From the files of Big Brother

The nanny state continues it's malignant growth. A Tyranny Update from Walter Williams via Townhall.com:

The California Energy Commission has recently proposed amendments to its standards for energy efficiency... These standards include a requirement that any new or modified heating or air conditioning system must include a programmable communicating thermostat (PCT) whose settings can be remotely controlled by government authorities. A thermostat czar, sitting in Sacramento, would be empowered to remotely reduce the heating or cooling of your house during what he deems as an "emergency event."... the thermostat must be configured in a way that doesn't allow the customer to override the czar's decision.

Get ready for mandated 68 degrees in the winter and 78 degrees in the summer. Babies, illness or personal preferences be damned! Will Californians really put up with this? I hope not, because California lunacy has the tendency to spread. Forget the Mexican border fence, let's start work on the California border fence. We'll make it like the Berlin Wall. We'll welcome all escapees, but won't let them return.

Someone has to save them...

Why I Quit the Social Sciences

MSNBC has an encouraging headline today:

Bucking the trend in many other wealthy industrialized nations, the United States seems to be experiencing a baby boomlet, reporting the largest number of children born in 45 years.

The nearly 4.3 million births in 2006 were mostly due to a bigger population, especially a growing number of Hispanics. That group accounted for nearly one-quarter of all U.S. births. But non-Hispanic white women and other racial and ethnic groups were having more babies, too....

The same report also showed births becoming more common in nearly every age and racial or ethnic group. Birth rates increased for women in their 20s, 30s and early 40s, not just teens. They rose for whites, blacks, Hispanics, American Indians and Alaska Natives.

If I were to guess at the reasons, I would say things like: "people are confident in the future" or "people are well-to-do enough that they can support a larger family" or simply "Americans love family and value children."

According to "the experts," however, I would be mistaken. The actual reasons, of course, are:

a decline in contraceptive use, a drop in access to abortion, poor education and poverty.

Huh??? That the stupidest thing I've read in weeks. I must have missed the Supreme Court's over-ruling of Roe v. Wade, and the onset of the current Depression with its widespread poverty. I'm sorry, but poor education does NOT explain an increase in fertility among women in their 30s and 40s.

This is a prime example of social science failing to see the trees for the forest (to turn the metaphor around). They are taking a generalization and applying it to a specific case (the U.S.) which may not fit the generalization. All this "expert" did was think of the generalizations commonly used to explain the decline in fertility which usually accompanies economic development, then... and this is a basic logical fallacy... assumed that since fertility increased, the level of development as measured by the above factors must have declined.

Anyone who has had any logic training at all knows that:

If A (development), then B (lower fertility)
Not B,
ergo not A

is not logically sound.

That is what I hated about the social sciences. They all seem to believe that because the group acts a certain way on average, individuals within the group act the same way. No allowance is made for individual choice or action. Everything is averages, means and standard deviations.

Social Science cannot explain individual cases that deviate from the norm. It cannot account for Ghandi or Hitler, Mother Teresa or Stalin, the Pioneers or the Crusades, Jim Jones or Jesus Christ, and it cannot, apparently, explain why Americans love and value children more than Europeans do.

The Primary Season

(WARNING: extremely wonkish analysis follows. Read at your own risk, May cause insomnia or mild cynicism)

Well, if you watch the news, you know that apparently the race for the presidential nominations is over. Iowa and New Hampshire have spoken, What else is there to say? McCain and Clinton it is, the comeback kids. . .except that the media is ALL WRONG!

It's really irritating to a confessed political junkie like me. Now, I couldn't care less who wins the Democrat primary, so I'll just shot apart the conventional wisdom on the republican candidates.

1. "McCain and Huckabee are winning all the delegates since they've won IA and NH, and they're getting all the press. . ." But (according to CNN) Mitt Romney actually leads the delegate count, even after Hew Hampshire.

2. "Romney's lost the first two primaries, he'll never recover. . ." but you probably didn't even hear about the Wyoming caucus, did you? Held between IA and NH, Romney won that one hands down, and it has exactly the same number of delegates as New Hampshire. Tradition has made everyone focus on those two states. But this year is different. It used to be that IA and NH were first, and everyone else was quite a but later. Not so this year, the schedule is compressed so much that no one has time to run out of money or lose momentum before the next election. There are 8 primaries and caucuses in January this year, there were none in 2004. There are another 19 in the first 5 days of February.

3. "IA and NH are the most important, they are representative of the GOP as a whole." They are not! New Hampshire is a suburb of Boston now, and is full of quirky, secular people. they also let independents vote in any primary they want. IA is a small state who's voters worry more about Ethanol subsidies than anything else. This is not the GOP on a national level. In addition, the only reason these two states are important is the incessant media coverage they receive. Only 5% of the necessary delegates have been awarded so far, with Romney winning about half of them.

4. "It'll all be over on Feb. 5th, Giuliani will sweep in and take the nomination." Not likely. The GOP needs 1191 delegates to win. 949 are awarded on Feb. 5th (Super Tuesday). Even if Giuliani swept them all, (not possible, as some are awarded proportionally) He couldn't clinch the nomination. Giuliani hasn't competed in any race so far. and if he's counting on Florida to give him a big boost with it's 114 delegates, tough luck, FL and a few other states (including MI) lsot have their delegates when they moved their primaries before Feb. 5th in violation of party rules. Even after Super Tuesday there are several large delegate totals to be decided. (e.g. Texas - 140, Ohio -88, N.Carolina - 69, Pennsylvania - 74, Virginia - 63 = 434 delegates). In all over 1000 delegates are awarded after Feb. 5th. A well organized campaign with money and resources to compete to the end can make up a lot of ground.

In short: This year is different. there is no front runner and it is certainly NOT over yet.

Random Picture Day

Just some stuff from the internet.

Remember those lighthouses we visited in July? This is why we went in July, not December. This also may explain how the dead fish came to be stuck in the walkway.

1 gigabyte, then and now (note the little SD card in her hand).

Sorry, only slightly funny.

Save it for the gym, man.

Hey, smile, this is for posterity! Are you smiling? Aunt. . .whoever you are. . .uhhh. . . number 3, a little to the left!


Who's this sign for?

What America Really Thinks of Journalists

This little anecdote from Diane Sawyer unintentionally shows what most Americans really think about the "objectivity" of journalists.

You know, I wanted to sit on a jury once and I was taken
off the jury. And the judge said to me, "Can, you know,
can you tell the truth and be fair?" And I said, "That’s what
journalists do." And everybody in the courtroom laughed.
It was the most hurtful moment I think I’ve ever had.

— Co-host Diane Sawyer joking on ABC’s Good Morning
America July 12, following a report on how some people
try to avoid serving on a jury.

Oy Vey!

You'd think this wouldn't be a problem in New York City. (click the photo for the full story).


Doubtless someone in the store just earned some sensitivity training. . . poor soul.

Article on Intelligence vs. Effort

I found this article form Scientific American very interesting, and it rings true in my experience. Kids need to understand that achievement requires effort, not innate ability. Just because you fail, it doesn't mean you're dumb, or you can't ultimately succeed. The research speaks of 2 mindsets, "helpless" and "mastery-oriented" more important it talks about the two theories of intelligence that underlie these mindsets

The helpless ones believe that intelligence is a fixed trait: you have only a certain amount, and that’s that. I call this a “fixed mind-set.” Mistakes crack their self-confidence because they attribute errors to a lack of ability, which they feel powerless to change. They avoid challenges because challenges make mistakes more likely and looking smart less so. . . such children shun effort in the belief that having to work hard means they are dumb.

The mastery-oriented children, on the other hand, think intelligence is malleable and can be developed through education and hard work. They want to learn above all else. After all, if you believe that you can expand your intellectual skills, you want to do just that. Because slipups stem from a lack of effort, not ability, they can be remedied by more effort. Challenges are energizing rather than intimidating; they offer opportunities to learn.

While people do have differences in ability, effort is more important:

People do differ in intelligence, talent and ability. And yet research is converging on the conclusion that great accomplishment, and even what we call genius, is typically the result of years of passion and dedication and not something that flows naturally from a gift. Mozart, Edison, Curie, Darwin and Cézanne were not simply born with talent; they cultivated it through tremendous and sustained effort. Similarly, hard work and discipline contribute much more to school achievement than IQ does.

This may seem basic, but the "helpless" mindset is rampant - and it affects much more than school work.

A fixed mind-set can similarly hamper communication and progress in the workplace by leading managers and employees to discourage or ignore constructive criticism and advice. . . Mind-set can affect the quality and longevity of personal relationships as well, through people’s willingness—or unwillingness—to deal with difficulties. Those with a fixed mind-set are less likely than those with a growth mind-set to broach problems in their relationships and to try to solve them . . . After all, if you think that human personality traits are more or less fixed, relationship repair seems largely futile. Individuals who believe people can change and grow, however, are more confident that confronting concerns in their relationships will lead to resolutions. . . Such lessons apply to almost every human endeavor. For instance, many young athletes value talent more than hard work and have consequently become unteachable. Similarly, many people accomplish little in their jobs without constant praise and encouragement to maintain their motivation. If we foster a growth mind-set in our homes and schools, however, we will give our children the tools to succeed in their pursuits and to become responsible employees and citizens.

So hang in there Becky! I can change, honest :-)

'Mary' Christmas: Gift Idea

I don't know who the target market for this is, but, without further ado, I give you the Virgin Mary USB Flash Drive.

Watch out for lightening if you give one of these for Christmas.

The Top 1%

We've heard a lot this election cycle about "the top 1%" of income earners. Usually in a context like this:

Mr./Ms. Candidate (D): ". . . and I'll give every American healthcare by making sure the top 1% pay their fair share!"
Audience: (applause)
Newscaster: "A bold new proposal, from a bold new . . . (blah, blah, blah)"

But who are the mysterious "top 1%?" and what is "their fair share" anyway?

One gets the impression that they are watching CNN, poolside at the summer home, champagne in hand, laughing at the audacity of the politicians and vowing: "I will never, NEVER! pay my fair share!"

Or perhaps they are meeting old friends at the upscale "Club Un Percenteaux" in Manhattan (a very exclusive club -- it only admits 1% of those who apply) and plotting to buy off Congress to keep their low tax rates.

Thomas Sowell has a great article on who they are on National Review Online. Turns out the club isn't so exclusive after all:

Who are those top one percent? For those who would like to join them, the question is: How can you do that?

The second question is easy to answer. Virtually anyone who owns a home in San Francisco, no matter how modest that person’s income may be, can join the top one percent instantly just by selling their house.

But that’s only good for one year, you may say. What if they don’t have another house to sell next year?

Well, they won’t be in the top one percent again next year, will they? But that’s not unusual.

Americans in the top one percent, like Americans in most income brackets, are not there permanently, despite being talked about and written about as if they are an enduring “class” — especially by those who have overdosed on the magic formula of “race, class and gender,” which has replaced thought in many intellectual circles.

At the highest income levels, people are especially likely to be transient at that level. Recent data from the Internal Revenue Service show that more than half the people who were in the top one percent in 1996 were no longer there in 2005. . .

These are not permanent classes but mostly people at current income levels reached by spikes in income that don’t last.

More ways to get in the club:

These income spikes can occur for all sorts of reasons. In addition to selling homes in inflated housing markets like San Francisco, people can get sudden increases in income from inheritances, or from a gamble that pays off, whether in the stock market, the real estate market, or Las Vegas. . . corporate CEOs, those who cash in stock options that they have accumulated over the years get a big spike in income the year that they cash them in. . . Some of these incomes are almost as large as those of big-time entertainers — who are never accused of “greed,” by the way.

I might add own a small business to the list. The tax code makes it easy to live very well off your business, and report almost no income (it's been reinvested in the business).

It's not the same people who are rich at any given time. That's the beauty of the American economy. Anyone really can get rich (at least for a while), and no one has to stay poor. The free flow of goods and labor, the flexibility of business to hire (and fire) as necessary, and nearly universal access to education means that:

Most Americans in the top fifth, the bottom fifth, or any of the fifths in between, do not stay there for a whole decade, much less for life. And most certainly do not remain permanently in the top one percent or the top one-hundredth of one percent.

As to what "their fair share" may be, who knows. One might think it would be roughly the same as their percentage of the total income in the country. I do know that (according to the IRS) in 2004 they paid

• 36.89% of all income taxes, and made
  
• 19% of the total income.

Meanwhile, the bottom 50% paid

• 3.3% of all income taxes, and made
• 13.4% of the total income

There's at least an argument that they pay their share already.

This is just too good . . .

As the video belows reveals, the Democrats apparently can't stand surprises. At their recent debate in Las Vegas it turns out that all of the "undecided voters" were anti-war, labor, race politics or Democrat party activists. If the Republicans had done that, can you imagine what the media reaction would be? CNN is definitely in on it as they preselected the questioners.

The nerve of these people is astonishing. There are just no words . . . so, here's a video instead!

(info and video are from the Hot Air Blog).