Vox Popoli

Phyllis Schafly points out the obvious:

When Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., asked Condoleezza Rice during her confirmation hearings about the Law of the Sea Treaty, she replied that President George W. Bush “certainly would like to see it passed as soon as possible.” Assuming she was authorized to deliver that shocking news, the president can no longer claim the mantle of Ronald Reagan’s conservative legacy.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was a terrible idea when then-President Reagan refused to sign it in 1982 and fired the State Department staff who helped negotiate it. It’s an even worse idea today because of the additional dangers it poses.

Contrary to the baseless assertions of the Three Monkey Republicans in the “conservative” media, George Bush holds no claim on the mantle of Reagan. Reagan, for all his flaws, respected and defended American sovereignty, while George Delano, in his own words, is dedicated to upholding the ideals of the United Nations.

Whereas Reagan fired those who helped negotiate the treasonous treaty, the pretender to his legacy is eager to sign it. It is stunning, but entirely likely that George W. Bush will eventually go down in history as the worst, most anti-American president since Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Regardless of whether he is succeeded by Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush – the two leading bifactional ruling party candidates in Matt Towery’s recent poll – it’s clear that America is headed for membership in an EU-style superstate that supercedes the U.S. Constitution.

Dr. Ski notices something of potential significance

It has been almost a year since the triple sell signal and that signal’s impact has historically been eradicated after 1-2 years. On the other hand, and keeping with my paranoia regarding “coincidences”, Fidelity Brokerage just informed me that beginning this week on 2/10/05 (Thursday) I will be unable to initiate new short positions in Fidelity Select Gold (FSAGX). They wrote that since the shorting programs inception in 1987, “There has been little interest in it,” so they are stopping it because they don’t make enough money from it.

When no one is interested in going short, that’s a very strong signal that the market is running out of buyers and is about to head south with a vengeance. Don’t get me wrong, gold is an excellent long term bet, but markets always move up and down within the greater trends. The run from 250 to 460 was tremendous fun, but now there’s likely some down time required before the next leg is fueled. Perhaps it will bounce from 415 or 400 for a time, but the bounce will be short term.

None of this need concern the accumulationists, of course. They’ll just be pleased to be able to buy more at lower prices soon.

In any event, it is amazing how many market turns are highlighted by decisions such as these.

Stephen Roach, one of the few mainstream economists for whom I have any respect, highlights an interesting confession:

:

At long last, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has owned up to the central role he has played in sparking unprecedented global imbalances. His confession came in the form of a speech innocuously entitled, “Current Account” that was given in London at the Advancing Enterprise 2005 Conference on the eve of the 5 February G-7 meeting. In the narrow world of econo-speak, his prepared text contains the functional equivalent of a “smoking gun.”

Greenspan’s admission came when he finally made the connection between the excesses of America’s property market and its gaping current account deficit. To the best of my knowledge, this was the first time he ventured into this realm of the debate with such clarity. He starts by conceding “…the growth of home mortgage debt has been the major contributor to the decline in the personal saving rate in the United States from almost 6 percent in 1993 to its current level of 1 percent.” He then goes on to admit that the rapid growth in home mortgage debt over the past five years has been “driven largely by equity extraction” — jargon for the withdrawal of asset appreciation from the consumer’s largest portfolio holding, the home. In addition, the Chairman cites survey data suggesting, “Approximately half of equity extraction shows up in additional household expenditures, reducing savings commensurately and thereby presumably contributing to the current account deficit.” In other words, he concedes that a debt-induced consumption boom has led to a massive current account deficit. That says it all, in my view.

The obvious and most important point is that rapid growth of US mortgage debt did not come out of thin air. It was, of course, a direct outgrowth of the Fed’s hyper-accommodation of the post-bubble era — namely, short-term interest rates that have been negative in real terms for longer than at any point since the 1970s. As Greenspan’s dryly notes, “The fall in US interest rates since the early 1980s has supported home price increases.”

I’m not precisely sure what Greenspan’s confession of the obvious indicates, but my intuitive response is that he is providing a public warning for those with the wits to pay attention. Roach adds: “What he is saying implicitly is that the Fed will need to withdraw support from the Asset Economy by restoring some semblance of normalcy to America’s real interest rate structure.”

In other words, the Fed is not planning to continuing the attempt to inflate its way out – which was never going to work in the long term anyhow – so the price of assets is likely to fall. This may be why the dollar has already risen 7 percent against the euro at the time when everyone (except me and a few Elliott Wavers) was predicting its imminent demise.

The old saying is buy low, sell high. I suspect that Good Sir Alan is telling us that the time for the latter has finally arrived.

RC offers a point-by-point critique:

You certainly outdid yourself in this latest piece. If there was any question on how you felt about public school education, your article cleared that up very quickly. Even for a Mensa, this was over the top in so many ways that I was appalled.

First, insulting and condemning public school teachers also condemns public school graduates by association. Since our kids went to public K-12, public universities, and now doing post grad also at public university, you certainly have not won any points with us. And by the way, is scoring about 90 percentile on MCAT OK with you for a public school educated kid. How about passing the Quals in Mathematics/Biology for entry into PhD program? Here is some feedback for you from a family that has been through the public education system:

1. At about 85% of the schools (based on a research study done by one of our kids), K-12 kids can learn as little or as much as they wish. It is up to them–the resources are there. It is true that at 15% of the schools, serious help is needed.

2. True–not all teachers are equal. In our case, only once did we have to intervene and request a change of teachers.

3. Private schoolers and home schoolers adopt an arrogant attitude that rubs us the wrong way. Our neighbors would just insist on the superiority of private/Catholic schools, however, their kids could not approach our kids’ undergraduate 3.75 GPAs at U of M (one in Chemical Engineering and the other in Mathematics–not in School of Education)–not to mention the Doctoral work thereafter.

4. Most parents care not to seriously and daily “manage” their kids’ education–which is all it takes. No need to home school or spend the extra bucks for private.

5. You or I could home school – what about the majority? Not really. Just think about AP Calculus, AP Physics, AP History, AP Biology, AP English, AP Chemistry, etc. Yes, the teachers you decimate with a few keystrokes taught our kids these subjects and our kids learned well because they were focused and wanted to learn.

6. Why would you expect that TODAY the best and brightest become K-12 teachers? To be kicked around in columns such as yours? Give me a break! Parents and some media continue to harp and insult teachers daily. Who would want that abuse if there were another path?

Only decimated? And here I thought I’d cast serious aspersions of sub-normality on at least sixty percent! Anyhow, the pinata-smacking involved here is just too easy, so I thought I’d throw it up as a little red meat for the wolves to devour.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it’s time to play spot the logical fallacies! But to be fair, while scoring 90 percent on the MCAT is universally impressive, it is particularly so for anyone who has been forced to slog through the public schools.

LS spins it differently:

It was with clenched teeth that I read your column entitled, “Idiots at the Chalkboard,” as I am sickened by the constant labeling of teachers as idiots. While you redeemed yourself at the end with your “teaching’s best and brightest” comment, and hinted at the root of the public education crisis, namely the system itself, one still finishes reading your column with a “teachers are stupid” aftertaste lingering in his or her mouth. Here I must make a correction. These idiots of whom you write are not teachers.

As one of those people who escaped the public schools of America after determining that I could not emotionally endure the system for an additional twenty-five years, I now work with English language learners overseas. Even my non-native English speaking students could tell you that the people referred to as teachers in your column are not teachers at all. My second language learners know that a dancer is someone who dances. They know that a runner is someone who runs. They know that a driver is someone who drives, and they know that a teacher is someone who teaches.

Are the people who are given teaching assignments in America’s public schools actually teaching? You know as well as I do that the majority are not. Please do not tarnish one of the most beautiful words of the English language, teacher, by inaccurately using it to label vast numbers of public school employees.

That’s a fair point, but then, LS and everyone else knew perfectly well to whom I was referring in today’s column. I happen to believe that it’s only polite to refer to people as they’d prefer to be known, so when I’m telling an NEA member who spends nine months out of the year brainwashing helpless young children sentenced to the propaganda factories by a combination of state law and uncaring parents that she is a minor, moronic cog in an evil system designed to intellectually destroy the innocent, I do try to do her the courtesy of addressing her as a so-called “teacher”.

Notes in Samsara questions my Patriots’ pick:

I can’t help but think…. Some folks might want New England to win because of something to do with the Philadelphia Quarterback…

I don’t even dislike Donovan McNabb, although I am still a critic – and I saw nothing in yesterday’s game to change my mind about him in the slightest. But if NiS is thinking to slyly impute racism, I’ll be curious to hear his explanation for my staunch cheerleading for another, better black quarterback, Mr. Daunte Culpepper.

McNabb is not a bad quarterback. But he is not a great one either. His three interceptions were par for the course against a good defense, he couldn’t hit his receivers in stride to save his life and only Westbrook’s phenomenal one-handed behind-the-back catch on third down in Patriot’s territory preserved Philadelphia’s second touchdown drive. Don’t forget that McNabb actually threw four interceptions, but one was called back on a penalty.

The difference between McNabb and Brady was stark. When Brady got in trouble, he quickly threw the ball away out of bounds. McNabb, on the other hand, was still dumping off to his outlet receiver in the middle of the field with less than a minute to play and no timeouts. This is not exactly quarterbacking that brings Staubach or Montana to mind.

I do give McNabb credit for learning pocket discipline. I’d rather have him behind center than another much-overrated QB, Michael Vick. But getting your team to the Super Bowl is no indicator of quarterbacking greatness, since Neil O’Donnell did as much and Trent Dilfer actually won one. Like Dilfer, McNabb’s success is more than a little dependent upon a great defense, which held Corey Dillon under 100 yards and did not allow New England a single first down in the first quarter.

And is there anyone who doubts my characterization of Andy Reid as an average gameday coach now? That was the most pathetic two-minute offense I’ve seen in years. The only thing that really surprised me was Belicheck’s decision at the end of the game; considering his fearless playcalling, I was half-expecting a fake punt when the punting team came out. No, on the other hand, that was the second surprise. The first and biggest one was the decision to blitz on the Eagles’ last touchdown. I could hear TMQ’s outraged cries all the way from the Potomac before the ball even left McNabb’s hand, and judging from Belicheck’s reaction, I’m guessing that he was as surprised with the crazy defensive call as I was.

You’re two scores up, time is running out and Philadelphia hasn’t solved the zone all night. This is the moment to blitz your safety, Romeo? Still, it was good to see Belicheck, Crennel and Weis gather together in a hefty huddle-hug as the game ended. It may be a long time before we see as effective – or as large – a coaching trio working in such harmony again.

JS can’t find Mensa’s web site:

What evidence do you have to support Mensa’s position on the SAT/IQ correlation? Linda Gottfredson seems to believe that teachers have an above average IQ. I am also highly suspicious of the SAT/IQ correlation as is La Griffe. Moreover, to suggest an average teacher IQ of 91 puts 20 points between Mensa and a full-time world renown intelligence researcher.

I am sure that school teachers are not as smart as physicians or mathematicians. However, I know that many women enter the teaching profession because of a desire to help children. Rather than blaming teachers for their collective poor performance, better to blame the socialist system that allows it to happen. In the past you have quoted Mises. Why not adopt the “give no quarter” Austrian philosophy? Blame the teachers and you miss a chance to identify to the public the governing dynamic behind our terrible schools.

The evidence is sort of hard to miss. Mensa has a minimum IQ requirement, and as evidence that one meets it, the organization accepts your pre-1994 SATs as “an approved intelligence test that has been properly administered and supervised.” This is, in fact, its only entrance requirement. In the case of this particular test, a score of 1250 or higher is required which equates to an IQ of 130. This is 39 points higher than the AVERAGE education major, not 20, which makes me wonder if perhaps JS might be an education major himself. And of course, the AVERAGE score says nothing about the intelligence of an INDIVIDUAL teacher… except that in the case of a highly intelligent one, there is at least one and probably more sub-normal intelligences to counterbalance her.

I also don’t see what JS’s point about women entering the teaching profession because of a desire to help children has to do with anything. The point is that the low intelligence of the average teacher completely explodes the notion of leaving education to the so-called professionals.

Finally, JS reveals that he hasn’t paid much attention to my previous columns on education. I have criticized government involvement in it many times, but teachers too often escape criticism for their willing, often enthusiastic, involvement in a corrupt, destructive system. The reality is that they are demonstrably, in the aggregate, an overpaid, underachieving, low-IQ lot complicit in the intellectual destruction of America’s children.

As for Linda Gottfredson, the evidence suggests she’s wrong. Furthermore, she’s a professor at the University of Delaware’s School of Education. I’m sure a lot of car salesmen will tell you that car buyers have above-average IQs… at least in public.

Since early in the season, I expected a Pittsburgh-Philadelphia Super Bowl resulting in a Pittsburgh victory. I abandoned that idea two weeks ago when I picked the Patriots and Eagles in the conference championship games. When it comes to playoffs and Super Bowls, I think that coaching matters much more than most people think, since the talent levels of the teams are more equal than they are for most regular season games.

Andy Reid is a solid coach, but he is not a great one. He doesn’t get outcoached, for the most part, but neither does he outcoach anyone, not even Mike Tice. Bill Belicheck, on the other hand, has repeatedly proven himself to be a Jedi master, with game plans in this year’s playoffs that left two very good teams, Indianapolis and Pittsburgh, in near-complete disarray. Notice how there hasn’t even been a whisper of Charlie Weis being distracted by his moonlighting job as the Notre Dame head coach of late. The Patriots are a strategic machine, awesome to behold.

Factor in the Terrell Owens injury and the “happy-to-be-there” factor of the Eagles, and I suspect that under the guidance of the maglia ex machina, the Patriots will methodically dismantle the Eagles. I don’t think it will be a blow-out, and the combination of a tough Eagles defense and a screw-the-gameplan drive filled with scrambles by McNabb will probably help the Eagles make a last, desperate push to keep the game close in the third quarter, but this one should be over early in the fourth with a nail-in-the-coffin Patriots score.

I’m not displeased at the prospect. The Patriots were my third favorite team* until Jacksonville entered the league – my family has New England roots – and while the loss to the Bears in 1985 wasn’t anywhere nearly as painful as the three Vikings’ Super Bowl defeats I’ve suffered through, (I was too young to watch the KC game), it’s still been nice to see it avenged so thoroughly – and at the expense of Mike Martz, no less! As dynasties go, the Patriots make a much more palatable one than the monstrous Steelers, the evil 49ers or the much-despised Redskins**.

*I’m not sure where the Packers rank. They are something of a beloved enemy. I cheered for them against the Patriots in the Desmond Howard Super Bowl, but it just doesn’t seem right to consider the team that you always want to beat above all else as one of your favorite teams. It’s not just an NFC Central (North) thing either, because I never cheer for the Bears or the Lions unless they’re going against the AFC (ex Patriots and Jags), the 49ers or the Redskins.

**The Cowboys are my second favorite team. A distant second, mostly, but it’s still enough to inspire a degree of antipathy for the Redskins, aided more than a little by the memory of Darrin Nelson’s butterfingers.

Michael Ledeen flips arguments:

It’s hard to imagine the MSM getting stupider, but there they go again…a raft of articles today on the “pro-Iranian Shi’ite list” in the Iraqi elections. It’s totally wrong. The Iranians dread the Iraqi Shiites, because the Iraqis, from Sistani to Chalabi to Hakim and on down, all oppose the Iranian heresy of the “Supreme Leader,” a cleric at the top of the state. The traditional Shiite view is that such an event can only take place when the “12th Imam” returns from his disappearance–more than a millennium ago–to claim rightful leadership of the entire Muslim world.

Until then, people in turbans should stay in the mosques, and the state should be governed by non-clerics. Sistani, Chalabi, and Hakim all said they were opposed to clerics in the government. Chalabi said–loudly and publicly, IN TEHRAN–that he and all the members of his list were opposed to the creation of an Iranian-style Islamic Republic in Iraq, and Chalabi also said, publicly on television, sitting next to the Iranian Ambassador to Baghdad, that Iraqi freedom was due to the brave leadership of George W. Bush.

Despite their tricky recent statements endorsing the Iraqi elections, the mullahs know that the Iraqi democratic revolution is a mortal threat to them, and to their heretical version of Shiism. They are now quaking in Tehran, not–as the “expert” commentators and reporters would have us believe–drooling over new-found control over Iraq. If Najaf reestablishes its traditional role as the center of Shiism, the Iranian mullahs will be even further discredited. And that will be quite an achievement for a group that is already fully despised by its own people.

Ledeen sounds like the people who were swearing up and down that there was no connection whatsoever between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. They were entirely correct, but that was irrelevant. Ledeen may well be correct that the Iraqi Shiites about to come into power are not bosom buddies with their Iranian counterparts, but a failure to see eye to eye is not the same thing as a guarantee that there will be no future cooperation. Ledeen’s position is ironic, since prior to the invasion, he and his neocon ilk were arguing that despite the huge differences between the Islamic terrorists and the secular Ba’athists, the two had managed to find common cause against the United States.

The idea that a majority Muslim government is going to quietly accept a Western-style separation of church and state borders on ludicrous, especially when the leading cleric involved, Sistani, has already declared that the new Iraqi constitution must be based on sharia. It hasn’t happened in Turkey, it hasn’t happened in Algeria or in Indonesia, it has only been grudgingly accepted thanks to the repeated intervention of those nations’ militaries. And it’s interesting how Ledeen asserts that while Iranian Shiites are making tricky statements, declarations by Iraqi Shiites must be taken at their word.

Liberal Democrats very much love to embrace the notion that they are more intelligent, despite the obvious flaw in their logic that the less money and education you have, the more likely you are to vote Democrat for president. And as you might expect, they prefer to stick to vague generalities and baseless assertions instead of actually attempting to put together any evidence to support the concept.

While doing some research for my column on Monday – on a tangentially related topic that should spark some interesting hate mail – I happened to stumble across SAT results listed by state. Now, the SAT is no longer the IQ test it once was, but it is certainly a reasonable starting point for a discussion about intelligence and general intellectual competence, and one much more tangible than any rationale previously cited on the matter.

If one troubles to break down the data by adding up the average SAT score for the 19 states, (including DC) that supported Kerry in 2004, one sees that the average “blue” state SAT score is 518 verbal and 523 math. Converting it to pre-1996 SAT scores makes that 438 verbal and 503 math for a cumulative score of 941 which equates to an IQ of 100.

Meanwhile, the average score for the 32 “red” states that voted for Bush in 2004 is 544 verbal and 545 math. Converting to pre-1996 scores gives 464 verbal and 525 math, for a cumulative SAT score of 989. This equates to an IQ of 105. Therefore, based on a statistically significant amount of hard data, it’s quite clear that Republican states are, on average, more intelligent than Democratic states, which supports the exit poll data which previously indicated that Republicans are smarter.

This is only marginally less nonsensical than the ridiculous Democratic mythology, of course, since the smartest Democratic state, (Wisconsin at 1179 combined), only had 7 percent of its graduates taking the SAT, while the smartest state – North Dakota’s combined score was 1215 – was represented by precisely 4 percent of its grads. Thus, our data is woefully incomplete and inadequate to make a firm conclusion.

And yet, the fact is that based on all of the relevant data available to us at this juncture, Republicans are indubitably smarter than Democrats.