Tag: mailvox

Mailvox: the bonfire of the brights

MP writes of an amusing run-in with his intellectually superior atheist boss:

I’ve been following your blog for several months now after reading The Irrational Atheist, and have recently come across a particular situation which I feel will not only provide you with quite possibly severe bouts of hysterical laughter, but also, rather worrying food for thought.

My boss falls under the category of what I would like to describe as an Unread Atheist, an Atheist who has not read The God Delusion, God Is Not Great, End of Faith and other select works in ego-fondling, nor has he done further research into the field. He just plain doesn’t believe and feels that everyone that does is a moron. Now, this is not to mean that in contrast, a Read Atheist is one who is a well-read and intelligent person, it would just mean that via High-Pope Dawkins, First-Saint Hitchens and Court-Jester Harris, that this Read Atheist believes that they have some form of misguided ammo to make a convincing case against God’s existence.

While having post-work talks about all sorts of miscellanea, my boss led it into atheism. Generally, I remain quiet, as you can only imagine the general drivel that he could come up with; ‘Religion causes war’, ‘They don’t believe in science’, ‘Big Bang made the Universe’, ‘The Vatican Deathstar opposes gay contraception in Zimbawania, because they think the Earth is 2,000 years old’ and ‘Jesus never created the Big Bang because I read half of Thus Spoke Zarathustra once’. But then, it happened…

“The European Economic Crisis is the Vatican’s fault and it could be fixed if they weren’t so greedy, all they need to do is sell everything that they’re hiding in their treasury and catacombs and Europe would be back to normal”

I’d like to think that this is one of the most idiotic things that either of us have read, but I honestly don’t even know where to begin with tackling the problem. What do you have to say on this matter?

I say do the math. Vatican City’s assets are estimated to be worth between $1 billion and $3 billion in total. Total global debt now over $190 trillion, about one-quarter of which is European debt. So, I would ask him how $3 billion is going to pay off $47.5 trillion in debt. It may be a hard lesson for some to learn, but not believing in God doesn’t magically make you smarter. Or, as we first learned from the example displayed by Richard Dawkins, particularly numerate.

Mailvox: logical or empirical?

691 doesn’t do the math:

What you cite as a logical blunder is not a logical error at all. Maybe an empirical error. It’s entirely logically possible for a $1 decrease in spending to lead to a $3 decrease in revenue, resulting in a $2 increase in the deficit.

The deficit, the change in debt levels, is the difference between two numbers: spending and revenue. Does the extra debt come from (relatively) higher spending or (relatively) reduced revenues? You claim that spending and borrowing have increased, which would imply that each $1 in extra spending is leading to less than $1 of extra revenue.

But citing debt levels alone is not sufficient to prove your case.

Very well, let’s look and see if what he’s saying is, in fact, logically possible. I pointed out that the debt doubled from $5 trillion to $10 trillion in four years. 691 is claiming that “it’s entirely logically possible for a $1 decrease in spending to lead to a $3 decrease in revenue, resulting in a $2 increase in the deficit.”

There are two ways to show 691’s criticism is incorrect. First, his statement can only be true if the multiplier effect on government spending can be 3x or more. But is that the case? No, it is not.

“For U.S. annual data that include WWII, the estimated multiplier for defense spending is 0.6-0.7 at the median unemployment rate. There is some evidence that this multiplier rises with the extent of economic slack and reaches 1.0 when the unemployment rate is around 12%. Multipliers for non-defense purchases cannot be reliably estimated because of the lack of good instruments.”
– Macroeconomic Effects from Government Purchases and Taxes,
Robert J. Barro and Charles J. Redlick, NBER Working Paper No. 15369 (September 2009)

So, because the unemployment rate never reached 12 percent, the G multiplier cannot possibly have reached 1.0, much less the required 3.0, and therefore it was, as I previously wrote, logically impossible for the post-crisis governments to simultaneously produce large deficits and cut spending.

Concerning the second method, even if we plug in his numbers, we can see they don’t work on an empirical basis either. We’re not dealing in hypotheticals here. What X decrease in annual spending could lead to a 3X decrease in revenue to create a $1.25 trillion deficit? There would have to be a $625 billion decrease in spending as well as a $1.875 fall in revenue to produce it. However, there was a $535 billion INCREASE in spending to go with a $419 billion fall in revenue, thereby providing an empirical illustration of the logical absurdity of his position.

Mailvox: on flaming swords

Kickass wonders about a well-known image:

Could I get an explanation on the flaming sword picture? I thought it was a joke but googled it.

I’ve  explained this before, but for those who didn’t know, this picture was one of many from a Star Tribune photoshoot for an article one of its writers was doing about my Eternal Warriors novels. He moved onto one of the big New York papers before he’d finished the piece, if I recall correctly, so it never ran, but the photographer liked them so much that he emailed a few of them to me.

I still remember laughing when he called me up after the interview with the writer and asked if “my characters, like, did anything interesting?”  I mean, what was I supposed to say, no, they all sit around and discuss their boring lives?  He got really excited when I mentioned that there were these angels and they got in big battles with flaming swords, until he realized that he was, after all, dealing with a writer.  Which led to his next question: “You’re not, like, fat or anything, are you?”  When I reassured him that I was not the pudgy little novelist he was expecting, he asked me to come down to the Star Tribune building in Minneapolis the next week and bring a sword if I happened to have one.

I didn’t, but there was one at the house at which I was staying – we’d already moved to Europe  at this point – which led to the funniest part of the whole thing.  It was winter, so it was cold, but it was also a bright sunny day, which led to my walking into the Star Tribune reception wearing a long black overcoat, black gloves, black shades, with a shaved head and carrying a katana.  The two female receptionists freaked out and called security, at which point I explained the situation and the guards had a good laugh.

We didn’t end up using the katana, however, as the photographer obtained a few swords from a nearby theatre as well as some flame-paste, so he just picked out a rather Conanesque sword, gave it a quick coat of paste, then set it on fire while I held it.  It was a little trickier than it looked because the burning paste tended to drip off, so I had to try to hold still for the photo while dodging the dripping flames at the same time.  It was more fun than the usual photo shoot and I shared the photographer’s disappointment that the piece never ran.  The reaction to the photo, however mockingly it may be intended, only tends to show that his instincts were correct as it made for a much more interesting author’s photo than most.

Mailvox: a subscription, canceled

A former Gary North subscriber writes to share his experience:

I joined garynorth.com a few months ago in hopes of learning why I should believe in free trade. Dr. North and I immediately locked horns as he would not answer my questions. Every time I cited another scholar’s position he dismissed them as a statist or a mercantilist.

He said I wanted to stick a gun in someone’s belly. I was stunned at his behavior. So I cancelled my subscription.

Only recently did I discover your ongoing debate with him over free trade. What a pleasure to see an intellect of your capacity dismantle Gary North for the intellectual fraud that he is.

Not only are the economics better here, but it’s really hard to beat the price. As for North, one shudders to consider the psychosexual foundation for what appears to be his favorite metaphor. And for those who still find the free trade position entirely convincing, I hope you will note that unlike its defender, I am quite willing to answer questions concerning the subject.

Mailvox: oh noes!

Sarah Palin isn’t invited to speak at the Republican convention? This outrage must not stand! We must do something! John Hawkins sends an email:

As you may have heard, Sarah Palin isn’t being given a speaking slot at the Republican National convention. Not only is Sarah Palin the single most prominent woman in the Republican party, a strong advocate of the Tea Party, and an electrifying speaker, she was the also VP candidate in 2008 and was one of the biggest impact players for the Republican Party during the 2010 elections. Not only does Sarah Palin deserve an opportunity to speak, she would be a tremendous asset at the convention.

Towards that end, I’m going to try to collect 10,000 signatures from conservatives who think Sarah Palin should be given a speaking slot. If you’re one of those conservatives, your signature, your link, and any help you can give on Facebook and Twitter would be much appreciated.

Won’t you please help? Think of the children!

Mailvox: why Romney is better

MM explains why Romney would be preferable as president to Obama:

Romney must have some principals because despite theological differences Mormons tend to be law abiding and dedicated to their theology. Whereas Obama is a Muslim, Black Supremacy, Progressive. Liberal Buffoon. Romney has had success with Capitalism, Obama has never had a success with anything except politics. And unfortunately we have to defeat Obama so a “fifteenth choice” candidate like Romney is the only option. You have the right to prognosticate what evils Romney may bring into office with him. No doubt being human he will screw a few things up. Yet he will:

Not apologize to the haters of America that we deserve their hatred

Not admire the most virulent of Jihadists while angering our most important allies

Not block our chances of energy independence as drastically

Not allow amnesty for voter menacing or voter fraud

This is just a short list of some of the most obvious ways Romney will be so much less harmful than Obama.

Yes, because it is all the apologizing that is the real crisis facing America today. This isn’t damning with faint praise, this is underlining my case against Romney by defending with the very faintest of attempted justifications. As I said, if you’re still buying the “we must defeat Evil X with Evil Y” after the debacle of the George W. Bush years, you’re not merely wrong, you’re observably stupid.

The final survey:

Romney: 174 comments, 125 Likes
Obama: 106 comments, 82 Likes
Keen: 10 comments, 11 Likes

Conclusion: WND readers vastly prefer reading about politics to economics. Which is probably true of most readers on the nominal right side of the political spectrum, as their propensity for producing endless permutations of Team Red good! Team Blue bad! explains why Coulter, Breitbart, Me So Michelle, and the Mommyblogger are so popular.

Guess the title of next week’s column….

Mailvox: Why I am not a Libertarian

This is only one of the many reasons. The Libertarian Party is the only one that can make the Republican Party look smart. With a number of massive issues where both major parties diverge from the mainstream consensus, such as the banks, health care, and immigration, naturally the Libertarian Party ticket is determined to commit suicide on the issue of “gay marriage” according to the email I received from the Johnson-Gray campaign.

Gray said, “Unlike Mitt Romney or President Obama, Governor Johnson and I believe the right to marry who we choose is a constitutionally protected right. People of different faiths and different beliefs are free to follow those beliefs when it comes to embracing or opposing same-sex marriage within those faiths and beliefs. However, it should not be the purview of government to impose one set of beliefs over another. And government absolutely should not sanction discrimination against gay Americans who choose to marry.

This is a Libertarian Party that can’t even win the support of influential libertarians. And that is a sign of a party that is going absolutely nowhere. Where, I wonder, is the right to marriage found in the Constitution? And how could it be in there given that the Constitution predates marriage licenses?

Mailvox: atheist debate

TS appears to have learned his formidable debating skillz from the late Christopher Hitchens. He wrote, apropos of nothing, and without so much as a subject matter:

I don’t recall Hitchens ever arguing a point solely by explaining how he “feels” about it. I fear that while your vocabulary may display the results of some kind of education, your ability to reason indicates a resolute refusal to truly learn or listen.

To which I responded: Assuming your memory isn’t flawed, you’re either a complete moron or you haven’t actually read any of Christopher Hitchens’s books. In fact, I would be very interested to know what you feel is the substantive and non-emotional metric by which Hitchens argued God is not great. But considering the possibility that it is your recollection that is the problem, precisely what point do you believe I have argued on the sole basis of my feelings? Deflation vs inflation? Ricardian comparative advantage?

TS responded:

I never claimed that you argue with emotion. I was responding to your message that accompanied the “demotivator” on your website that showed, for some reason, Hitchens with no shirt on. My “feelings” on matters of science are irrelevant, since science is not bridled with emotion. Hitchens is very emotional. What I wrote was that he, from my recollection, does not argue solely based on his emotions. If he did that, you could certainly lump him into the same category as the philsopher, “Dr.” Craig or indeed the televangelists you see on TV. But, he does not. Name calling is not necessary but, unfortunately, it is not surprising. Faith, one could argue, is strictly emotional, if you consider that by it’s very definition, is the belief in something for which there is no evidence, or in spite of compelling evidence to the contrary. I would submit that a rational person could only have strong faith in something, for which there is no evidence or overwhelming evidence to the contrary, only if they have been compelled to do so from an early age or have some other emotional revelation about that something. While I have the disadvantage of being as you put it a “moron” (that was the only possible conclusion, since I have read Hitchens), I “feel” no need to be angered by an email. Settle the fuck down.

Dude, it’s a demotivator! Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris all ran around acting like complete assholes and more than merited such contempt. But the idea that someone’s “ability to reason” is determined by a demotivator – which, in that particular case, I didn’t even create – is deeply and profoundly stupid. And no, one cannot reasonably argue that faith is “strictly emotional”.

Mailvox: an alternative theory

As my prediction of Obama’s decision to refuse the Democratic nomination and retire to the global equivalent of the rubber chicken circuit looks less and less likely, a deep government insider emails me his outline of future events:

Sometime in the next four to six weeks (no less than four but no more than eight at the absolute outside):

1. VP Joe Biden announces that for health reasons, he is leaving the ticket — not leaving office immediately, but to leave office at the end of his term.

2. After a huge, agonizing, public display of, “Oh God no! What ever will we do?” milked for at least a week of prime time and front-page media coverage and a whole lot of talking head blathering about the looming “Constitutional Crisis,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reluctantly agrees to take the VP slot on the ticket.

3. Mitt Romney — ah, who gives a shit what he does? Whatever it is, it will be pathetically ineffective, irrelevant, and a day late and a dollar short.

4. On November 6, 2012, propelled by the overwhelming power of the stupid black, white bitch, dumb college kid, and pussified liberal male vote, the Obama-Clinton ticket absolutely fucking steamrolls the Republicans, and brings along with it filibuster proof Democratic majorities in the Senate, House, and most state government assemblies.

5. Sometime between November 6, 2012, and January 20, 2013, some horrible truth about Obama is revealed — pick one, it doesn’t matter — and all the built-up scandals finally come to a head and erupt in a massive public denunciation of the man. Eric Holder ends up being indicted and arrested by his own people. Team Obama goes to the mattresses in the White House but in the end, in mid-January, as Meet the Press is seriously discussing whether the Secret Service has the authority to arrest the President, the outcry becomes so massive that he must step down — and turn the office over to VP Joe Biden.

6. Biden immediately does a “Night of the Long Knives” thing, purging all those corrupt Obamunists who were the cause of everything that’s wrong with the country.

7. On January 20, 2013, with his place in history as America’s 45th President assured, Biden is downright honored to turn the office over to the new President, Hillary Clinton, and the media rejoice at this triumph of the American electoral system, that our long national nightmare is behind us, and that freedom and justice have been restored.

8. Only much later do honest historians, if any still exist, realize that this was in fact a brilliantly executed Stalinist coup of the first order.

Color me dubious. Among other things, I don’t see Democrats doing well in the state-wide elections. But if it is Biden who steps down, rather than Obama, we’ll know the theory is in play. Also, the total ineptitude of Team Clinton during the 2008 campaign makes me doubt that they can pull off anything that is even more complicated than simply knowing what the rules of the nomination are. They might have the ruthlessness, but they don’t have the necessary eye for detail.

Mailvox: Aussie logic

Freddy suggests that America should follow Australia’s example in fighting crime by banning guns:

Australia has very strict gun laws following several mass shootings. People get shot but mainly as a result of gangs who fight their vendettas out between themselves. It is rare for people to shot in domestic violence or random attacks. Most people don’t carry or own guns. Americans would do well to consider that many non Americans think it is insane to be able to buy a firearm off the counter.

Actually, if the Australian Bureau of Criminology can be believed, Americans would be insane to concern themselves with what non-Americans think about American gun rights.

In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

So, if the USA follows Australia’s lead in banning guns, it should expect a 42 percent increase in violent crime, a higher percentage of murders committed with a gun, and three times more rape. One wonders if Freddy even bothered to look up the relative crime statistics.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations. Twenty-six percent of English citizens — roughly one-quarter of the population — have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized. The United States didn’t even make the “top 10” list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

I wonder why that might be?