Author: VD

Mailvox: an interesting confession

RINO wrote:

A lot of conservatives stay home if Ron Paul wins as well, I’m not sure why no one here understands that.

Fascinating. If true, this clearly shows that a lot of conservatives must be lying about how defeating Obama is so very important to them. Now, I understand why a Ron Paul supporter doesn’t care if either Obama or Romney are in office, since both men will continue the foreign interventions, the bank bailouts, the debt-spending, and Obamacare.

But this raises the significant question of why a conservative supporting Romney would prefer Obama to Paul. What is the vital issue that separates Paul from Obama in Obama’s favor in the eyes of these “conservatives”?

The cost of immigration

This should be completely self-evident. And yet, the “free trade” crowd will no doubt ignore this empirical evidence, just as they have ignored the last 200 years of the logic:

A shocking report has shown that 160,000 Britons have missed out on jobs over the past ten years because they were taken by foreign labour. The true scale of the link between migration and the dole was revealed today in an independent study by the Migration Advisory Committee (Mac). There are 23 fewer jobs for British workers for every 100 migrants from outside the EU, the Government’s immigration advisers said.

If American labor is replaced at the same rate, then the 37.5 million immigrants since 1980 rendered approximately 8.6 million Americans jobless as of 2006. However, the situation is actually much worse than reported here because it doesn’t account for foreign immigration from within the EU, which accounts for two-thirds of the immigration into the UK. Factoring that in, we can estimate that approximately 25.8 million Americans are presently unemployed due to foreign immigration.

Therefore, it is both empirically and logically obvious that it is the post-1986 mass migration that is at least partly responsible for the wage stagnation and consistent decrease in the employment-population rate that has been occurring since the late 1990s.

The end of the “electability” argument

Republicans cannot honestly argue that Mitt Romney is the only Republican capable of beating Obama in the general election any longer:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, run neck-and-neck with President Obama in a general-election matchup, according to a new CBS News poll released late on Monday that shows the two front-runners in Tuesday’s New Hampshire GOP primary running stronger against the president than their fellow Republicans. Romney posts a two-point lead over Obama, 47 percent to 45 percent, within the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points. He leads Obama, 45 percent to 39 percent, among independent voters.

Obama’s lead over Paul is just one point, 46 percent to 45 percent, as Paul leads among independents by 7 points.

Factor in the way in which more Republicans and libertarians are likely to stay home rather than vote for Romney, and it is clear that putting forward the more moderate candidate will lead to another Republican loss.

Remember, Reagan and George W. Bush were the more conservative candidates. (Bush ’43 wasn’t really conservative, but he was definitely perceived that way.) Both won two general elections. George H.W. Bush, Dole, and McCain were the less conservative candidates and Bush ’41 won one general election. However, I was at the Republican convention in 1988 and I can testify that he was being pushed as the natural heir to Reagan and billed as a True Conservative. By the end of his first term, everyone knew better.

But even if we include him as a moderate, this means that when Republicans have nominated the more conservative candidate, they have gone four for four. When they have nominated the more moderate candidate, they have gone one for four. Logic therefore dictates that Ron Paul has to be the nominee if the Republicans want to win in 2012. Of course, as I have often pointed out, the Republican establishment would much rather lose a presidential election than see a real conservative in office, much less a libertarian who respects the U.S. Constitution.

We are amused

I thought this was pretty funny exchange. It’s an object lesson in how those who are barely above average intelligence and overrate themselves accordingly have no ability whatsoever to understand how much smarter the highly intelligent are.

Spacebunny: “He’s smarter than literally 95% of the people on the planet for pity’s sake.”

Anklebiter: “I was always suspicious of VD’s Mensa claims, thanks for confirming that he is not qualified.”

It’s pretty clear that this anklebiter couldn’t make any similar claims, given the stellar cognitive capacity on display here. But since this apparently isn’t completely obvious to everyone, I will spell it out. A statement that an individual is more intelligent than X percent of the population in no way implies, let alone confirms, that he is not also more intelligent than X+Y percent of the population. Or 99.999 percent, for that matter.

I’ve noticed that a number of people seem to have a similar problems understanding what Mensa membership signifies. It does not mean that one has an IQ of 132, it means that one has an IQ of at least 132. The oft-seen inability to grasp this simple fact occasionally makes me wonder if such people have similar problems mixing up the floor of their house with its ceiling. Are they often found on a ladder nailing up carpet? Do they install fans and light fixtures on the floor?

Amorality is not a moral position

On the one hand, I’m pleased that people outside the coterie of Black Gate writers are interested in the question of morality and the new nihilism within the SF/F genre. On the other, I’m a little disturbed by the way in which so many people with opinions on the subject appear to have an amount of trouble grasping some of the most basic issues involved. While we can certainly agree to disagree when our opinions on the subject happen to diverge, we can’t even manage to do that when there are fundamental misunderstandings about the issues being discussed. To explain what I mean by this, it is first necessary to quote the German writer Cora Buhlert’s recent post entitled Morality in Fantasy – 2012 Edition.

And even the defenders of morally sound fantasy have often no qualms with a piece of morally questionable fantasy, as long as they enjoy it. Remember Theo, who was involved in last year’s nihilism in epic fantasy debate and felt that morally ambiguous epic fantasy was not just fiction that was not to his taste, but apparently heralded the decline of the western world itself? Turns out he’s still blogging at Black Gate on occasion. What is more, he takes Mur Lafferty to task for not wanting to read supposed genre classics, because the racism and misogyny and the prevalence of violence against women puts her off. So Theo ranting against Joe Abercrombie and The Iron Dragon’s Daughter is a sign of his moral superiority, while Mur Lafferty ranting against The Stars My Destination and The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever is a sign of her lack of education and moral flatness? Sorry, but this doesn’t work. If Theo enjoys Thomas Covenant, more power to him. But that doesn’t change the fact that Thomas Covenant is a rapist and no more moral than the protagonists of the Joe Abercrombie novels he singled out for destroying western civilization. But since Thomas Covenant is really sorry for what he did, spends much of the series wallowing in self-pity and finally apparently redeems himself, at least in the eyes of Theo (I can’t say if it would work for me, since I never got that far), that apparently makes The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant okay. Though I guess what really makes Thomas Covenant okay for Theo but not Joe Abercrombie is that he enjoyed Thomas Covenant but didn’t enjoy Joe Abercrombie. Which is a perfectly acceptable aesthetic judgement, but does not automatically make one book morally superior to the other.

If you’re interested in my response, you can find it at The Black Gate.

WND column

Quis procuratiet ipsos scientodes?

A few years ago, when I published “The Irrational Atheist,” one of the most controversial statements I made was that Sam Harris’ Extinction Equation, which postulates that the combination of increasingly deadly technologies with religion meant that the human race was at risk of eliminating itself, was an indictment of science, not religion. Religion, after all, has been around for thousands, if not tens of thousands, of years, during which time the human race has prospered and multiplied.

Science, on the other hand, only dates back to the 17th century. And as I pointed out in the book, during that time it has produced, either directly or indirectly, the only serious threats to the existence of the human race that man has known since, depending upon your perspective, he was either being hunted by saber-toothed tigers or being drowned to near-extinction during Noah’s flood.

TEBOW!

Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable. I really thought Denver had given a very winnable game away, between McGahee’s fumble as the Broncos were driving into range for a putaway field goal, then Champ Bailey dropped a relatively easy interception to win the game. When Tebow missed a wide open receiver on third-and-eight after a horrendous no-call on a blatant facemask, it looked as if events and the referees were conspiring to end The Miracle of Tebow.

But then the Denver defense finally stepped up and made a play, sacking Roethlisberger once, then strip-sacking him to force overtime. Mike Tomlin showed his yellow belly by not letting Suisham try for the 69-yard FG with three seconds left – I have no doubts that Fox would have given Prater a shot – and accepting overtime instead. That set the stage for the lightning strike… game over.

Considering Tebow’s first start against Miami, to say nothing of the disastrous last three weeks, it seems almost impossible for any knowledgeable football fan to not interpret what was not only a Denver victory, but Tim Tebow beating the league’s top-rated defense with his arm, as incontrovertible proof of the existence of God.

316 yards and two touchdowns in the air, 50 yards and one touchdown on the ground. I saw it and I still don’t believe it. As ProFootballTalk concluded: “If someone was writing this stuff into a Tim Tebow movie, they would have been fired by now because it all sounds too unbelievable.”

2011 VPFL Champions

86 Bailout Banksters
71 Mounds View Meerkats

Congratulations to the 2011 VPFL champions. It would appear that it is still good to be a Bankster. I have to confess, I was VERY disappointed to lose this game, as Aaron Rodgers showed up even bigger than I’d anticipated with a 35-point game and Arian Foster performed precisely as projected. Ironically, considering that I am usually mocked for overdrafting them, it was the kickers and defenses that let me down.

The Banksters got 23 points out of a projected 21 from New England’s Gostkowski and the Cincinnati defense, I got 2 out of a projected 20 from Dallas’s Bailey and the Washington defense. And that 20-point difference was the ballgame. The painful thing is that for the last four weeks, I tried four different defenses to little avail, and each time considered, then decided against Buffalo since they were playing the low-turnover Broncos. Naturally, the Bills defense put up 25 points in Week 16. But it was a good and competitive year, as Greenfield looked dominant early, then Mounds View entered the picture with Foster’s recovery, only to see Bailout close strong and carry their end of season momentum through the playoffs.

And so yet another football season goes by without a fantasy championship. I can’t help but notice this marks the fifth championship game I have lost, dating back to the old MFL. How fortunate that I am so well-prepared for the experience.

Umberto Eco on Italy’s new dictator

I was extremely curious to know how Umberto Eco would react to Italy’s peaceful departure from democracy, given his left-wing ideology as well as his childhood experience with Fascism and the post-WWII ideological battles. He did not disappoint as his take on it is fascinating, not only in his characteristic use of an apt literary analogy, but in the way that he appears to almost completely ignore the salient point. The key word there being “almost”, as if one considers the specifics of the analogy, one can see that his view of the matter may not be quite as favorable as it seems on the surface.

But we asked it of him

There is no relationship between the tall and elegant professor Monti and a ball of tallow, and yet I see one between his vicissitudes and the short story of the same name by Maupassant. Everyone, I hope, is familiar with the story: during the Franco-Prussian war traveled a carriage that, among its various passengers, carried a prostitute, provocative and curvacious. Accepted ungraciously by her travel companions only because she offered to everyone the provisions she had with her in a basket, she became responsible for the halting of the carriage on the part of a Prussian official, who threatened to refuse to permit anyone to depart if the girl did not concede her favors to him.

Although she had already granted them to many, the patriotic “escort” refused to let her offer her services to the hated enemy. The carriage therefore remained halted, until little by little, the travelers began to remonstrate with Ball of Tallow for harming everyone over one foolish little point. Through various arguments and moral blackmail, they pushed her to concede. Reluctantly, and for the good of the community, she accepted. The illicit goods consumed, the carriage departed, but at that point the travelers began to regard the wretched girl with contempt because she was a prostitute, even though she had pulled their chestnuts from the fire.

It seems to me that the same thing is happening to Monti. Everyone has asked him to remove the chestnuts from the fire, to take those severe measures that otherwise they have not known or wanted to take even at the risk of unpopularity. Now that he has done it, everyone has begun to look at him negatively. Maupassant understood these things.

Now, I would first argue that it is far, far too soon to argue that the unelected, IMF-installed Professor Monti has pulled anyone’s chestnuts from the fire, except perhaps the balance sheets of a few international banks. And while some degree of fiscal responsibility is in order, it wasn’t the Italian people who asked for him because they have never voted for him. For anything. But the analogy is a brilliant one regardless, because Monti most certainly is a prostitute and the nation of Italy is being occupied, in a very real, albeit non-military, sense, by the Franco-Prussians.

If for some reason you’re reading the original article at La Repubblica, please note that this particular Bustina comes in two parts. I skipped the first one, which concerned poetry and a Spaziani novel, and was of no interest to me.