Category: Uncategorized

Last week: 10-4. Season: 87-43, .669. Fantasy 7-2.

Carolina Panthers over New York Jets
Indianapolis Colts over Houston Texans
Jacksonville Jaguars over Baltimore Ravens
Chicago Bears over San Francisco 49ers
Atlanta Falcons over Green Bay Packers
Pittsburgh Steelers over Cleveland Browns
Washington Redskins over Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Kansas City Chiefs over Buffalo Bills
Seattle Seahawks over St. Louis Rams
Denver Broncos over Oakland Raiders
New England Patriots over Miami Dolphins
New York Giants over Minnesota Vikings
Dallas Cowboys over Philadelphia Eagles

From the Washington Times:

Losing the governorship in the reliably red state of Virginia to Democrat Tim Kaine doesn’t help sagging Republican morale. It does hold a lesson: Don’t take your base for granted.

There are other factors at work in a national election, of course, but there does seem to be a certain pattern at work in Virginia that may be echoed in the next presidential election.

Virginia, a southern state, is less strongly Republican than states like South Carolina and Texas, but has an Assembly that is leans 24-16 Republican and a 60-40 House. However, like their counterparts in Congress, the Virginia Republicans have taxed and spent in a manner indistinguishable from Democrats, which has demoralized their conservative base and left them unenthusiastic about voting for the pragmatic and unprincipled politicians of their party. Now, Virginia has a Democratic governor.

This is why I expect Republicans to lose the next presidential election in a similar manner. Bush’s re-election was feeble in comparison with the Nixon and Reagan landslides; Democrats are fairly inoculated against an unlikely perception of eventual success in the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism by their vote for the initial invasion and the economic future does not look promising.

Unfortunately, Ms Rodham is the most likely benefit of these developments as the Democrats have no other serious national figures. It is possible that one might yet appear, but when a party is willing to consider former comics to headline its Senatorial campaigns, the roster would appear to be on the thin side.

“Her lips quirked.” “He quirked a smile.” I’ve noticed this disgusting verbing of a perfectly good noun appearing more and more often in recent fantasy and science fiction; David Weber commits it countless times with all the joie de morte of a mass murderer on PCP in his Honor Harrington novels. Jim Butcher, whose books I otherwise enjoy, is also a serial offender, as is Laurel Hamilton if my scarred memory serves me correctly.

It’s just pure lunacy. These writers wouldn’t write “gooder” and they aren’t from the Umberto Eco school of inventing words for the sheer pleasure of inflicting intellectual torture on translators, so why are they so repeatedly insistent on kicking the reader in the teeth like this?

The OED has it thusly: NOUN 1 A peculiar behavioral habit. 2 A strange chance occurrence. 3 A sudden twist, turn or curve. DERIVATIVES Quirkish (adjective). Quirky (adjective)

Do you see a verb anywhere in there? Because I don’t. I tell you the truth. Every time I read that a character’s lips “quirked” or that she “quirks a smile” it makes me want to drive my fist right into those fictional lips.

I’ve told this story before, but it’s appropriate today.

One afternoon, two friends of mine and I stopped by my uncle’s house. He was working as the deputy director of Military Affairs at the White House, and the three of us were spending a long weekend at my grandparent’s house near Mount Vernon. My friends never forgot the way he introduced himself to them; he pointed to a hat, a fur thing with a red star on it, and the first words out of his mouth were:

“You know the difference between you and me? I killed the guy who wore that hat.”

We spent a few hours there with him, listened to his stories and otherwise shot the breeze. The man, to this day, is incapable of talking to any young male without selling them on the Corps, and is a salesman nonpareil. By the time we left, we were singing the Marine Corps anthem in the car and arguing about which branch of the Corps we wanted to serve in. We were halfway back to campus when the spell finally wore off and Big Chilly suddenly said: “Wait a minute, I don’t want to join the military! What the hell are we thinking?”

But here’s to those who did and became the finest warriors the world has ever known. Here’s to you, Uncle Chuck, and to you too, Eric and JC. And most of all, here’s to you, Gamp. We never, ever forget you, but especially not today.

Happy 230th birthday, Marines.

In which DM of Key Words demonstrates that I have some of the worst sycophants in the blogosphere. It apparently seems to have escaped whole swaths of the Voxologisti that the entire point of being a sycophant cum sock puppet is supposed to revolve around offering mindless adulation and enthusiastically embracing my every drop of wisdom, however errant. DM addresses the critique of Ralph Peters I posted yesterday:

Vox is not taking on the concept that increasing the number of workers an employer has to choose from helps the employer and – in doing so – also helps the economy. Instead he is bringing in distractors like comparing 1800’s growth to growth today (basically comparing a relatively new market that was expanding with each state added to the union to a well established one) or women in the armed forces (always good to sidetrack the issue).

This miss on the issue at hand is probably not accidental. Vox actually has a degree in economics from an Ivy League institution, so he is more than familiar with the pros and cons of a free market. He knows that offering “a or b” is more economically beneficial than simply offering “a,” so he knows he can’t win on a strictly economic front. He has other issues with women in the workforce – some actually well founded – and so attacks arguments that are contrary to the outcome he would prefer.

Personally, I feel he would be better off fighting his battles on his own territory. He does have valid issues that he can easily back up and can probably stand on their own merits. He doesn’t need to jump into side issues like this.

Before I address the substance, let me point out a few things. 1. I don’t have a degree in econ from an Ivy League institution, I have degrees in Econ and Asian Studies (plus a history minor) from an Ivy League wannabee institution. Same price, less status, prettier girls, better parties. 2. Since Peters brought up women in the armed forces as a primary example of his point, it’s hardly side-tracking the issue.

Indeed, I will even use that example to demonstrate how the entire argument can be won on the purely economic front DM mentions. According to DM’s argument, the ability to choose A or B is always more beneficial than if A alone is on offer. And this is true, in general, but it only holds true in the most general and simplistic senses and is dependent upon a rational actor making the selection.

For example, the ability to have A and B serving together in the military is no different than the ability to employ A and B in the workplace. Assuming a perfectly rational recruiting process or employer, the best Bs will replace the worst As, thereby improving military efficiency or corporate productivity and therefore increasing economic growth. However, this reasonable assumption fails to account for the very real possibility that a mixed military/workforce will introduce an element of disharmony (c) that will the average productivity of the As such that (A+B)c < 2A. What DM assumes is a settled case of economic theory is in fact no such thing. The salient question is whether (c) actually exists, and if so, if it is sufficient to reduce the average productivity of A. Furthermore, copious evidence exists to demonstrate that the recruiter/employer is not, in fact, perfectly rational and is quite willing to accept less productive Bs to replace more productive As. (To DM’s credit, he suggests this possibility as an outside factor, although I tend to see it as an internal one inherent to the predictable characteristics of the Bs under discussion.) Now, to address the question of why I did not make use of this analysis in the first place. The answer is the notorious shaving implement of Occam. Peter’s entire argument is founded on the flimsy and inaccurate assertion of “stunning” economic growth in the past fifty years. Since his entire argument is based on this, the easiest way to take it down is to simply demonstrate that the present rate of economic growth – which has averaged 3.3 percent over the last decade – is nothing special. (My suspicion is that he was misled by the big increase in GDP per capita without taking inflation into account.) Interestingly enough, as our correction of DM’s theory would indicate, productivity per worker and the corresponding rate of economic growth has slowed significantly in the last 32 years since women entered the workforce in sufficient numbers to reduce the average wage rate, and not only in the USA but in every G7 country.

1950-1973 Output per Worker Annual Growth USA
2.1%

1973-1995 Output per Worker Annual Growth USA
United States
0.6%

This would tend to support the concept of a productivity reducing (c) element at work.

It’s ironic, if somewhat unsurprising, that so many conventional liberals insist on thinking of themselves as apolitical moderates. The fact that their basic assumptions are perfectly in line with those of the mainline Democratic party – if not the Move On Xtreme Neosocialists – doesn’t seem to matter as much as their desire to aspire to being the voice of impartial reason. But this is as ridiculous as the New York Times and the ABCNNBCBS cabal’s insistence on their “objectivity”.

Consider Scott Adams’ list of nominees for his Weasel Awards:

Weaseliest Individual
George W. Bush
Karl Rove
Cindy Sheehan
Ray Nagin
Tom DeLay
Tom Cruise
Michael Brown (ex-FEMA head)
Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (Gov. of Louisiana)
Rafael Palmeiro (baseball player suspended for steroids)
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Lindy England (Abu Ghraib abuser)
Mary Landrieu (Senator of Louisiana)
Bill Frist

That’s five major Republican figures and one minor Republican figure versus four minor Democratic figures. Hillary Rodham Clinton nee Clinton nee Rodham Clinton nee Rodham can’t even get a nomination? Jean-Francois Flippy Flop isn’t even potentially a weasel?

Weaseliest Behavior
Advocating the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools
Gas price gouging
Reporting it as “finding supplies” when white people loot
Corporate boards approving CEO pay packages
Politicians blaming other politicians
Outsourcing
Downloading music or movies without paying

This sounds like a list of Democratic Party talking points. Where’s the far more hypocritical examples such as the media support for campaign finance reform, gun control advocates who have armed bodyguards and those who invoke Martin Luther King in seeking to justify skin color-based discrimination? Adams claims that these lists “doesn’t reflect my views. I have no coherent political views of my own.”

Now, this may be true, but not only have we heard that before, we hear it all the time. So, forgive us if we’re skeptical. By way of example, consider Chuck Klosterman waxing anti-ideological on ESPN:

I am an apolitical person. Absolutely nobody believes me when I say that, but it’s true. Every conservative person I know thinks I’m mixing Noam Chomsky’s personal Kool-Aid, and every liberal I know seems to assume I want to shampoo Ann Coulter’s hair while watching outtakes from “The Passion of the Christ.” I have no idea how this happened. For example, I don’t have an opinion on abortion. I really, truly do not. You want to have an abortion? Fine; take my car keys, You think abortion is murder? Well, you’re probably right. Who knows? Either way, it doesn’t have anything to do with me. Do I think George W. Bush is the worst president of my lifetime? Well, of course I do — but that’s not because he’s a Republican. It’s because he somehow (a) got into Yale, yet (b) claims “the jury is still out” on the theory of evolution.

Everything is situational, and that reality informs how I interpret the world. At least within my mind, it seems as though any people who consciously and consistently perceive themselves as right-leaning or left-leaning are simply admitting that they don’t want to think critically about complexity. It always strikes me as staunchly unsophisticated and mildly insane.

Ah yes, the old “I’m being criticized from both sides, ergo I am perfectly situated in the middle” line. That’s new. Now, Klosterman may truly be indifferent to politics, but it’s not at all difficult to determine where he stands on the political spectrum, which is to the left of center. Only someone who is inherently left-leaning subscribes to the notion that all everything is situational, and furthermore, no one who has any connection to the right would ever suggest Noam Chomsky as a counterpoint to Ann Coulter; you either have to be left-leaning or a student of the left to even bring him up in the first place.

A disdain for consistency is the hobgoblin of the ignorant and an inability to make sense of complexity is not an indication of sophistication, but of insufficient intelligence.

Aero sides with the academy:

Its good to see the grade giver had the insight not to give you all As

A lot of them tended to have this hangup about students occasionally showing up for class and buying the textbook or something. Weird. I think the time I most enjoyed getting called on the carpet was when my stats prof was chewing me out in front of the class for missing a pair of classes after she’d threatened me with an F if I missed another one.

HER: “Why weren’t you here last week! I told you I’d fail you if you didn’t show up!”
VOX: “Hey, I couldn’t make it. It was physically impossible.”
HER: “Physically impossible? Were you sick? I don’t believe you.”
VOX: “Seriously, it was impossible. Ask the police. They were the ones who were keeping me locked up.”

LONG MOMENT OF STUNNED SILENCE

HER: “You were in jail? For what?”
VOX: “Assault.”

I ended up with a B+ since she decided to only dock me for not turning in any homework. (Only college prof I ever had who actually graded homework.) I’m pretty sure the main reason she set aside her little attendance policy was that she was terrified I’d end up in her class again the next semester if she failed me.

From the Telegraph:

Every baby attending a day nursery or who is in the care of a childminder will be taught a new national curriculum devised by Whitehall, it was announced yesterday.

Childminders and nurseries will be under a legal duty to teach the Early Years Foundation Stage to children “from birth” until the age of three. Inspectors from Ofsted will check that the children are developing in four “distinct curriculum headings”. This will include becoming “competent learners”, for which they will be expected to have mastered such skills as comparing, categorising and recognising symbols and marks….

The framework will have the same compulsory force as the national curriculum, which lays down what children learn at school.

The British might as well simply ban parenting children altogether and grow armies of clone-workers while they’re at it. Or, alternatively, just import more Muslims as that seems to be working really well in France. And is anyone surprised that the children’s minister at the Department of Education who is at the forefront of this abomination is named “Beverly”?

The way in which Western societies plunge themselves headlong into destruction while a signficant percentage of its members watch and nod approvingly is totally mystifying to me.

Renee conflates academic success with real world success:

Right now, I’m getting the top grades in my biology and chemistry classes, and no, they’re not all girls. I got the highest grade in my class on my chem prelim last time around. (I have another one coming up Thursday that I really should be studying for now).

What am I supposed to do, fail on purpose?

No, of course you shouldn’t give up your pursuit of excellence in your academic endeavors. Learning should always be prized, for its own sake. But neither should you confuse academic success with material success or expect the latter to flow naturally from the former.

Academic success is much simpler than real world success because it depends upon one very simple principle: please the giver of grades. This generally involves the ability to follow directions, do what is expected and show up to class. The problem is that these abilities are almost completely irrelevant when it comes to achieving success in the real world. At best, they will help one become a reasonably well-compensated worker bee in a large organization where results are measured by subjective performance reviews given by one’s superior – in other words, pleasing the giver of grades.

Many have noted that few of the most successful self-made men have undergone traditional educational paths. This is not an accident. Success in the real world requires risk-taking, creativity and resiliency, three things that no student with a 4.0 has ever been required to demonstrate, not even at the finest schools. Unlike the caring teacher or the nurturing professor, the market doesn’t give a damn about you and you’re not going to get a do-over on that failed demonstration to the all-important potential strategic partner because the cat that Daddy gave you on your fifth birthday had to be rushed to the vet and you just didn’t have time to finish your preparations.

What Renee and other young women need to keep in mind is that they have been sold two fraudulent bills of goods. One, of course, is that men will value them for their accomplishments and find them more desirable with a career and a college degree. The second is that academic success is realistisc and adequate preparation for marketplace success. This latter reality is becoming ever more apparent as women now make up 57 percent of this generation’s college students but are conspicuous primarily by their absence from the latest generation of entrepeneurs.

It boils down to this. School is talk. Real work is action. You can talk all you like, but an idea only becomes a product or a service through action. Now, it is true that men and women who talk a good game can make a lot of money for a while – I know a few high-priced New York consultants; they’re totally useless but they do make a lot of money convincing large companies to pay for their banal “services” – but at the end of the day they haven’t built anything or really accomplished anything. And they know it.

There are women who have the guts, insight and tenacity to build a business from the ground up, but it’s interesting to note that the Debbie Fields, the Mary Kay Ashs and the Oprah Winfreys of the world have all achieved great market success with very little in the way of an academic foundation.

So, get your good grades. Take pride in them. They will give you an initial leg up. But that’s it.

I went a solid 10-4 this week. The White Buffalo nailed 14 of 14, nailing first place and batting the mythical 1.000.

Now, if you know him, you’re perfectly aware that skill has nothing to do with it and he’s merely a lucky bastard – his week 17 last year is actually listed on dictionary.com under LUCK – but it’s a staggering feat nonetheless.