheering section in the press would have noticed or anything.

Long term unemployment levels are horrific and unprecedented.

Welcome to Barack Obama's "Capital strike America" where the only thing we have to fear is Hope and Change himself. And boy is his Oneness scary bad if you want to work. Although he's OK if you want to dole.

After 85 years cool is still cool

Which is kind of cool in a cool kind of way. And I'm cool with that. Cool? Cool.

Saturday, July 19, 2014

Reality is a rather conservative bitch, isn't she?

More and more the unscientific 'blank slate' dogma of the left with regard to genetics, behavior, intelligence and sex differences is melting under the relentless glare of scientific sunlight.  The 'tragic' or conservative view of humanity - as Steve Pinker puts it - reigns supreme.

Which of course means that much of the 'prog' project is made ludicrous.  Not that the faithful will acknowledge the death of their God. Indeed they will persecute, fire and anathemize anyone who even will acknowledge the truth.  Here's a classic example from lefty shill rag Scientific American.

But this nothing compared to Scientific American, where a favorable notice of the book by blogger Ashutosh Jogalekar appeared, with this conclusion:
Overall I found this book extremely well-researched, thoughtfully written and objectively argued. Wade draws on several sources, including the peer reviewed literature and work by other thinkers and scientists. The many researchers whose work Wade cites makes the writing authoritative; on the other hand, where speculation is warranted or noted he usually explicitly points it out as such. Some of these speculations such as the effects of genetics on the behavior of entire societies are quite far flung but I don’t see any reason why, based on what we do know about the spread of genes among groups, they should be dismissed out of hand. At the very least they serve as reasonable hypotheses to be pondered, thrashed out and tested. Science is about ideas, not answers.
Obviously you can’t say this, and Scientific American rushed to disassociate itself with Jogalekar’s piece, and has since fired him for a subsequent piece discussing the sexism of legendary physicist Richard Feynman.  SciAm not only fired him, but attempted to scrub the offending piece from their site.
This is the face of “liberal tolerance” when it is panicking like a cornered animal.
Pathetic.  Utterly pathetic.

More college grads? More expensive city.

Higher education as the path to….greater inequality and misery at the bottom?  Wait, that wasn't in the brochure.

Education is Producing a Nationwide Gentrification Effect. “The larger the share of a city’s workforce that’s made up of college graduates, the more expensive it is to live there.” And yet education is pushed as a cure for economic inequality.

Well the one thing every college teaches every student is elitism.  Learning 18th Century radical poetry is better than tangible skills because……. Diploma!

Using a cellphone while driving has been banned in California for six years now, but it hasn't shown signs of decreasing accidents.

The details here.

Wait. I thought they carefully analyzed the issue before criminalizing behavior. You mean that a bunch of dumbass lawyers just gin up another ban and associated cruelties because it "seems" like the right thing to do?

Personally, I'm not surprised by this finding because humans are not the doltish stick figures of progressive imagination. We are sophisticated creatures who constantly learn and adapt our behavior to changing circumstances. I would bet that people who cellphone while driving exhibit adaptive behaviors that non cell phoning drivers don't.

Tragically legislators and law enforcement exhibit destructive non-adaptive authoritarianism all the time.  Perhaps they're an evolutionary dead end like the two foot tall horse.

Thoughts upon learning you had broken both of your ankles in spectacular fashion.

 “10” “9.8” “9.9” “10” and the Russian judge:  “6.4”

“Top this, Virginia”

“Now would be a good time to take up wheelchair racing”

(sticking your legs with ankle casts straight in the air) “look drumsticks!”

“Well you’ve always wanted really big feet”

“A little magic marker and now you have a handy way to tell your right from your left”

“Finally something to get those gosh darn kids, grandkids, great grandkids to do something for you for a change”

“With those hooves I bet you’ll be kick ass at kickball”

“Be truthful now, did you really break your ankles or is this just a conspiracy to get me to stop being so rude and not communicating?”

And finally….

“Thank God you landed on your ankles so they could take the shock rather than your  neck. Because Nana with funny feet is infinitely better than the alternative.”

Nannie cops need to be spanked hard and sent to bed without their supper

And the self righteous cows who snitch should be whipped through the streets until they learn to mind their own business. Kids need space to grow. Leave them the hell alone. From Reason:

A man in suburban Pittsburgh dropped off his kids, age 6 and 9, at the park while he ran some errands. This sight was so unusual – children playing on their own – that a passerby called 911. The police came and charged the dad with two counts of child endangerment. This happened recently in D.C., too. …[And] One mom got a visit from Child Protective Services because her children were playing in the rain! It has become a radical act to let kids play beyond the living room

Happiness is....having a Dane's genetics?

The closer a population is to Danes in genetic makeup, the happier they are argues this new paper. This could explain why Germanic peoples from North Europe (Canada, Australia, US as well as Scandinavians and Dutch) are among the happiest in the world.

Of course it could be that Germanic genetics encourage cooperation, thrift and order and it just might turn out that being rich, having friends and feeling safe can make make anyone happier. Or it could be a bloody coincidence. 

Correlation does not prove causation. 

Trillions in subsidies and higher electricity rates for THIS?

"Renewables" remain a rounding error in our global energy budget because they produce very little energy per unit of mass or area deployed, they are intermittent and therefore unreliable, they take essential food resources from the poor and they have serious, unavoidable environmental consequences. Which is why the chart looks like this:

I seriously doubt whether it will ever change much. Chalk one up for the AGW faithful's unwavering commitment to self delusion.

The real unemployment rate

Wapo provides an important corrective to the Happy Days are Here Again cheers coming from the student and loyal alumni sections of Obama We Believe U.

One of the most troubling aspects of the lackluster economy is the number of Americans who have dropped out of the labor force.  Today’s labor force participation rate is only 62.8 percent — the same rate as in March 1978 — and is 1.8 percent lower than it was four years ago. Since June 2010, more than 8 million Americans have completely dropped out of the workforce. Think about that. To be clear, since the last midterm elections, 8 million people have quit working or looking for work, while only 7 million people have started working.

Bear with me, because this is important. If the 8 million people who have dropped out of the workforce in the past 4 years rejoined the workforce tomorrow and starting looking for work, the unemployment rate would shoot up from 6.1 percent to 11.2 percent. And guess what? If the unemployment rate today was properly adjusted to something like 11.2 percent, it would be almost 2 percent higher than the unemployment rate was in June 2010. Despite the cheerleading and parsing from the Democrats about our economic “recovery,” in many ways, the overall job picture in the United States is worse now than it was four years ago.

Back in 2009 I predicted that if the Democrats persisted with their statist agenda that we would incur a capital strike that would result in slower than trend growth and employment.  I take no pleasure in being proven right.  After five and a half years the economy is barely ticking over and unemployment is down only because - anesthetized by massive expansions in social welfare spending - millions have given up hope for ever having a job.

Yet the President and his partisans are opening the borders to millions more poor, unskilled immigrants.  It's as if he wants a huge underclass that is dependent on the Democrat party for it's daily bread.

More drug war cruelty

An astounding number of lives have to be destroyed so the church ladies can indulge their moral panic.  In this edition an entire family seems headed to prison because they tried to relieve the agony of one of them by growing a few common weeds - weeds that our President freely acknowledges he used heavily for many years. This time it's the Iowa church ladies at the link. I don't understand how policemen and prosecutors look themselves in the mirror. I really don't.