See also: Thoughts on Race and Equality, Part I: What is it We are Dealing with?
Last week, I posted this piece about race and IQ, detailing the dimensions of what we would have to deal with if there is a real racial IQ gap (particularly in terms of blacks vs. whites) and if we cannot easily close it.
Obviously, the next aspect of such a discussion involves what policies should be put in place, either by government, or by society through private institutions (preferably the latter), in order to deal with a racial IQ gap and to prevent it from becoming disruptive to society or an insurmountable barrier to people’s aspirations.
I should point out right now that a large amount of this is simply the compiling of a lot of ideas that Steve Sailer mentioned. Thus, most of the links will be to relevant Sailer articles.
First of all, the whole education system needs to be overhauled as to the way progress is measured. This will help students with low IQs regardless of any racial correlations. There needs to be extensive aptitude and IQ testing at an early age and throughout the formative educational years (i.e. K-5 or K-6). The educational goals used to determine the success or failure of the school need to be somewhat influences by that. That is to say, if a school has students with an average IQ of 90, it should be judged by a somewhat different standard than one with an average IQ of 105 in terms of determining how successful it is. Or, as Sailer puts it, Schools should be evaluated on how much value they add to their students..
Moreover, the program of study for each student should be influenced by that. I am not saying that lower-IQ students should get crappy lesson plans. Rather, I am saying that students who have lower IQs need to have special attention paid to make absolutely certain that they get the basics (ability to read, write, use proper grammar, and do arithmetic). While I’m not against providing them with culturally enriching classes such as art and music, I think that for the first year or so (perhaps the first three years), science and social studies should be largely ignored except as they can be integrated into reading and arithmetic lessons. Not that such classes need not be taught, but the overriding goal should be to get these kids basic skills first of all. Without those, I doubt that history, science, etc. classes will be beneficial to any great degree. (Obviously, the more gifted students should be taught science, social studies, etc., at a much earlier age, as they can learn the basic skills more easily).
Throughout education, there should be a basic “basket” of skills that students need to be taught, and these should be most highly emphasized on the lower-IQ students. After they have sufficient skill to get by in those skills, then issues such as critical thinking, appreciation of literature, and scientific understanding of the world around them.
Any programs that temporarily raise IQ (e.g. Head Start) during these formative years can be pursued, with the understanding that during whatever period IQ is raised there will be a redoubled effort to teach the basic skills. In other words, the goal of such programs vis a vis education should not be to increase the kid’s cognitive function permanently so much as it should be to provide an extra boost during periods where learning would be particularly assisted by temporarily increased function.
In short, IQ ought to be used to determine how much emphasis should be put on learning the basics (lower IQ = more emphasis) and how much confidence we should have that the students have mastered the basics (i.e. students with lower IQs ought to have more attention paid to them on this issue). The first goal of education ought to be teaching kids the skills they need just to function in society. Aside from classes and activities that are designed to be somewhat recreational (including, at this grade level, the fine arts), most of the other goals of education (e.g. teaching kids science, social studies, how to think about history and interpret literature) should be considered secondary, particularly for kids who are going to have a hard time learning even the basics.
Second, there needs to be more of an emphasis on making certain that there are jobs available for those with lower IQs and that they are prepared to be able to do such jobs. Amongst other policies, restricting immigration, particularly of low-skill workers, is a very important step. Vocational programs need to be made widely available and high-quality, and if college-style training in vocational careers is helpful, its availability and quality ought to be increased.
It would also help to make certain that policies which are designed to make college more affordable are also expanded to include non-college training (e.g. apprenticeships). (There was a mention of this from Mr. Sailer, mentioning the fact that apprentices did not receive the same type of state aid as college students, for example, but I can’t find the link).
Moreover, there should be an attempt to determine what types of technology really do not need great intelligence to operate effectively, and training for such jobs should be made more available for low-IQ individuals; intelligence should only be a barrier to technological jobs where it is actually necessary.
Above all, there should be respect for jobs that do not require a college education, and while it is not wrong to want to increase the opportunities to go to college, we need to be careful not to make it so that college becomes a necessity; that is, that people who choose not to college (or who are unable to go) have good options in life.
Third, there should be service opportunities available to people whose IQs are not high enough to join the army. Steve Sailer’s idea of a disaster relief corps seems about right, but there seems to me no reason to create a new program ex nihilo. I think we could get such a program simply by expanding the National Guard; adding a new “wing” to it, so to speak, that is not eligible for use overseas as a military force (by overseas, I really mean anywhere outside the U.S.). This wing could handle all of the domestic issues that the National Guard currently handles, with the military-eligible National Guard also being called in to help when they are able. Presumably IQ would be less of a requirement in situations that do not require the mastery of complex weapons, of learning and combating enemy strategy, and of continuously shifting plans based on the actions of a sentient enemy.
[So far, all of the policies I have suggested are aracial; they are designed to deal with lower-IQ individuals regardless of any racial correlations. Now we come to the stuff that is more specifically aimed at improving the situation to the extent that it correlates with race.]
Fourth, if there are racial groups with lower average IQs (as in lower than the aggregate national average IQ), it would behoove society to make certain that the members of those groups who have higher IQs are given the same educational opportunities that would be given to a person of another race with the same IQ. To give an example, if a smaller percentage of blacks or Latinos are “Yale material,” then we should make the effort as a society to make certain that those who are “Yale material” are encouraged to go there and helped to succeed there. This sort of policy would be made vastly easier, of course, if we made certain that every minority who got into Yale actually was “Yale material.”
Fifth, it would also be a good idea to help those with non-academic talents to make money off their talents and to save it aside to provide for themselves later on in life (again, an idea floated by Steve Sailer). In Steve’s idea, people who, for example, can excel at college basketball but who are unsuited for the commensurate academic pursuits should be allowed to make money off of playing college basketball (or some sort of equivalent) in an explicitly separate program, and to save that money so that they will have a nest egg if they are unable to turn pro (as will be the case in the vast majority of instances).
Sixth, I would argue that those in a lower-IQ racial community who have the higher IQs need to have a sense of noblesse oblige instilled in them, as well as being strongly indoctrinated (for lack of a better term) in the need for capital investment in their communities, and in the need for their intellectual resources to be used for their communities’ betterment. There also should be an effort to encourage a culture of saving amongst those who have enough so that saving is a possibility (that is, for those who would not likely think ahead enough to save, their should be a strong social pressure that saving is a moral imperative). By saving, I am including stocks, mutual funds, and all other sorts of investments as well as bank accounts; although most likely a relatively secure set of mutual funds would be the best for the lower IQ segments as those would require the least amount of conscious maintenance.
It is also of major importance to create a sense of noblesse oblige amongst celebrities and aspiring celebrities. In addition, we need to encourage those with lots of money (e.g. if we are talking about blacks, sports stars and rappers) to make large capital investments within the community. Particularly in the case of those who aspire to celebrity but have not achieved it yet, there is the need to drill into them a sense of responsible behavior, and for athletes, of modesty and teamwork.
I think the biggest element in all of this analysis is to realize that the goal ought to be not to use IQ as a way to excuse the existence of certain problems, but as a tool for solving them. Moreover, lower IQ people need not be dismissed as hopeless cases, but rather we may need to work harder on their education (as well as working smarter).
That is all.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Needing Windows
Realizing that there are a few internet applications (including certain resume builders) that are not Mac-compatible, I have finally broken down - and put off buying a Mac G5 for another week or two in favor of spending some of my savings on a PC emulator ($219.00 for Virtual PC7 with Windows XP (home edition) and another $25.00 for an anti-virus program).
Technically, I haven't purchased it yet. I've ordered it and will pay upon receipt of goods.
I'll report on how I like it after it comes. Although honestly, PC emulators are probably going to become obsolete when the new IntelMacs come out and begin to take off.
I currently use Mac 10.2.8. Instead of buying Tiger, I think I am going to wait and get Tiger on the next Mac I buy. If Tiger is faster than Jaguar, and I get a G5 with at least 1 GB of RAM (the amount in my 733 MHz G4), hopefully that will help the emulator run faster than I am afraid it will run on my current Mac.
That is all.
Technically, I haven't purchased it yet. I've ordered it and will pay upon receipt of goods.
I'll report on how I like it after it comes. Although honestly, PC emulators are probably going to become obsolete when the new IntelMacs come out and begin to take off.
I currently use Mac 10.2.8. Instead of buying Tiger, I think I am going to wait and get Tiger on the next Mac I buy. If Tiger is faster than Jaguar, and I get a G5 with at least 1 GB of RAM (the amount in my 733 MHz G4), hopefully that will help the emulator run faster than I am afraid it will run on my current Mac.
That is all.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Attempts at Sexual Equality Gone Horribly Wrong
Am I the only one who finds this hilarious?
It would probably be less funny if the male equivalent weren't the most frequently received spam message in all of emaildom.
(Warning: slightly off-color).
That is all.
It would probably be less funny if the male equivalent weren't the most frequently received spam message in all of emaildom.
(Warning: slightly off-color).
That is all.
Failure is the One Unforgivable Crime
(This is a paraphrase of a line from G.I. Joe: the Movie).
It strikes me that in the end, all that will matter in Iraq is failure or victory. The reason why the Bush scandals are getting so much play in the media is because the war is not going well. If casualties suddenly declined, terrorist attacks declined, and harmony broke out in Iraq, no one would care whether Bush lied or not.
That is all.
It strikes me that in the end, all that will matter in Iraq is failure or victory. The reason why the Bush scandals are getting so much play in the media is because the war is not going well. If casualties suddenly declined, terrorist attacks declined, and harmony broke out in Iraq, no one would care whether Bush lied or not.
That is all.
An Excellent Post on Gay Marriage by Lawrence Auster
Lawrence Auster discusses how gay marriage (or its equivalent) really does impact heterosexual marriage.
The fact of the matter is, as I see it, is that when the left argues that gay marriage will not impact traditional heterosexual marriage, they are not so much being naive, or ignoring the issue of "marginal cases," as Jane Galt suggests. Rather, they have no respect for traditional heterosexual marriage, do not really care if it becomes obsolete, and so don't think that gay marriage will have "much of an impact" because they regard traditional marriagfe as so expendable that they don't see itas "much of an impact" if traditional marriage were to virtually disappear altogether.
That is all.
The fact of the matter is, as I see it, is that when the left argues that gay marriage will not impact traditional heterosexual marriage, they are not so much being naive, or ignoring the issue of "marginal cases," as Jane Galt suggests. Rather, they have no respect for traditional heterosexual marriage, do not really care if it becomes obsolete, and so don't think that gay marriage will have "much of an impact" because they regard traditional marriagfe as so expendable that they don't see itas "much of an impact" if traditional marriage were to virtually disappear altogether.
That is all.
A Soldier's Opinion
Every so often, we get a letter praising the Iraq War from a soldier in Iraq, that claims that things are going so wonderful there, if only themedia would tell us the truth.
I tend to be skeptical of such claims, particularly because the Army has the ability to punish any soldier who criticizes the war (if a soldier has to say nice things and only nice things, why should I take any nice things he says seriously?)
So with that in mind, and with the hope that Allan Wall won't get censured for his report, here is his latest "Memo from Mesopotamia," where he questions whether Iraq can stay together as a unified country.
Particularly important is the statement that 95% of Kurds support independence.
Eventually, we are going to have to choose between our Kurdish and Turkish allies.
We are screwed.
That is all.
I tend to be skeptical of such claims, particularly because the Army has the ability to punish any soldier who criticizes the war (if a soldier has to say nice things and only nice things, why should I take any nice things he says seriously?)
So with that in mind, and with the hope that Allan Wall won't get censured for his report, here is his latest "Memo from Mesopotamia," where he questions whether Iraq can stay together as a unified country.
Particularly important is the statement that 95% of Kurds support independence.
Eventually, we are going to have to choose between our Kurdish and Turkish allies.
We are screwed.
That is all.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Amble on, Dudes
This week's pick for blog of the week:
The Ambler, a blog by Canadian Kevin Michael Grace.
Interesting thoughts from a traditionalist Catholic (alas) perspective. But protestants can enjoy his keen insights as well.
Particularly insightful post: Grace's Law of the Counterintutive Response.
That is all.
The Ambler, a blog by Canadian Kevin Michael Grace.
Interesting thoughts from a traditionalist Catholic (alas) perspective. But protestants can enjoy his keen insights as well.
Particularly insightful post: Grace's Law of the Counterintutive Response.
That is all.
About The Riots and Islam
Earlier I posted:
Like hell. I do tend to think that the riots are not part of an Al Qaeda plot, and are likely not Islamic per se (in that they are not about specifically Muslim grievances; it's not like they are rioting because France hasn't adopted the Qu'Ran as its national book, and I question how much the head-scarve ban really has to do with it).
To elaborate, I don't think that the fact that the people were Muslim is the precipitating factor in this sort of riot. It doesn't resemble jihad as I understand it, as there is little killing and, as far as I can tell, little demand for war against the infidel (which, I assume, would lead to killing). The fact that the rioters appear to be mostly Muslim (Steve Sailer mentions that liquor stores do not appear to be being looted much) is certainly relevant, but I suspect relevant more to the extent that it unites them into a single "perpetually agrieved minority" class than because it is the motivation for their actions.
I think that trying to blame Al Qaeda or to discuss this in terms of "Islamism" ignores the most salient fact about these riots: that they are being perpetrated by a perpetually aggrieved minority that has been taught to resent the majority culture while expecting handouts from it. Blaming Al Qaeda or "Islamism" is also counterproductive because it leads to people thinking in terms of political solutions; that is, to trying to "root out" terrorists or plant spies in mosques or to try and determine the people's views to see who is and isn't the likely ptoblem. (Which is fine, if the goal is to stop terrorists, but as a response to a semi-spontaneous minority riot is wholly inadequate). Worse, there may be a lot of money wasted on trying to apprehend the (non-existent) Al Qaeda members supposedly responsible for this or trying to trace back the (non-existent) terror network involved in the riot. Worst of all, this could siphon money away from programs aimed at interdicting actual terrorist threats.
This happened because the rioters knew they could get away with it (or suspected they could and had their suspicions confirmed when they were not stopped), because they have been socialized to expect that they are owed things and do not owe society, because so many have been allowed to live off the public teat, because theyt have been allowed to form Balkanized communities where the majority population in fracne is scared to go, because France has allowed them to intimidate the majority population, and because France has made it unacceptable to say or do things that offend the minority communities or to suggest that they owe French society anything or that certain behaviors are expected of them.
What France needs to do is to crack down on the rioters and to physically explain to them in no uncertain terms that such behavior will not be tolerated. They can be nice and polite at first, but anyone who continues to riot obviously will need a little extra persuasion of the kind I mentioned here.
If you exist in a society, you need to adhere to minimum standards. If you do not, the proper response of the government is to teach you the error of your ways. And to "teach you" good and hard.
That is all.
Like hell. I do tend to think that the riots are not part of an Al Qaeda plot, and are likely not Islamic per se (in that they are not about specifically Muslim grievances; it's not like they are rioting because France hasn't adopted the Qu'Ran as its national book, and I question how much the head-scarve ban really has to do with it).
To elaborate, I don't think that the fact that the people were Muslim is the precipitating factor in this sort of riot. It doesn't resemble jihad as I understand it, as there is little killing and, as far as I can tell, little demand for war against the infidel (which, I assume, would lead to killing). The fact that the rioters appear to be mostly Muslim (Steve Sailer mentions that liquor stores do not appear to be being looted much) is certainly relevant, but I suspect relevant more to the extent that it unites them into a single "perpetually agrieved minority" class than because it is the motivation for their actions.
I think that trying to blame Al Qaeda or to discuss this in terms of "Islamism" ignores the most salient fact about these riots: that they are being perpetrated by a perpetually aggrieved minority that has been taught to resent the majority culture while expecting handouts from it. Blaming Al Qaeda or "Islamism" is also counterproductive because it leads to people thinking in terms of political solutions; that is, to trying to "root out" terrorists or plant spies in mosques or to try and determine the people's views to see who is and isn't the likely ptoblem. (Which is fine, if the goal is to stop terrorists, but as a response to a semi-spontaneous minority riot is wholly inadequate). Worse, there may be a lot of money wasted on trying to apprehend the (non-existent) Al Qaeda members supposedly responsible for this or trying to trace back the (non-existent) terror network involved in the riot. Worst of all, this could siphon money away from programs aimed at interdicting actual terrorist threats.
This happened because the rioters knew they could get away with it (or suspected they could and had their suspicions confirmed when they were not stopped), because they have been socialized to expect that they are owed things and do not owe society, because so many have been allowed to live off the public teat, because theyt have been allowed to form Balkanized communities where the majority population in fracne is scared to go, because France has allowed them to intimidate the majority population, and because France has made it unacceptable to say or do things that offend the minority communities or to suggest that they owe French society anything or that certain behaviors are expected of them.
What France needs to do is to crack down on the rioters and to physically explain to them in no uncertain terms that such behavior will not be tolerated. They can be nice and polite at first, but anyone who continues to riot obviously will need a little extra persuasion of the kind I mentioned here.
If you exist in a society, you need to adhere to minimum standards. If you do not, the proper response of the government is to teach you the error of your ways. And to "teach you" good and hard.
That is all.
Hitch
Clark Stooksbury provides an excerpt from a Jonathan Chait article on Christopher Hitchens.
My favorite quote about Mr. Hitchens would be from Alexander Cockburn of Counterpunch (although admittedly, it does not involve his politics and is a scurrilous ad hominem attack (so what? It's a great quote!)):
Here's what Hitchens wrote: "On the whole, observe the same rule about gin martinis--and all gin drinks--that you would in judging female breasts: one is far too few and three is one too many."
...As far as dry martinis go, there's been sound evidence in the past to take Hitchens as at least a six-breast guy, with the Artemis of Kybele as his beau ideal.
That is all.
My favorite quote about Mr. Hitchens would be from Alexander Cockburn of Counterpunch (although admittedly, it does not involve his politics and is a scurrilous ad hominem attack (so what? It's a great quote!)):
Here's what Hitchens wrote: "On the whole, observe the same rule about gin martinis--and all gin drinks--that you would in judging female breasts: one is far too few and three is one too many."
...As far as dry martinis go, there's been sound evidence in the past to take Hitchens as at least a six-breast guy, with the Artemis of Kybele as his beau ideal.
That is all.
Cheaper Living Through Technology
I recently bought some 17W fluorescent light bulbs (60W incandescent equivalent), some 23W (100W equiv.) and some 42W (150W equiv.).
I plan to try to replace a large number of the lights in my home wiht fluorescent lights, but it will probably happen slowly. I think it is going to be really great getting more energy efficient and being able to spend less on electricity.
That is all.
I plan to try to replace a large number of the lights in my home wiht fluorescent lights, but it will probably happen slowly. I think it is going to be really great getting more energy efficient and being able to spend less on electricity.
That is all.
Jonah Goldberg On the Riots
His latest article might as well be titled "Those Dirty Frogs Had it Coming!"
First, he discusses his Schadenfreude over French misfortune. Then, after making yet another unsurprisingly irrelevant aside (Katie Couric is part of the "French establishment," presumably because she is liberal), he goes on to blame the rioting on France making the minority population "invisible" and on the fact that the French economic systme doesn't make it easy for people to get jobs.
Like hell. I do tend to think that the riots are not part of an Al Qaeda plot, and are likely not Islamic per se (in that they are not about specifically Muslim grievances; it's not like they are rioting because France hasn't adopted the Qu'Ran as its national book, and I question how much the head-scarve ban really has to do with it). However, the fact that the people come from a different culture that is very alien to France would seem to be a bigger issue in my book than the fact that the French government hasn't done enough to integrate these people into French society.
Put another way, what we are witnessing may not be a part of jihad, or part of a Muslim plot, but it is the result of France having let in large numbers of foreigners who are too numerous and too alien to effectively assimilate.
France's economic policy likely hurts, but as much because lack of jobs gives these people more free time to riot than because they are rioting due to a justified anger over their unemployment. (And, as Matin Kelly points out in the comments, because the high level of welfare creates a sense of entitlement and thus an excuse to resent everyone else if they aren't successful in life).
Putting Allowing all of these minorities in to form segregated communities where they can intimidate other citizens of France so that they are afraid to go there played a role as well, but more because it allowed the minorities not to assimilate and because it concentrated poorly-behaved people in one area where they could feed off of each other's violence than because it was an unjust policy producing righteous racial grievance.
In any case, the way to deal with these rioters is not to try to bend over backwards for them or to ask "what did we do to make htem hate us so?" It is to put down the riots, and hard. Then France can ask itself (1) how it got into this mess, and (2) how to get out of it. But the rioters need to be held to account, not just coddled with us all weeping over their grievances, real or imagined.
In any case, Jonah sounds rather foolish. But what else in new?
That is all.
First, he discusses his Schadenfreude over French misfortune. Then, after making yet another unsurprisingly irrelevant aside (Katie Couric is part of the "French establishment," presumably because she is liberal), he goes on to blame the rioting on France making the minority population "invisible" and on the fact that the French economic systme doesn't make it easy for people to get jobs.
Like hell. I do tend to think that the riots are not part of an Al Qaeda plot, and are likely not Islamic per se (in that they are not about specifically Muslim grievances; it's not like they are rioting because France hasn't adopted the Qu'Ran as its national book, and I question how much the head-scarve ban really has to do with it). However, the fact that the people come from a different culture that is very alien to France would seem to be a bigger issue in my book than the fact that the French government hasn't done enough to integrate these people into French society.
Put another way, what we are witnessing may not be a part of jihad, or part of a Muslim plot, but it is the result of France having let in large numbers of foreigners who are too numerous and too alien to effectively assimilate.
France's economic policy likely hurts, but as much because lack of jobs gives these people more free time to riot than because they are rioting due to a justified anger over their unemployment. (And, as Matin Kelly points out in the comments, because the high level of welfare creates a sense of entitlement and thus an excuse to resent everyone else if they aren't successful in life).
In any case, the way to deal with these rioters is not to try to bend over backwards for them or to ask "what did we do to make htem hate us so?" It is to put down the riots, and hard. Then France can ask itself (1) how it got into this mess, and (2) how to get out of it. But the rioters need to be held to account, not just coddled with us all weeping over their grievances, real or imagined.
In any case, Jonah sounds rather foolish. But what else in new?
That is all.
White Phosphorous Not a Chemical Weapon
Colby Cosh points out an important fact.
Fortunately, I never labeled it as such, not did Mark Rothschild in his article about it, to which I linked.
That is all for now.
Fortunately, I never labeled it as such, not did Mark Rothschild in his article about it, to which I linked.
That is all for now.
Sully Don't Get It, Do He?
Ol' Sully discusses an email he received from the father of a marine stationed in Iraq in this post.
Most importantly, though, he brings up the question of why we are not dealing with the Syrian border:
I've brought up sealing the border directly with "senior administration officials." They all say it cannot be done. I say: it can. We have the troops and technology to stop the insurgent influx from Syria. Why are we not stopping it? More troops on the border wouldn't alienate the Iraqi population. It would be a sign we are finally protecting them. So why not more troops and equipment for that vital mission?
Obvious answer? Because there is little influx from Syria. Most reports indicate that the insurgency is primarily indigenous. So shutting he borders with Syria just isn't a priority. Granted, foreigners do a lot of the suicide bombings, but those mostly kill Iraqis and not U.S. troops, so they again, stopping them is less of a priority.
And besides, why would Dubya bother to close the Iraq-Syria border when he has abdicated control of the U.S. border?
That is all.
Most importantly, though, he brings up the question of why we are not dealing with the Syrian border:
I've brought up sealing the border directly with "senior administration officials." They all say it cannot be done. I say: it can. We have the troops and technology to stop the insurgent influx from Syria. Why are we not stopping it? More troops on the border wouldn't alienate the Iraqi population. It would be a sign we are finally protecting them. So why not more troops and equipment for that vital mission?
Obvious answer? Because there is little influx from Syria. Most reports indicate that the insurgency is primarily indigenous. So shutting he borders with Syria just isn't a priority. Granted, foreigners do a lot of the suicide bombings, but those mostly kill Iraqis and not U.S. troops, so they again, stopping them is less of a priority.
And besides, why would Dubya bother to close the Iraq-Syria border when he has abdicated control of the U.S. border?
That is all.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
On That Cervical Cancer Vaccine
Ellen Goodman's article on the controversy regarding the cervical cancer vaccine.
Of course, from reading it, it would look as if the religious right objected to the vaccine being available. In reality, as this article indicates, they object to having it made mandatory.
Funny, how it's called "choice" when it comes to abortion, but when it is about anything else, the left is firmly on the side of coercion.
That is all.
Of course, from reading it, it would look as if the religious right objected to the vaccine being available. In reality, as this article indicates, they object to having it made mandatory.
Funny, how it's called "choice" when it comes to abortion, but when it is about anything else, the left is firmly on the side of coercion.
That is all.
Sequel Coming Up
Steve Sailer has kindly provided links to my aticles on race and IQ and on citizenism.
As a result, my traffic for today has shot up to > 300 visits, which beats my previous record of 129 (yesterday) and my record before that of 108 (September 30, 2005) by a wide margin.
So I will try to get my sequel posting. My posting on citizenism was a one-time post, but I think that looking at it I may want to make another post elaborating on how I understand the philosophy of citizenism as well as modifying or clarifying some points (for example, I do agree that the Founding principles are important principles and htat it is important to America's culture to uphold them, but I do not think that America (by which I mean the U.S.) as a nation (as opposed to America as a government) is defined by the Founder's vision, at least not in the sense that the Founder's principles are what make us a distinct nation. (As anb analogy, I am a paleoconservative with paleolibertarian tendencies, but that fact is not the single factor that most describes my entire life and distinguishes me as an individual).
My posting on race and IQ, on the other hand, was deliberately marked "Part I," indicating that a sequel ought to be in the works. So I will try to get Part II up this weekend.
Also, a thank you goes out to Randall Parker for noticing some typos and other errors in my posts, errors I have endeavored to correct.
That is all.
As a result, my traffic for today has shot up to > 300 visits, which beats my previous record of 129 (yesterday) and my record before that of 108 (September 30, 2005) by a wide margin.
So I will try to get my sequel posting. My posting on citizenism was a one-time post, but I think that looking at it I may want to make another post elaborating on how I understand the philosophy of citizenism as well as modifying or clarifying some points (for example, I do agree that the Founding principles are important principles and htat it is important to America's culture to uphold them, but I do not think that America (by which I mean the U.S.) as a nation (as opposed to America as a government) is defined by the Founder's vision, at least not in the sense that the Founder's principles are what make us a distinct nation. (As anb analogy, I am a paleoconservative with paleolibertarian tendencies, but that fact is not the single factor that most describes my entire life and distinguishes me as an individual).
My posting on race and IQ, on the other hand, was deliberately marked "Part I," indicating that a sequel ought to be in the works. So I will try to get Part II up this weekend.
Also, a thank you goes out to Randall Parker for noticing some typos and other errors in my posts, errors I have endeavored to correct.
That is all.
Bought the New Excalibur Yesterday
It's an interesting issue. I'd link t oa review, but I cannot find one yet, so her e is the preview.
Apparently, this new group is being brought together by the "decimation" of mutants brought about by the "House of M" storyline. Apparently, 90% of the world's mutants have been de-mutated (at least they have lost their powers, although in some cases, notably Polaris from no-adjective X-Men, it appears they lose their powers while retaining some strange features (e.g. green hair). In other cases, notably Beak from Exiles, they lose their weird features and become totally normal. Of course, "decimation" is usedi n reverse here, as usually decimatnion means reducing by 10%, not reducing to 10%.
In any case, my interest in the book is prrimrily due to the presence of Her Sexy Blueness, Talia Josephine Wagner (picture from the site with the preview), aka Nocturne, my favorite Marvel character.
If any of you have seen "The Season of the Witch" in Uncanny X-Men, where Captain Britain, Psylocke, Rachel Grey, Juggernaut, Meggan, and Nocturne had to work to stop a chaos wave that would have otherwise required the nullification of this universe, then you've seen what was apparently intended as the prequel to this comic. The storyline in "Season of the Witch" was horrible, in that the chaos wave was never explained (although it presumably was related to the House of M), 80% of issues 2, 3, and 4 (4-part issue) consisted primarily of filler, and what the heck they were doing to stop the chaos wave was never made explicit (although Juggernaut apparently jury-rigged a temporary solution to the "hole in reality" by stuffing Blob in there - I kid you not).
Of course, I'm not partial to "the whole universe will be destroyed" storylines anyway.
But it looks like The New Excalibur will likely be a lot better than what preceded it.
That is all.
Apparently, this new group is being brought together by the "decimation" of mutants brought about by the "House of M" storyline. Apparently, 90% of the world's mutants have been de-mutated (at least they have lost their powers, although in some cases, notably Polaris from no-adjective X-Men, it appears they lose their powers while retaining some strange features (e.g. green hair). In other cases, notably Beak from Exiles, they lose their weird features and become totally normal. Of course, "decimation" is usedi n reverse here, as usually decimatnion means reducing by 10%, not reducing to 10%.
In any case, my interest in the book is prrimrily due to the presence of Her Sexy Blueness, Talia Josephine Wagner (picture from the site with the preview), aka Nocturne, my favorite Marvel character.
If any of you have seen "The Season of the Witch" in Uncanny X-Men, where Captain Britain, Psylocke, Rachel Grey, Juggernaut, Meggan, and Nocturne had to work to stop a chaos wave that would have otherwise required the nullification of this universe, then you've seen what was apparently intended as the prequel to this comic. The storyline in "Season of the Witch" was horrible, in that the chaos wave was never explained (although it presumably was related to the House of M), 80% of issues 2, 3, and 4 (4-part issue) consisted primarily of filler, and what the heck they were doing to stop the chaos wave was never made explicit (although Juggernaut apparently jury-rigged a temporary solution to the "hole in reality" by stuffing Blob in there - I kid you not).
Of course, I'm not partial to "the whole universe will be destroyed" storylines anyway.
But it looks like The New Excalibur will likely be a lot better than what preceded it.
That is all.
Troop Levels in Iraq are Unsustainable
The Center for American Progress suggests a need to reduce American troops in Iraq by 80,000 in 2006 (thgat would leave 50,000-80,000 troops there, depending on what their baseline is) in order to preserve the all-volunteer army.
James Dobbins of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the nonprofit RAND Corp seems to be suggesting that it is a good idea, but Bush should not propose it directly.
"While the Bush administration is unlikely to announce a timetable for troop reductions, the CAP plan is probably similar to what Bush policymakers have in mind anyway, according to Dobbins, of RAND."
Ahmad Chalabi seems to be encouraging a U.S. troop reduction as well. I would wager he either thinks that such a move would require the U.S. to look to him for assistacne (and thus increase his political power), or he thinks that it is going to happen and wants to score points with Iraqis by making it look like he is the one who managed to convince the U.S. to give Iraqis more independence.
Personally, I am skeptical of any claims that the U.S. will be able to reduce troop levels anytime soon without significant damage to U.S. plans regarding Iraq, and without Iraq falling into a civil war (but this is going to happen sooner or later, so we might as well let it happen now; it will probably be more severe laer). There have been constant predictions that we will be able to reduce our troop levels once we turn the next corner, and yet last month our troop levels in Iraq reached the highest point they have been at since this war started.
I think that in the coming months, the U.S. will have to make some pretty tough choices. We may well be forced to reduc troop levels, but I don't think we can do so painlessly. As I have said several times, I am afraid that if we reduce troop levelsthe coalition will have to resort to significantly more brutality in order to put down the insurgency with the reduced numbers.
That is all.
James Dobbins of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the nonprofit RAND Corp seems to be suggesting that it is a good idea, but Bush should not propose it directly.
"While the Bush administration is unlikely to announce a timetable for troop reductions, the CAP plan is probably similar to what Bush policymakers have in mind anyway, according to Dobbins, of RAND."
Ahmad Chalabi seems to be encouraging a U.S. troop reduction as well. I would wager he either thinks that such a move would require the U.S. to look to him for assistacne (and thus increase his political power), or he thinks that it is going to happen and wants to score points with Iraqis by making it look like he is the one who managed to convince the U.S. to give Iraqis more independence.
Personally, I am skeptical of any claims that the U.S. will be able to reduce troop levels anytime soon without significant damage to U.S. plans regarding Iraq, and without Iraq falling into a civil war (but this is going to happen sooner or later, so we might as well let it happen now; it will probably be more severe laer). There have been constant predictions that we will be able to reduce our troop levels once we turn the next corner, and yet last month our troop levels in Iraq reached the highest point they have been at since this war started.
I think that in the coming months, the U.S. will have to make some pretty tough choices. We may well be forced to reduc troop levels, but I don't think we can do so painlessly. As I have said several times, I am afraid that if we reduce troop levelsthe coalition will have to resort to significantly more brutality in order to put down the insurgency with the reduced numbers.
That is all.
We Don't Need Liars in the Anti-War Movement
I haven't really done any research on Jimmy Massey, but if this column is accurate, then he is a waste of space and the antiwar movement should denounce him. The antiwar movement has enough grist for the mill just using the truth that we don't need to make stuff up.
That is all.
That is all.
Time and Relative Dimension in Madonna
Does anyone else think that Madonna's new song "Hung Up" sounds a lot like the Doctor Who theme (warning: sound file) ? (Admittedly, the version I linked to isn't the best one for showing the resemblance, but the synth-heavy Who themes of the 80s seem ot have the same effect as Madonna's new song. If anyone knows of a site with a better version of he Who theme, please let me know).
That is all.
That is all.
Bush's Speech
Bush came off okay in today's speech; at least in terms of how he sounded.
The biggest problem with Bush as a speech-giver or in any capacity where he has to talk (e.g., press conferences), is that he can only say five or six words before having to pause. It gives the impression that he is reading his speech directly off the teleprompter, and that he is a slow reader.
His brother Jeb is a much more natural speaker. For that matter, so is Tony Blair. I remember seeing him at a press conference or somesuch just before or just after hte invasion of Iraq, and he seemed like an eager boy just out of college who is prepared to take on the world. Not that his policies are that great, but at least he seemed to have true enthusiasm and interest in the subject at hand.
Bush, on the other hand, seems to give off the attitude that he is telling something very simple to small and not-exceedingly-bright children, as well as the impression that he is a schoolboy not prepared for his big oral exam, and is trying to B.S. his way through. So he winds up looking as if he doesn';t have a grasp of the subject, and is hiding this fact by getting angry at you for not understanding the answer to the question.
"Why yes, Mrs. Lewis. The capital of New York... is the city... where the state house is. Yes, it is where the state house is... anyone with a brain would know that."
So Bush does best in speeches where the speech consists of a lot of bullet points, and not much detailed explanation, as his pauses can be worked into the natural rhythm of the speech.
Of course, this is a very limiting style...
That is all.
The biggest problem with Bush as a speech-giver or in any capacity where he has to talk (e.g., press conferences), is that he can only say five or six words before having to pause. It gives the impression that he is reading his speech directly off the teleprompter, and that he is a slow reader.
His brother Jeb is a much more natural speaker. For that matter, so is Tony Blair. I remember seeing him at a press conference or somesuch just before or just after hte invasion of Iraq, and he seemed like an eager boy just out of college who is prepared to take on the world. Not that his policies are that great, but at least he seemed to have true enthusiasm and interest in the subject at hand.
Bush, on the other hand, seems to give off the attitude that he is telling something very simple to small and not-exceedingly-bright children, as well as the impression that he is a schoolboy not prepared for his big oral exam, and is trying to B.S. his way through. So he winds up looking as if he doesn';t have a grasp of the subject, and is hiding this fact by getting angry at you for not understanding the answer to the question.
"Why yes, Mrs. Lewis. The capital of New York... is the city... where the state house is. Yes, it is where the state house is... anyone with a brain would know that."
So Bush does best in speeches where the speech consists of a lot of bullet points, and not much detailed explanation, as his pauses can be worked into the natural rhythm of the speech.
Of course, this is a very limiting style...
That is all.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Truthful Intelligence
Everyone believed that Iraq had WMDs, so the President was not lying at all! says Poddy Pater.
Kevin Drum comes up with a pretty good response.
Yggy has more thoughts in that vein here and here.
That is all.
Kevin Drum comes up with a pretty good response.
Yggy has more thoughts in that vein here and here.
That is all.
Wonders Never Cease
I actually agree with Jack Kelly.
In particular, this line stands out to me:
A commenter on the Web log "Belmont Club" thinks this focus is a clever form of brinkmanship. Car burning is spectacular, but not serious enough to provoke lethal force, especially from a French government loathe to use it.
As it is sort of the other side of a pint I made:
It occurs to me that the reason that the French have rolled over so much in response to these riots is probably because so far, most of the damage seems to be to property, and there have been relatively few casualties (one or two deaths, I believe, and a smattering of woundings).
That is all.
In particular, this line stands out to me:
A commenter on the Web log "Belmont Club" thinks this focus is a clever form of brinkmanship. Car burning is spectacular, but not serious enough to provoke lethal force, especially from a French government loathe to use it.
As it is sort of the other side of a pint I made:
It occurs to me that the reason that the French have rolled over so much in response to these riots is probably because so far, most of the damage seems to be to property, and there have been relatively few casualties (one or two deaths, I believe, and a smattering of woundings).
That is all.
Auster vs. Kevin MacDonald
Lawrence Auster comments on this Kevin MacDonald articleon VDARE.
My thoughts:
As best I understand it, Kevin MacDonald has taken the behavior of some (mostly liberal and secular) Jews in the 20th and early 21st centuries (namely, encouraging the dilution of the majority culture, e.g., through increased immigration, because it makes the culture more tolerant of minorities, including Jews - yes, Tamar Jacoby, I am talking about you), and extrapolated it back to make such behavior be the defining characteristic of Jewishness.
I haven't read MacDonald's work, so I cannot comment directly on it, but I do think that MacDonald may be the seventh type of college professor.
That is all.
My thoughts:
As best I understand it, Kevin MacDonald has taken the behavior of some (mostly liberal and secular) Jews in the 20th and early 21st centuries (namely, encouraging the dilution of the majority culture, e.g., through increased immigration, because it makes the culture more tolerant of minorities, including Jews - yes, Tamar Jacoby, I am talking about you), and extrapolated it back to make such behavior be the defining characteristic of Jewishness.
I haven't read MacDonald's work, so I cannot comment directly on it, but I do think that MacDonald may be the seventh type of college professor.
That is all.
Another Plug for T9 Tapeless Masking Paper
I have a relative who is involved in a new business venture called T9 Products. Their "signature product," if you will, is tapeless (i.e. self-adhesive) masking paper for use when painting cars, airplanes, etc.
If you have any interest in painting cars or if you know anyone who does, you might want to check out their website, either through one of the links above, or through the link in my sidebar.
That is all.
If you have any interest in painting cars or if you know anyone who does, you might want to check out their website, either through one of the links above, or through the link in my sidebar.
That is all.
Another Exciting Blog
For Mac-fans, Organized Chaos is an interesting read.
If you like Macs or are curious about them, you might like to visit it.
That is all.
If you like Macs or are curious about them, you might like to visit it.
That is all.
The New Segregated Schooling
Jonathan Turley complains about the possibility of new segregated schools in Chicago, designed as a way to improve the graduation rates of black males.
Naturally, he is horrified by the idea.
But I ask, why not try it and see if it works?
It's hard to read such editorials without wondering if the writer is essentially thinking: Hey, Mr. African-American, you wanted to go to school with us back in the 50s, well, buster, now you're stuck with us!
Reading at the proposed school, the typical mainstream conservative response to said school (i.e., that segregation is eeeeeevil) brings to mind Zora Neale Hurston's words regarding Brown v. Board of Education:
Since the days of the never-to-be-sufficiently-deplored Reconstruction, there has been current the belief that there is no greater delight to Negroes than the physical association with whites.
And of course, Mr. Turley, being the grand man he is, would never wish to allow the parents of said black students to deny their children the boundless joys of association with white students by sending them to a school that is desigend to be primarily black. Or, perhaps, he believes that there is no greater delight to white students than the physical association with black ones, and is afraid of denying his children (if he has any) the benefits of their presence if black students decide that an all-black or almost all-black school is more conducive to their academic achievement.
That is all.
Naturally, he is horrified by the idea.
But I ask, why not try it and see if it works?
It's hard to read such editorials without wondering if the writer is essentially thinking: Hey, Mr. African-American, you wanted to go to school with us back in the 50s, well, buster, now you're stuck with us!
Reading at the proposed school, the typical mainstream conservative response to said school (i.e., that segregation is eeeeeevil) brings to mind Zora Neale Hurston's words regarding Brown v. Board of Education:
Since the days of the never-to-be-sufficiently-deplored Reconstruction, there has been current the belief that there is no greater delight to Negroes than the physical association with whites.
And of course, Mr. Turley, being the grand man he is, would never wish to allow the parents of said black students to deny their children the boundless joys of association with white students by sending them to a school that is desigend to be primarily black. Or, perhaps, he believes that there is no greater delight to white students than the physical association with black ones, and is afraid of denying his children (if he has any) the benefits of their presence if black students decide that an all-black or almost all-black school is more conducive to their academic achievement.
That is all.
Those Stupid French
Steve Sailer posts a letter with a theory on why the French are having such problems: birthright citizenship. Anyone born on French soil is automatically French.
Boy, it's just like those stupid French people to have such a policy. Boy, it's a good thing I live in the U.S.A., where we don't stand for such... oh, wait a minute. Never mind.
That is all.
Boy, it's just like those stupid French people to have such a policy. Boy, it's a good thing I live in the U.S.A., where we don't stand for such... oh, wait a minute. Never mind.
That is all.
Thought for the Day
Whenever someone denigrates evolutionary psychology, what they really mean is: "I thought the whole point of evolution was just to deny God. I didn't think it was actually supposed to tell us anything."
That is all.
That is all.
Thoughts on Crash
I saw Crash last night.
I'm not sure if I have an overall review, but a few thoughts stand out:
(Spoilers ahead, so text is written in white. Highlight to read text, or copy and paste then alter color if necessary).
Chris "Ludacris" Bridge's character tries to make his carjacking a political statement against white people. But in the end, it's about thuggery; about getting something for nothing. He tries to carjack a black man, despite previously criticizing someone else for "stealing from his own kind" without even thinking about the irony.
His redemption comes when he gives up his pride; symblized by his riding on a bus (which he had earlier sneered at as a mode of transportation) and his apparent belief that everyone else owes him something.
The racist cop (Matt Dillon) was redeemed when he saw the black woman about to get killed in a fire. At that moment, he was able to see her as human; and when her fear of him (he had sexually groped her earlier during an arrest) made her resist his attempt to save her life, he realized for a moment how much damage he had done. His main flaw was that he had allowed the fact that his Dad was victimized by affirmative action (in his opinion) to turn into a resentment of all black people; he blamed them for what had happened to his father and saw them as mere objects on which to take out his rage.
The Farsi businessman was redeemed, presumably, by his realization that what he still had (his daughter) was more important than what he had lost (his store). This was prompted by his nearly shooting to death the daughter of the locksmith he blamed for the robbery (for not fixing the lock" properly, when in reality the problem was with the door, not the lock).
The one death in the movie was committed by one of the least-prejudiced characters. In fact, has he been less determined to show he wasn't prejudiced (by picking up a black man walking along the road next to him), he wouldn't have shot said black man.
Perhaps one message of Crash is that there is decency in everyone; and evil in everyone. You always have to look for the decency that remains in the bad person, and always be on guard for the evil in the good person. And you can stay who you are, or you can change who you are; but you cannot escape who you truly are, you have to deal with it one way or another (I know, that sounds like a terribly bad attempt at being deep, but there you are).
That is all.
I'm not sure if I have an overall review, but a few thoughts stand out:
(Spoilers ahead, so text is written in white. Highlight to read text, or copy and paste then alter color if necessary).
His redemption comes when he gives up his pride; symblized by his riding on a bus (which he had earlier sneered at as a mode of transportation) and his apparent belief that everyone else owes him something.
The racist cop (Matt Dillon) was redeemed when he saw the black woman about to get killed in a fire. At that moment, he was able to see her as human; and when her fear of him (he had sexually groped her earlier during an arrest) made her resist his attempt to save her life, he realized for a moment how much damage he had done. His main flaw was that he had allowed the fact that his Dad was victimized by affirmative action (in his opinion) to turn into a resentment of all black people; he blamed them for what had happened to his father and saw them as mere objects on which to take out his rage.
The Farsi businessman was redeemed, presumably, by his realization that what he still had (his daughter) was more important than what he had lost (his store). This was prompted by his nearly shooting to death the daughter of the locksmith he blamed for the robbery (for not fixing the lock" properly, when in reality the problem was with the door, not the lock).
The one death in the movie was committed by one of the least-prejudiced characters. In fact, has he been less determined to show he wasn't prejudiced (by picking up a black man walking along the road next to him), he wouldn't have shot said black man.
Perhaps one message of Crash is that there is decency in everyone; and evil in everyone. You always have to look for the decency that remains in the bad person, and always be on guard for the evil in the good person. And you can stay who you are, or you can change who you are; but you cannot escape who you truly are, you have to deal with it one way or another (I know, that sounds like a terribly bad attempt at being deep, but there you are).
No Side Agendas
Lawrence Auster comments on Simon Wiesenthal, particularly on this portrayal in the movie The Murderers Among Us.
What impressed Auster the most about Wiesenthal (as portrayed inthe movie) was his ability to seek truth and justice without getting side-tracked by political agendas.
Interesting posting.
That is all.
What impressed Auster the most about Wiesenthal (as portrayed inthe movie) was his ability to seek truth and justice without getting side-tracked by political agendas.
Interesting posting.
That is all.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
The Relative Value of Israeli Civilians
I'll comment on the UNESCO Cultural Diversity Treaty later, but a particular part of this post by Diana Moon is quite fascinating.
She theorizes, in essence, that Israel values its soldiers more highly than its civilians, due to the large amount of resources spent on training them. This. of course, is different from the calculus of most western countries, who view soldiers as more expendable, because, well, dying is what soldiers do.
According to Ms. Moon, this also has the effect of meaning that Israel values male lives more than female lives, as soldiers in combat tend to be male (in fact, the sex angle is what she is commenting on). This is opposed to most cultures, where male life is cheaper (because number of females is the limiting factor in the reproductive capacity of a tribe), but males are advantaged politically and socially.
This is an interesting thought that didn't really occur to me before.
That is all.
She theorizes, in essence, that Israel values its soldiers more highly than its civilians, due to the large amount of resources spent on training them. This. of course, is different from the calculus of most western countries, who view soldiers as more expendable, because, well, dying is what soldiers do.
According to Ms. Moon, this also has the effect of meaning that Israel values male lives more than female lives, as soldiers in combat tend to be male (in fact, the sex angle is what she is commenting on). This is opposed to most cultures, where male life is cheaper (because number of females is the limiting factor in the reproductive capacity of a tribe), but males are advantaged politically and socially.
This is an interesting thought that didn't really occur to me before.
That is all.
That Sailer Good Stuff
An excellent essay about the riots in France and how they relate to racial/immigration politics.
That is all.
That is all.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Jim Henley on Syria
Two good posts here and here.
Most important is Henley's analysis that the neocons assume that a regime change in Syria will make keeping order in Iraq easier.
On the grandiose side, if you believe that the only reason the US is having troubles of however mild a sort in Iraq - all that ramping up of violence by desperate opponents in advance of each new victory for democracy - because of support trickling in from other countries, then doubling down on the regime change hand looks like a smart play.
In other words, they fail to see the danger of occupying two Arab countries (particularly that it would be harder than occupying one Arab country) because they think that taking over the second will solve the problem of guerilla resistacne in the first.
I also made essentially this point back in August.
The neocons would probably retort that the insurgency in Iraq gets most of its strength from Iran and Syria, so if we attacked them, we wouldn't have any insurgency in any of the countries to worry about (i.e. expand the war and the need for troops diminishes)...
Henley also points out that Iran could make trouble for us in Syria, but as I pointed out in the comments, many neocons think that Iran can be easily defeated by covert action in support of internal rebellion.
In any case, the posibility that we might attack Syria is definitely not a cheerful one.
That is all.
Most important is Henley's analysis that the neocons assume that a regime change in Syria will make keeping order in Iraq easier.
On the grandiose side, if you believe that the only reason the US is having troubles of however mild a sort in Iraq - all that ramping up of violence by desperate opponents in advance of each new victory for democracy - because of support trickling in from other countries, then doubling down on the regime change hand looks like a smart play.
In other words, they fail to see the danger of occupying two Arab countries (particularly that it would be harder than occupying one Arab country) because they think that taking over the second will solve the problem of guerilla resistacne in the first.
I also made essentially this point back in August.
The neocons would probably retort that the insurgency in Iraq gets most of its strength from Iran and Syria, so if we attacked them, we wouldn't have any insurgency in any of the countries to worry about (i.e. expand the war and the need for troops diminishes)...
Henley also points out that Iran could make trouble for us in Syria, but as I pointed out in the comments, many neocons think that Iran can be easily defeated by covert action in support of internal rebellion.
In any case, the posibility that we might attack Syria is definitely not a cheerful one.
That is all.
Taylor/Sailer Debate Rages on
The latest volley in the white nationalism vs. citizenism debate.
I'm still in favor of citizenism, and I see white nationalism as carrying with it a whole host of problems for the U.S., however, Taylor does make some interesting points, most importantly this one:
You don’t have to have black friends, you don’t have to have Mexican neighbors, you don’t have to send your children to schools where no one speaks English, and you don’t have to invite Hmong refugees to your dinner parties. You can be racially respectable without doing anything. Just gush about the things you, yourself, carefully avoid: integration, multi-culturalism, and diversity...
...People get away with it because everyone is in on the charade. By any real racial test, by any measure that requires sacrifice, everyone fails, so whites never apply real tests to each other. Mouth the right clichés and you’re on the side of the angels. Racial rectitude is therefore the most cheaply bought virtue in American history— and also the most easily forfeited. Because only words matter, not deeds, a single sentence can wreck a career.
I fin this interesting because of how it fits in with the charges of "institutional racism." In general, the goal of talking about "white privilege" is to makes whites feel guilty and racist and to convince them that nothing they do or say can take away from the fact that they are part of the evil white hierarchy (the general goal, it seems to me, is to suggest that because of their "privilege," they are so corrupt that their opinions ought not to count as much those of minorities, at least not on racial issues; meaning that all of our racial policies ought to be set by minorities).
But the parallel here is that neither the anti-racist nor Jared Taylor lets anyone off the hook for their "moral rectitude" when discussing matters of race.
What the import of that is, I'll have to consider more before making a longer post.
That is all.
I'm still in favor of citizenism, and I see white nationalism as carrying with it a whole host of problems for the U.S., however, Taylor does make some interesting points, most importantly this one:
You don’t have to have black friends, you don’t have to have Mexican neighbors, you don’t have to send your children to schools where no one speaks English, and you don’t have to invite Hmong refugees to your dinner parties. You can be racially respectable without doing anything. Just gush about the things you, yourself, carefully avoid: integration, multi-culturalism, and diversity...
...People get away with it because everyone is in on the charade. By any real racial test, by any measure that requires sacrifice, everyone fails, so whites never apply real tests to each other. Mouth the right clichés and you’re on the side of the angels. Racial rectitude is therefore the most cheaply bought virtue in American history— and also the most easily forfeited. Because only words matter, not deeds, a single sentence can wreck a career.
I fin this interesting because of how it fits in with the charges of "institutional racism." In general, the goal of talking about "white privilege" is to makes whites feel guilty and racist and to convince them that nothing they do or say can take away from the fact that they are part of the evil white hierarchy (the general goal, it seems to me, is to suggest that because of their "privilege," they are so corrupt that their opinions ought not to count as much those of minorities, at least not on racial issues; meaning that all of our racial policies ought to be set by minorities).
But the parallel here is that neither the anti-racist nor Jared Taylor lets anyone off the hook for their "moral rectitude" when discussing matters of race.
What the import of that is, I'll have to consider more before making a longer post.
That is all.
Disagreeing with Juan Cole
The French have determinedly avoided multiculturalism or affirmative action. They have insisted that everyone is French together and on a "color-blind" set of policies. "Color-blind" policies based on "merit" always seem to benefit some groups more than others, despite a rhetoric of equality and achievement. In order to resolve the problems they face, the French will have to come to terms with the multi-cultural character of contemporary society. And they will have to find ways of actively sharing jobs with minority populations, who often suffer from an unemployment rate as high as 40 percent (i.e. Iraq).
Translation: Color-blind policies do not produce proportionate representation of all racial groups, so there must be racism going on. The solution is quotas.
Of course, Mr. Cole could never consider the possibility that the color-blind policies are achieving truly merit-based results, and that the groups disadvantaged by such policies may be so disadvantaged because they are not as qualified.
That would be a thought crime.
That is all.
Translation: Color-blind policies do not produce proportionate representation of all racial groups, so there must be racism going on. The solution is quotas.
Of course, Mr. Cole could never consider the possibility that the color-blind policies are achieving truly merit-based results, and that the groups disadvantaged by such policies may be so disadvantaged because they are not as qualified.
That would be a thought crime.
That is all.
Red Dawn
I saw Red Dawn today on videotape.
I think I'll try to write a review later.
A quick synopsis of my impressions:
The movie was okay, but there were a few loose ends and it generally suffered from the fact that the clothing was such that it was sometimes difficult to distinguish the Russians from the guerillas in the scenes.
That is all.
I think I'll try to write a review later.
A quick synopsis of my impressions:
The movie was okay, but there were a few loose ends and it generally suffered from the fact that the clothing was such that it was sometimes difficult to distinguish the Russians from the guerillas in the scenes.
That is all.
More on Lesbians
Thiking about the last post, I wonder if part of Ellen Degeneres' charm is the fact that she seems a lot more like a female mirror-image of a gay man than like a stereotypical lesbian.
That is, she apparently feels she was born that way, she does not seem to have any trouble relating to the opposite sex, she seems more "pleasantly tomboyish" than threateningly butch; she's usually not the type of person to spout off long political diatribes on gender or feminism or whatnot.
I think that lesbians often seem more threatening than gay men, and Ellen doesn't.
On a similar note, it seems alternately approporiate and ironic that the first lesbian actress to come out of the closet made her name plaing a shrill, castrating, and often misandric, yet extremely heterosexual character.
I am, of course, talking about Amanda Bearse, aka Marcy Rhoades / Marcy D'Arcy on Married... with Children.
That is all.
That is, she apparently feels she was born that way, she does not seem to have any trouble relating to the opposite sex, she seems more "pleasantly tomboyish" than threateningly butch; she's usually not the type of person to spout off long political diatribes on gender or feminism or whatnot.
I think that lesbians often seem more threatening than gay men, and Ellen doesn't.
On a similar note, it seems alternately approporiate and ironic that the first lesbian actress to come out of the closet made her name plaing a shrill, castrating, and often misandric, yet extremely heterosexual character.
I am, of course, talking about Amanda Bearse, aka Marcy Rhoades / Marcy D'Arcy on Married... with Children.
That is all.
Not Born That Way!
Warren Throckmorton points out that Shheryl Swoopes actually turned gay, suggesting that it is not an inborn trait.
Only one problem: she's a lesbian, and as Steve Sailer has pointed out, the "born that way" thesis seems to be much more about gay men than about lesbians.
That is all.
Only one problem: she's a lesbian, and as Steve Sailer has pointed out, the "born that way" thesis seems to be much more about gay men than about lesbians.
That is all.
Clinton Was Bad on Iraq, Too
Justin Raimondo on the blame that Billy Boy and his administration shares for the ascendance of Ahmad the Thief. Which, of course, suggests that Clinton may be as much to blame for Iraq as Bush.
Of course, as the Democrats want to exploitthe Iraq situation for political gain, they will try to paint everythign as Bush's fault and take pains to make meaningless distinctions between Clinton's and Bush's stances on Iraq (in reality, the difference is that Clinton didn't have 9/11 as cover, and perhaps that Clinton may have been a little too wishy-washy to act. I think that he would have gone to war with Iraq just like Bush did if he thought he could get away with it).
I am having none of it. There are a large number of Democrats who in the 1990s helped set up the institutions that have led us into this war, and let us remember that it was Clinton who appointed imperialist extraordinaire James Woolsey to the CIA.
The problem with the antiwar movement is that too many people want to turn it into a partisan issue, and to make it about getting the other side instead of about finding a way out of the war.
Antiwar.com, fortunately enough, has managed to keep its eyes on the ball.
That is all.
Of course, as the Democrats want to exploitthe Iraq situation for political gain, they will try to paint everythign as Bush's fault and take pains to make meaningless distinctions between Clinton's and Bush's stances on Iraq (in reality, the difference is that Clinton didn't have 9/11 as cover, and perhaps that Clinton may have been a little too wishy-washy to act. I think that he would have gone to war with Iraq just like Bush did if he thought he could get away with it).
I am having none of it. There are a large number of Democrats who in the 1990s helped set up the institutions that have led us into this war, and let us remember that it was Clinton who appointed imperialist extraordinaire James Woolsey to the CIA.
The problem with the antiwar movement is that too many people want to turn it into a partisan issue, and to make it about getting the other side instead of about finding a way out of the war.
Antiwar.com, fortunately enough, has managed to keep its eyes on the ball.
That is all.
Glaivester Now Set up for Donations
Sorry for light posting.
I spent much of today adding a donation feature to Glaivester. I am also trying to see if I can add a second sidebar (i.e., on the right).
In any case, my plan was to have a post on my blog with a number of different ways to donate listed, and to have the link on my main blog be to that page.
Here is the donations page.
So far, I am set up to take Amazon honor system donations. I have a text link; I am hoping to install an Amazon paybox, but for some reason I am having trouble with the html right now. I also plan to add other donation methods soon.
If I can figure out how to get a second sidebar, I will probably move donation links, blog statistics links, and ads (if I decide to get any ads) to the second (i.e., right-hand) one, and reserve the first for, e.g., my profile and my links to other websites.
That is all.
I spent much of today adding a donation feature to Glaivester. I am also trying to see if I can add a second sidebar (i.e., on the right).
In any case, my plan was to have a post on my blog with a number of different ways to donate listed, and to have the link on my main blog be to that page.
Here is the donations page.
So far, I am set up to take Amazon honor system donations. I have a text link; I am hoping to install an Amazon paybox, but for some reason I am having trouble with the html right now. I also plan to add other donation methods soon.
If I can figure out how to get a second sidebar, I will probably move donation links, blog statistics links, and ads (if I decide to get any ads) to the second (i.e., right-hand) one, and reserve the first for, e.g., my profile and my links to other websites.
That is all.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Debunking Mackubin
Here's Mac Thomas Owens' latest, explaining why the news from Iraq is actually quite good.
Let's have a little fun debunking, shall we?
"The good news in Iraq must start with the recent referendum on the new Iraqi constitution. While swamped in the U.S. press by the unseemly, indeed disgraceful, reporting of the 2,000-dead-Americans "milestone," the acceptance of the draft constitution by the Iraqi people indicates a real accomplishment."
Yes, the insurgents upped and gave up once they heard tha tthe constitution was ratified, so magical are its properties.
"The second bit of good news is the publication of a letter from al Qaeda's number-two official, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi... We are beholden to al-Zawahiri for reminding us why the stakes in Iraq are so high."
Well, while one could argue that the letter proves why the war is necessary to fight, I don't exactly see how it amounts to good news about the direction in which Iraq is going... Moreover, even the idea that this shows how high the stakes are in Iraq and how important it is that we defeat the insurgency before Al Qaeda takes over is suspect. Even assuming that this letter is real and not fake, it does not follow that the majority of the insurgents we are fihting are part of Al Qaeda or have anything to do with Zarqawi. It is by no means clear that what Al Qaeda's strategy and concerns are mean a tinker's dam to most of the insurgents. Nor is it clear that Al Qaeda would take over if the U.S. left. It is possible that some insurgent factions might take control of the country, but it is dubious that such factions would feel any particular fealty to Al Qaeda or deign to let the Wahabists reign over Iraq.
Zarqawi's previous "this is suffocation" statement didn't pan out, or else it did so only for Al Qaeda which was not a large part of the insurgnecy; the insurgency has definitely not been suffocated.
"One of the reasons [i.e. for the successful elections in January] that Iraq is likely to establish a viable government is because the terrorists of Fallujah, deluded into believing they had won in April 2004, overreached, earning the everlasting enmity of ordinary Iraqis who were their victims."
I keep hearing about how ordinary Iraqis love us and hate the insurgents. Polls indicate otherwise. Plus, there is the assumption that we are talking about a unified "Iraqi people" and that attacks against Iraqi civilians will reduce the support for the insurgency in Iraq. Of course, in reality, I seriously doubt whether most Iraqis mind when Iraqis of rival ethnic or religious groups get killed, so we wind up with the mostly Sunni Arab insurgents only turning off Shiites and Kurds, and who don't like the anyway, so it seems unlikely that we will see the huge sudden groundswell of support for the coalition that Mr. Owens seems to be hoping for.
"When the Marines took Fallujah at the end of last year, they began the strategically important process of interdicting the "ratlines," the insurgents' infiltration routes from the Syrian border into the heart of Iraq."
Yes, obviously this has reduced the insurgency a great deal. As anyone can see, the insurgency is suffocating, which is why October had so many coalition fatalties.
"The increasing number of capable Iraqi units means that the Iraqi government can begin to extend the writ of the Iraqi government to Al Anbar province, the heart of the Sunni Triangle."
Yes, those increasing numbers, like one, which is bigger than three. And of course, those increasing number of Iraqi troops is why we have been able to reduce coalition troop levels so much and why we will continue to do so in the future.
"It may seem counterintuitive, but from a strategic standpoint, it is possible to argue that the spike in U.S. casualties actually reflects military success, not failure... he recent up-tick in casualties indicates not so much that the enemy is becoming more aggressive, but that we are. Casualties always increase when one side goes on the offensive... this means more Coalition casualties, but it also means that the insurgents are being killed and captured away from Baghdad."
If our troops were dying in firefights, that argument would have some merit.
But increasingly they are being killed by IEDs. Which would seem to me to indicate that most of the deaths aren't coming from us engaging the enemy in battle.
But I do have some good news from Iraq...
Jalal Talabani just saved a bunch of money on his car insurance by switchi...
That is all.
Let's have a little fun debunking, shall we?
"The good news in Iraq must start with the recent referendum on the new Iraqi constitution. While swamped in the U.S. press by the unseemly, indeed disgraceful, reporting of the 2,000-dead-Americans "milestone," the acceptance of the draft constitution by the Iraqi people indicates a real accomplishment."
Yes, the insurgents upped and gave up once they heard tha tthe constitution was ratified, so magical are its properties.
"The second bit of good news is the publication of a letter from al Qaeda's number-two official, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi... We are beholden to al-Zawahiri for reminding us why the stakes in Iraq are so high."
Well, while one could argue that the letter proves why the war is necessary to fight, I don't exactly see how it amounts to good news about the direction in which Iraq is going... Moreover, even the idea that this shows how high the stakes are in Iraq and how important it is that we defeat the insurgency before Al Qaeda takes over is suspect. Even assuming that this letter is real and not fake, it does not follow that the majority of the insurgents we are fihting are part of Al Qaeda or have anything to do with Zarqawi. It is by no means clear that what Al Qaeda's strategy and concerns are mean a tinker's dam to most of the insurgents. Nor is it clear that Al Qaeda would take over if the U.S. left. It is possible that some insurgent factions might take control of the country, but it is dubious that such factions would feel any particular fealty to Al Qaeda or deign to let the Wahabists reign over Iraq.
Zarqawi's previous "this is suffocation" statement didn't pan out, or else it did so only for Al Qaeda which was not a large part of the insurgnecy; the insurgency has definitely not been suffocated.
"One of the reasons [i.e. for the successful elections in January] that Iraq is likely to establish a viable government is because the terrorists of Fallujah, deluded into believing they had won in April 2004, overreached, earning the everlasting enmity of ordinary Iraqis who were their victims."
I keep hearing about how ordinary Iraqis love us and hate the insurgents. Polls indicate otherwise. Plus, there is the assumption that we are talking about a unified "Iraqi people" and that attacks against Iraqi civilians will reduce the support for the insurgency in Iraq. Of course, in reality, I seriously doubt whether most Iraqis mind when Iraqis of rival ethnic or religious groups get killed, so we wind up with the mostly Sunni Arab insurgents only turning off Shiites and Kurds, and who don't like the anyway, so it seems unlikely that we will see the huge sudden groundswell of support for the coalition that Mr. Owens seems to be hoping for.
"When the Marines took Fallujah at the end of last year, they began the strategically important process of interdicting the "ratlines," the insurgents' infiltration routes from the Syrian border into the heart of Iraq."
Yes, obviously this has reduced the insurgency a great deal. As anyone can see, the insurgency is suffocating, which is why October had so many coalition fatalties.
"The increasing number of capable Iraqi units means that the Iraqi government can begin to extend the writ of the Iraqi government to Al Anbar province, the heart of the Sunni Triangle."
Yes, those increasing numbers, like one, which is bigger than three. And of course, those increasing number of Iraqi troops is why we have been able to reduce coalition troop levels so much and why we will continue to do so in the future.
"It may seem counterintuitive, but from a strategic standpoint, it is possible to argue that the spike in U.S. casualties actually reflects military success, not failure... he recent up-tick in casualties indicates not so much that the enemy is becoming more aggressive, but that we are. Casualties always increase when one side goes on the offensive... this means more Coalition casualties, but it also means that the insurgents are being killed and captured away from Baghdad."
If our troops were dying in firefights, that argument would have some merit.
But increasingly they are being killed by IEDs. Which would seem to me to indicate that most of the deaths aren't coming from us engaging the enemy in battle.
But I do have some good news from Iraq...
Jalal Talabani just saved a bunch of money on his car insurance by switchi...
That is all.
Fatality Metrics in Iraq
A large number of fatalities so far this month in Iraq, including 25 hostile coalition deaths and 3 non-hostile ones.
It is not entirely clear how many of these deaths are due to the recent offensive near the Syrian border and how many are just becausr the insurgents appear to be waxing for the moment.
But November is heading in the direction of being the deadliest month in Iraq since at least January, and the deadliest in terms of hostile deaths since November of last year.
This, of course, is my real concern with the fatalities in Iraq. It is not that the fatality rate (or overall casualty rate) is so high, it is that it keeps increasing.
That is all.
It is not entirely clear how many of these deaths are due to the recent offensive near the Syrian border and how many are just becausr the insurgents appear to be waxing for the moment.
But November is heading in the direction of being the deadliest month in Iraq since at least January, and the deadliest in terms of hostile deaths since November of last year.
This, of course, is my real concern with the fatalities in Iraq. It is not that the fatality rate (or overall casualty rate) is so high, it is that it keeps increasing.
That is all.
Monday, November 07, 2005
The Ectomorph
Now this blog looks promising. Apparently a friend of the esteemed Michael Brendan Dougherty, Andy has some intereting thoughts from north of the border.
That is all.
That is all.
Why the French Are Rolling Over
It occurs to me that the reason that the French have rolled over so much in response to these riots is probably because so far, most of the damage seems to be to property, and there have been relatively few casualties (one or two deaths, I believe, and a smattering of woundings).
The French authorities are probably afraid that if they respond with lethal (or even damaging) force, that they will be the bad guys because they took a life and didn't just burn down property. Moreover, they will be the ones who escalated the violence if the riots start getting deadly for more than one or two people.
Typical behavior for a nation putting a very loose priority on property rights, if you ask me.
Moreover, though,that should not be a good enough reason. People cannot simply get up and attack society and produce anarchy on this scale and be allowed to do so because "they aren't killing people."
There are times that call for violence. This is one of them.
Sure, we can worry about "root causes," and how to make the Muslim populace more docile. But first we need to stop the riots. Now.
That is all.
The French authorities are probably afraid that if they respond with lethal (or even damaging) force, that they will be the bad guys because they took a life and didn't just burn down property. Moreover, they will be the ones who escalated the violence if the riots start getting deadly for more than one or two people.
Typical behavior for a nation putting a very loose priority on property rights, if you ask me.
Moreover, though,that should not be a good enough reason. People cannot simply get up and attack society and produce anarchy on this scale and be allowed to do so because "they aren't killing people."
There are times that call for violence. This is one of them.
Sure, we can worry about "root causes," and how to make the Muslim populace more docile. But first we need to stop the riots. Now.
That is all.
Stream-of-Consciousness on Iraq
Matt Yglesias suggests that the supposed use of torture for intelligence is really the use of torture the same way the Soviets used it, i.e. to get people to say what the Bush administration want to hear in order to justify what it wants to do.
He also links to this article by Laura Rozen, which talks about how confimation bias may have been a major factor in the intelligence distortions regarding Saddam.
The Rozen article includes this little nugget:
The imprisonment-by-assumption thesis [i.e. that we made the assumption of Saddam's WMDs unfalsifiable] might also explain another mystery historians will have to sort out: how the neocons managed to convince themselves and many others that controlling post-Saddam Iraq would be a cakewalk because virtually all Iraqis would welcome invading G.I.s as liberators. Talk about mirror-imaging!
Of course, the neo-cons would have us believe still that we are seen as liberators, that's why there is the emphasis on foreign fighters. It's only those dirty Syrians and Iranians who are fighting us!
As Gray Brecher says:
Beyond that, Bush policy is to blame Iran, or Syria, or Satan or whoever.
Iran? Maybe. Syria? No way. Syria's scared to death, ready to do anything to make Uncle Sam happy. And if it is Iran, what can we do about it? There are still a few neocons so totally out of their little gourds they want us to invade Iran. I have to wonder if they're agents of Dr Evil, programmed to destroy America. Because invading Iran would do it, it'd end us once and for all.
This blame stuff is a sign of frustration. .
That is all.
He also links to this article by Laura Rozen, which talks about how confimation bias may have been a major factor in the intelligence distortions regarding Saddam.
The Rozen article includes this little nugget:
The imprisonment-by-assumption thesis [i.e. that we made the assumption of Saddam's WMDs unfalsifiable] might also explain another mystery historians will have to sort out: how the neocons managed to convince themselves and many others that controlling post-Saddam Iraq would be a cakewalk because virtually all Iraqis would welcome invading G.I.s as liberators. Talk about mirror-imaging!
Of course, the neo-cons would have us believe still that we are seen as liberators, that's why there is the emphasis on foreign fighters. It's only those dirty Syrians and Iranians who are fighting us!
As Gray Brecher says:
Beyond that, Bush policy is to blame Iran, or Syria, or Satan or whoever.
Iran? Maybe. Syria? No way. Syria's scared to death, ready to do anything to make Uncle Sam happy. And if it is Iran, what can we do about it? There are still a few neocons so totally out of their little gourds they want us to invade Iran. I have to wonder if they're agents of Dr Evil, programmed to destroy America. Because invading Iran would do it, it'd end us once and for all.
This blame stuff is a sign of frustration. .
That is all.
Thoughts on Race and Equality, Part I: What is it We are Dealing with?
See also: Thoughts on Race and Equality, Part II: How Do We Deal with the IQ Gap if it Is Real?
I keep promising to post some things, but I haven't seemed to be able get around to all of them, although I did post my defense of "citizenism" on Sunday morning.
Well, here is the first part of piece I have been meaning to finish about what should be done about the racial IQ gap if it exists:
So back to a point I touched on earlier: what if there are genetic differences in IQ between different races? In an American context, what if the IQ gap between blacks and whites is genetic? How should that affect policy?
Dennis Dale suggested encouraging the smartest in the minority community to have more children in order to have a "benign eugenic" effect.
Perhaps. But for a moment, let's assume that we cannot significantly narrow the IQ gap for at least a generation or two, at least not in a permanent way. The question then becomes, assuming that we are not going to change the IQ gap, how should it effect policy and what effects of an IQ gap are inevitable and what effects are a result of our choices?
Let's think first about why this topic is important and what the basic borders are for how it would shape policy.
First of all, IQ differences, innate or not, should have no effect on the moral worth of a person. Any gaps that exist ought not to be used as an excuse to deny people their rights or to claim any sort of moral superiority.
Second, any IQ racial gaps are averages, and should be treated as such; in general, individuals ought not to be judged by the average character of whatever group they belong to. As Steve Sailer has pointed out, 6 million African-Americans are smarter than the median white person (I think those are the numbers, I can't find the reference off hand; if anyone can help I would certainl appreciate it) even if we assume that the 17-18 point IQ gap accurately reflects differences in average intelligence.
Third, the biggest reason why IQ gaps are relevant is to see whether or not racial discrimination is the primary reason for disproportionate racial representation in various fields. It is also important to deal with differences in racial IQ or in racial behavior or the relations between races because it is important to see that this is one of the ways in which we are significantly different from most European countries - and thus may explain some of the vast differences in our societies (for example, why the U.S. has more violent crime or why our welfare policies are so different from those in Europe). That is, it can explain why we shouldn't assume that policies that appear to work in Europe will work here. Nor should we assume that Europe has some magic bullet that would make our stats comparable to theirs if we followed their lead.
Fourth, studying IQ gaps might indicate strategies for dealing with pathologies that disproportionately affect certain communities.
Fifth, even if there is no racial IQ gap, any strategy aimed at helping lower-IQ individuals live productive lives would still be useful; because there will still be low-IQ individuals who need to find a way to lead a productive life even if such individuals are evenly distributed amongst all races. Therefore, many of the policies designed to help deal with a racial IQ gap would likely be useful even if there were no gap, because many could be applied to lower-IQ people even without any racial correlation.
Sixth, all persons of whatever IQ are part of society, and any attempt at "dealing with" the issue of people of lower-than-average IQ, whether there is or is not a racial correlation, will be concerned with promoting their well-being as a part of society, not looking at them as existing outside of society or as an undesirable part of society and thus looking at the problem as how to insulate society from them.
For an example of the latter point of view look at Jason Lande. In a message to Lawrence Auster, Jason Lande accuses Steve Sailer of liberalism for wanting to use "race realism" as a way to help blacks. I can only assume that Mr. Lande thinks it should be used to justify keeping blacks ghettoized and away from "decent" society. or at least as a reason why white people should not lose any sleep over problems that befall black people. I personally think that Steve Sailer's attitude of trying to use whatever insights race realism has to offer to make life better for all Americans is far preferable to the idea of using it as an excuse not to care about Americans outside one's own race, because one feels that they are savages and barbarians.
Next, in Part Two, I will discuss actual policy proposals. The majority will probably be cribbed more or less from Steve Sailer, but I don't think he ever compiled a list of all of his ideas before, so this will still be useful, methinks.
That is all for now.
I keep promising to post some things, but I haven't seemed to be able get around to all of them, although I did post my defense of "citizenism" on Sunday morning.
Well, here is the first part of piece I have been meaning to finish about what should be done about the racial IQ gap if it exists:
So back to a point I touched on earlier: what if there are genetic differences in IQ between different races? In an American context, what if the IQ gap between blacks and whites is genetic? How should that affect policy?
Dennis Dale suggested encouraging the smartest in the minority community to have more children in order to have a "benign eugenic" effect.
Perhaps. But for a moment, let's assume that we cannot significantly narrow the IQ gap for at least a generation or two, at least not in a permanent way. The question then becomes, assuming that we are not going to change the IQ gap, how should it effect policy and what effects of an IQ gap are inevitable and what effects are a result of our choices?
Let's think first about why this topic is important and what the basic borders are for how it would shape policy.
First of all, IQ differences, innate or not, should have no effect on the moral worth of a person. Any gaps that exist ought not to be used as an excuse to deny people their rights or to claim any sort of moral superiority.
Second, any IQ racial gaps are averages, and should be treated as such; in general, individuals ought not to be judged by the average character of whatever group they belong to. As Steve Sailer has pointed out, 6 million African-Americans are smarter than the median white person (I think those are the numbers, I can't find the reference off hand; if anyone can help I would certainl appreciate it) even if we assume that the 17-18 point IQ gap accurately reflects differences in average intelligence.
Third, the biggest reason why IQ gaps are relevant is to see whether or not racial discrimination is the primary reason for disproportionate racial representation in various fields. It is also important to deal with differences in racial IQ or in racial behavior or the relations between races because it is important to see that this is one of the ways in which we are significantly different from most European countries - and thus may explain some of the vast differences in our societies (for example, why the U.S. has more violent crime or why our welfare policies are so different from those in Europe). That is, it can explain why we shouldn't assume that policies that appear to work in Europe will work here. Nor should we assume that Europe has some magic bullet that would make our stats comparable to theirs if we followed their lead.
Fourth, studying IQ gaps might indicate strategies for dealing with pathologies that disproportionately affect certain communities.
Fifth, even if there is no racial IQ gap, any strategy aimed at helping lower-IQ individuals live productive lives would still be useful; because there will still be low-IQ individuals who need to find a way to lead a productive life even if such individuals are evenly distributed amongst all races. Therefore, many of the policies designed to help deal with a racial IQ gap would likely be useful even if there were no gap, because many could be applied to lower-IQ people even without any racial correlation.
Sixth, all persons of whatever IQ are part of society, and any attempt at "dealing with" the issue of people of lower-than-average IQ, whether there is or is not a racial correlation, will be concerned with promoting their well-being as a part of society, not looking at them as existing outside of society or as an undesirable part of society and thus looking at the problem as how to insulate society from them.
For an example of the latter point of view look at Jason Lande. In a message to Lawrence Auster, Jason Lande accuses Steve Sailer of liberalism for wanting to use "race realism" as a way to help blacks. I can only assume that Mr. Lande thinks it should be used to justify keeping blacks ghettoized and away from "decent" society. or at least as a reason why white people should not lose any sleep over problems that befall black people. I personally think that Steve Sailer's attitude of trying to use whatever insights race realism has to offer to make life better for all Americans is far preferable to the idea of using it as an excuse not to care about Americans outside one's own race, because one feels that they are savages and barbarians.
Next, in Part Two, I will discuss actual policy proposals. The majority will probably be cribbed more or less from Steve Sailer, but I don't think he ever compiled a list of all of his ideas before, so this will still be useful, methinks.
That is all for now.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Blog of the Week: Dan Tarrant's Center for Advanced Sarcasm
Because We Live Here!
Why do I blanch, you might ask, at the idea of the coalition committing brutality in Iraq, but I am all for the French using brutality to put down Muslim riots? (And indeed, were it happening here, I would be screaming to the hills for someone to shoot the rioters).
Because in Iraq, we are the foreigners.
In France, they are the foreigners.
Jed Eckert explained the principle best:
Matt Eckert: Tell me what's the difference between us and them!
Jed Eckert: Because we live here!
Murray Rothbard endorsed this concept of the difference, and so do I.
That is all.
Because in Iraq, we are the foreigners.
In France, they are the foreigners.
Jed Eckert explained the principle best:
Matt Eckert: Tell me what's the difference between us and them!
Jed Eckert: Because we live here!
Murray Rothbard endorsed this concept of the difference, and so do I.
That is all.
Grandpa and Grandma Were Right!
Could Vitamin D prevent flu epidemics?
Vitamin A has been shown to, if not prevent, at least reduce the severity of measles (another mention of this) (It should be noted that this appears to be effective only as a prophylactic measure, not as a curative - that is, once you have measles, taking vitamin A is not very helpful).
And omega-3 fatty acids are helpful for fighting rheumatoid arthritis (find more articles here), as well as osteoarthritis.
Which all boils down to this:
You need more of nature's best supplement.
I don't know about you, but I would start taking cod liver oil today.
And no, this ain't an ad, and I don't own cod liver oil stock (as far as I know, I'm not sure what my mutual funds invest in), and I have no financial interest in cod liver oil. I just happen to think that it is a good thing to take.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Dennis Mangan.
That is all.
Vitamin A has been shown to, if not prevent, at least reduce the severity of measles (another mention of this) (It should be noted that this appears to be effective only as a prophylactic measure, not as a curative - that is, once you have measles, taking vitamin A is not very helpful).
And omega-3 fatty acids are helpful for fighting rheumatoid arthritis (find more articles here), as well as osteoarthritis.
Which all boils down to this:
You need more of nature's best supplement.
I don't know about you, but I would start taking cod liver oil today.
And no, this ain't an ad, and I don't own cod liver oil stock (as far as I know, I'm not sure what my mutual funds invest in), and I have no financial interest in cod liver oil. I just happen to think that it is a good thing to take.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Dennis Mangan.
That is all.
Three Ways to Deal with the Rioters in Paris
(1) Shoot them.
(2) Shoot them.
(3) Shoot them.
That is all.
(2) Shoot them.
(3) Shoot them.
That is all.
Thought for the Day
Ever notice how abortion is the only issue where being for keeping X legal is not considered being pro-X?
People who think abortion should be legal usually object to being called "pro-abortion" rather than "pro-choice."
So why is it that if you oppose making discrimination illegal, you are called pro-discrimination?
(See here, here, here, here, and here, for examples).
Or is it only pro-choice when it's an issue the left likes?
That is all.
People who think abortion should be legal usually object to being called "pro-abortion" rather than "pro-choice."
So why is it that if you oppose making discrimination illegal, you are called pro-discrimination?
(See here, here, here, here, and here, for examples).
Or is it only pro-choice when it's an issue the left likes?
That is all.
In Defense of Citizenism
Here is the first of the posts I have been meaning to write over the weekend:
Noah Millman and Nicholas Antongiavanni have both criticized Steve Sailer's promotion of "citizenism," that is, that the U.S. government should protect the interests of current U.S. citizens first and foremost, which Sailer in particular sets up against white nationalism here.
In both cases, the general idea appears to be that the U.S. should calculate national interest not on the basis of the collective interest, as it were, of American citizens, but on the basis of promoting the political ideas of America's founders. In other words, America is not a nation, but simply a political lobby.
The easiest way to understand citizenism, in my opinion is to understand what a nation (or a nationality) is and why it commands loyalty. If a race is an extended family, and that is why people feel racial loyalty, then a nation is a race which is allowed to adopt members (as opposed to a simply biological family). That a nation would put the interests of its current members first is no surprise. Almost any family with children is going to put the interests of their current children ahead of the interests of a child they may potentially adopt in the future; the calculation of course changes after the adoption when the child becomes their child. Similarly, the U.S. government and the citizenry would sensibly put the interests of those who are already citizens over those who may become citizens someday.
Noah Millman raises a few objections, each of which I will deal with.
First: How do we determine what is in the "aggregate interest" of the citizens of the United States? While he does have a point that an exact quantitative determination is impossible, well, so what? That we don't have an exact method of calculating "utiles" doesn't negate the concept of a common interest or a common good; people have to make such qualitative calculations all the time. What is in the best interest of the folks in this nursing home? What is in my family's best interest? etc., etc. Millman suggests that our poltical and economic sytem is the means by which we do the aggregation, and then points out the fllaw with such an analysis: how does one determine how the system is working in a way that does not amount to a tautology? His answer is that you do so by essentially defining the national interest by our political system and that immigration policy should be determined by how it affects our political values. But by that standard, there is nothing wrong with totally displacing all of the current population of America, as long as you replace them with another group of classical liberals.
I think that for the most part, one can get a sense of "aggregate interest" without complicated mathematical formulae. In general, an increased economic standard of living is a net plus, having cleaner water, land, and air is a net plus, having healthier citizens is a net plus, etc. While there may be some disagreement as to what policies and what outcomes are the optimum (depending on how competing interests are weighed), and thus elections and other such political manifestations may be necessary to determine how the U.S. will weigh its national interest, I think that all of these qualitative calculations (for lack of a better term) can be done with the goal of promoting the national welfare (i.e. that of the current citizenry) without needing to reduce the U.S. to nothing but a political movement. That is, all sides can agree that the most important issue is the welfare of the current citizens and all sides can attempt to argue their idea of how to do that, with the interests of non-citizens coming in a distant second, and with the general outline of what constitutes a better life for Americans being reasonably similar for all major political groupings involved.
Second, Noah Millman asks "Why is "the citizenry of the United States" the relevant body within which to do the impossible aggregation of citizens' utiles?" that is, why not argue for loyalty to one's city or state instead.
The answer here is that "citizenism," while Sailer on the immigration issue defined it as relating to national citizenship, actually can apply to all levels of government. At each level of government, the government should put the interests of those under its jurisdiction first. San Francisco should put the interests of San Franciscans first, California of Californians first, and the U.S. government of U.S. citizens first. If you believe in such organizations as the U.N., then those organizations should try to represent everyone's collective interest.
However, on issues of immigration the national level is the relevant level, because it is the lowest level of government at which there is control over its own borders. That is, California cannot legally prevent people from migrating from other states, nor can San Francisco prevent migration from other cities. The only level of government at which border contorl is allowed is the federal government, so it is the relevant entity here. Moreover, due to the open borders between states and between cities, the U.S. citizenship is more stable than the citizenship of any of the smaller units, so in general citizenism will apply more to issues at that level. That is, the list of current citizens is too fluid at the state and local levels for it to take hold the way it does at the national level.
But why, one might ask, is citizenism a good thing? Millman writes:
Citizenship is not just membership in a club; it's allegiance to a flag and the Republic for which it stands. And hence, debating the conditions of citizenship and how they should be extended is not just a debate about the interests of the club members in a bigger or smaller membership, or what class of new members they want to associate with, but about the meaning of the entity to which allegiance is pledged and how that meaning will be shaped either by accepting new allegiants or rejecting them.
So is citizenism simply allegiance to a club? Why is supporting fellow citizens in itself a noble activity, if not to promote a political and social ideology?
For the same reason that it is a good thing that people in a geographic region support the sports teams associated with that region. Because they are our family, even if adopted rather than biological, and family is necessary for a healthy society. And we need to regulate whom we let into our families, not just for the sake of maintaining a particular philosophy, but for the good of the members of our family and thus of the family itself.
Millman may somewhat derisively look at citizenism as reducing citizenship to membership in a club, but I look at his philosophy as reducing it to membership in a political party. The best paradigm here, and the one which causes the whole thing to make sense, is that of family.
That is all.
Noah Millman and Nicholas Antongiavanni have both criticized Steve Sailer's promotion of "citizenism," that is, that the U.S. government should protect the interests of current U.S. citizens first and foremost, which Sailer in particular sets up against white nationalism here.
In both cases, the general idea appears to be that the U.S. should calculate national interest not on the basis of the collective interest, as it were, of American citizens, but on the basis of promoting the political ideas of America's founders. In other words, America is not a nation, but simply a political lobby.
The easiest way to understand citizenism, in my opinion is to understand what a nation (or a nationality) is and why it commands loyalty. If a race is an extended family, and that is why people feel racial loyalty, then a nation is a race which is allowed to adopt members (as opposed to a simply biological family). That a nation would put the interests of its current members first is no surprise. Almost any family with children is going to put the interests of their current children ahead of the interests of a child they may potentially adopt in the future; the calculation of course changes after the adoption when the child becomes their child. Similarly, the U.S. government and the citizenry would sensibly put the interests of those who are already citizens over those who may become citizens someday.
Noah Millman raises a few objections, each of which I will deal with.
First: How do we determine what is in the "aggregate interest" of the citizens of the United States? While he does have a point that an exact quantitative determination is impossible, well, so what? That we don't have an exact method of calculating "utiles" doesn't negate the concept of a common interest or a common good; people have to make such qualitative calculations all the time. What is in the best interest of the folks in this nursing home? What is in my family's best interest? etc., etc. Millman suggests that our poltical and economic sytem is the means by which we do the aggregation, and then points out the fllaw with such an analysis: how does one determine how the system is working in a way that does not amount to a tautology? His answer is that you do so by essentially defining the national interest by our political system and that immigration policy should be determined by how it affects our political values. But by that standard, there is nothing wrong with totally displacing all of the current population of America, as long as you replace them with another group of classical liberals.
I think that for the most part, one can get a sense of "aggregate interest" without complicated mathematical formulae. In general, an increased economic standard of living is a net plus, having cleaner water, land, and air is a net plus, having healthier citizens is a net plus, etc. While there may be some disagreement as to what policies and what outcomes are the optimum (depending on how competing interests are weighed), and thus elections and other such political manifestations may be necessary to determine how the U.S. will weigh its national interest, I think that all of these qualitative calculations (for lack of a better term) can be done with the goal of promoting the national welfare (i.e. that of the current citizenry) without needing to reduce the U.S. to nothing but a political movement. That is, all sides can agree that the most important issue is the welfare of the current citizens and all sides can attempt to argue their idea of how to do that, with the interests of non-citizens coming in a distant second, and with the general outline of what constitutes a better life for Americans being reasonably similar for all major political groupings involved.
Second, Noah Millman asks "Why is "the citizenry of the United States" the relevant body within which to do the impossible aggregation of citizens' utiles?" that is, why not argue for loyalty to one's city or state instead.
The answer here is that "citizenism," while Sailer on the immigration issue defined it as relating to national citizenship, actually can apply to all levels of government. At each level of government, the government should put the interests of those under its jurisdiction first. San Francisco should put the interests of San Franciscans first, California of Californians first, and the U.S. government of U.S. citizens first. If you believe in such organizations as the U.N., then those organizations should try to represent everyone's collective interest.
However, on issues of immigration the national level is the relevant level, because it is the lowest level of government at which there is control over its own borders. That is, California cannot legally prevent people from migrating from other states, nor can San Francisco prevent migration from other cities. The only level of government at which border contorl is allowed is the federal government, so it is the relevant entity here. Moreover, due to the open borders between states and between cities, the U.S. citizenship is more stable than the citizenship of any of the smaller units, so in general citizenism will apply more to issues at that level. That is, the list of current citizens is too fluid at the state and local levels for it to take hold the way it does at the national level.
But why, one might ask, is citizenism a good thing? Millman writes:
Citizenship is not just membership in a club; it's allegiance to a flag and the Republic for which it stands. And hence, debating the conditions of citizenship and how they should be extended is not just a debate about the interests of the club members in a bigger or smaller membership, or what class of new members they want to associate with, but about the meaning of the entity to which allegiance is pledged and how that meaning will be shaped either by accepting new allegiants or rejecting them.
So is citizenism simply allegiance to a club? Why is supporting fellow citizens in itself a noble activity, if not to promote a political and social ideology?
For the same reason that it is a good thing that people in a geographic region support the sports teams associated with that region. Because they are our family, even if adopted rather than biological, and family is necessary for a healthy society. And we need to regulate whom we let into our families, not just for the sake of maintaining a particular philosophy, but for the good of the members of our family and thus of the family itself.
Millman may somewhat derisively look at citizenism as reducing citizenship to membership in a club, but I look at his philosophy as reducing it to membership in a political party. The best paradigm here, and the one which causes the whole thing to make sense, is that of family.
That is all.
More on the IED Front
As of most recent count:
15 hostile and 2 non-hostile deaths for coalition troops in Iraq.
10 of the hostile deaths are from IEDs.
That is all.
15 hostile and 2 non-hostile deaths for coalition troops in Iraq.
10 of the hostile deaths are from IEDs.
That is all.
Another Prison Death in the JDL
This is odd:
LOS ANGELES - A Jewish Defense League activist imprisoned for his role in a plot to bomb a California mosque and the office of a Lebanese-American congressman was killed at a federal prison in Phoenix, an FBI spokesman said Saturday.
This is exactly three tears after Irv Rubin, the late JDL leader, in prison for involvement in the same plot, died in prison from an apparent suicide.
Something is fishy here. And I say that as someone with no particular affinity for the JDL.
That is all.
LOS ANGELES - A Jewish Defense League activist imprisoned for his role in a plot to bomb a California mosque and the office of a Lebanese-American congressman was killed at a federal prison in Phoenix, an FBI spokesman said Saturday.
This is exactly three tears after Irv Rubin, the late JDL leader, in prison for involvement in the same plot, died in prison from an apparent suicide.
Something is fishy here. And I say that as someone with no particular affinity for the JDL.
That is all.
Saturday, November 05, 2005
An Additional Thought
Why does anyone think that calling the U.S. (or those portions of the U.S. with whom they disagree) "AmeriKKKa" (ooo... KKK as in Ku Klux Klan) is clever? Doesn't that get pretty stupid pretty fast?
That is all.
That is all.
GOP Gaining a Spine?
Republicans in the house are working toward ending "birthright citizenship," that is, the idea that anyone who manages to be geographically inside the borders of the US when she gives birth automatically gets her child U.S. citizenship. There is also increasing popularity for creating a barrier between the U.S. and Mexico.
Lawrence Auster and Dennis Mangan are pleased by this.
I must say that I am too.
Keep up the good work, immigration-reduction-supporting conservatives, keep up the good work.
Lawrence Auster and Dennis Mangan are pleased by this.
I must say that I am too.
Keep up the good work, immigration-reduction-supporting conservatives, keep up the good work.
Gary Brecher on the Boom-Booms in Iraq
The War Nerd discusses the IED situation in Iraq.
I previously discussed the rise in IED attacks here.
Gary Brecher also points out something that I have been concerned about and have been talking about for a while, and that he has also brought up previously:
"The only effective CI techniques are torture, reprisal and, ultimately, genocide.
"My guess is that genocide will come back one day. That was how the Ancients dealt with rebellious towns: wiped 'em out. One of these days some first-world country is going to get impatient and a problem child like the Sunni Triangle will be a big, radioactive ghost town.
"If we don't do it, the Kurds may end up doing it the old-fashioned way they learned from the Turks: one bullet, one village at a time."
Of course, this is not to say that this is as important as, or should detract from, all of the good news from Iraq, like this kid getting a soccer ball, but still.
That is all.
I previously discussed the rise in IED attacks here.
Gary Brecher also points out something that I have been concerned about and have been talking about for a while, and that he has also brought up previously:
"The only effective CI techniques are torture, reprisal and, ultimately, genocide.
"My guess is that genocide will come back one day. That was how the Ancients dealt with rebellious towns: wiped 'em out. One of these days some first-world country is going to get impatient and a problem child like the Sunni Triangle will be a big, radioactive ghost town.
"If we don't do it, the Kurds may end up doing it the old-fashioned way they learned from the Turks: one bullet, one village at a time."
Of course, this is not to say that this is as important as, or should detract from, all of the good news from Iraq, like this kid getting a soccer ball, but still.
That is all.
More on Jaymee Wallace
More on the case of the alleged lesbian statutory rapist.
(Technically, it appears that if the charges are true, she is either bisexual or went through a "lesbian/bisexual phase," as "Police say Wallace broke off the relationship last August because the teacher had just gotten married and wanted to have children.")
That is all.
(Technically, it appears that if the charges are true, she is either bisexual or went through a "lesbian/bisexual phase," as "Police say Wallace broke off the relationship last August because the teacher had just gotten married and wanted to have children.")
That is all.
More on the Forged Documents
A Mr. Rocco Martion has been named as the source of the forged Niger documents claims Italy's chief of military intelligence, Gen. Nicolo Pollari.
That is all.
That is all.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Thoughts II
Here's a post from more than a year ago.
I am going to make some additions:
When someone says "this is the last you will hear from me," it often means you're winning the argument and they are too cowardly to admit it. Yes,
Thomas Lifson, I'm a -talkin' 'bout YOU.
There were four plausible ways that "The Emperor's New Clothes" might end:
(1) The subjects might stone (or otherwise hush up) the little boy in order to avoid admitting they were duped.
(2) The emperor might frighten the little boy into recanting and the subjects into submission.
(3) The subjects might wise up, but the emperor and his entourage refuse to admit the truth.
(4) The emperor might admit that he was naked but deny that he had been tricked; indeed, he had always planned on walking around naked in front of his subjects, and his decision to do so had excellent results!
The universe cannot constantly be in danger of blowing up.
Research has shown that everyone loves a picture of a sexy vampiress.
Once you have found a catchphrase, go with it. Paris Hilton has "that's hot," the "Military Thoughts" blogger has "This is coolbert... coolbert." Michael Ledeen has "faster, please." I have...
That is all.
I am going to make some additions:
When someone says "this is the last you will hear from me," it often means you're winning the argument and they are too cowardly to admit it. Yes,
Thomas Lifson, I'm a -talkin' 'bout YOU.
There were four plausible ways that "The Emperor's New Clothes" might end:
(1) The subjects might stone (or otherwise hush up) the little boy in order to avoid admitting they were duped.
(2) The emperor might frighten the little boy into recanting and the subjects into submission.
(3) The subjects might wise up, but the emperor and his entourage refuse to admit the truth.
(4) The emperor might admit that he was naked but deny that he had been tricked; indeed, he had always planned on walking around naked in front of his subjects, and his decision to do so had excellent results!
The universe cannot constantly be in danger of blowing up.
Research has shown that everyone loves a picture of a sexy vampiress.
Once you have found a catchphrase, go with it. Paris Hilton has "that's hot," the "Military Thoughts" blogger has "This is coolbert... coolbert." Michael Ledeen has "faster, please." I have...
That is all.
The War Epidemic Looks to Spread
Ron Jacobs urges the US public to work to stop the war epidemic from spreading to Iran and Syria.
In his article, he also makes some good points about how even a lot of the supposedly antiwar Democrats (think Barack Obama) and Republicans (Think George Voinovich) really aren't antiwar. They just want the UN rather than the US to be in charge.
Which of course complements those GOPers (think John Bolton) who pretend to hate the UN but really just want it to be more willing to be a vessel of US imperialism.
That is all.
In his article, he also makes some good points about how even a lot of the supposedly antiwar Democrats (think Barack Obama) and Republicans (Think George Voinovich) really aren't antiwar. They just want the UN rather than the US to be in charge.
Which of course complements those GOPers (think John Bolton) who pretend to hate the UN but really just want it to be more willing to be a vessel of US imperialism.
That is all.
Be Who You Are and Don't Apologize for Who You Aren't
A. C. Kleinheider discusses the implications of an immigration-reform movement strategy suggested by Scott MConnell.
Namely, he feels that immigration-reform supporters do not need to go out of their way to prove their anti-racism.
I agree.
That is all.
Namely, he feels that immigration-reform supporters do not need to go out of their way to prove their anti-racism.
I agree.
That is all.
Time for the GOP to Review its "Biological Weapons"
I am certain that with the Samuel Alito nomination, we are going to hear lot more about filibusters during confirmation hearings and the dreaded "nuclear option" (i.e. eliminte the judicial filibuster from the rules of order).
I think this would be a good time to review my proposed solution: "the bioweapon option." That is, none of these "pocket filibusters," where 41 votes means "move on to the next thing." No, the GOP should demand a real, talk-till-you-drop filibuster. A 24 hours a day filibuster. And shut down all business until the judge receives a vote.
That would take some guts, and guts is whatwe need right now.
That is all.
I think this would be a good time to review my proposed solution: "the bioweapon option." That is, none of these "pocket filibusters," where 41 votes means "move on to the next thing." No, the GOP should demand a real, talk-till-you-drop filibuster. A 24 hours a day filibuster. And shut down all business until the judge receives a vote.
That would take some guts, and guts is whatwe need right now.
That is all.
Blog Update
I will try this weekend to put up some of those posts that I have been talking about doing.
In the meantime, let me regale with link. Or, rally, a link.
Here is an interesting blog.
That is all for now.
In the meantime, let me regale with link. Or, rally, a link.
Here is an interesting blog.
That is all for now.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Where Mr. Cole and I Part Ways
Juan Cole writes in his blog:
The mainstream press doesn't seem to be connecting the dots here, but the continued marginalization, high unemployment and discrimination faced by the large French Muslim community could help push them toward Salafi radicalism.
My thought:
The continued presence of a large French Muslim community could help to enable Salafi radicalism.
That is all.
The mainstream press doesn't seem to be connecting the dots here, but the continued marginalization, high unemployment and discrimination faced by the large French Muslim community could help push them toward Salafi radicalism.
My thought:
The continued presence of a large French Muslim community could help to enable Salafi radicalism.
That is all.
Playing with Duranium
Apparently "warren cuccurullo gay rumors" (type it in without the quotation marks) is a Yahoo! search that brings up Glaivester as a result. (Found it going through "referrals" on my Sitemeter stats)
Among the results, I also found this article about the band's 2000 album Pop Trash.
All you Duran Duran fans out there might like to read it.
That is all.
Among the results, I also found this article about the band's 2000 album Pop Trash.
All you Duran Duran fans out there might like to read it.
That is all.
Thoughts on Liberals
From some of the discussions I have had commenting on Alas, a blog, I have come to a realization about many liberals:
They essentially have the mentality of teenagers:
I have the right to do whatever I want with my life, and if it costs money and I can't afford it, my parents (i.e., society) has the obligation to support it. But the fact that they should pay my way doesn't mean that they have any say over what I do.
Granted, the liberals tend to transfer this into a more universal belief system (i.e. it doesn't apply just to them, or even primarily to them), but there is a very strong sense that because property rights are highly expendable, and personal rights (i.e. the right to do what you want with your own body) are not, that it is perfectly acceptable to expect society to finance irresponsible behavior.
Of course, the problem is what to do when the responsible people get tired of getting hosed and decide to pull an Atlas Shrugged, but I don't know if most liberal think ahead that far.
That is all.
They essentially have the mentality of teenagers:
I have the right to do whatever I want with my life, and if it costs money and I can't afford it, my parents (i.e., society) has the obligation to support it. But the fact that they should pay my way doesn't mean that they have any say over what I do.
Granted, the liberals tend to transfer this into a more universal belief system (i.e. it doesn't apply just to them, or even primarily to them), but there is a very strong sense that because property rights are highly expendable, and personal rights (i.e. the right to do what you want with your own body) are not, that it is perfectly acceptable to expect society to finance irresponsible behavior.
Of course, the problem is what to do when the responsible people get tired of getting hosed and decide to pull an Atlas Shrugged, but I don't know if most liberal think ahead that far.
That is all.
What Exactly are We Doing in Iraq?
Gene Healy and Justin Logan question exactly what our Iraq strategy is.
I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh when he said that the exit strategy in Iraq was "victory." Of course, he didn't give a specific idea as to how that would be achieved, other than something to the effect that we would set up a democratic government.
I think that that is the real problem in Iraq. We have some vague, fuzzy outlines of a goal (train Iraqis to handle their own security, set up a democratic government) but no actual metrics by which to define actual victory (as in, how many Iraqi troops have to be trained before we can significanlty draw down our forces.
Moreover, if anything, we seem to getting deeper into the war with the slow creep upwards of the number of soldiers getting committed to Iraq.
And the casualty figures just keep on' chuggin' along...
That is all.
I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh when he said that the exit strategy in Iraq was "victory." Of course, he didn't give a specific idea as to how that would be achieved, other than something to the effect that we would set up a democratic government.
I think that that is the real problem in Iraq. We have some vague, fuzzy outlines of a goal (train Iraqis to handle their own security, set up a democratic government) but no actual metrics by which to define actual victory (as in, how many Iraqi troops have to be trained before we can significanlty draw down our forces.
Moreover, if anything, we seem to getting deeper into the war with the slow creep upwards of the number of soldiers getting committed to Iraq.
And the casualty figures just keep on' chuggin' along...
That is all.
Is Drunk Driving a Right? I Say, "No, But..."
I won't claim to agree with Andrew S. Fischer's belief that drunk driving should not be illegal, but he does have a point abou tthe civil liberties that we are giving up in the current push t ostop drunk driving.
And, as was pointed out before, there is a danger when the main anti-drunk driving organization is run by crazed fanatics, who have even turned off the group's founder.
That is all.
And, as was pointed out before, there is a danger when the main anti-drunk driving organization is run by crazed fanatics, who have even turned off the group's founder.
That is all.
Lesbian Statutory Rape Case
Back in August, A. C. Kleinheider had a post on the double standard in terms of sentencing and censure for statutory rape committed by females against males vs. that committed by males against females.
In a discussion on the Nashville Channel 2 News website,
(link no longer exists) I pointed out that the double standard, to the extent it exists (whether in terms of punishment or just in terms of the societal attitude) is probably based on the sex of the perpetrator rather than the victim (technically, I said it depends on whether the teacher is the penetrator or the penetratee). That is, one would likely respond to a male teacher having sex with any underage student more negatively than a female teacher having sex with any underage student. The sex of the victim doesn't matter. (Kleinheider agreed that I might be right).
Well, my theory is about to be tested. Apparently, WorldNetDaily has posted an article about the case of Jaymee Wallace, a math teacher and girl's varsity basketball coach who is accused of having sex with an underaged teenage girl (I'm not certain whether or not she was one of Ms. Wallace's students).
If the allegations are true, then this would be a useful example of a case where the victim and the perpetrator are both females, and so would indicate whether whatever double standard exists is due to a greater value eing placed on the virtue of teenage girls than teenage boys (Kleinheider's initial theory), or due to greater damage to one's virtue being inflicted by a penetrating male than a (non-penetrating) female (my theory).
That is all.
In a discussion on the Nashville Channel 2 News website,
(link no longer exists) I pointed out that the double standard, to the extent it exists (whether in terms of punishment or just in terms of the societal attitude) is probably based on the sex of the perpetrator rather than the victim (technically, I said it depends on whether the teacher is the penetrator or the penetratee). That is, one would likely respond to a male teacher having sex with any underage student more negatively than a female teacher having sex with any underage student. The sex of the victim doesn't matter. (Kleinheider agreed that I might be right).
Well, my theory is about to be tested. Apparently, WorldNetDaily has posted an article about the case of Jaymee Wallace, a math teacher and girl's varsity basketball coach who is accused of having sex with an underaged teenage girl (I'm not certain whether or not she was one of Ms. Wallace's students).
If the allegations are true, then this would be a useful example of a case where the victim and the perpetrator are both females, and so would indicate whether whatever double standard exists is due to a greater value eing placed on the virtue of teenage girls than teenage boys (Kleinheider's initial theory), or due to greater damage to one's virtue being inflicted by a penetrating male than a (non-penetrating) female (my theory).
That is all.
Another Reason to End Public Schooling
Public schools should be the parents. The real parents should shut up and take it.
So says the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
That is all.
So says the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
That is all.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Cool Link
The first poster I bought when I was in college (perhaps the only poster I bought, come to think of it), was "Peter's Laws: the Creed of the Sociopathic Obsessive-Compulsive."
Here is a listing of the laws if you are interested. They are fun to read and express a can-do attitude that I love (although, as a conservative, I do temper it with realism).
Enjoy.
That is all.
Here is a listing of the laws if you are interested. They are fun to read and express a can-do attitude that I love (although, as a conservative, I do temper it with realism).
Enjoy.
That is all.
Time to Shoot Someone
Muslims riots have shaken Paris for six nights in a row - so far.
Now, I am all for the right to peacefully demonstrate, but when people continually riot, there should be mass arrests.
If this looks to be impossible, then the police should get a bullhorn and demand that the rioting stop. If anyone still rioting after five seconds, then the plice should pick a few particularly bad apples and shoot them. If the rest of the rioters turn on the police, the police should begin shooting them, too, until they (a) decide to stop or (b) stop because they are all dead.
That is all.
Now, I am all for the right to peacefully demonstrate, but when people continually riot, there should be mass arrests.
If this looks to be impossible, then the police should get a bullhorn and demand that the rioting stop. If anyone still rioting after five seconds, then the plice should pick a few particularly bad apples and shoot them. If the rest of the rioters turn on the police, the police should begin shooting them, too, until they (a) decide to stop or (b) stop because they are all dead.
That is all.
The Worse, the Better
Lawrence Auster discusses the possibility that Bush is a genius moving us back to the days of realpolitik.
Of course, as Mr. Auster says, it is ridiculous to think that Bush has that elaborate a plan worked out, and if things work out that way (i.e. realpolitik takes over), it is more by accident than design.
That is all.
Of course, as Mr. Auster says, it is ridiculous to think that Bush has that elaborate a plan worked out, and if things work out that way (i.e. realpolitik takes over), it is more by accident than design.
That is all.
And Yet More of the Same
Rumsfeld suggests that we may need an increase in U.S. forces.
As of last count, there were 158,000 U.S. troops (not counting the rest of the coalition) in Iraq, down from a high of 161,000 during the Iraqi election on October 15.
So there is a good chance that we are going to see the number of U.S. troops in Iraq hit another new high fairly soon.
UPDATE: Sort of makes postings like this one seem a little naive, doesn't it?
That is all.
As of last count, there were 158,000 U.S. troops (not counting the rest of the coalition) in Iraq, down from a high of 161,000 during the Iraqi election on October 15.
So there is a good chance that we are going to see the number of U.S. troops in Iraq hit another new high fairly soon.
UPDATE: Sort of makes postings like this one seem a little naive, doesn't it?
That is all.
A Method to the Madness
Jorge Hirsch suggests a reason for the strange timing of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel remarks.
Namely, they want to make certain that any U.S. attack on Iran in the near future is seen as being in retaliation for threats against Israel, thereby making it difficult for the U.S. to attack (as it would look to much of the world as if we were simply Israel's lapdogs).
Interesting thesis. And he supports it by showing how restrained the U.S. response to the statement has been.
That is all for now.
Namely, they want to make certain that any U.S. attack on Iran in the near future is seen as being in retaliation for threats against Israel, thereby making it difficult for the U.S. to attack (as it would look to much of the world as if we were simply Israel's lapdogs).
Interesting thesis. And he supports it by showing how restrained the U.S. response to the statement has been.
That is all for now.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Glaivester Welcomes the Hyphenated Canadian
Dipsatches from the Hogtown Front has been added to my blogroll. It's a blog about immigration issues - in Canada.
It's nice to see that it's not only the U.S. where there is concern about the government's policies and the "national question."
Go visit it.
That is all.
It's nice to see that it's not only the U.S. where there is concern about the government's policies and the "national question."
Go visit it.
That is all.
By the Numbers
How powerful and effective is the insurgency in Iraq at damaging our war effort? Is it in decline or strengthening?
Using hostile coalition fatalities as a metric, let's compare 2004 to 2005.
Total hostile fatalities in 2004: 755
Hostile fatalities Jan. 1 - Oct. 31, 2004: 568
Total hostile fatalties Jan. 1 - Oct. 31, 2004: 579
Annualized: 695
Comparing this to my earlier graph, two trends become apparent:
First, the "background" number of deaths in a "typical" month was higher in 2005.
Second, 2005 has not had any "hostile death spikes" of the sort there were in 2004, in April and November, where hostile deaths rose dramatically for a month and then fell again. This is presumably due to the fact that the insurgents are no longer confronting us (or we them) in large battles in Fallujah (I was going to say "in cities such as Fallujah, but then realized that both of these fatality spikes came from Fallujah itself).
Now using American wounded-in-action (stats are not available for the rest of the coalition or for non-hostile wounded) - Stats for October 2005 are not complete yet, so I am not including October stats in year-to-date calculations)
WIA in 2004: 7987
WIA Jan. 1 - Sept. 30, 2004 (Stats for October are not complete yet): 5372
WIA Jan 1. - Sept. 30, 2005: 4513
Annualized: 6017
Wounded stats are generally slightly lower than in 2004, and there have been no "spikes."
As for Iraqi deaths, I don't have statistics to compare 2004 to 2005, but during 2005, the statistics would indicate that hostile deaths of Iraqi police and military increased during the first half of the year, then declined (so far) during the second half, whereas civilian deaths in general increased up to August, and then started to decline somewhat.
Based on these stats, the insurgency appears to have remained pretty stable throughout 2005.
This may be good news; if this means that the insurgency has peaked, it is possible that it will start to decline next year or in 2007.
On the other hand, it may just stay stable for another five or six years. This could put us into a waiting game, where the issue is how long we would be willing to "stay the course" until things improve - but we would have to "stay the course" for quite a while.
Or, it might go up, but likely slowly and without too many "spikes" in fatalities, which would be the worst-case scenario.
Being a pessimist on the Iraq War, I think the increase in fatalities scenario is the most likely one. But we will have to wait and see.
That is all.
Using hostile coalition fatalities as a metric, let's compare 2004 to 2005.
Total hostile fatalities in 2004: 755
Hostile fatalities Jan. 1 - Oct. 31, 2004: 568
Total hostile fatalties Jan. 1 - Oct. 31, 2004: 579
Annualized: 695
Comparing this to my earlier graph, two trends become apparent:
First, the "background" number of deaths in a "typical" month was higher in 2005.
Second, 2005 has not had any "hostile death spikes" of the sort there were in 2004, in April and November, where hostile deaths rose dramatically for a month and then fell again. This is presumably due to the fact that the insurgents are no longer confronting us (or we them) in large battles in Fallujah (I was going to say "in cities such as Fallujah, but then realized that both of these fatality spikes came from Fallujah itself).
Now using American wounded-in-action (stats are not available for the rest of the coalition or for non-hostile wounded) - Stats for October 2005 are not complete yet, so I am not including October stats in year-to-date calculations)
WIA in 2004: 7987
WIA Jan. 1 - Sept. 30, 2004 (Stats for October are not complete yet): 5372
WIA Jan 1. - Sept. 30, 2005: 4513
Annualized: 6017
Wounded stats are generally slightly lower than in 2004, and there have been no "spikes."
As for Iraqi deaths, I don't have statistics to compare 2004 to 2005, but during 2005, the statistics would indicate that hostile deaths of Iraqi police and military increased during the first half of the year, then declined (so far) during the second half, whereas civilian deaths in general increased up to August, and then started to decline somewhat.
Based on these stats, the insurgency appears to have remained pretty stable throughout 2005.
This may be good news; if this means that the insurgency has peaked, it is possible that it will start to decline next year or in 2007.
On the other hand, it may just stay stable for another five or six years. This could put us into a waiting game, where the issue is how long we would be willing to "stay the course" until things improve - but we would have to "stay the course" for quite a while.
Or, it might go up, but likely slowly and without too many "spikes" in fatalities, which would be the worst-case scenario.
Being a pessimist on the Iraq War, I think the increase in fatalities scenario is the most likely one. But we will have to wait and see.
That is all.
Thoughts on Scooter
William L. Anderson expresses distress at the way that Mr. Libby is being indicted. Not that he probabl doesn't deserve it, but arre we really witnessing the rule of law, or a "the ends justify the means" attempt to find something to charge him on in order to try to pry open the scandals of the Bush administration?
Even if this indictment helps us to get to the bottom of the scandals, does it really help the nation in the long run if it leads to further disregard for the rule of law if whenever it becomes an impediment to a desired outcome?
Not that Bush or much of what passes for conservatives these days would care as much about rule of law if someone else's ox were being gored, but shouldn't Bush's opponents want to be better than we accuse him (accurately, in my opinion) of being?
That is all.
Even if this indictment helps us to get to the bottom of the scandals, does it really help the nation in the long run if it leads to further disregard for the rule of law if whenever it becomes an impediment to a desired outcome?
Not that Bush or much of what passes for conservatives these days would care as much about rule of law if someone else's ox were being gored, but shouldn't Bush's opponents want to be better than we accuse him (accurately, in my opinion) of being?
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)