I am satisfied that Gingrich has lots of baggage, in line with what was portended by Pelosi's recent comments about her work on the Ethics committee that investigated him. Gingrich was quick to suggest that any disclosure by her of what she learned in Ethics committee deliberations would itself be an ethical violation. Get real; that is not the point. We all know that everything that the committee learned will eventually come out, and if it is unlikely to be pretty, we need to know sooner (i.e., now) rather than later. If Newt has nothing to hide, he should authorize an unfettered release of any and all documents provided to or generated by the committee.
Father
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Friday, November 4, 2011
Ted Kennedy and Hermain Cain
In July of 1969, Ted Kennedy drove off a bridge and left his female passenger to die. She did die, and Kennedy failed to report the accident until the following afternoon. Kennedy entered into a confidential settlement with the girl's family. He ran for the senate in 1970 and again in 1976, and for the presidency in 1980 (11 years after killing Mary Jo Kopechne). To my knowledge, no reporter ever asked Kennedy to lift the confidentiality so that Americans could see what he paid, and so that Americans could hear from the Kopechne family.
Sometime in the late 1990s, Herman Cain allegedly sexually harrassed women who were then paid settlements and were obligated--like the Kopechne family--to agree to confidentiality. Reporters have pressed Cain aand the NRA to lift the confidentiality obligations so that the accusers can talk and so that Americans can know the terms of the settlements. I whole-heartedly support these requests.
The press should have made the same requests of Ted Kennedy while it had the chance.
Father
Sometime in the late 1990s, Herman Cain allegedly sexually harrassed women who were then paid settlements and were obligated--like the Kopechne family--to agree to confidentiality. Reporters have pressed Cain aand the NRA to lift the confidentiality obligations so that the accusers can talk and so that Americans can know the terms of the settlements. I whole-heartedly support these requests.
The press should have made the same requests of Ted Kennedy while it had the chance.
Father
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Censorship of comments
Twice this week, I was motivated to post comments in response to posts by Steve Benen, a Washington Monthly contributor. His first piece dealt with attempts by various states to suppress voter turnout among likely Democratic voters, especially minorities, via laws that require photo identifcation at the time ballots are cast. Logic told me that in order to make a link between the laws and the suppression of voting by minorities, there would need to be proof that minorities who are lawfully entitled to vote are less likely to have/carry photo identification than non-minorities who are lawfully entitled to vote. My comment read as follows:
Oops, it has, like my follow-up comment, been deleted, but the first response to me is still available:
Oops, it has, like my follow-up comment, been deleted, but the first response to me is still available:
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
The Death of Darwinism
Survival of the fittest refers to the established principle that more fit organisms, i.e. organisms having advantages over their peers, will reproduce more often, thereby genetically advancing their population.
In regards to first-world humans, this cycle has been broken, and we will soon be facing the consequences. Previous human evolution favored both the physically fit and the intelligent, the former is still likely true to a lesser degree, but the same cannot be said of the latter. The modern, intelligent woman is unlikely to devote her life to mothering children, and that is hard to criticize. Women have only recently been able to achieve the political and financial prominence available to them today, and this new found ability, along with the widespread availability of near perfect contraception, has pushed the number of children born to college educated women down. The non hispanic fertility rate for whites in the U.S. is 1.9, that is, every woman averages 1.9 children. This number needs to be about 2.1 for population maintenance. Yet this hides the fact that women from low income homes, a feature correlating strongly with lower intelligence, have artificially inflated the rate. In fact, the birth rate for women on welfare is three times the rate of women not on welfare. This evidence assures that our country is moving towards lower average intelligence, and because of this, lower productivity. What this means for our country is this; that as the current population ages, and it will almost certainly do so, there will be lower numbers of truly productive members of society to support them via social security payments and the natural advantages of a country with a high population of productive young adults.
For some perspective, we can use the example of GM, now fondly referred to as Government Motors. GM currently has 8 employees receiving pensionary benefits for every one person actually employed. This is decidedly unsustainable, and it is an only slightly exaggerated microcosm of the future of the U.S.. The most intellectually advanced Americans are not reproducing in a manner conducive to positive impact on a national scale. Higher levels of national average intelligence bear an established correlation with advanced societies, as can be witnessed in the high standard of living of any majority Anglo-Saxon nation. The reverse is also true, and as our national intelligence descends, so too will our standard of living, global prominence, and economic success.
Son
In regards to first-world humans, this cycle has been broken, and we will soon be facing the consequences. Previous human evolution favored both the physically fit and the intelligent, the former is still likely true to a lesser degree, but the same cannot be said of the latter. The modern, intelligent woman is unlikely to devote her life to mothering children, and that is hard to criticize. Women have only recently been able to achieve the political and financial prominence available to them today, and this new found ability, along with the widespread availability of near perfect contraception, has pushed the number of children born to college educated women down. The non hispanic fertility rate for whites in the U.S. is 1.9, that is, every woman averages 1.9 children. This number needs to be about 2.1 for population maintenance. Yet this hides the fact that women from low income homes, a feature correlating strongly with lower intelligence, have artificially inflated the rate. In fact, the birth rate for women on welfare is three times the rate of women not on welfare. This evidence assures that our country is moving towards lower average intelligence, and because of this, lower productivity. What this means for our country is this; that as the current population ages, and it will almost certainly do so, there will be lower numbers of truly productive members of society to support them via social security payments and the natural advantages of a country with a high population of productive young adults.
For some perspective, we can use the example of GM, now fondly referred to as Government Motors. GM currently has 8 employees receiving pensionary benefits for every one person actually employed. This is decidedly unsustainable, and it is an only slightly exaggerated microcosm of the future of the U.S.. The most intellectually advanced Americans are not reproducing in a manner conducive to positive impact on a national scale. Higher levels of national average intelligence bear an established correlation with advanced societies, as can be witnessed in the high standard of living of any majority Anglo-Saxon nation. The reverse is also true, and as our national intelligence descends, so too will our standard of living, global prominence, and economic success.
Son
Saturday, September 24, 2011
"Fairness"
Yesterday's column by Charles Krauthammer regarding the return of the "real" Obama was extraordinary. He reminded readers that Obama (during 2008) said that even if the evidence shows that reductions in the tax rate applicable to capital gains increase revenue, he would consider increasing them in the interest of "fairness." Thus, in order to achieve what he regards to be "fair," Obama would propose legislation (increases in the tax rates for capiital gains) that would have the impact of reducing tax revenue. The same theme seems foundational to Obama's current thinking regarding the "Buffet" rule, and much of what Krugman and others have said about the growing chasm between the incomes and net worth of the wealthliest Americans, on the one hand, and those of middle class, on the other.
This has caused me to focus on what do Obama and others mean when they speak of "fairness" in the context of income, wealth and taxes. In this regard, I never hear liberals assail the earnings of the stars of Hollywood, recording, and professional sports, even though ratios between earnings those "stars," and the various people delivering services to them (e.g., the folks that wash the basketball uniforms) are no doubt staggering.
When I read the posts of the folks that have heartily endorsed the Buffet rule, I wonder whether they would find more acceptable a world in which everyone now earning between $30,000 and $80,000 suddenly earned 20% less, provided that everyone earning above $250,000 (excluding sports and entertainment stars) suddenly earned less than $100,000.
It is ironic indeed that persons (sports stars excluded) that have jobs that put them in a position to earn $10,000,000 or more per year do so without the benefit of collective bargaining (frankly, the absolute best among the sports superstars wwould earn even more in the absence of their unions). I.e., whether we are talking Beyonce or a Wall Street genius, each negotiates for the best possible deal with no union to help them, and, if they fail to perform, there are thousands waiting in the wings to replace them. Yet when the Wall Street geniuses end up earning a substantial multiple of the earnings of union members (imagine the operators of the trains on which the Wall Street geniuses ride to work) that can bargain collectively for the best possible wages, we are told it is "unfair."
I suppose my point is this: Obama and Krugman care not about the fairness of the process that produces the results that we see; they care instead about outcomes. But, so long as people are born with different levels of gifts (musical ability, running speed, IQ, etc), nothing can produce equality of outcomes.
Father
This has caused me to focus on what do Obama and others mean when they speak of "fairness" in the context of income, wealth and taxes. In this regard, I never hear liberals assail the earnings of the stars of Hollywood, recording, and professional sports, even though ratios between earnings those "stars," and the various people delivering services to them (e.g., the folks that wash the basketball uniforms) are no doubt staggering.
When I read the posts of the folks that have heartily endorsed the Buffet rule, I wonder whether they would find more acceptable a world in which everyone now earning between $30,000 and $80,000 suddenly earned 20% less, provided that everyone earning above $250,000 (excluding sports and entertainment stars) suddenly earned less than $100,000.
It is ironic indeed that persons (sports stars excluded) that have jobs that put them in a position to earn $10,000,000 or more per year do so without the benefit of collective bargaining (frankly, the absolute best among the sports superstars wwould earn even more in the absence of their unions). I.e., whether we are talking Beyonce or a Wall Street genius, each negotiates for the best possible deal with no union to help them, and, if they fail to perform, there are thousands waiting in the wings to replace them. Yet when the Wall Street geniuses end up earning a substantial multiple of the earnings of union members (imagine the operators of the trains on which the Wall Street geniuses ride to work) that can bargain collectively for the best possible wages, we are told it is "unfair."
I suppose my point is this: Obama and Krugman care not about the fairness of the process that produces the results that we see; they care instead about outcomes. But, so long as people are born with different levels of gifts (musical ability, running speed, IQ, etc), nothing can produce equality of outcomes.
Father
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Unproven, but Likely, Positives of Facebook
Recently I've been seeing articles reporting on the decrease in drug use (with the exception of marijuana) and teen pregnancy in the U.S.. I posit that a significant explanation for these is the widespread use of social media. In the past kids exposure to drugs and sex was more whimsical. They saw characters in T.V. shows and in movies doing coke and having sex, and thought "Hey, that looks nifty. I'll give it a try". Facebook and other social media sites provide a more realistic view of these behaviors. When you Facebook stalk that kid everyone knew was doing meth/snorting coke/raving on X in high school and see that he's now incarcerated/living in a trailer/earning minimum wage at Fast Food Corp. X, you think "Wow maybe all those PSA's were right and your brain really is different on drugs." The same can be said for teen pregnancy. I know that reading the Facebook posts of girls my age with babies is an exercise in vaguely comedic horror. Rather than just that girls constantly shrinking group of friends she could have complained to in the pre-Facebook past being impacted by her horrific tales of raising an infant as a teenager, all of her Facebook friends are exposed to it, and girls who were having sex freely enough to end up pregnant probably also ended up with a relatively high number of Facebook friends after high school. It all boils down to this, Facebook forces today's youth to be exposed to a more realistic image of the hazards of hard drug use and unprotected sex than they would have in the past. It's not that it was impossible to see the effects of drug use and childbearing before Facebook, it just required more effort. Today you are just a few clicks away from a horror story that is more personal than any government study or news report, because it happened to someone you know and is accompanied by photo and verbal documentation via Facebook.
-Micah
-Micah
Friday, September 16, 2011
Help Wanted
Because my wife and I live in the country, and because we have multiple barns, 8 horses and two cows, taking care of the property and animals is a lot of wwork. Thus, for several years my wife has had a "helper" who works 2-3 days per week, for $15/hour, more than double the minimum wage. Over the last 6 years, several different men have occupied the position.
The first such person was very gifted in terms of mechanical know-how, repairing tractors, laying bricks, fixing electrical problems, etc. But, he was utterly unreliable; she never knew when he would show for work. Ultimately, he went to jail for multiple DUIs and we were forced to find a replacement. The first such replacement hit it hard for a few days, and then tried to persuade us to accept his son as a replacement; neither worked. We then found a middle-aged man who did a good job, but he was prone to leaving for Mexico on short notice, and reappearing, without prior notice, weeks later.
Most recently, we had an older man who was totally reliable in terms of getting here on time and on schedule, but had a tendency of "disappearing" for long stretches during the day, or sitting in his pickup while smoking cigarrettes. Sadly, he was not a self-starter. He did exactly what he was asked to do, and nothing more.
So, this week we were thrilled when one of the workers at our church told us that he had found the right man for the job. He was mid-thirties, and had no wife or children. He was--until he started to work for us--working "day labor," showng up each morning at a place where other day laborers gathered to offer their services to persons in need of help.
He worked all day Tuesday, and my wife was generally pleased. Thus, he and she agreed that he had the job starting immediately, working 8 hours a day, 3 days a week, for $15/hour cash.
On Thursday, his next working day, he did not show. He instead left a message asking when he could be paid for the day he had worked, and making clear that he had changed his mind, and did not want the job.
Last night, he came by to collect, and explained that he had been offended when I was explaining to him that he should drive around and not over certain areas of our property, because "educated people use words that make [him] feel uncomfortable." Well, the conversation to which he was pointing had occurred long before he agreed with my wife to take the job, and involved a mere request that he not drive over the fire-hose type water lines that supply our irrigation system. This was obviously a pretext, so we remain baffled. He stood to make more in three days working for us than he would if he worked five days as a day laborer.
Father
The first such person was very gifted in terms of mechanical know-how, repairing tractors, laying bricks, fixing electrical problems, etc. But, he was utterly unreliable; she never knew when he would show for work. Ultimately, he went to jail for multiple DUIs and we were forced to find a replacement. The first such replacement hit it hard for a few days, and then tried to persuade us to accept his son as a replacement; neither worked. We then found a middle-aged man who did a good job, but he was prone to leaving for Mexico on short notice, and reappearing, without prior notice, weeks later.
Most recently, we had an older man who was totally reliable in terms of getting here on time and on schedule, but had a tendency of "disappearing" for long stretches during the day, or sitting in his pickup while smoking cigarrettes. Sadly, he was not a self-starter. He did exactly what he was asked to do, and nothing more.
So, this week we were thrilled when one of the workers at our church told us that he had found the right man for the job. He was mid-thirties, and had no wife or children. He was--until he started to work for us--working "day labor," showng up each morning at a place where other day laborers gathered to offer their services to persons in need of help.
He worked all day Tuesday, and my wife was generally pleased. Thus, he and she agreed that he had the job starting immediately, working 8 hours a day, 3 days a week, for $15/hour cash.
On Thursday, his next working day, he did not show. He instead left a message asking when he could be paid for the day he had worked, and making clear that he had changed his mind, and did not want the job.
Last night, he came by to collect, and explained that he had been offended when I was explaining to him that he should drive around and not over certain areas of our property, because "educated people use words that make [him] feel uncomfortable." Well, the conversation to which he was pointing had occurred long before he agreed with my wife to take the job, and involved a mere request that he not drive over the fire-hose type water lines that supply our irrigation system. This was obviously a pretext, so we remain baffled. He stood to make more in three days working for us than he would if he worked five days as a day laborer.
Father
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
For instance, minority populations (of any age) tend to be concentrated in more urban settings, where mass transit is available. Whether because of income limitations or sheer hassle of parking, they tend to have fewer cars (and if it's a one-car family, you can be sure Mom and/or Dad use it to get to work).
According to the website Useless Facts, one in four people in the U.S. have never flown on an airplane (http://www.angelfire.com/ca6/uselessfacts/survey/001.html). So I guess they've never had to wrestle with TSA's photo ID requirements.
And while the number of people who do or don't have a passport varies widely from state to state (http://blog.cgpgrey.com/how-many-americans-have-a-passport-the-percentages-state-by-state/), in 33 states it's less than half the population."
I responded (a comment since deleted) that what Blondie (the screen name of the publisher of the responsiv comment) offered was not proof, because proof that poor people aremore likely than others to use mass transportation in no since proves that they are less likely to have photo identification. But, as noted, the link to Benen's article no longer includes either of my comments, neither of which was mad or angry, and neither of which included any offensive language. And, I know why they were deleted. My questions force Benen (and his followers) to ackowledge the reasoning that underlies their argument, and they don't want to do so.
The next day, Benen posted in response to the requests of Dick Cheney for an apology from the Obama administration. I commented (again I was deleted) that if the President has the authority to kill--without a trial or even an indictment--an America citizen for words he has said in internet remblings and broadcasts, then, a fortiori, he has the authority to arrest a non-citizen terrorist and to use enhanced interrogation techniques and/or indefinite detention. Each of these were things against which Obama railed as a candidate, so, I agreed that Obama owed Dick an apology.
I guess I dont understand what purpose is served by deleting comments designed to encourage debate. Here's is what was said at the bottom of the comments section:
"A link from a right-wing website brought the trolls out of the woodwork, leading to a wholesale deletion of comments and turning off comments on this thread. --Mods"