Predictions

With the election rapidly approaching, let’s get all the public figures on record.  I’ll present my Electoral College prediction in my column tomorrow.  In the meantime, here are a few predictions that I’ve spotted floating around the Internet.  Feel free to add more in the comments and I’ll update this accordingly.

Vox Day: Romney 305, Obama 233 

Nate Silver: Obama 315, Romney 223 (November 6)
Nate Silver: Obama 307, Romney 231 (November 5)
Nate Silver: Obama 288, Romney 250 (October 22)
Nate Silver: Obama 320, Romney 218 (September 30)
Dick Morris: Romney 351, Obama  187
White House Insider: Romney 300+
Michael Barone: Romney 315, Obama 223
John Scalzi: Obama 294, Romney 244 
InTrade: Obama 303, Romney 235 
Jim Cramer: Obama 440, Romney 98 

As much as I have criticized the cult of Nate Silver, I could not agree with the man more when he writes the following in his column entitled “For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased”:

My argument, rather, is this: we’ve about reached the point where if
Mr. Romney wins, it can only be because the polls have been biased
against him. Almost all of the chance that Mr. Romney has in the
FiveThirtyEight forecast, about 16 percent to win the Electoral College,
reflects this possibility.

Yes, of course: most of the arguments
that the polls are necessarily biased against Mr. Romney reflect little
more than wishful thinking.  Nevertheless, these arguments are
potentially more intellectually coherent than the ones that propose that
the leader in the race is “too close to call.” It isn’t. If the state
polls are right, then Mr. Obama will win the Electoral College. If you
can’t acknowledge that after a day when Mr. Obama leads 19 out of 20
swing-state polls, then you should abandon the pretense that your goal
is to inform rather than entertain the public.

But the state polls
may not be right. They could be biased. Based on the historical
reliability of polls, we put the chance that they will be biased enough
to elect Mr. Romney at 16 percent.

That’s the primary difference between Silver’s opinion and mine.  He puts a chance of anti-Republican poll bias at 16 percent.  Even though I am not a Republican and I do not support Mitt Romney, I think it is closer to 90 percent.  That still may not be enough to account for the gap between what the polls are reporting and how I expect events to transpire on Tuesday, but it does explain the difference.  So let’s keep that in mind.  If Romney does win, the only possible conclusion is that the state polls must be biased.

For those who wish to bring up the 2008 election, I would remind everyone that I was incorrect about Hillary being the Democratic candidate, not about the Democratic candidate winning the general election.  It was always obvious that the Republican candidate – I thought it would be Pataki or a senator in the Dole mode – was intended to be a sacrificial lamb.  Nor should anyone forget that Silver’s poll-based predictions entirely failed in 2010.

American liberals fear blacks

Bill Maher makes it obvious that American liberals are absolutely terrified of blacks.  Their purported anti-racism has nothing to do with color-blindness and everything to do with fear-based appeasement.

“If you’re thinking about voting for Mitt Romney, I would like to make
this one plea: black people know who you are and they will come after
you”

I get the impression that Maher doesn’t actually know very many black people.  Most of the blacks I know were more conscious of whites and actively afraid of white racism than the average white individual is even willing to admit to being cognizant of racial differences.  I’m as familiar with the actual crime statistics as anyone, but you have to remember that blacks are taught that whites are out to get them from the time they are children.  Fear is seldom based on an accurate view of reality.

Mailvox: The silence of the Keynesians

BK asks why Paul Krugman and the Neo-Keynesians aren’t celebrating all those windows broken by Tropical Storm Sandy:

If, as per the NeoKeynesians, the government action in economy like
building some bridges somewhere is good for economy, then don’t you
think Sandy has given the government the right opportunity to improve
the economy- by rebuilding things. ( I guess they don’t care about the
broken window, do they.)  Why is it that Krugman and Co are not declaring
publicly that “Sandy is good for America”, then? Are they afraid that
such a statement will not be good for Obama campaign? That would be
double standards then – keep quiet about your theory when it is
unpopular, speak it out and implement it other times to gain popularity.
In that case, why isn’t the Romney people exposing the double standards
of these people to gain advantage?

Krugman and company are (mostly) keeping quiet on the tropical storm stimulation being provided to the US economy because it is a concept too manifestly absurd to be accepted by the general public when the public is actually dealing with the concrete reality of the devastation.  Keynesianism is the sort of gassy theoretical model that only holds up as long as it isn’t held accountable by events, which is why you never see Keynesians talking about economic history or even showing any sign that they are familiar with economic history.

As for the Romney supporters, they aren’t exposing the double-standards of Krugman and other Obama supporters because they, too, are Neo-Keynesians.  They are the flavor known as monetarists, heavily influenced by the Keynesian reformist Milton Friedman, but as Steve Keen and other economists of left and right have pointed out, they’re all operating within the same conceptual neoclassical framework, speaking the same Samuelsonian language.

American Red Cross goes AWOL

Only now are SWPLs beginning to discover that charities that pay their executives compensation comparable with the private sector not all that concerned about actually helping people in need:

At a press conference this morning on Staten Island, a host of local
officials, including Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand,
gathered to highlight the needs of the hard-hit borough in the aftermath
of Hurricane Sandy. And, although many pols spoke, no one was more
impassioned than Borough President James Molinaro, who called the Red
Cross an “absolute disgrace” and even urged the public to cease giving
them contributions.

“Because the devastation in Staten Island, the lack of a response,”
Mr. Molinaro said to explain his comment to NBC after the press
conference. “You know, I went to a shelter Monday night after the storm.
People were coming in with no socks, with no shoes. They were in
desperate need. Their housing was destroyed. They were crying. Where was
the Red Cross? Isn’t that their function? They collect millions of
dollars. Whenever there’s a drive in Staten Island, we give openly and
honestly. Where are they? Where are they? I was at the South Shore
yesterday, people were buried in their homes. There the dogs are trying
to find bodies. The people there, the neighbors who had no electricity,
were making soup. Making soup. It’s very emotional because the lack of a
response. The lack of a response. They’re supposed to be here….They
should be on the front lines fighting, and helping the people.”

Clearly Mr. Molinaro doesn’t understand how this works.  Private sector executives don’t feel the need to be there helping anyone, so why should their American Red Cross counterparts be out there either?  The function of the American Red Cross is to collect millions of dollars and then distribute that money throughout its bureaucracy.  It has nothing to do with helping anyone except themselves.  Doesn’t everyone know that?

For the record, this is NOT true of other national Red Cross organizations.  But the big name American charities make even Wall Street executives raise their eyebrows and marvel at their rapaciousness.  At least Goldman Sachs has the decency to honestly swindle its clients out of their money rather than lying about how they’re going to help disaster victims with it.

Smells like game over

Despite not being at all a Muslim in any way, shape, or form, so help him, um, Moses, Obama actually managed to lose the Israelis:

Mitt Romney was running for president against Barack Obama in Israel, the former Mass. governor would win in a landslide.
A new poll released by The Times of Israel on Thursday showed that 45
percent of Israelis would vote for Romney, compared to 29 percent for
the president. 

As we saw from the commenter at McRapey’s, when you’ve lost the Israelis, you’ve lost the American Jewish vote.  I’m a little saddened by this tragi-comic ending, as I just don’t think a Romney administration is going to provide even one-fifth the comedic appeal of its predecessor.

Mailvox: the ideas, they spread

CG sounds a little offended upon my behalf:

Did you read this article? It’s a pretty blatant TIA rip-off. Sorry you
don’t receive any credit. 

Despite being taken directly from TIA, this may actually be less of a “rip-off” than another article I saw recently in a mainstream news article that read as if had come right out of a recent WND column.  But this doesn’t bother me in the slightest, in fact, I regard it as in some ways being the ultimate compliment.

What such citations mean is that it the ideas rather than the personality are making their way into the mainstream.  We’re seeing this with Roissy and Game, and we’re also seeing this in a lesser way with various concepts that I’ve been banging on for years now.  Since I’m not pursuing a career as a talking head, it doesn’t really matter if I get the ego boost from seeing my name in print or not, and let’s face it, of all the egos in the world, mine must be among the least in need of boosting.

It’s a good thing that the ideas are able to be transmitted in places where their attachment to my identity may handicap them.  The most influential thinkers are not always those whose names are most recognizable; Paris Hilton and Richard Dawkins are both famous, which examples I trust underline the complete lack of intellectual significance of fame.

Star Wars is dead

Not that George Lucas hasn’t methodically gone about ruining his creation for decades, beginning with The Return of the Jedi and those damned Ewoks, but the sale of Lucasfilm to Disney pretty much guarantees that the franchise will never, ever, return to its erstwhile glory.  This take on the acquisition by a Slashdot commenter named Doctor Jest summed it up rather nicely:

Mark my words…. Episode 7 will be all goddamned Ewoks. And
Chewbacca will have a perm and PTSD from the final battle. Then we have
to have the token black guy/chick… forget Billy Dee Williams. We’re
getting Will Smith or his bratty little kid. C3P0 will finally come out
of the closet and admit he’s been taking it up the exhaust pipe from
IG-88 for years. R2D2 will be turned into a karaoke machine…. Luke
will become a homeless religious nut while Han Solo and Leia will have six
kids on galactic welfare… and the evil Ritt Momney will threaten to
close the youth center Han and Leia run unless the duo can field a
tiddlywinks team in time for the big tournament on Yaavin IV. Meanwhile,
the Emperor’s clones will become the universe’s ugliest choir.

Now
I know the franchise is truly dead. Thank goodness I got it on Blu Ray
before Disney got their slimy dickskinners on the franchise. Disney
fucked the Muppets… (I believe they killed Henson because he was
having second thoughts on the sale… ok, so I made that up… but
Disney’s fucking evil!)

It’s sad, because Disney used to be a wonderful organization itself.  Now it is the evil vampire squid of the entertainment world, mindlessly devouring and excreting out the stinking remnants of one entertainment franchise after another.  It was never going to happen, but imagine how much creativity could have been unleashed if George Lucas had released Star Wars under the LGPL.  Instead, we’re going to get gay Ewoks singing musical numbers and Hispanic princesses wielding lightsabers and going on intergalactic voyages with sparkly alien vampires where they defeat the evil Ritt Momney and Pand Raul in the process of learning the important lesson that the ultimate truth in life is to be tolerant of others who are different… unless they are Republicans.

Endorsements

All right, now that we’ve seen the very entertaining justifications presented by the cognitively challenged Obama voters, let’s see if the Dread Ilk can do any better.  For whom are you voting next week and why?  Alternatively, if you are not voting, what is your justification for your decision.

Stow the reactions to anyone else’s endorsement or reasoning, limit your comments to your own intended actions.  I’ll highlight what I consider to be some of the best and worst of them in a post tomorrow, and present my own endorsement for the presidential election.

On a tangential note, I found this to be easily the most interesting out of the 150+ endorsements there:

I have been undecided for a very, very long time. But I think this
thread is what finally made up my mind – after reading how many people
want Obama because they believe he won’t try to prevent Iran from going
nuclear. I’m endorsing Romney even though I’m angered by a lot of the
nonsense that comes out of the Republican Party, and even though I agree
with Obama on most things, especially health care and immigration
reform.

Why? Because my grandmother is a Holocaust survivor, and the
slaughter of her entire family was enabled, in part, by a policy of
wishful-thinking appeasement that thought any sacrifice was acceptable
to avoid war, and that the leader talking publicly about killing all the
Jews couldn’t possibly mean it seriously.

After World War II, as a 16-year-old without a single living person
in the world who knew her name, my grandmother moved to Israel, the only
country that would take her. Israel is where most of my relatives live
now. And much as I would love to, I can’t vote for the candidate who
seems likely to follow a policy of wishful-thinking appeasement while
Iran works on its nuclear arsenal and talks publicly about wiping
Israel’s six million Jews off the map.

Translation: Obama has lost the Jews.  Their concern for Israel is trumping their domestic left-liberal concerns.  If those who “agree with Obama on most things” are now voting for Romney due to his tough talk on Iran, Obama is one and done.

Conspiracy theorists, you disappoint me

For literally years, I’ve been hearing rumors concerning how Obama was going to cancel the presidential election and rule over the subdued nation as a CommunIslamic dictator with an iron fist.  And now, with this so-called “hurricane” meme being pushed on a credulous nation by Obama’s lapdogs in the mainstream, complete with photoshopped pictures of wind, rain, and eroded beaches and cheap Dan Rather-style videos of fake weather-buffeted reporters, giving Obama the perfect excuse to cancel the election next week, absolutely no one has managed to put two and two together?  No one thinks this is the perfectly-timed storm to put an end American democracy?  No one has even suggested that the man of mysterious birth who could make the oceans stop rising, and has now reportedly summoned the ocean’s wrath in a suspiciously timely manner, is not the bastard son of Poseidon?

Conspiracy theorists, you make me sad.  A very poor showing all around, I’m sorry to say.

VDH describes Krugman and his kind

VDH on the naive and ignorant mindset of the left-liberal elite

In the elite liberal mind, there is instead a sort of progressive Big
Rock Candy Mountain. Gasoline comes right out of the ground through the
nozzle into the car. Redwood 2x4s sprout from the ground like trees.
Apples fall like hail from the sky; stainless steel refrigerator doors
are mined inches from the surface. Tap water comes from some enormous
cistern that traps rain water.  Finished granite counter tops
materialize on the show room floor. Why, then, would we need Neanderthal
things like federal gas and oil leases, icky dams and canals, yucky
power plants, and gross chain saws — and especially those who would dare
make and use them? 

For some, especially those who are well-educated and well-spoken, a
sort of irrational furor at “the system” governs their political
make-up. Why don’t degrees and vocabulary always translate into big
money? Why does sophisticated pontification at Starbucks earn less than
mindlessly doing accounting behind a desk? We saw this tension with
Michelle Obama who, prior to 2009, did not quite have enough capital to
get to Aspen or Costa del Sol, and thereby, despite the huge
power-couple salaries, Chicago mansion, and career titles, felt that
others had far too much more than the Obamas. “Never been proud,”
“downright mean country,” “raise the bar,” etc., followed, as
expressions of yuppie angst. The more one gets, the more one believes he
should get even more, and the angrier he gets that another — less
charismatic, less well-read, less well-spoken — always seems to get
more. 

So do not discount the envy of the sophisticated elite. The unread
coal plant manager, the crass car dealer, or the clueless mind who farms
1000 acres of almonds should not make more than the sociology
professor, the kindergarten teacher, the writer, the artist, or the
foundation officer. What sort of system would allow the dense and easily
fooled to become better compensated (and all for what — for superfluous
jet skis and snowmobiles?) than the anguished musician or tortured-soul
artist, who gives so much to us and receives so much less in return?
What a sick country — when someone who brings chain saws into the Sierra
would make more than a UC Berkeley professor who would stop them.

And lest you think he exaggerates about the inability of the left-liberal to understand concepts as basic as where things come from, consider this recent offering from Paul Krugman, among the most elite members of the left-liberal community.

Both Dean Baker and Josh Bivens weigh in Robert Samuelson’s outburst at the New York Times for saying that the government can too create jobs. (He went so far as to call it “flat-earth” thinking). Sadly, Samuelson’s attitude is widely shared — even, at least rhetorically, by Barack Obama.

So let me not focus on Samuelson’s piece so much as on the general proposition. What can it possibly mean to say that only the private sector can create jobs?

It could mean that government jobs aren’t “real” jobs — presumably that they don’t supply something of value to society. Samuelson disavows that position, I think — and rightly so. After all, the bulk of government workers are in education, protective services, and health. Do you really want to say that schoolteachers, firefighters, and nurses provide nothing of value?

What Samuelson is saying, what hundreds of economists have recognized for literally centuries, is that schoolteachers, firefighters and nurses PRODUCE nothing of value.  This should be obvious, because none of them PRODUCE anything at all.  Think about it.  Suppose that everyone was either a schoolteacher, a firefighter, or a nurse.  How much wealth would be collectively produced by them?  Absolutely nothing.

Schoolteachers, firefighters, and nurses are all societal luxury goods.  They are costs, at most they may allow for the leveraging and development of more efficient productive laborers, but in themselves, they produce absolutely nothing.  Their productive value is zero.  This is something that can be easily observed by anyone who has ever seen someone teaching, firefighting, or nursing.  And yet, the most elite of the elite left-liberals genuinely cannot grasp this.  Nor is he the only one, as Baker and Bivens demonstrate.  Samuelson is too kind when he mocks them as flat-earthers.  At least the flat earthers can reasonably observe that the earth looks flat from their vantage point.