Tuesday, December 12. 2006
 How did any kids in the UK make it to adulthood without the help of The School Food Trust?
A quote from Battle of the Lunchbox at Spiked: So, we’re apparently so useless we can’t even work out when and how to make our kids’ lunches but somehow we have the time to wander around sourcing a variety of fruits. Nor does it stop at fruit. There are all sorts of interesting breads we should search for, too. Examples given to put in our children’s lunchboxes are pittas, bagels, baguettes, ciabatta, rice crackers, rolls, wraps - anything but the humble white loaf which somehow has assumed the moral status of heroin.
Your very generous tax dollars at work, Brits! But what if your kids don't like kiwis?
Sowell speaks out on the case now before the Supreme Court in which  students, both white and black, are suing school districts in Louisville and Seattle for denying them admittance to the schools of their choice on the basis of their race. The schools' motivation is not to remedy segregation, but rather to provide the "benefits of diversity" by making sure all schools in the system meet certain racial quotas for each group. What are those "compelling" benefits of "diversity"? They are as invisible as the proverbial emperor's new clothes. Yet everyone has to pretend to believe in those benefits, as they pretended to admire the naked emperor's wardrobe. Not only is there no hard evidence that mixing and matching black and white kids in school produces either educational or social benefits, there have been a number of studies of all-black schools whose educational performances equal or exceed the national average, even though most black schools fall far below the average... Look at it another way: Have black kids bussed into white schools had their test scores shoot up? No -- not even after decades of bussing.
Indeed, the whole "diversity" concept only arose AFTER it became abundantly clear that integration and busing had failed completely to improve the achievement of either black or white students, and in fact was correlated with a substantial decline in standards and performance. Needing some rationale to continue the experiment, the left created the concept of diversity - an ideal one, too, since its benefits can never be proved or disproved, only asserted as an article of faith. Anyways, the Court should reach a decision by late spring. Above, the author of 1954's Brown v. Board of Ed.
Crittenden's comments are perfect. Hilarious, too.
Sunday, December 10. 2006
Britain's clever triangulator, who learned how to do it at the feet of the master, Bill Clinton, delivered a much-appreciated speech on immigration. Excerpts, plus the whole thing, on video at Flopping Aces (h/t, Sisu). But was it really a speech which abandoned the notion of multiculturalism? Auster doubts it, as do I. I think he is trying to straddle the fence. Nevertheless, the speech was right. But like all talented politicians, you never know what they believe - if anything: everything they say is part of a game. Addendum. Our commenter says: You don't really even need to bother parsing his words, Bird Dog - net immigration has increased from 40k per year under the last conservative govt. to 250k at least under labor, and that's with a higher rate of emigration - many of them Brits running away from the multicultural paradise Labor is trying to create. Under such circumstances, "multiculturalism" is not just one policy approach that can be embraced or rejected, it's a fait accompli.
This is one heck of a subject for a Sunday in Advent, but I need to get this off my chest to feel better. When a nation decides it needs to go to war, it has to be ruthless, barbaric, and indifferent to life and property. We learned in Vietnam, and Russia learned in Afghanistan, that careful, "hearts and minds" warfare does not work. I am not saying that we should have, but we could have nuked Hanoi and ended the thing right there. The US will not carpet-bomb, or fire-bomb Fallujah - or Baghdad. Or Tehran. Surely not nuke any place in the Middle East. Why not? Because we have become too civilized for total warfare. And because the enemy is dispersed and hidden amongst an innocent, and even largely supportive-of-freedom, population. When we bombed Cologne, Berlin, and Hiroshima, we did not worry about these things. If the war in Iraq were a true war, we would have already bombed Iran, which is supporting the "insurgents." This is not a "war" in Iraq: it's a magnified "police action," or "surgical action," with the best of intentions - but now the enemy is those who oppose a free Iraq - and not the US, really: they want to kill eachother. We are just in the way, like sitting ducks, or like cops chasing mobsters in Chicago. Same in Afghanistan - another civil war, sort-of, in which the Taliban mobsters appear to be entirely intact, and the government quite dependent on outside military and financial support. No-one has figured out how to deal with such situations militarily - as long as we decide not to use total war methods. Or as long as we do not have the patience for long-term military quasi-police-type presence, as we have in South Korea and Bosnia. But no-one has figured out how to deal with it diplomatically, either. There is no effective in-between, which is why Darfur is ignored by the world: it's like an event of nature, a hurricane or tsunami. Except that it is evil human nature instead of weather. Compassionate warfare in the Third World - or in any world - does not work. Power is useless if you will not use it, and if everyone knows that you won't. And knows that your own country's press will wear you down, if the guerilla/terrorists don't. I sure do not have the solution, nor do I wish to see fine, innocent Iraqis - or Iranians - killed. All I know is that soldiers must die, but I hate to see them killed when we handcuff ourselves with compassion and civilized ideas, and the opponent does not. War with rules is an oxymoron, and the Jihadists know this as well as the Japanese and the Germans did.
Thursday, December 7. 2006
Well, it's time again for my Christmas Wish List. And now that we finally have a Dem congress, maybe I will get everything I want. Here it is: 1. Free money. Lots of it. Why can't the government just print some extra and mail it to us? Why? What would it cost them? Those stingy Repubs just won't do it. Grinches. I'd bet it costs less than 1/10th of a penny to print a ten thousand dollar bill. And at a 50% federal tax rate, they would get $5000 back for a $.001 investment in one year. How bad is that? 2. Free "Legal Care." You have no idea how much my companies spend waste spend on Law Departments and New York legal fees. Millions. Not fair in a country where rule of law is the essence of the nation. How can a person protect their rights and freedom without free legal care? I mean real lawyers, not those Legal Aid pony-tail types with holes in their socks, beer and pastrami on their breath, and a plea bargain attitude. 3. Free Dental Care. Do you know what my periodontist wants to fix a bad tooth? More than I pay my tax accountant. You age, and the teeth just don't hold up. It's not fair. Gimme money. 4. Free college and grad school. Got kids? Grandkids? Someone has to pay the bill. Why me? These are after-tax dollars, and it hurts. Let Uncle Sam pay the bill, if he wants everyone to be overeducated cube dwellers, squinting at screens like I am doing right now. 5. Free Chateau Margaux '89. Hey - that could be a slogan, like "Free Mumia" or The Chicago 7 or whoever. Why should I have to work my butt off for a basic happiness? Not fair at all, because some can afford it without even thinking. Happiness is in the Constitution, isn't it? Or is it in the Declaration of Happiness? You just know that somebody, somewhere, is making a profit on this stuff. 6. Free cars. All of our salesmen get them. Why can't I? I'll take two of these. One red, one yellow. 7. Free vacations. Why should I pay for them? I need them, to maintain my productivity and health and my cheerful approach to life and work. It's a Right, isn't it? And when I am unhappy, everyone else gets unhappy. Not good. 8. Free tickets home for Christmas for illegals. One way. Fix your own countries, people. This one is ours. We, and our ancestors, have had to fix it a few times, and we are still trying. No reason you cannot do the same. 9. Free Digital Cameras. Why should a wealthy nation like ours require folks to buy their own, when they become obsolete in a year? We, as a nation, can afford to take care of everyone's camera needs, if we only cared enough. Photos are a basic right, enshrined in the Constitution - right? It's like free speech, or free self-expression, or something like that. 10. Free ammo. Do you have any idea what the new, lead-free ammo costs? Any nation with gun freedoms can surely afford free ammo for all of its citizens. If we can send a man to the moon, ...etc. Plus it's also in the Constitution. Let's begin with shotgun ammo. The 9 mm stuff can come later: it's called "incrementalism." 11. Free Veterinary (and Medical) Care. Do you have any idea what the wife's vet bills add up to? Worse than our Barrister's, I'd bet. His wife has more horses that mine does, but mine has more doggone dogs. Not to mention my hunting dogs. Vet bills are far worse than medical bills, or otherwise I would go to my Vet when I get sick like Skink does. Free Vet Care, NOW! Including dog Stress Management! When I miss a bird, my dog gets very stressed out... and I miss a lot. If you really cared, you would pay my dog's shrink bills. That's it for this year. Back to ya next time, Santa, With deep appreciation for all that you do - we love ya, dude. The Chairman
Tuesday, December 5. 2006
More quotes from the Chris Wallace interview, at Shrinkwrapped. One example: The freedom of speech. Do you know what it means? Basically. But you don't know its entire content, and it doesn't tell you itself. Those words, "the freedom of speech," "Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech." Neither they, the founders, nor those words tell you how to apply it to the Internet.
Breyer is supposed to be a smart guy, ex-Harvard Law Prof and all. But that is the dumbest statement I have heard in the past week. I know that power corrupts, but it is the arrogance which concerns me, as I said yesterday. Doesn't Breyer's comment there imply that he might have some option for control of internet speech? Why else would he raise the issue? Or am I missing a nuance? When he says "It doesn't tell you its entire content," he is saying that a statement as unambiguous and clear as "Thou shalt not murder." is complex and full of nuance, that only someone like him can decipher. No. His job is referee, by the rule book. It's not rocket science. The rules are very clear: they even permit Al Gore to make an absurd movie! And us to have a blog! The arrogance, specifically, is the notion that "I am an expert in law, so I am an expert in life." Wrong. It is not his job to try to micromanage all of the outcomes in life in the USA. That sort of grandiosity on a court is indeed dangerous and, dare I say it - un-American.
Monday, December 4. 2006
Well said, of Justice Breyer: "My question is ….. who ensures he doesn’t get too powerful?" Piece at Ankle Biting, on Breyer's view of his job. Hey, Justice Steve: I ain't paying you to try to save the world. Recheck your job description.
 Color-coding in schools? I am agin' it. Nowadays, who cares?
Plus it's getting harder to tell what color anyone is, anyway: everybody is getting mixed skin DNA. For example, what color is Derek Jeter? And do you really care? In our offices, they are all sorts of Indians, Asians, who knows what? You don't even think about it - they are all humans. Heck, our own Editor Bird Dog is part Iroquois. Do you care? He is part dog, also (which has helped him get into the best dog schools). Let's arrange folks by character, energy, brains, talent, discipline, interest, etc. This skin thing has got to go. It is just too stupid. But I see some libs are still trying to count their Crayolas. Eliott Spitzer, for one. NY Sun. Supreme Court. Good case.
Friday, December 1. 2006
Very funny. Michelle. That's called journalism education.
VDH, in Opinion Journal. A quote: Our current crisis is not yet a catastrophe, but a real loss of confidence of the spirit. The hard-won effort of the Western Enlightenment of some 2,500 years that, along with Judeo-Christian benevolence, is the foundation of our material progress, common decency, and scientific excellence, is at risk in this new millennium. But our newest foes of Reason are not the enraged Athenian democrats who tried and executed Socrates. And they are not the Christian zealots of the medieval church who persecuted philosophers of heliocentricity. Nor are they Nazis who burned books and turned Western science against its own to murder millions en masse. No, the culprits are now more often us. In the most affluent, and leisured age in the history of Western civilization--never more powerful in its military reach, never more prosperous in our material bounty--we have become complacent, and then scared of the most recent face of barbarism from the primordial extremists of the Middle East.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Whole piece here.
With the worst, fascistic gun laws, Aussie gun crimes rise. Blair. No surprise: the good guys are now sitting ducks.
Wednesday, November 29. 2006
 Pelosi sets a new standard for spin, explaining why our robust economy, with zero unemployment, a rising stock market, and no inflation, is an evil Republican scheme. Teapot Tantrums.
More about the physics of tops here.
The kerfuffle about this Richards guy, who I know nothing about and never saw the TV series, who called some hecklers "niggers" in an ill-considered effort to be edgy and funny, just one comment: the joy and sense of confirmation of the race-mongers has been palpable. They feel relief, like being given a gallon of gas to get to the next gas station. For people who build their careers, and base their incomes, on tracking down racism, any public stupidity becomes a cause celebre. It unveils the "dark undercurrent of latent racism", or BS like that. Why? Because nowadays there is so darn little racism in America that race-mongering is a dying profession, like manufacturing buggy whips. So anytime some moron, especially an actor or some similar fool, says something stupid, it has to rise into a very BIG DEAL. Race-mongering has become a very desperate career - and that is a good thing for America, as long as we do not take it seriously when Jesse and Al find an excuse to get themselves in the news again. In an era when Condi Rice is Secretary of State, and Obama is running for President, the racial witch-hunting seems a bit silly, and dated. America has reason to be proud to be the most post-racism nation on the planet. We have become a "content of our character" country, as MLK dreamed.
Tuesday, November 28. 2006
The editor asked me to comment, but I don't have the time this morning. Neo just couldn't resist a few ad hominem jabs at Nixon, no doubt due to her past, but just read it, at Neoneocon. It is relevant to today.
Monday, November 27. 2006
 Intelligence at work, from the Telegraph (h/t, Protein Wisdom):
To understand the life-or-death significance of what the Pope does and says when he arrives in Istanbul, it is necessary to see this confrontation for what it is. This will involve some traumatic re-adjustment for most of the opinion-forming class in Britain. The first assumption that will have to go is the premise that Islamist terrorism can be understood in pragmatic, politically rational terms: in other words, that it can be addressed with the usual mechanisms of negotiation, concession and amended policy. The most readily accepted version of this is that a change to our policy in the Middle East will remove the grievances that “fuel” Muslim terrorism. The Cabinet has apparently been advised that all foreign policy decisions over the next decade should have the goal of thwarting terrorism in Britain and that this should involve “a significant reduction in the number and intensity of the regional conflicts that fuel terror activity”. So Britain is contemplating constructing a foreign policy, specifically in the Middle East, that is designed to give in to terrorist blackmail.
Well said. Why is it so difficult to understand that it's not about "grievances"? It's just old-fashioned imperialism, with a religious inspiration. Phony grievances have been used as excuses to rationalize warfare forever. Trojan War, for one. Editor's note: Speaking of the Pope visiting Istanbul, Tangled Web reminds us of how Constantinople "evolved" into a Moslem city. Yes, 1453 was a very "evolutionary" year for Constantinople: evolution by scimitar. You "evolve" quite a bit when your head is cut off. Image: Yes, the Hagia Sophia, The "Mother Church," the "Church of Holy Wisdom". Visit it, before you die. It's worth the trip.
This about sums it all up, for me. From a piece at View from 1776: The Constitution created a government of limited power for a religious and moral people. Political power was to be curbed by citizens’ God-given, inalienable, natural-law individual rights to life, liberty, and private property. As the English Glorious Revolution of 1689 established, when a ruler arbitrarily contravenes those rights, he has broken the social compact and thereby forfeited his right to rule. The paradigm of American liberal-progressive-socialists, in diametric contrast, is an authoritarian government that has both the right and the duty to determine how people should live their lives and even what thoughts are to be permitted expression in education and public forums. In the government envisioned by liberals, the “public good,” as defined by liberals, always trumps individual rights.
Tuesday, November 21. 2006
When ye olde brain is hungy for a completely new thought or piece of info, ye olde fingertips often click on One Cosmos or, in this case, on View From 1776 in which, in a discussion of social contracts, he quotes from FDR in 1944 asserting something that I did not know had ever been so  clearly spoken: We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all – regardless of station, race, or creed. Among these are: The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries, or shops or farms or mines of the Nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education.
This guy ran for President four times and tried to control the Supreme Court in ways no-one had before or has since, but I will not launch into an anti-FDR rant right now. It is just interesting to see how he invented a "second bill of rights" out of whole cloth and, in the process, undermined the entire independent, family-centered American way of life. "We have accepted, so to speak..." Huh? What? This is noblesse oblige in its most insidious, malignant form, with the royal "we." I'm the prole, you are the Great Benefactor, right? Another question: How come they never include free legal care on the lists? That would seem basic for a country with rule by law. How many people still believe that this sort of stuff is actually in the Constitution?
 It's criminal that we have neglected P.J. O'Rourke on Maggie's Farm. He deserves plenty of free advertising.
We have read every book he has written, with great amusement, and we have even publicly indicated a half-serious interest in hunting grouse and woodcock with him in New Brunswick. The subject of P. J. comes up becomes Wizbang has been thinking about humorous conservatives, and those folks seem to enjoy New Hampshire's P.J. as much as we do. And, to save us the trouble, Wizbang has an archived quote from All the Trouble in the World, which is good fun: Back in London, I was having dinner in the Groucho Club -- this week's in-spot for what's left of Britain's lit gritz and nouveau rock riche -- when one person started in on the Stars And Stripes. Eventually he got, as the Europeans always do, to the part about "your country's never been invaded." (This fellow had been two during the Blitz, you see.) "You don't know the horror, the suffering. You think war is..."
I snapped.
"A John Wayne movie," I said. That's what you were going to say, wasn't it? We think war is a John Wayne movie. We think life is a John Wayne movie -- with good guys and bad guys, as simple as that. Well, you know something, Mister Limey Poofter? You're right. And let me tell you who those bad guys are. They're us. WE BE BAD.
We're the baddest-ass sons of bitches that ever jogged in Reeboks. We're three-quarters grizzly bear and two-thirds car wreck and descended from a stock market crash on our mother's side. You take your Germany, France and Spain, roll them all together and it wouldn't give us room to park our cars. We're the big boys, Jack, the original, giant, economy-sized, new and improved butt kickers of all time. When we snort coke in Houston, people lose their hats in Cap D'Antibes. And we've got an American Express card credit limit higher than your piss-ant metric numbers go.
"You say our country's never been invaded? You're right, little buddy. Because I'd like to see the needle-dicked foreigners who'd have the guts to try. We drink napalm to get our hearts started in the morning. A rape and a mugging is our way of saying 'Cheerio.' Hell can't hold our sock-hops. We walk taller, talk louder, spit further, fuck longer and buy more things than you know the names of. I'd rather be a junkie in a New York City jail than king, queen, and jack of all you Europeans. We eat little countries like this for breakfast and shit them out before lunch."
Of course, the guy should have punched me. But this was Europe. He just smiled his shabby, superior European smile. (God, don't these people have dentists?)
There's an entertaining interview with him here. And also in Cigar Afficionado.
Monday, November 20. 2006
Volokh takes a look at Arthur Brook's book, Who Really Cares?, and notes some of his own accumulated data that "strong redistributionists" tend to be unhappier and angier people: In terms of relative odds, strong redistributionists (category 1) had about two to three times higher odds of reporting that in the prior seven days they were “angry” (2.0 times higher odds), “mad at something or someone” (1.9 times), “outraged at something somebody had done (1.9 times), sad (2.1 times), lonely (2.3 times), and unable to “shake the blues” (3.5 times). Similarly, anti-redistributionists had about two to four times higher odds of reporting being happy (3.8 times) or at ease (2.1 times). The data are consistent with redistributionists in the general public being more angry, sad, lonely, worried, and restless, and less happy, at ease, and interested in life. Not only do redistributionists report more anger, but they report that their anger lasts longer. Further, when asked about the last time they were angry, strong redistributionists were more than twice as likely as strong opponents of leveling to admit that they responded to their anger by plotting revenge. Last, both redistributionists and anti-capitalists expressed lower overall happiness, less happy marriages, and lower satisfaction with their financial situations and with their jobs or housework. But do these attitudes have behavioral consequences? In other words, are the data consistent with the hypothesis that anti-redistributionists are more generous or altruistic? Data from self-reports appear to support the notion that those who oppose income redistribution are somewhat more altruistic in their behavior than redistributionists.
Read the whole thing. I don't know what it all means, but it's interesting. Sounds like disgruntled people, with an envy problem. Envy is a sin, last I heard. I envy people who have no envy.
Friday, November 17. 2006
 There's no such thing as a free lunch.
Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government. I stand for the values of freedom, not just the practical benefits. Even if free market economics was not the most efficient system, I'd still be in favor of it because of the human values it represents of choice, challenge, and risk. Nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else's resources as carefully as he uses his own. So if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly utilized, you have to do it through the means of private property. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. I think it's really disgraceful that the Republican Party, which preaches holding down the size of government, should have been, and the Bush administration should have been, such a big spender. I have found no reason whatsoever for having a public school system. You would have a better educational system—elementary and secondary system, if the government were not involved. Industrial progress, mechanical improvement, all of the great wonders of the modern era have meant relatively little to the wealthy.
The rich in Ancient Greece would have benefited hardly at all from modern plumbing: running servants replaced running water. Television and radio? The Patricians of Rome could enjoy the leading musicians and actors in their home, could have the leading actors as domestic retainers. Ready-to-wear clothing, supermarkets—all these and many other modern developments would have added little to their life.
The great achievements of Western Capitalism have redounded primarily to the benefit of the ordinary person. These achievements have made available to the masses conveniences and amenities that were previously the exclusive prerogative of the rich and powerful. The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem. Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit. We cannot expect existing businesses to promote legislation that would harm them. It is up to the rest of us to promote the public interest by fostering competition across the board and to recognize that being pro-free enterprise may sometimes require that we be anti-existing business. A society that puts equality ahead of freedom...will end up with neither. The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom. Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it. Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another. President Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."... Neither half of that statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society.
From an interview about the Duke case, in Front Page: Rape law needs modification. Until the 1970s, rape law was far too friendly to the defendant; now it is the reverse. Nifong has done many unethical things in this case, but he has been correct in one assertion: under North Carolina law, a jury can convict solely on the testimony of the accuser and her identifying her alleged assailants. That means that, as a matter of law, Reade Seligmann could be convicted—even Seligmann has electronic and physical evidence that can definitely prove his innocence (he's on videotape a mile away at the time of the alleged crime). Duke, as an institution, has revealed a hollow moral core. Seven months into a case of what might be the highest-profile example of prosecutorial misconduct in the last decade, two Duke law professors and two Duke arts and sciences professors have publicly criticized Nifong. Meanwhile, Group of 88 members continues to defend their actions, even to the point of making demonstrably false public assertions about the players. Meanwhile, Brodhead has shown himself unwilling or unable to lead the institution, allowing what amounts to a "separate-but-equal" system to be established in Durham, under which Duke students are second-class citizens. The silence of North Carolina's political and legal establishment regarding Nifong's misconduct is stunning. The media needs to reconsider how it covers rape cases. To a greater extent than any crime other than child abuse, a presumption of guilt exists.
Are we at the point at which everyone gets upset if black guys get railroaded, but it's fine for white guys? Reverse lynching? Whole piece here. (H/T, Dinocrat)
The Diebold paranoia is too funny. Michelle. Yes, Kos, of course we all know that Rove can dial into those voting machines whatever results he wants, from his laptop. Rove lost the Senate on purpose, too, of course - everyone knows that.
Thursday, November 16. 2006
Milton Friedman has died. Age 94. We will be hearing a lot about him and his legacy, which is a good thing for sure.
Video of Roy Beck's speech on immigration, via Pajamas: Great stuff. Don't miss it.
|
