Author: VD

Cougar catching

I’m not sure which is more amusing, the fact that this dork finds it so easy to catch straying cougars or the way in which the female columnist is so predictably horrified… by the men who wish to verify the fact that their wives are unfaithful:

Ryan has been working as a honey trap for a top surveillance agency for two years and has caught out 145 cheating women – sleeping with 50 of them. His job is just like the female honey-trapper’s seductive services we reported on two weeks ago.

Ryan says: “Older ladies seem to find me attractive. My boyish good looks and cheeky sense of humour reel them in. Also, I have been thoroughly trained by the surveillance agency in how to be flirtatious and charming.

“My success rate is 100 per cent. I feel it’s my job to catch out cheating women for their husbands’ benefit.

In response to which, the female columnist writes: “[W]hat sort of sad, vindictive men set a trap for their wife instead of tackling the problems in the relationship, looking at why they are so bored and lonely, why all a man has to do to get them into bed is listen? These husbands seem more worried about their wallets than their love lives.”

Proving yet again that it doesn’t matter what a woman does to another woman who can imagine herself in the first woman’s shoes, it must be a man’s fault. Needless to say, the almost identical article about the female honey-trapper was accompanied by no such finger-wagging commentary. But either way, the fact that there is a honey-trap industry – not unlike the old faux adultery divorce service from days before no-fault divorce – shows how foolish it is to believe you are likely to get away with adulterous behavior now that we’re living in a technological service economy. Once your husband or wife begins to have enough doubts about you to hire a hacker to go through your hard drive, a private investigator to follow you, or a honey-trapper to tempt you, you will almost certainly be caught.

When society is silent

Vigilantes have little choice but to act if they are to do anything other than accept what they deem unacceptable:

An enraged father who disapproved of his daughter’s older boyfriend went to his home and castrated him with a bread knife…. He told police: “I received a phone call anonymously that my daughter was involved with a guy 40 years older than her. You said you couldn’t stop him – so I did.

Those who would condemn his actions as the behavior of a prehistoric father should probably keep in mind that the actions of the overly affectionate Prof. Epstein are the behavior of a post-modern one. If the law is not reasonable, the behavior of those who reject it often will not be either. And neither “the law” nor “the police” are some sort of state deity possessing magical power to dictate human behavior. Their ability to exert control over human behavior is entirely retroactive, so they can do nothing to stop one who has determined that the likely punishment is not as bad as permitting the status quo to remain. This is why the elimination of social stigma in favor of legal criminalization has been so disastrous for civilization.

Of course, one does have to wonder why the young woman would have been so attracted to a man 40 years older as well as why Herr Siefert was inspired to respond in so drastic a manner. It is not impossible to imagine that the pre-modern and the post-modern father have more in common than might ordinarily be supposed.

Monday column

Audit Bernanke

Not all of the news out of Washington, D.C., is bad. Despite the Republican flirtation with earmarks, the tax deal that increases the federal deficit and the speedy betrayal of the tea party by new South Dakota Sen. Kristi Noem (she’s already endorsed ethanol subsidies), the indefatigable Ron Paul, sound money champion and author of “End the Fed,” has been named chairman of the House subcommittee for monetary policy.

Note to Paul: I am your biggest fan at WorldNetDaily, but put up or shut up time has now officially arrived. There is no time for meandering lectures on the theoretical advantages of a gold standard or esoteric soliloquies regarding the correct definition of money. The American people just want the facts about their money and where it has gone. They need the facts. And then they need action.

VPFL Week 13

77 Moundsview Meerkats (4-8-1)
42 Meigs Marauders (5-8-0)

81 Bane Sidhe (9-4-0)
52 Blackmouth Banksters (7-6-0)

73 MS Swamp Spartans (7-5-1)
63 Judean Rhyneauxs (6-7-0)

65 Greenfield Grizzlies (7-5-1)
55 Winston Reverends (4-9-0)

52 RR Redbeards (6-6-1)
36 Valders Quixotes (8-5-0)

So close! I finally made it to the top of the league in scoring with 896 points to the Grizzlies 890 last week, but the Grizz beat Winston to drop them to 4-9-0 and prevent me from scoring the rare top in scoring, bottom in the standings bifecta by half a game. But Greenfield has been on a historic tear, going from last in the league to a playoff spot with a timely five-game winning streak. Bane has been on a roll too, but something has to give since they meet this week.

Of the six teams still in contention, I suspect the Swamp Spartans and Redbeards will be on the outside looking in. As for the NFL, it would appear that the football gods were not happy with the idea that Brett Favre might not continue his 297-game starting streak. Frazier had better commit to starting him or this snow may not let up until January. And one suspects this should give lawmakers the excuse they need to screw over the taxpayers and build a new stadium on Mr. Wilf’s behalf; an NFL team can’t be expected to play in a place with a collapsing roof, after all. I fully expect there to be long faces delivering the devastating news of permanent structural damage to the old Hump this week.

I hope they keep the other important lesson in mind as well. The Vikings are meant to play OUTSIDE! When they do build a new stadium, they’d better not put another bloody roof on it.

Ivy League inbreeding

Needless to say, this example of Ivy League inbreeding is going to be brought up every time someone from New York City tries to rag on Southerners, rednecks, or hillbillies for their supposed predilection for overly close families:

A Columbia University professor has been arrested on charges of having sexual relations with his daughter, officials said on Friday. David Epstein, 46, a political science professor at the Ivy League school, faces one count of incest in the third degree, according to a complaint filed by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office. He had relations with his daughter, now 24, from 2006 through 2009, the complaint said. Epstein was released on his own recognizance after appearing before a judge on Thursday.

Given the spurious rationales that various judiciaries have used to legalize homosexuality and homogamy, it’s only a matter of time before relationships like the Epsteins are deemed to be legal as well, assuming that one in fact existed. Once traditional mores have been thrown out the window, it is very difficult to rationally declare “thus far and no farther” since every single argument made in support of those legal abominations can just as easily be utilized in this case. If the professor chooses to vigorously defend himself on those terms, he should have a pretty good chance of being exonerated even if he is guilty. It should be interesting to see what folks like John Scalzi and other outspoken supporters of state-sanctioned homogamy have to say about this case.

Of course, if he is exonerated and Epstein v. New York becomes the incestuous version of Lawrence v. Texas, one will be forced to conclude that the Other McCain has summarized the national prospects well: “Tomorrow’s forecast: Widely scattered fire with a 60% chance of afternoon and evening brimstone.”

Honesty in pseudo-science

Professional anthropologists have finally admitted they just don’t do science. So it’s only a matter of time before the sociologists and evolutionary biologists admit that they don’t either. And even the ghost of Keynes would have to admit that whatever economists are doing these days, it can’t reasonably be described as science:

Anthropologists have been thrown into turmoil about the nature and future of their profession after a decision by the American Anthropological Association at its recent annual meeting to strip the word “science” from a statement of its long-range plan.

The decision has reopened a long-simmering tension between researchers in science-based anthropological disciplines — including archaeologists, physical anthropologists and some cultural anthropologists — and members of the profession who study race, ethnicity and gender and see themselves as advocates for native peoples or human rights.

I don’t quite agree with the NYT’s characterization of this debate between “science-based” anthropologists and ideological anthropologists. Neither side are actually engaged in doing any science per se due to the historical nature of their discipline; “study” is not synonymous with “scientific experiment”. Neither history nor logic are scientody, although both are often utilized by scientists engaged in it.

But this does underline the importance of properly defining what the various aspects of science are and are not. So long as scientists and other ideologists are determined to pronounce judgment on what is and is not science and attempt using “science” as an excuse to interfere in the political arena, non-scientists have a responsibility to force them to strictly abide by consistent definitions. This is why it is always important to determine whether someone us bandying about the term “science” in the sense of scientage, scientody, or scientistry.

Mr. Sailer has his own take on the situation.

Not so much, mate

I completely agree with OneSTDV’s criticism of Half-Sigma’s support for the ridiculous and would-be offensive Christmas billboard erected by American Atheists this year, but I would be remiss if I failed to take exception to one of his statements:

HS likely doesn’t spend a lot of time on organized atheist websites or he wouldn’t naively presume the actual intention comports with the publicly expressed reasoning. Sure the atheist community has individuals like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris who can articulate impassioned but logically sound arguments against religious superstition. And surely given the high rate of disbelief amongst scientists, atheism is often a position resulting from reason.

OneSTDV is almost surely right about the probable difference between the stated and actual intentions. However, in like manner, one can only assume OneSTDV has not read deeply in the New Atheist literature or he would realize that while the arguments presented by Dawkins and Harris are impassioned, they are most certainly not logically sound by any measure. If, on the other hand, he has read Dawkins or Harris and genuinely believes they both have presented logically sound arguments against religion, I should very much like to know specifically which of those arguments he means since I am familiar with all of them and “logically sound” is among the very last means I would use to describe most of them, along with “factually accurate”. Is he impressed by Sam Harris’s Extinction Equation or by Sam’s creative resolution of the Is/Ought Problem presented in The Moral Landscape? Does he buy into Dawkins’s philosophical magnum opus of the Ultimate 747 argument or is was he convinced that sexual abuse is indeed less harmful to a child than a religious upbringing? I’m not just being sarcastic here, I would definitely like to know!

As for the scientists, I note that it is incorrect to assume that a preponderance of atheism among scientists should be taken as evidence to indicate that atheism is often a position resulting from reason. It is a non sequitur; consider the implications in light of similarly strong predilections for sporting beards, wearing glasses, or voting Democrat.

As for the billboard itself, it is nothing more than the usual atheist obnoxiousness and Half-Sigma is simply revealing his own inability to reason correctly. He is too intelligent to not be disingenuous when he states: “I would not characterize the billboard as being anti-Christian. It’s pro-reason.”

Half-Sigma has it precisely backward. The billboard is anti-Christian because it is specifically attacking the Christian belief in the historical existence of Jesus Christ by declaring it a myth during the very time that Christians are celebrating the birth of Man’s Lord and Savior. The billboard is not pro-reason either despite the statement “This season celebrate reason”. The billboard is actually anti-reason due to the way in which the preceding statement “You know it’s a myth” is intrinsically illogical. Not only do the passers-by not necessarily know that the Christmas story is a myth, but American Atheists cannot reasonably claim to know it is a myth and unless they are claiming to be mind-readers, they cannot possibly know what the passers-by know or do not know either.

I don’t mind such billboards in the least. It’s mere public trollery and accomplishes little more than highlight the deeply unattractive social autism of outspoken atheists. To the extent they have any effect at all, I suspect they encourage more atheists to identify themselves as agnostics rather than the opposite. It’s rather like seeing a vegetarian try to argue about the evils of eating meat by farting at the Christmas dinner table; no one is going to be convinced that the baked ham is any less delectable, it’s only going to make them want to send Mr. Stinky outside to eat in the snow.

More protecting and serving

Once more, a reminder that the police are just as likely to be the enemy as not:

On Dec. 2, Jeremy Marks, a Verdugo Hills High School special education student, was offered a new plea offer by the L.A. County District Attorney: If he pled guilty to charges of obstructing an officer, resisting arrest, criminal threats and “attempted lynching,” he’d serve only 32 months in prison. That actually was an improvement from the previous offer made to the young, black high schooler — seven years in prison….

The first thing to understand is that Jeremy Marks touched no one during his “attempted lynching” of LAUSD campus police officer Erin Robles. The second is that Marks’ weapon was the camera in his cell phone.

The police are simply out of control all around the nation. They clearly believe they are above the law because they are so seldom held accountable for their actions. It is obviously necessary to pass laws in every state making it perfectly clear that recording video and audio of police actions is not only legal, but any attempt by police to resist such recordings being made will be prosecuted.

“[T]he Los Angeles School Police Department’s internal affairs division ‘sat on 16 investigations of police wrongdoing for so long that the officers can’t be punished, even though all were ultimately found guilty of misconduct.'”

The distant sound of slithering

Peggy Noonan reaches a conclusion:

The Democrats’ problem is that most of them know that the person who would emerge, who would challenge Mr. Obama from the left, would never, could never, win the 2012 general election. He’d lose badly and take the party with him. Democratic professionals know the mood of the country. Challenging Mr. Obama from the left would mean definitely losing the presidency, as opposed to probably losing the presidency. There is only one Democrat who could possibly challenge Mr. Obama for the nomination successfully and win the general election, and that is Hillary Clinton. Who insists she doesn’t want to.

Of course, it strikes one that Clintons are almost as famous for their honesty as for their lack of ambition.

Hypergamy and marriage rates

It is not hard to explain why the highly educated are somewhat more disposed to be married than the less educated:

Adults in First Marriages. Figure 3 indicates that the percentage of moderately educated working-age adults who were in first marriages fell 28 percentage points, from 73 percent in the 1970s to 45 percent in the 2000s. This compares to a 17-point drop among highly educated adults and a 28-point drop among the least-educated adults over this same time period. What is particularly striking about Figure 3 is that moderately and highly educated Americans were both just as likely to be married in the 1970s; now, when it comes to their odds of being in an intact marriage, Middle Americans are more likely to resemble the least educated.

Here is my theory. Women are hypergamous and women of the 1990s are just as likely to have college degrees as men. Since they don’t like to marry down, highly educated women will marry highly educated men and less educated women will also marry less well educated men. Highly educated men will also marry less educated women, but highly educated women will NOT marry less educated men. Therefore, we can expect marriage rates to drop as a function of the rate at which women pursue higher education.

If this is the case, then highly educated men should have higher marriage rates than less educated men while less educated women should have higher marriage rates than highly educated women. As it happens, that’s what the statistics indicate. According to a 2003 study, the peak “ever-married” rate for women between the ages of 40 to 44 in 2000 was 90.5% at 12 years of education while for men it was 89.3% at 19 years of education. Which, you will note, indicates that men tend to prefer women with a high school education whereas women prefer men to have as much education as possible.