Gingrich and Pelosi

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

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

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:

"And not to hog electrons on this post, but [] you must be f'ing joking.
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"

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

"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

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

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

Minimum wage and unemployment

I spent more than a year of my life working at a grocery store in a bad neighborhood, making less than $2.00 per hour, but it was, at the time, the "minimum wage."  As of today, the minimum wage in Texas is $7.25 per hour.  My present curiousity, given high unemployment (especially among teens, and most pointedly among black teens), is whether reducing--or, better yet, eliminating--the minimum wage would (i) reduce unemployment and (ii) provide persons now unemployed with an opportunity to start working, and thereby gaining experience that will assist them in getting better jobs in the future.

I am aware that many studies have shown that increases in the minimum wage increase unemployment, especially among teens.  I am also aware of studies that are critical of those studies, arguing that increases in minimum wage have no measurable impact on employment.

But, I am certain that increases in the minimum wage must hurt employment.  Consider this example:  suppose we increase the minimum wage to $100/hour?  Would anyone claim that such an increase would not have an adverse impact on employment?  In fact, I have always wanted a congressman to pose such a hypothetical to someone testifying in favor of higher minimum wages.  For example: if a $1/hr increase is good, would a $25/hr increase be even better?  If not, why not?

If you agree that it dramatically higher minimum wages would adversely affect emploment, then you have agreed with the trend; i.e., as the minimum wage increases, unemployment must necessarily increase.

Why, then, does no one ever propose--in the face of high and persistent unemployment--a decrease in the minimum wage?

Father

Perry and "Climate Change"

As noted in a earlier post, I have no great respect for Rick Perry.  But, as a student of climate change, and a graduate engineer with coursework in both meteorology and ocean engineering, his take on climate change is spot-on.  Most of those strongly advocating for climate-change legislation (and "wrenching" changes to the economy as a result) despise growth and commerce and reliance on fossil fuels, regardless of the correlation, if any, between those activities and climate change.  And, having reviewed much of the climate change literature, I can rest assured that until someone makes and stands by verifiable predictions as to climate, and those predictions are then verified over the passage of time, I have no cause to worry about whether CO2 emissions are making the weather better or worse.  The essence of the scientific method is making hypotheses that are testable.  Climatologists refuse to do so.

By Father

Amnesty by Presidential decree.

The white house has announced that illegal immigrants who meet certain criteria, i.e. are not openly committing crimes other than existing in our country illegally, will no longer be deported. This is a sad day for our country, the DREAM act failed twice in congress, the American people do not want amnesty and here it is being rammed down our throats with hardly a whimper. I am truly disgusted with our government.
P.S. the sad thing is, assuming Perry or Romney end up as the Republican nominee, this is unlikely to change. Perry has openly supported amnesty for many illegals, and Romney wouldn't dare jeopardize the votes of Hispanics by taking a tougher stance on the issue.

The Middle East

What happened to calls for the U.S. to completely withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan? It would appear that, with the election of Barack Obama, these calls have fallen sharply and received less attention in the media.  I understood the original mission in Afghanistan, blood for blood. I also understood extending our involvement to Iraq where a repressive dictator who our then president's family held a grudge against was in control. I can no longer understand or justify continued substantial military involvement in either of these places, and that is ignoring the exercise in indecision that is Libya. The U.S. military estimates that we have given 360 million dollars in contract money to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Note that this is an estimate coming from the U.S. military, which has powerful motives to limit this figure as much as possible. Yet 360 million is nothing compared to the loss of men, in Iraq alone we lave lost more than 4400 men, and over 32,000 have sustained injuries. Perhaps, if someone could tell me a realistic and attainable goal that a military presence could achieve in these two countries, I would be more open to continuing our military actions. I think the most reasonable course of action at this point is flooding the governments we support in each country with money and resources to keep them from collapsing, continuing limited, but hopefully dramatic, raids that highlight the elitism of our country's military and take out key components of the opposition, and learning a lasting lesson about military involvement in Islamic countries.

Concealed handgun licenses

Yesterday, my wife, my 21-year-old daughter and I endured the ten-hour class that one must take in order to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun in Texas.  We all easily passed the shooting proficiency exam and the written exam.  Frankly, we could have passed both exams at the beginning of the day and saved valuable time for each of us, and the instructor.  That said, we would have missed out on the opportunity to spend the day together.

I agree generally in John Lott's thesis "More Guns, Less Crime" (see http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/), because the correlations between states' concealed-carry laws and rates of crime are impressive, but I have not spent enough time in his statistics to know whether he is using correlation  to suggest causation without an adequate basis.  Nonetheless, it seems natural to me that a person intent on shooting many people would be less inclined to choose a venue at which he knew there would be persons lawfully carrying concealed weapons.

As long as we are on the topic, our instructor pointed to statistics showing that the conviction rates for concealed-carry license holders are much lower than those for the population at large.  This is, on its face good (the opposite would be terrible), but, it probably proves very little.  My guess is that the universe of license holders will be more law-abiding for any number of reasons: (i) convicted felons (persons with a proclivity to commit crimes in the first place) are not eligible for concealed-carry licenses; (ii) applicants must submit themselves to fingerprinting and a background check; and (iii) applicants must pass a written exam and pay hundreds in fees.  My guess is that the set of persons that have never been convicted of a felony, are willing to submit to fingerprinting and a background check, and who can afford to pay the fees and can pass the written exam, is likely to have a very low rate of convictions.  In this sense, the low rate of convictions for concealed-carry licensees is a consequence of self-selection.

Chris (Father)

Response to Micah's "A Mormon President?"

Unlike Micah, I do not believe that Romney will--if nominated--find it impossible to overcome his Mormon faith.

He was elected governor of a very blue state, and the media will be reluctant to "go there."

Indeed, had someone asked me in 2004 whether we would first elect a president who was a Mormon, or an African American, my gut would have said a Mormon.  And, had I been informed that the first African American to receive his party's nomination would be a member of Jeremiah Wright's congregation, I would have been confident that he would not win.

I am proud of my country for setting race aside for the 2008 election; but, the choice that the electorate made has proven to be a questionable one (I cannot bring myself to say it was obviously wrong when the alternative was John McCain).

Father (Chris)

A Mormon President?

        Perhaps it's just me, but I find it almost inconceivable that our country could elect a Mormon president (Mitt Romney or his doppelganger John Huntsman). Google tenets of mormonism, and you find almost nothing directly from the Mormon church, but several websites on the first page that are deeply critical of mormonism as a faith. As a Christian I understand how the writings of a faith can be misconstrued to paint a negative image of its teachings, but Mormonism seems, from all accounts, to run counter to several core teachings of Christianity, and the current values of our country. I feel that, if Huntsman or Romney end up as likely Republican nominees, pieces of the book of Mormon and quotes from Mormons with significant status in the church could be used in questions directed at them, with deleterious results. An example: I think the church's historical stance on intermarriage between races could result in some painfully interesting discussions for the two.

-Son

About Son

I am 19 years old and an Economics major at the University of Texas.
My politics occupy an area somewhere between Libertarianism and Conservatism, with significant outliers on a number of positions.
I like writing, appreciate the art of syntax, and enjoy literature of various styles.
I follow several right wing blogs, and am also a fairly active commenter on The Huffington Post.
I love spending time at the gym and could probably be considered an amateur body builder.
I am an assuredly saved Christian who believes the bible is absolute truth, but often questions man's interpretation of it.
I believe Liberalism is crippling America, and offer Britain, and the E.U. in general, as an example.
I believe there are genetic differences between races, which predetermine many of the resulting discrepancies.
I believe the U.S. political system is flawed on a level that makes it incompatible with good government.
I'm pretty sure "good government" is an oxymoron.
Currently, Lawrence Auster is the blogger I am influenced by most.

Rick Perry

I am a lifelong Texan.  Thus, something that I heard Will Cain (http://www.cainandtable.com/about) say while he was hosting "Stand-up with Pete Dominick" struck me: "Rick Perry is far more popular with Republicans outside the state of Texas than he is with Texas Republicans."  I could not agree more.  But, I will give him this: he knows how to run winning campaigns.

About Father

1. I am 52 years old.
2. I have been married for more that 22 years.
3. I have two children, both of whom are in college and doing quite well.
4. I enjoy reading most of what Hemingway wrote.
5. My son and I love to read about politics.
6. Like my mother, I love numbers, and doing math in my head.
7. I used to love baseball, but do not now much care for the game.
8. I like chardonnay, especially Newton Unfiltered and Chapellet.
9. My wife loves red Zins, especially Rombauer.
10. I am a Christian.
11. I enjoy watching golf, and hope that no one ever breaks Nicklaus' record for major championship victories.
12. I have zero tolerance for discriminating on the basis of race, thus, I am a vigorous opponent of racial preferences in hiring, college admissions, contracting, etc.
13. I believe universities routinely discriminate against Asian students.
14. I love astrophysics, and especially enjoy reading everything I can about the expanding universe, the search for ways to unify the four forces, and Einstein.
15. I believe you can learn a great deal about a man's ethics by watching him play a round of golf.
16. I believe nearly all government programs and initiatives do more harm than good.
17. I believe efforts to make citizens dependent on government programs and payments border on criminal.
18. I agree with those who proclaim that the government has adequate revenue, and that its problems are on the spending side.
19. I believe that there are real differences between the inate abilities of men (as a group) and women (as a group), but that these differences say nothing about any particular man or woman.
20. I believe that outcomes for individuals more closely correlate with IQ than with other factors.