Posts with Comments by gc
Ross Douthat talks porn
Several of the more successful women I know did in fact have kids early and then started building careers in their thirties.
I think that is also a good model. I meant "after college" for the male. Even more ideal would be a decent standard of living on a single income. It would be interesting for someone to do an accounting to see why that slipped away. Leaving aside all the issues associated with NAM subsidization, Is overall productivity and/or happiness really higher with both men & women working? Seems like happiness certainly isn't. Productivity might be, though that's an empirical question.
I think that is also a good model. I meant "after college" for the male. Even more ideal would be a decent standard of living on a single income. It would be interesting for someone to do an accounting to see why that slipped away. Leaving aside all the issues associated with NAM subsidization, Is overall productivity and/or happiness really higher with both men & women working? Seems like happiness certainly isn't. Productivity might be, though that's an empirical question.
I think it's useful to conceptualize Douthat's piece as part of a broader whole. One of the things I've been realizing is that the religious are more sustainably fertile because their attitudes are towards more shots on goal ("no porn", "no prostitution","no homosexuality","no sodomy"), more goals ("no abortions" & sometimes "no birth control"), fewer offsides calls ("no sex before marriage"), and consistent teamwork ("no divorce","no adultery").
(I include the modifier "sustainably" b/c out of wedlock births aren't sustainably fertile -- such families are generally wards of the state and would not persist without the influx of fedguv or UN dollars.)
Note that I am not saying that outlawing abortion would increase fertility, but rather that women whose sentiments are in that direction are probably innately more inclined to fertility than those who are not -- and similarly for the other issues. You could easily study this with some regression analysis, but I think it's pretty clear that social conservatism correlates with fertility; the question is whether it does so even when the social conservatism arises from genetic factors rather than from parental transmission.
Anyway, to continue -- there was an interesting quote about Roissy's site the other day. It said, roughly: "Roissy's site is full of young men who are angry at women for failing to fulfill their end of the bargain as wives and mothers." There's definitely an element of truth to that. I think many engineering/technical/web types would have preferred to settle down right after college, but as Sailer so astutely noted, affordable family formation just isn't possible in the areas around elite colleges. One can certainly make due with the often physically attractive but frequently personally unattractive lawyer/pharma rep/etc. types that predominate in urban areas, but this is a suboptimal solution.
Just ruminating here, but I'd bet that society would overall be much better off if it was both economically feasible and strongly encouraged to get married, settle down, and have children right after college. That requires low housing prices and strong societal signaling about "what is the best life". It would also require annihilating the influence of feminism. When women are told that a state of mutual dependence with a man is the highest evil, it actually results in *more* patriarchy as alpha sex appeal becomes the only criterion for male selection...with predictable consequences. Alphas aren't civilized, betas are bitter, all but the hottest women are dumped, the uglies are completely SOL, etc.
There are many 2nd order phenomena that arise from deferred marriage. One of them is the kind of widespread depression and withdrawal described in "Bowling Alone", and another is mass porn consumption.
Anyway, not saying that early marriage is a panacea, but just some thoughts.
(I include the modifier "sustainably" b/c out of wedlock births aren't sustainably fertile -- such families are generally wards of the state and would not persist without the influx of fedguv or UN dollars.)
Note that I am not saying that outlawing abortion would increase fertility, but rather that women whose sentiments are in that direction are probably innately more inclined to fertility than those who are not -- and similarly for the other issues. You could easily study this with some regression analysis, but I think it's pretty clear that social conservatism correlates with fertility; the question is whether it does so even when the social conservatism arises from genetic factors rather than from parental transmission.
Anyway, to continue -- there was an interesting quote about Roissy's site the other day. It said, roughly: "Roissy's site is full of young men who are angry at women for failing to fulfill their end of the bargain as wives and mothers." There's definitely an element of truth to that. I think many engineering/technical/web types would have preferred to settle down right after college, but as Sailer so astutely noted, affordable family formation just isn't possible in the areas around elite colleges. One can certainly make due with the often physically attractive but frequently personally unattractive lawyer/pharma rep/etc. types that predominate in urban areas, but this is a suboptimal solution.
Just ruminating here, but I'd bet that society would overall be much better off if it was both economically feasible and strongly encouraged to get married, settle down, and have children right after college. That requires low housing prices and strong societal signaling about "what is the best life". It would also require annihilating the influence of feminism. When women are told that a state of mutual dependence with a man is the highest evil, it actually results in *more* patriarchy as alpha sex appeal becomes the only criterion for male selection...with predictable consequences. Alphas aren't civilized, betas are bitter, all but the hottest women are dumped, the uglies are completely SOL, etc.
There are many 2nd order phenomena that arise from deferred marriage. One of them is the kind of widespread depression and withdrawal described in "Bowling Alone", and another is mass porn consumption.
Anyway, not saying that early marriage is a panacea, but just some thoughts.
But the attention paid to the connection between porn and infidelity doesn?t translate into anything like a consensus on what that connection is. Polls show that Americans are almost evenly divided on questions like whether porn is bad for relationships, whether it?s an inevitable feature of male existence, and whether it?s demeaning to women. This divide tends to cut along gender lines, inevitably: women are more likely to look at pornography than in the past, but they remain considerably more hostile to porn than men are, and considerably less likely to make use of it. (Even among the Internet generation, the split between the sexes remains stark. A survey of American college students last year found that 70 percent of the women in the sample never looked at pornography, compared with just 14 percent of their male peers; almost half of the men surveyed looked at porn at least once a week, versus just 3 percent of the women.)
That 86% number is in the ballpark of what I was saying in last month's thread.
That 86% number is in the ballpark of what I was saying in last month's thread.
NIH takes down public data
Wow. This video is pretty damning. "Fannie Mae is determined to keep tearing down the barriers to the American Dream...with the help of the Congressional Black Caucus and Barack Obama...It is true that Fannie Mae has lent more money to more minorities and more underserved individuals than any single company in history...keeping on course to serve those who need serving the most".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0
Ah yes, Obama's legendary judgment and epistemology at work! Bribed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so that they could keep loaning taxpayer money to insolvent NAMs. By contrast, here's some *real* judgment:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr071602.htm
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act. This legislation restores a free market in housing by repealing special privileges for housing-related government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). These entities are the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie), and the National Home Loan Bank Board (HLBB). According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received $13.6 billion worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone.
One of the major government privileges granted these GSEs is a line of credit to the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out these GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps them attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a massive unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.
The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase the debt of housing-related GSEs. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors.
Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges of Fannie, Freddie, and HLBB have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.
However, despite
More....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0
Ah yes, Obama's legendary judgment and epistemology at work! Bribed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so that they could keep loaning taxpayer money to insolvent NAMs. By contrast, here's some *real* judgment:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr071602.htm
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act. This legislation restores a free market in housing by repealing special privileges for housing-related government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). These entities are the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie), and the National Home Loan Bank Board (HLBB). According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received $13.6 billion worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone.
One of the major government privileges granted these GSEs is a line of credit to the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out these GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps them attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a massive unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.
The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase the debt of housing-related GSEs. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors.
Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges of Fannie, Freddie, and HLBB have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.
However, despite
More....
Glad to hear you say that, Jason. I heartily agree.
Luke/Jay: what percentage of your neighborhood is black and Hispanic? And have you ever lived in a neighborhood which is majority black/Hispanic?
As for whether they are "all American citizens", perhaps 50% of the Hispanics in the US are not US citizens :)
Right, Obama has an IQ >145, and this is not reasonably up for debate. Magna cum laude Harvard Law. That's top 10% of the class based on blindly graded exams, at a school where the average undergraduate has an SAT of 1490 (IQ >140).
Great, but the thing is that just doesn't awe me. Just about everyone I work with on a daily basis has stats as good or better than that, and you know I'm not blowing smoke when I say that. So do quite a few people who read this blog. I mean, top 10% of graduate students at elite universities? Yeah, I think we've got a few of those :)
Yet I wouldn't want any of them to be president.
IQ is genuinely important for just about any *non political* job, because outcome correlations have been established. For political attitudes, however, it is highly arguable as to whether the more intelligent are likely to have beliefs that closely track reality. Mandatory leftist collegiate indoctrination for freshmen is not about teaching "good epistemology". I'm very familiar with what goes on there -- here's just one of the orientation events:
http://www.american-pictures.com/english/show/index.html
A mind shattering experience for colleges, universities, high schools, organizations and conventions
Shown in 311 American colleges for packed audiences.
......American Pictures is known for standing room only crowds. Even at the tenth show at Harvard 700 were present. At the third show in U.C. Davis 2000 came. Students who miss it often drive hundreds of miles to see it on other campuses.
No program today so visually and "with so lasting impact" depicts the worsening minority crisis of America.
An experiment in oppression
The show reveals the psychological costs of racism on both the black and the white mind. Yet it is not only a "show" about the victims of racism, but also an experiment in oppression.
The technique of the show is to incessantly bombard the audience with a one-sided view from the position of the black underclass, a view in sharp contrast to the Horato Alger myth.
There is no opportunity for rationalization or justification. A form of oppression ensues which gradually breaks down the defenses of the audience. It effectively creates a momentary role reversal letting the astonished students actually experience the emotions black people often suffer in everyday white society. This opens the way for whites to be
More....
Luke/Jay: what percentage of your neighborhood is black and Hispanic? And have you ever lived in a neighborhood which is majority black/Hispanic?
As for whether they are "all American citizens", perhaps 50% of the Hispanics in the US are not US citizens :)
Right, Obama has an IQ >145, and this is not reasonably up for debate. Magna cum laude Harvard Law. That's top 10% of the class based on blindly graded exams, at a school where the average undergraduate has an SAT of 1490 (IQ >140).
Great, but the thing is that just doesn't awe me. Just about everyone I work with on a daily basis has stats as good or better than that, and you know I'm not blowing smoke when I say that. So do quite a few people who read this blog. I mean, top 10% of graduate students at elite universities? Yeah, I think we've got a few of those :)
Yet I wouldn't want any of them to be president.
IQ is genuinely important for just about any *non political* job, because outcome correlations have been established. For political attitudes, however, it is highly arguable as to whether the more intelligent are likely to have beliefs that closely track reality. Mandatory leftist collegiate indoctrination for freshmen is not about teaching "good epistemology". I'm very familiar with what goes on there -- here's just one of the orientation events:
http://www.american-pictures.com/english/show/index.html
A mind shattering experience for colleges, universities, high schools, organizations and conventions
Shown in 311 American colleges for packed audiences.
......American Pictures is known for standing room only crowds. Even at the tenth show at Harvard 700 were present. At the third show in U.C. Davis 2000 came. Students who miss it often drive hundreds of miles to see it on other campuses.
No program today so visually and "with so lasting impact" depicts the worsening minority crisis of America.
An experiment in oppression
The show reveals the psychological costs of racism on both the black and the white mind. Yet it is not only a "show" about the victims of racism, but also an experiment in oppression.
The technique of the show is to incessantly bombard the audience with a one-sided view from the position of the black underclass, a view in sharp contrast to the Horato Alger myth.
There is no opportunity for rationalization or justification. A form of oppression ensues which gradually breaks down the defenses of the audience. It effectively creates a momentary role reversal letting the astonished students actually experience the emotions black people often suffer in everyday white society. This opens the way for whites to be
More....
Reports on crime -- especially written reports -- regularly omit explicit racial breakdowns and racial identifications *as a matter of policy*.
...the Associated Press Style Guide is used by almost all papers in the United States.
Race: Identification by race is pertinent:
* In biographical and announcement stories, particularly when they involve a feat or appointment that has not routinely been associated with members of a particular race. [I. E. the "first black" to do something good is relevant. The thousandth black to commit an armed robbery is not.]
* When it provides the reader with a substantial insight into conflicting emotions known or likely to be involved in a demonstration or similar event.
In some stories that involve a conflict, it is equally important to specify that an issue cuts across racial lines. If, for example, a demonstration by supporters of bussing to achieve racial balance in schools includes a substantial number of whites, that fact should be noted.
This is the excuse the Associated Press invokes when it gets caught, as it regularly does, failing to report the race of a criminal who is still on the loose, when lives might be saved by knowing what the suspect looks like.
A particularly bad case recently: a black man who was raping young white men at gunpoint in the Houston area. The point here is that, knowing the race of the suspect, and of his potential victims, said potential victims can take precautions.
While the AP Stylebook doesn't say why they treat race as not "pertinent", a similar stylebook put out by a Canadian paper (the Toronto Globe and Mail) says this:
"We must be especially scrupulous about avoiding irrelevant references in stories about criminal charges or other matters in which identifying a person's race or national origin may unfairly associate an entire group with criminal or antisocial activity."
It's that little word ?unfairly? that does it. Many groups are fairly associated with criminal or antisocial activity. And perhaps the public needs to know that.
And you can easily go show by show to find things like this:
It might be an interesting factoid for an article that there are more white murderers plotted on Law & Order (all editions) than there are actual white murderers in New York City.
There were 572 murders in New York City last year. We know that only 10% of violent crimes in NYC were committed by non-Hispanic whites, so if the same is true for homicides in particular, that's 57 white murders. There are three "Law and Orders," I think, with about 25 episodes per season with, say, 80% being white. That's 60 white New York murderers on one set of shows compared to about 57 in all of the real world New York.
Any
More....
...the Associated Press Style Guide is used by almost all papers in the United States.
Race: Identification by race is pertinent:
* In biographical and announcement stories, particularly when they involve a feat or appointment that has not routinely been associated with members of a particular race. [I. E. the "first black" to do something good is relevant. The thousandth black to commit an armed robbery is not.]
* When it provides the reader with a substantial insight into conflicting emotions known or likely to be involved in a demonstration or similar event.
In some stories that involve a conflict, it is equally important to specify that an issue cuts across racial lines. If, for example, a demonstration by supporters of bussing to achieve racial balance in schools includes a substantial number of whites, that fact should be noted.
This is the excuse the Associated Press invokes when it gets caught, as it regularly does, failing to report the race of a criminal who is still on the loose, when lives might be saved by knowing what the suspect looks like.
A particularly bad case recently: a black man who was raping young white men at gunpoint in the Houston area. The point here is that, knowing the race of the suspect, and of his potential victims, said potential victims can take precautions.
While the AP Stylebook doesn't say why they treat race as not "pertinent", a similar stylebook put out by a Canadian paper (the Toronto Globe and Mail) says this:
"We must be especially scrupulous about avoiding irrelevant references in stories about criminal charges or other matters in which identifying a person's race or national origin may unfairly associate an entire group with criminal or antisocial activity."
It's that little word ?unfairly? that does it. Many groups are fairly associated with criminal or antisocial activity. And perhaps the public needs to know that.
And you can easily go show by show to find things like this:
It might be an interesting factoid for an article that there are more white murderers plotted on Law & Order (all editions) than there are actual white murderers in New York City.
There were 572 murders in New York City last year. We know that only 10% of violent crimes in NYC were committed by non-Hispanic whites, so if the same is true for homicides in particular, that's 57 white murders. There are three "Law and Orders," I think, with about 25 episodes per season with, say, 80% being white. That's 60 white New York murderers on one set of shows compared to about 57 in all of the real world New York.
Any
More....
Far from "revolting against them", leftist whites lurrrve them some NAMs, *especially* if they can demonstrate conspicuous compassion for the likes of illegal aliens and "Tookie" Williams while keeping as far away from them as possible. For this reason, unless someone has actually lived on Martin Luther King Boulevard or in South Central LA, I dismiss all their expressions of compassion for NAMs *as a group* as unmoored from reality. Such compassion is based on endless media portraits of blacks as doctors, judges, cops, and computer scientists...as martyrs and saints and even literally God figures. Enter the warzones, live there for a year, see if you make it out without being violently attacked, and then let's see if you retain your compassion :)
All quantitative investigations of this show that TV news exaggerates NAM criminality...
WOW. I cannot believe that you are claiming that the media overrepresents (!!!) NAM crime, and moreover that ALL quantitative investigations show this!
First, your first link does not support your argument. Look at table 4. Accepting their coding of reported perpetrators at face value, even in your own link, NAMs are 68% percent of arrests and only 66% on local TV. As for your second link, it says nothing about the ratio of arrests to TV news features, so this doesn't support your argument either. It should be noted that mentioning black victims calls attention to black perpetrators -- and the link itself agrees that blacks should be mentioned out of proportion to their representation in the population as they commit more crime.
instead of, e.g., newspapers (much less 'elite' papers) and other forms of media.
Now we get to the heart of the matter. Local news is known to be further to the right -- there are only so many Harvard-trained thought police to disperse around the country. But what matters for policy is the national news. And there is no way that the national news or the elite papers report NAM crimes or that TV shows depict NAM offenders at anywhere near their proportion of offenses. Coloring The News settled that matter pretty definitively.
All quantitative investigations of this show that TV news exaggerates NAM criminality...
WOW. I cannot believe that you are claiming that the media overrepresents (!!!) NAM crime, and moreover that ALL quantitative investigations show this!
First, your first link does not support your argument. Look at table 4. Accepting their coding of reported perpetrators at face value, even in your own link, NAMs are 68% percent of arrests and only 66% on local TV. As for your second link, it says nothing about the ratio of arrests to TV news features, so this doesn't support your argument either. It should be noted that mentioning black victims calls attention to black perpetrators -- and the link itself agrees that blacks should be mentioned out of proportion to their representation in the population as they commit more crime.
instead of, e.g., newspapers (much less 'elite' papers) and other forms of media.
Now we get to the heart of the matter. Local news is known to be further to the right -- there are only so many Harvard-trained thought police to disperse around the country. But what matters for policy is the national news. And there is no way that the national news or the elite papers report NAM crimes or that TV shows depict NAM offenders at anywhere near their proportion of offenses. Coloring The News settled that matter pretty definitively.
Obama Stalinism paranoia
Question: did Saul Alinsky work with Communists? (Answer: YES)
Question: is Obama a student of Saul Alinsky? (Answer: YES)
These are not marginal associations. They go to the core of worldview and tactics. Obama has not repudiated Alinskyite "community organizing", he has embraced it!
You simply have not dug into Obama's background and as a consequence your view of Obama is highly selective and wishful. Who is Frank Marshall Davis? Who sent Obama?
Remember that there were plenty of intelligent Communists and they were not good stewards of the economy! I'd *much* rather have a capitalist/nationalist of moderately above average intelligence than a highly intelligent racial agitator as prez.
If the natural instincts of elite leftist whites were to revolt against, ignore, politically separate from, or subjugate NAMs, as you insist
I think you misunderstand me. The natural instincts of all non-NAMs -- left, right, elite or not -- are indeed to socially separate from NAMs to reduce victimization and taxation. That's what gated communities, private schools, and the state of Montana are all about.
But I never said that *leftist* whites are revolting against, ignoring, or subjugating NAMs. Far from it! What I said is that a) NAMs are incapable of organizing themselves, b) it is useless to attempt to reason with them as they will go along with whatever standards white society sets, and c) the key to changing attitudes/policies is to go after leftist whites, who are the NAM enablers.
Question: did Saul Alinsky work with Communists? (Answer: YES)
Question: is Obama a student of Saul Alinsky? (Answer: YES)
These are not marginal associations. They go to the core of worldview and tactics. Obama has not repudiated Alinskyite "community organizing", he has embraced it!
You simply have not dug into Obama's background and as a consequence your view of Obama is highly selective and wishful. Who is Frank Marshall Davis? Who sent Obama?
Remember that there were plenty of intelligent Communists and they were not good stewards of the economy! I'd *much* rather have a capitalist/nationalist of moderately above average intelligence than a highly intelligent racial agitator as prez.
If the natural instincts of elite leftist whites were to revolt against, ignore, politically separate from, or subjugate NAMs, as you insist
I think you misunderstand me. The natural instincts of all non-NAMs -- left, right, elite or not -- are indeed to socially separate from NAMs to reduce victimization and taxation. That's what gated communities, private schools, and the state of Montana are all about.
But I never said that *leftist* whites are revolting against, ignoring, or subjugating NAMs. Far from it! What I said is that a) NAMs are incapable of organizing themselves, b) it is useless to attempt to reason with them as they will go along with whatever standards white society sets, and c) the key to changing attitudes/policies is to go after leftist whites, who are the NAM enablers.
As for McCain, whatever else you can say about McCain -- and I can say plenty -- at least when encountering a situation in which six blacks attack a white from behind and kick him in the head till he's unconscious and bleeding, McCain's first instinct is not to bring up "institutional racism".
Jay, basically what this boils down to is something I've been trying to articulate for sometime.
Do you remember that post which Razib had up a while back which talked about his visit to Bangladesh? Everyone was relaxing till his true believer uncle said that he was coming over. Quickly everyone moved around and the women retreated into back rooms and everyone put on a pious facade, to satisfy this Islamic inquisitor.
Now, most likely everyone in that room besides Razib was "Muslim" in the sense that they went along with the stuff. But they weren't *true believers*. They didn't spend their free cycles on it, it wasn't a topic of emphasis for them.
The problem is that for those who *did* think about it, it became a tool for bullying. Once nonsense about Allah or PC becomes the moral true north that everyone has to genuflect to, you naturally produce a priest class that exploits this true north. In Islamic countries, you can win any argument by being more fundamentalist, more holy. Today in the West, you can win any argument by framing your opponent as racist and using accepted theological arguments as buttress ("institutionally racist", "disparate impact").
Obama may not have studied at a madrassah as a child, but he certainly studied at one as an adult -- namely Harvard Law, which trained him to be a "civil rights lawyer".
What is a civil rights lawyer? It is someone who uses PC to gain cash for himself and bully whites into being first victimized by NAMs and then taxed to support them. It is basically as close to pure evil as you can get, but of course people perceive it as "good" as the Church still controls the airwaves.
When I think "Barack Obama", I think:
1) PC true believer (civil rights lawyer)
2) racial agitator & rabble rouser (Wright, community organizer)
3) corrupt Chicago politician (Rezko)
4) domestic terrorist & Communist sympathizer (Ayers)
5) criminal enabler (supports the Jena Six, recruiting felons to vote)
I definitely *do not* think "competent technocrat". I am amazed that you have bought into this illusion. What has Obama ever accomplished to make you believe that he has any executive competence whatsoever? Has he ever run a business, invented a technology, or really done anything of note outside the racial spoils system?
No, he has not. And since his power base comes from the PC taboo, his presidency will be focused upon building up that power base. Mark my words.
Do you remember that post which Razib had up a while back which talked about his visit to Bangladesh? Everyone was relaxing till his true believer uncle said that he was coming over. Quickly everyone moved around and the women retreated into back rooms and everyone put on a pious facade, to satisfy this Islamic inquisitor.
Now, most likely everyone in that room besides Razib was "Muslim" in the sense that they went along with the stuff. But they weren't *true believers*. They didn't spend their free cycles on it, it wasn't a topic of emphasis for them.
The problem is that for those who *did* think about it, it became a tool for bullying. Once nonsense about Allah or PC becomes the moral true north that everyone has to genuflect to, you naturally produce a priest class that exploits this true north. In Islamic countries, you can win any argument by being more fundamentalist, more holy. Today in the West, you can win any argument by framing your opponent as racist and using accepted theological arguments as buttress ("institutionally racist", "disparate impact").
Obama may not have studied at a madrassah as a child, but he certainly studied at one as an adult -- namely Harvard Law, which trained him to be a "civil rights lawyer".
What is a civil rights lawyer? It is someone who uses PC to gain cash for himself and bully whites into being first victimized by NAMs and then taxed to support them. It is basically as close to pure evil as you can get, but of course people perceive it as "good" as the Church still controls the airwaves.
When I think "Barack Obama", I think:
1) PC true believer (civil rights lawyer)
2) racial agitator & rabble rouser (Wright, community organizer)
3) corrupt Chicago politician (Rezko)
4) domestic terrorist & Communist sympathizer (Ayers)
5) criminal enabler (supports the Jena Six, recruiting felons to vote)
I definitely *do not* think "competent technocrat". I am amazed that you have bought into this illusion. What has Obama ever accomplished to make you believe that he has any executive competence whatsoever? Has he ever run a business, invented a technology, or really done anything of note outside the racial spoils system?
No, he has not. And since his power base comes from the PC taboo, his presidency will be focused upon building up that power base. Mark my words.
Of course this sounds terrible by modern standards, but it must be recognized that NAMs can only be made into sympathetic figures by leftist whites, working overtime to hide stuff like this from the national news. The reality of what NAMs bring is extremely ugly and barbaric.
Muslim men from the swarthy nations commit all the terrorism, while little white grannies commit none of it. No one believes otherwise. No one.
But look! Burbridge in this very thread is making the standard "overlap/equality" argument about how whites can be terrorists too -- don't you remember those IRA and abortion clinic bombers, after all?
This overlap/equality casuistry always comes back to the axiom of equality. "Oh you want to stop Muslim immigration? Sounds like something a NAZI would do. And we know Nazis were bad because...".
Attacking the axiom of equality is striking the root. Everything else is just lopping off branches.
Elite and non-elite whites do not want to socially separate from blacks.
I think that is incorrect. If you look at their social and housing purchases, they want to stay far away from NAMs. They just don't want to be called on it by the media guilt complex.
Muslim men from the swarthy nations commit all the terrorism, while little white grannies commit none of it. No one believes otherwise. No one.
But look! Burbridge in this very thread is making the standard "overlap/equality" argument about how whites can be terrorists too -- don't you remember those IRA and abortion clinic bombers, after all?
This overlap/equality casuistry always comes back to the axiom of equality. "Oh you want to stop Muslim immigration? Sounds like something a NAZI would do. And we know Nazis were bad because...".
Attacking the axiom of equality is striking the root. Everything else is just lopping off branches.
Elite and non-elite whites do not want to socially separate from blacks.
I think that is incorrect. If you look at their social and housing purchases, they want to stay far away from NAMs. They just don't want to be called on it by the media guilt complex.
Thus, as a group, NAMs can be ignored from a messaging perspective. The only people that need to be convinced are leftist whites. NAMs cannot be convinced, but this doesn't matter. Their behavior is entirely a function of what whites sanction. In a strong white society which unapologetically enforces white mores, the illegitimacy and crime rates stay down.
Alternatively, you have a society in which leftist whites allow the natural NAM phenotype to emerge -- viz. rap at the top of the charts, NBA and NFL players on TV, lyrics with "fuck the police", Soulja Girl and James Broadnax, and so on.
Since NAMs will go with whatever the larger society tells them to go with, they are meaningless from an ideological standpoint. The leftist whites are their real power base, the NAMs are meaningless except as shock troops and guilt objects.
Alternatively, you have a society in which leftist whites allow the natural NAM phenotype to emerge -- viz. rap at the top of the charts, NBA and NFL players on TV, lyrics with "fuck the police", Soulja Girl and James Broadnax, and so on.
Since NAMs will go with whatever the larger society tells them to go with, they are meaningless from an ideological standpoint. The leftist whites are their real power base, the NAMs are meaningless except as shock troops and guilt objects.
neoconservative rule is allowed to continue
First, neoconservative rule will continue whether Obama is elected or not. Did you see his speech at AIPAC?
Second, I personally would rather have the govt. focused on fighting possibly imaginary enemies overseas rather than attacking genuinely imaginary enemies within. If the choice is between status quo on Iraq and PC vs. massive drawdown of troops (= US defeat) and massive upswing in PC at home, that's a no brainer.
I believe these two facts (IQ and epistemology) predict the efficacy of the executive branch
This is perhaps the point I disagree with most strongly. How can you possibly say that his epistemology is good? Obama will never accept h-bd factors in any policy decision. He will not accept, for example, that the mortgage crisis was the predictable result of threatening banks with lawsuits unless they made bad loans to minorities. He will not accept that income inequality is rising primarily because millions of illiterate Hispanics are streaming into the country. He will not accept that hospitals are going bankrupt all over California because of Hispanic immigration. He will not accept that the problem of crime in America is disproportionately a black and Hispanic problem.
In short, Obama's epistemology is irrevocably and fatally flawed. This is a left creationist, period point blank.
Not only is he a true believer in a pack of lies, he is also an experienced rabble rouser. His whole shtick is rousing groups of blacks to angrily demand things from whites. That's what community organizing is about. He's now generalized those tactics to also pull in white progressives into his shock troops. I mean, this guy organizes DDOS attacks on people who disagree with him! Just you wait till he can assemble his team of Red Guards, his "Service Nation".
global warming...that are already factually proven
A digression, but I'd suggest reading climateaudit.org. I think extremely serious concerns have been raised about multiproxies and the hockey stick, and CO2 as a lagging rather than leading indicator -- and that neither Mann nor Hansen have been willing to release source code and data. I haven't spent the time to seriously dig into the area, but until I do I don't want to hear about the "consensus" from anyone who doesn't have a PhD in atmospheric physics, as I have a number of technical questions :)
Did these powerful, novel scientific demonstrations do absolutely anything to reduce belief in creationism? The answer is ?no?.
But of course they did over time. Belief in creationism is far weaker today than it was in Darwin's time.
NAMs, who are already approaching 30% of the population, are NEVER going to accept any kind of evidence that shows that their natu
More....
First, neoconservative rule will continue whether Obama is elected or not. Did you see his speech at AIPAC?
Second, I personally would rather have the govt. focused on fighting possibly imaginary enemies overseas rather than attacking genuinely imaginary enemies within. If the choice is between status quo on Iraq and PC vs. massive drawdown of troops (= US defeat) and massive upswing in PC at home, that's a no brainer.
I believe these two facts (IQ and epistemology) predict the efficacy of the executive branch
This is perhaps the point I disagree with most strongly. How can you possibly say that his epistemology is good? Obama will never accept h-bd factors in any policy decision. He will not accept, for example, that the mortgage crisis was the predictable result of threatening banks with lawsuits unless they made bad loans to minorities. He will not accept that income inequality is rising primarily because millions of illiterate Hispanics are streaming into the country. He will not accept that hospitals are going bankrupt all over California because of Hispanic immigration. He will not accept that the problem of crime in America is disproportionately a black and Hispanic problem.
In short, Obama's epistemology is irrevocably and fatally flawed. This is a left creationist, period point blank.
Not only is he a true believer in a pack of lies, he is also an experienced rabble rouser. His whole shtick is rousing groups of blacks to angrily demand things from whites. That's what community organizing is about. He's now generalized those tactics to also pull in white progressives into his shock troops. I mean, this guy organizes DDOS attacks on people who disagree with him! Just you wait till he can assemble his team of Red Guards, his "Service Nation".
global warming...that are already factually proven
A digression, but I'd suggest reading climateaudit.org. I think extremely serious concerns have been raised about multiproxies and the hockey stick, and CO2 as a lagging rather than leading indicator -- and that neither Mann nor Hansen have been willing to release source code and data. I haven't spent the time to seriously dig into the area, but until I do I don't want to hear about the "consensus" from anyone who doesn't have a PhD in atmospheric physics, as I have a number of technical questions :)
Did these powerful, novel scientific demonstrations do absolutely anything to reduce belief in creationism? The answer is ?no?.
But of course they did over time. Belief in creationism is far weaker today than it was in Darwin's time.
NAMs, who are already approaching 30% of the population, are NEVER going to accept any kind of evidence that shows that their natu
More....
ben g:
1. the concern sparking this is privacy, not hysterical anti-HBD.
The point is that a precedent has been established for taking down previously public data to avoid negative PR.
2. the difference between the democrats and republicans on HBD is marginal at best.
No, and I actually presented links to the contrary. You have only bald assertion.
With all due respect, I don't want to debate with you as it will be the same outcome as in the EDAR thread and the Epigone thread.
1) I state something ("evidence for h-bd is overwhelming" or "h-bd research is currently hampered by regulation") and provide links
2) You deny it
3) I rain down even more links
4) You eventually grudgingly admit that you don't know the area
If you are going to claim that the "right and left have the same attitudes towards h-bd", the same situation will recur. All that needs to be done is to hit FreeRepublic and DailyKos, HotAir and Eschaton, and a few other representative right & left blogs. Pull down recent threads on race, IQ, Watson, Summers, etc. Compare counts of comments in support vs. comments against. That will be quantitative and there will be no contest.
If you have a counterargument, support it with references. You can also state that you disagree, but don't have the time to find them. What you can't do is make assertions without references.
1. the concern sparking this is privacy, not hysterical anti-HBD.
The point is that a precedent has been established for taking down previously public data to avoid negative PR.
2. the difference between the democrats and republicans on HBD is marginal at best.
No, and I actually presented links to the contrary. You have only bald assertion.
With all due respect, I don't want to debate with you as it will be the same outcome as in the EDAR thread and the Epigone thread.
1) I state something ("evidence for h-bd is overwhelming" or "h-bd research is currently hampered by regulation") and provide links
2) You deny it
3) I rain down even more links
4) You eventually grudgingly admit that you don't know the area
If you are going to claim that the "right and left have the same attitudes towards h-bd", the same situation will recur. All that needs to be done is to hit FreeRepublic and DailyKos, HotAir and Eschaton, and a few other representative right & left blogs. Pull down recent threads on race, IQ, Watson, Summers, etc. Compare counts of comments in support vs. comments against. That will be quantitative and there will be no contest.
If you have a counterargument, support it with references. You can also state that you disagree, but don't have the time to find them. What you can't do is make assertions without references.
old dope peddler:
So the evidence that Palin is not beholden to a PC stance on race is a her telling one joke
I'm basing my impression on more than that. See VDare article for more. Her instincts are nationalistic.
Boundless optimism
Not boundless by any means. She's still a politician. But IMO she's (by far) the best of the available choices.
What is considered anti-PC in discussions of race is talking about personal responsiblity as opposed to government invervention in addressing the outcomes of different races, but that is completely orthogonal to acknowledging HBD.
I disagree. Note that as lies about h-bd attained critical mass, that shifted the spectrum of argument to the left -- no dynamite needed. Conversely, if h-bd knowledge became widespread, the fact that government intervention does not close gaps would be undeniable and the spectrum would shift to the right. Now liberals would argue that personal responsibility might make NAMs contribute at the same level, while conservatives would take the strong h-bd view that the differences cannot be eliminated but at best ameliorated.
Basically, Republican support for h-bd denial is as thin/grudging as Democrat support for capitalism. For someone with the time to do it, this statement can be easily justified by the sentiment analysis methods described above.
So the evidence that Palin is not beholden to a PC stance on race is a her telling one joke
I'm basing my impression on more than that. See VDare article for more. Her instincts are nationalistic.
Boundless optimism
Not boundless by any means. She's still a politician. But IMO she's (by far) the best of the available choices.
What is considered anti-PC in discussions of race is talking about personal responsiblity as opposed to government invervention in addressing the outcomes of different races, but that is completely orthogonal to acknowledging HBD.
I disagree. Note that as lies about h-bd attained critical mass, that shifted the spectrum of argument to the left -- no dynamite needed. Conversely, if h-bd knowledge became widespread, the fact that government intervention does not close gaps would be undeniable and the spectrum would shift to the right. Now liberals would argue that personal responsibility might make NAMs contribute at the same level, while conservatives would take the strong h-bd view that the differences cannot be eliminated but at best ameliorated.
Basically, Republican support for h-bd denial is as thin/grudging as Democrat support for capitalism. For someone with the time to do it, this statement can be easily justified by the sentiment analysis methods described above.
One more comment and I'll check back tomorrow...
Any perusal of a comments section will reveal FAR more supporters of nature/Bell Curve positions on right-wing rather than left-wing blogs. Even your more PC-ish Jim Manzi types are a far cry from grand inquisitors like David Neiwert.
Consider this thread, for example:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/28/the-wright-stuff-echoes-of-the-bell-curve/
Compare to any Crooked Timber or Eschaton thread on the Bell Curve. You could easily make this quantitative by simply scripting a few blogs. With bag of words plus link structure, you can calculate political orientation and do some basic sentiment analysis (i.e. scoring comments as "yay Bell Curve" or "boo Bell Curve" and blogs as left or right wing).
The results will, I think, be fairly obvious. Similar conclusions hold for threads discussing Watson and Summers (who are nominal Democrats, but well to the right of their party on this issue).
Point is that the parties do differ on this issue. Opposition to h-bd is a core tenet of the left, while it is a surface issue on the right.
Any perusal of a comments section will reveal FAR more supporters of nature/Bell Curve positions on right-wing rather than left-wing blogs. Even your more PC-ish Jim Manzi types are a far cry from grand inquisitors like David Neiwert.
Consider this thread, for example:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/28/the-wright-stuff-echoes-of-the-bell-curve/
Compare to any Crooked Timber or Eschaton thread on the Bell Curve. You could easily make this quantitative by simply scripting a few blogs. With bag of words plus link structure, you can calculate political orientation and do some basic sentiment analysis (i.e. scoring comments as "yay Bell Curve" or "boo Bell Curve" and blogs as left or right wing).
The results will, I think, be fairly obvious. Similar conclusions hold for threads discussing Watson and Summers (who are nominal Democrats, but well to the right of their party on this issue).
Point is that the parties do differ on this issue. Opposition to h-bd is a core tenet of the left, while it is a surface issue on the right.
By the way, I think the Wikipedia entry on exactly how Darwin's ideas gained widespread currency is extremely useful as an example of a nonviolent spread of a politically dangerous idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_creation-evolution_controversy#Creation.2Fevolution_controversy_in_the_age_of_Darwin
Given today's communication system, it is quite possible that the propagation and pondering of h-bd critical ideas will cause changes at a more rapid clip than in Darwin's time...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_creation-evolution_controversy#Creation.2Fevolution_controversy_in_the_age_of_Darwin
Given today's communication system, it is quite possible that the propagation and pondering of h-bd critical ideas will cause changes at a more rapid clip than in Darwin's time...
Next, you seem to think that understanding the genetic roots of phenotypic differences between population groups will have dramatic effects - in particular, undermine people's core political beliefs - if allowed to. But in fact it will have minuscule effect...you can't shift such strongly held, emotionally held beliefs with anything less than dynamite. And I don't mean _rhetorical_ dynamite.
I have never said changes will occur overnight. But ideas matter in the long run. Both Darwin's truth and Boas' lies shifted strongly held emotional beliefs over time. I don't think Darwin's beliefs needed a war to get to the Scopes trial and beyond.
I might also point out that in addition to rhetorical and actual dynamite, there is economic dynamite. Any new scientific discovery has engineering applications.
I have never said changes will occur overnight. But ideas matter in the long run. Both Darwin's truth and Boas' lies shifted strongly held emotional beliefs over time. I don't think Darwin's beliefs needed a war to get to the Scopes trial and beyond.
I might also point out that in addition to rhetorical and actual dynamite, there is economic dynamite. Any new scientific discovery has engineering applications.
Palin, if elected, will be spending her time going to the funerals of foreign dictators, rather than making
key decisions relating to scientific controversies
Oh, I agree with regards to Palin. But I think Obama is much more of a true believer in PC. He was a civil rights lawyer and community organizer -- you don't get more involved with the church than that.
Regarding whether Palin will be in a solely ceremonial VP role...I think there is room for disagreement on that, especially given McCain's age, history of torture, and known health problems.
key decisions relating to scientific controversies
Oh, I agree with regards to Palin. But I think Obama is much more of a true believer in PC. He was a civil rights lawyer and community organizer -- you don't get more involved with the church than that.
Regarding whether Palin will be in a solely ceremonial VP role...I think there is room for disagreement on that, especially given McCain's age, history of torture, and known health problems.
Second, the idea that we'll see draconian regulation of genetic data is highly unlikely: researchers will _not_ like it
Greg, but this very thread is about a major NIH restriction on genetic data. Most datasets involving phenotype data are much more locked down than the open bulk downloads of Hapmap. There are all kinds of onerous data security requirements -- here for example is the *current* policy on genomic data from dbGAP:
http://dbgap.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/aa/wga.cgi?login=&page=login
Who can apply?
NIH is committed to respecting the privacy and intentions of research participants with regard to how data pertaining to their individual information is used. Data access is therefore intended only for scientific investigators pursuing research questions that are consistent with the informed consent agreements provided by individual research participants. Furthermore, investigators provided access will be expected to utilize appropriate data security measures.
How does one apply?
Researchers may now begin requesting individual-level genotype and phenotype data from dbGaP. Please follow request procedures for Principal Investigators and Signing Officials.
What is an authorized user within the data access request system?
Authorized users are the Principal Investigators who may request data sets for specific research uses, the Institutional Signing Officials from the PIs home organization who certify and submit such requests, and the NIH staff who will review and process requests (e.g., members of the Data Access Committees).
Researchers certainly don't like this. It is an enormous pain to get access to Framingham's anonymized data. It takes months and months and IRB clearance.
And this is before any political pressure has been brought to bear.
Greg, but this very thread is about a major NIH restriction on genetic data. Most datasets involving phenotype data are much more locked down than the open bulk downloads of Hapmap. There are all kinds of onerous data security requirements -- here for example is the *current* policy on genomic data from dbGAP:
http://dbgap.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/aa/wga.cgi?login=&page=login
Who can apply?
NIH is committed to respecting the privacy and intentions of research participants with regard to how data pertaining to their individual information is used. Data access is therefore intended only for scientific investigators pursuing research questions that are consistent with the informed consent agreements provided by individual research participants. Furthermore, investigators provided access will be expected to utilize appropriate data security measures.
How does one apply?
Researchers may now begin requesting individual-level genotype and phenotype data from dbGaP. Please follow request procedures for Principal Investigators and Signing Officials.
What is an authorized user within the data access request system?
Authorized users are the Principal Investigators who may request data sets for specific research uses, the Institutional Signing Officials from the PIs home organization who certify and submit such requests, and the NIH staff who will review and process requests (e.g., members of the Data Access Committees).
Researchers certainly don't like this. It is an enormous pain to get access to Framingham's anonymized data. It takes months and months and IRB clearance.
And this is before any political pressure has been brought to bear.
Michael Barone
PERHAPS because I'm congenitally optimistic, I think The Bell Curve's message is already widely understood, by the American people if not by the elite. Ordinary citizens know that some people are in significant ways more intelligent than others, that only a relative few are extremely bright or extremely dull, and that intelligence bunches up at the center. They know that intelligence is not randomly distributed among members of different identifiable racial and ethnic groups. These are lessons that are taught in everyday life, and you have to undergo a pretty sophisticated indoctrination and enlist in a tightly disciplined ideological army to believe otherwise.
Now, all of these people are still alive and still Republicans today. Have they been beaten back and cowed by PC? Yes. But I hope we can agree that passion for the nurturist worldview is stronger on the left than the right. I don't think that's a controversial premise, though this might be the root of our disagreement.
PERHAPS because I'm congenitally optimistic, I think The Bell Curve's message is already widely understood, by the American people if not by the elite. Ordinary citizens know that some people are in significant ways more intelligent than others, that only a relative few are extremely bright or extremely dull, and that intelligence bunches up at the center. They know that intelligence is not randomly distributed among members of different identifiable racial and ethnic groups. These are lessons that are taught in everyday life, and you have to undergo a pretty sophisticated indoctrination and enlist in a tightly disciplined ideological army to believe otherwise.
Now, all of these people are still alive and still Republicans today. Have they been beaten back and cowed by PC? Yes. But I hope we can agree that passion for the nurturist worldview is stronger on the left than the right. I don't think that's a controversial premise, though this might be the root of our disagreement.
Michael Ledeen
”Never,” my AEI colleague Michael Ledeen observes, ”has such a moderate book attracted such an immoderate response.”
James Q Wilson
In an ideal world, the book Herrnstein and Murray have written would pass into public consciousness with scarcely a ripple. "Of course," readers would say, "we know that people differ in intelligence and we know, from having watched them in school, on the job, and in the neighborhood that this difference will make a difference in how they behave." And then they would add: "But we are Americans, and in America it is your individual talents and inclinations, and only those, that count. So we don't have to change anything we are doing as individuals."
But this is not an ideal world, and so some conservative racists and some liberal multiculturalists (who are racists of a different kind) will make the wrong kind of fuss about this penetrating and magisterial book. Shame on them
Michael Novak
The Herrnstein--Murray findings have violently shifted the ground from under these intellectual foundations; hence the loud wailing and gnashing of teeth. Hence, as well, rapid efforts to shovel the earth back under the wobbly walls. Hence, finally, the hysterical efforts to assassinate the messengers. Their message cannot be true because much more is at stake than a particular set of arguments from psychological science. A this-worldly eschatological hope is at stake. The sin attributed to Herrnstein and Murray is theological: they destroy hope.
”Never,” my AEI colleague Michael Ledeen observes, ”has such a moderate book attracted such an immoderate response.”
James Q Wilson
In an ideal world, the book Herrnstein and Murray have written would pass into public consciousness with scarcely a ripple. "Of course," readers would say, "we know that people differ in intelligence and we know, from having watched them in school, on the job, and in the neighborhood that this difference will make a difference in how they behave." And then they would add: "But we are Americans, and in America it is your individual talents and inclinations, and only those, that count. So we don't have to change anything we are doing as individuals."
But this is not an ideal world, and so some conservative racists and some liberal multiculturalists (who are racists of a different kind) will make the wrong kind of fuss about this penetrating and magisterial book. Shame on them
Michael Novak
The Herrnstein--Murray findings have violently shifted the ground from under these intellectual foundations; hence the loud wailing and gnashing of teeth. Hence, as well, rapid efforts to shovel the earth back under the wobbly walls. Hence, finally, the hysterical efforts to assassinate the messengers. Their message cannot be true because much more is at stake than a particular set of arguments from psychological science. A this-worldly eschatological hope is at stake. The sin attributed to Herrnstein and Murray is theological: they destroy hope.
Greg --
I will first note that Henry seems to agree that restrictions are a topic of discussion. I welcome a calm, factually based discussion with you on this. I'd like to go premise by premise, starting with this one.
the idea that there is some difference in the way that the two political parties would react to controversial research results in this area is simply false
Republicans were more likely to defend the Bell Curve when it came out. Evidence:
Thomas Sowell
The Bell Curve is a very sober, very thorough, and very honest book (1.) - on a subject where sobriety, thoroughness, and honesty are only likely to provoke cries of outrage. Its authors, Charles Murray and the late Professor Richard J. Herrnstein of Harvard, must have known that writing about differences in intelligence would provoke shrill denunciations from some quarters. But they may not have expected quite so many, quite so loudly or venomously, and from such a wide spectrum of people who should know better.
Jonah Goldberg
And that gets us to the heart of why this study is more bogus than a $6 dollar Rolex. Virtually all of the characteristics the authors attribute to the right can be equally laid at the feet of the left. If you think left-wingers have a high tolerance for ambiguity, tell one it's not clear that Head Start does any good at all. Talk to them about racial differences. Say: "Even if gay marriage were worth doing, there would be many devastating negative consequences." Mention that a factory closing can be a good thing. Tell them it's okay for economists to put a specific monetary value on a human life. Tell them intelligence tests measure intelligence.
and Goldberg again:
My first major lesson in this phenomenon came when I was a researcher at the American Enterprise Institute at the time The Bell Curve came out. Murray, the coauthor of the book and an AEI scholar, was treated to a shellacking in the national press that has not been replicated since. Television networks introduced their segments by showing clips of Hitler screaming and mobs sieg-heiling at Nuremberg rallies. He was called a eugenicist and fascist in code — and in plain language — a thousand times over. His book pointed out a fact that the most entrenched liberals consider sacred scripture — that there are inequalities between the races-but he differed from orthodoxy on the causes and solutions. It is the wonder of liberal double standards that it is racist to say there are differences between the races and it is racist to say there aren’t.
I will first note that Henry seems to agree that restrictions are a topic of discussion. I welcome a calm, factually based discussion with you on this. I'd like to go premise by premise, starting with this one.
the idea that there is some difference in the way that the two political parties would react to controversial research results in this area is simply false
Republicans were more likely to defend the Bell Curve when it came out. Evidence:
Thomas Sowell
The Bell Curve is a very sober, very thorough, and very honest book (1.) - on a subject where sobriety, thoroughness, and honesty are only likely to provoke cries of outrage. Its authors, Charles Murray and the late Professor Richard J. Herrnstein of Harvard, must have known that writing about differences in intelligence would provoke shrill denunciations from some quarters. But they may not have expected quite so many, quite so loudly or venomously, and from such a wide spectrum of people who should know better.
Jonah Goldberg
And that gets us to the heart of why this study is more bogus than a $6 dollar Rolex. Virtually all of the characteristics the authors attribute to the right can be equally laid at the feet of the left. If you think left-wingers have a high tolerance for ambiguity, tell one it's not clear that Head Start does any good at all. Talk to them about racial differences. Say: "Even if gay marriage were worth doing, there would be many devastating negative consequences." Mention that a factory closing can be a good thing. Tell them it's okay for economists to put a specific monetary value on a human life. Tell them intelligence tests measure intelligence.
and Goldberg again:
My first major lesson in this phenomenon came when I was a researcher at the American Enterprise Institute at the time The Bell Curve came out. Murray, the coauthor of the book and an AEI scholar, was treated to a shellacking in the national press that has not been replicated since. Television networks introduced their segments by showing clips of Hitler screaming and mobs sieg-heiling at Nuremberg rallies. He was called a eugenicist and fascist in code — and in plain language — a thousand times over. His book pointed out a fact that the most entrenched liberals consider sacred scripture — that there are inequalities between the races-but he differed from orthodoxy on the causes and solutions. It is the wonder of liberal double standards that it is racist to say there are differences between the races and it is racist to say there aren’t.
Let me basically sum it up like this -- those who believe Sarah Palin is a right creationist (= doesn't think humans evolved before migration from Africa) think, justifiably, that she won't be as enthusiastic about taking evolution's side if there's a showdown with JC's supporters.
Similarly, those of us who think Obama is a left creationist (= doesn't think humans evolved after migration from Africa) speculate, justifiably, that he won't be as enthusiastic about taking evolution's side if there's a showdown with PC's supporters.
Now, obviously what I'm talking about here is worldview and inference based on worldview. McCain is certainly pretty liberal on racial issues. But I don't think Palin is. She ripped into the community organizer shtick with gusto, which is not something that someone completely cowed by PC could get away with.
Similarly, those of us who think Obama is a left creationist (= doesn't think humans evolved after migration from Africa) speculate, justifiably, that he won't be as enthusiastic about taking evolution's side if there's a showdown with PC's supporters.
Now, obviously what I'm talking about here is worldview and inference based on worldview. McCain is certainly pretty liberal on racial issues. But I don't think Palin is. She ripped into the community organizer shtick with gusto, which is not something that someone completely cowed by PC could get away with.
All these restrictions on data access come from *within* the scientific community, not in response to the executive branch.
Well, I'd submit that the executive branch gets involved if the press coverage gets big enough. For example, from 2000:
http://www.genome.gov/10001391
At today's Medals of Science and Technology awards ceremony, the President will announce that he and Prime Minister Tony Blair have agreed on a statement of principle to ensure that discoveries from the human genome are used to advance human health. Their joint statement, to be issued in the United States and the United Kingdom today, applauds researchers who have made their human genome sequence data freely available to the global scientific community and calls upon others to follow their lead. The statement also acknowledges the importance of intellectual property protection as an incentive for the development of important, new, gene-based health care products.
The president is at the top of the org chart for all the Cabinet agencies. You're absolutely right that on a day-to-day or even year-to-year basis, presidents have plenty to do besides meddling in the internal details of cabinet affairs.
But if a "genomic Bell Curve" article came out -- and it was funded in part by NIH rather than the Pioneer Fund -- I think that right after the ritual condemnations of the researchers, attention would quickly turn to the bureaucrats who funded this "racist pseudoscience". And that would mean enormous heat from the executive to make sure this never happens again.
From a tactical standpoint, what this means is that savvy authors must *not* openly confront PC in any article that they publish. They need to put out the facts, establish the syllogism, and then put out some squid ink. Wring their hands, pledge their allegiance to the church, their apolitical nature, and their strident opposition to all forms of right-wing political ideology (contradiction intended :).
In the long term, that kind of Gramscian approach will work to erode the foundations of the PC church. In retrospect, the Hapmap might never have gotten funded if a "Bell Curve" type book had come out at that time. The opponents would have used the ensuing reaction to demagogue the Hapmap into oblivion as they had with the original HGDP. That would have changed the course of history -- genomics would have suffered a serious hit, and it's questionable whether the ongoing enormous capital investment in the space would be anywhere near what it is.
I think one conclusion is that *no researcher* in this area should allow his work to be branded a "new Bell Curve" as the game will be lost before it has begun. Open opposition is still infeasible. We need stealth mode for at least the next 5-10 years. But -- in my opinion -- we will be begrudged even that if a leftist admi
More....
Well, I'd submit that the executive branch gets involved if the press coverage gets big enough. For example, from 2000:
http://www.genome.gov/10001391
At today's Medals of Science and Technology awards ceremony, the President will announce that he and Prime Minister Tony Blair have agreed on a statement of principle to ensure that discoveries from the human genome are used to advance human health. Their joint statement, to be issued in the United States and the United Kingdom today, applauds researchers who have made their human genome sequence data freely available to the global scientific community and calls upon others to follow their lead. The statement also acknowledges the importance of intellectual property protection as an incentive for the development of important, new, gene-based health care products.
The president is at the top of the org chart for all the Cabinet agencies. You're absolutely right that on a day-to-day or even year-to-year basis, presidents have plenty to do besides meddling in the internal details of cabinet affairs.
But if a "genomic Bell Curve" article came out -- and it was funded in part by NIH rather than the Pioneer Fund -- I think that right after the ritual condemnations of the researchers, attention would quickly turn to the bureaucrats who funded this "racist pseudoscience". And that would mean enormous heat from the executive to make sure this never happens again.
From a tactical standpoint, what this means is that savvy authors must *not* openly confront PC in any article that they publish. They need to put out the facts, establish the syllogism, and then put out some squid ink. Wring their hands, pledge their allegiance to the church, their apolitical nature, and their strident opposition to all forms of right-wing political ideology (contradiction intended :).
In the long term, that kind of Gramscian approach will work to erode the foundations of the PC church. In retrospect, the Hapmap might never have gotten funded if a "Bell Curve" type book had come out at that time. The opponents would have used the ensuing reaction to demagogue the Hapmap into oblivion as they had with the original HGDP. That would have changed the course of history -- genomics would have suffered a serious hit, and it's questionable whether the ongoing enormous capital investment in the space would be anywhere near what it is.
I think one conclusion is that *no researcher* in this area should allow his work to be branded a "new Bell Curve" as the game will be lost before it has begun. Open opposition is still infeasible. We need stealth mode for at least the next 5-10 years. But -- in my opinion -- we will be begrudged even that if a leftist admi
More....
Just to make the point crystal clear:
NIH took down previously public data for PR reasons...to avoid the possibility of an extremely minor and theoretical fracas!!!
So can you imagine what would happen if it was neither minor nor theoretical? If NIH was blamed for the publication of a "new Bell Curve" by a team of "racist pseudoscientists"? Government agencies don't usually go out of business, but boy, the Secretary of Health and Human Services would be on the hot seat. I could imagine all kinds of onerous restrictions along the lines of Sarbanes-Oxley in the financial industry --
1) University logins required for access to public data
2) Heavy regulation -- locked down computers and restrictions on data transfer, enforced at the level of HIPAA and beyond.
3) License managers a la Matlab which phone home and centrally govern access to particular datasets.
4) Monitoring of all email and internet access of scientists working with "sensitive" data
5) Background checks (already required for work with hazardous agents)
Far more than this will happen. Just imagine the regulatory response to Sarbanes-Oxley combined with the furor over the Bell Curve.
Point: If Obama is elected, h-bd research can and likely will be crippled easily and openly.
NIH took down previously public data for PR reasons...to avoid the possibility of an extremely minor and theoretical fracas!!!
So can you imagine what would happen if it was neither minor nor theoretical? If NIH was blamed for the publication of a "new Bell Curve" by a team of "racist pseudoscientists"? Government agencies don't usually go out of business, but boy, the Secretary of Health and Human Services would be on the hot seat. I could imagine all kinds of onerous restrictions along the lines of Sarbanes-Oxley in the financial industry --
1) University logins required for access to public data
2) Heavy regulation -- locked down computers and restrictions on data transfer, enforced at the level of HIPAA and beyond.
3) License managers a la Matlab which phone home and centrally govern access to particular datasets.
4) Monitoring of all email and internet access of scientists working with "sensitive" data
5) Background checks (already required for work with hazardous agents)
Far more than this will happen. Just imagine the regulatory response to Sarbanes-Oxley combined with the furor over the Bell Curve.
Point: If Obama is elected, h-bd research can and likely will be crippled easily and openly.
NIH's reaction is completely hysterical, because for a compromise to occur:
a) the same person would need to be genotyped multiple times
b) at least one of those times would have to retain an identifier to their public identity
Otherwise concerns about privacy violation are entirely theoretical.
a) the same person would need to be genotyped multiple times
b) at least one of those times would have to retain an identifier to their public identity
Otherwise concerns about privacy violation are entirely theoretical.
This kind of precedent -- taking down previously public data -- is how it begins. See bolded sentence below.
Let us consider how an Obama admin might go about hamstringing h-bd research.
1) First, apply hate speech laws and laws against inciting racial hatred to a few key players. Make sure to dig up or even invent some personal dirt to keep the coverage of prosecution of these "racist pseudoscientist" even less sympathetic -- or simply do it Guantanamo style[a] with full confidence that the ACLU will pass (as they did with Heller). See also the "human rights commisisions" for an even more obvious example of how the left could use a nonjudicial approach .
2) Second, massive funding for dedicated opponents. Flood the zone with straight up Boasian fabrications, Gouldian bullshit and Lewontonian half truths.
3) Third, restrict access and *gathering* of large data sets to "approved responsible investigators" to prevent "genetic discrimination". All
you need to do is make regulatory overhead (e.g. IRB fees) high enough to price statistically significant studies out of the Pioneer Fund range. Patent fees are an example -- explicit discouragement by means of financial overhead.
4) Fourth, consult with top journals to inhbit publication of facts which could give aid and comfort to racists, much as the synthetic polio paper was almost scuttled for being an aid to terrorists.
Such restrictions are among those being contemplated. Who will fight them? Who will even know why they are being proposed? Who has ever fought a crackdown on "racists"?
[a] In retrospect, Guantanamo is actually a *bad* analogy -- it gets tons of bad press because it's housing the guilty, whereas the "extraordinary renditions" to human rights commissions get essentially no press at all because they're leftist persecutions of the innocent. The media isn't going to stick its neck out for "racists", ya know...
Let us consider how an Obama admin might go about hamstringing h-bd research.
1) First, apply hate speech laws and laws against inciting racial hatred to a few key players. Make sure to dig up or even invent some personal dirt to keep the coverage of prosecution of these "racist pseudoscientist" even less sympathetic -- or simply do it Guantanamo style[a] with full confidence that the ACLU will pass (as they did with Heller). See also the "human rights commisisions" for an even more obvious example of how the left could use a nonjudicial approach .
2) Second, massive funding for dedicated opponents. Flood the zone with straight up Boasian fabrications, Gouldian bullshit and Lewontonian half truths.
3) Third, restrict access and *gathering* of large data sets to "approved responsible investigators" to prevent "genetic discrimination". All
you need to do is make regulatory overhead (e.g. IRB fees) high enough to price statistically significant studies out of the Pioneer Fund range. Patent fees are an example -- explicit discouragement by means of financial overhead.
4) Fourth, consult with top journals to inhbit publication of facts which could give aid and comfort to racists, much as the synthetic polio paper was almost scuttled for being an aid to terrorists.
Such restrictions are among those being contemplated. Who will fight them? Who will even know why they are being proposed? Who has ever fought a crackdown on "racists"?
[a] In retrospect, Guantanamo is actually a *bad* analogy -- it gets tons of bad press because it's housing the guilty, whereas the "extraordinary renditions" to human rights commissions get essentially no press at all because they're leftist persecutions of the innocent. The media isn't going to stick its neck out for "racists", ya know...
Recent Comments