Tag: media

Speaking of rhetoric

“Killer was home schooled” is a subtitle of an article in the Daily Telegraph.  “Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old who killed his mother and 26 people at a primary school in Connecticut, was “very, very bright”, his aunt claimed as she disclosed his mother had chosen to home school him after “battling” education authorities.”

And yet, in the article itself, it refers to former classmates, his junior high school basketball team, the English class in which he read Steinbeck at 16, his membership in the high school computer club, how he sat alone at the table in the school lunchroom and on the school bus, and the way he graduated in 2010 from a high school with a yearbook.

This is not an accident.  A dialectic reading of the article will rapidly cause one to conclude that the bright, but mentally unstable kid should have been homeschooled from the start.  Instead, he was thrown into public school hell, socially rejected, and eventually took vengeance upon those serving as proxies for the individuals he perceived to have harmed him.  It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that he had serious issues at school dating back to first or second grade; there is a reason he went after the little ones even if we don’t know what it is. 

But the intended rhetorical effect is for one to draw a connection between being homeschooled and being a murderous freak.  Which is deeply ironic, considering that homeschooling would help solve the problem from both ends, first by making it much less easy to slaughter large numbers of young children gathered in a single confined and defenseless place, and second by reducing the amount of abuse suffered by mentally unstable social rejects in their most formative years.

Thom Hartmann interview

THOM HARTMANN: Vox
Day, which is Latin for “the voice of God.” VoxDay.blogspot.com, his
website; Christian libertarian; author of several books, including A
Throne Of Bones, just out today. The blog is “Vox Popoli”, which would be the voice of the people. So, Voice of God, welcome.

VOX DAY: Thanks, Tom.
TH: Great to have you with us. You are a self-professed secessionist. Explain this to me.
VD: The way that I would begin it is that I would say that I favor
self-determination for all peoples, whether they’re American, whether
they’re Scottish, whether they’re Catalonian…
TH: You know, any person, including yourself, can hop on a plane and
go to any other country, and if you can get them to take you, you’re
there.
VD: I am. I’ve lived in Europe for 13, 14 years now
TH: Ok. So, you know . . . what’s the problem?
VD: I don’t have any problem, it’s simply an intellectual
thing. It’s simply understanding that, throughout the course of human
history, it is entirely normal for groups of people to come together for
a period of time, and then break apart after a while.  You
know, this is a pattern of history that has existed for as
long as man has written these things down. In fact, in that new novel
that you mentioned, it’s based on the Roman social war of 91BC, which
was, essentially, a secessionist movement, even though they ended up
joining the empire after all.
TH:
So you’re suggesting … let’s translate this into simple English. Are
you suggesting that the citizens of any particular state, on a majority
vote, should be able to simply withdraw themselves from the union as
states did in 1860?
VD: Of course. We’re seeing it happen right now in Scotland. We think it’s unthinkable because America is such a short-lived….
TH:
But Scotland has historically been a separate country. And, they have
profoundly different . . . I spent a fair amount of time in Scotland.
And it’s a very different culture from British culture. And they have
fought wars over the years. I mean, you know, what’s his name, the crazy
actor, Mel Gibson, made a movie out of one of them.  I
mean, they fought wars with the British. England, historically, was a
separate country, just because they happened to be on the same island.
And you could argue that the only reason Scotland was part of the United
Kingdom was because they were conquered, and now they’re “unconquering” themselves.  That’s very different from states voluntarily joining a union like we have here in the United States.
VD:
But they weren’t conquered. They came together as part of the voluntary
Acts of Union from 1707. Their voluntarily, democratically-supported
union has lasted more than twice as long as the history of the United
States [Union].(1)  And so, we’re seeing this all over the world.  We’re
seeing Catalonia, which has been part of Castilian Spain for even
longer than Scotland’s been part of the United Kingdom, voting, again democratically, left and right joining together, to vote the secessionists into power.…
TH:
Right. But, again, don’t you think that that’s because they’re sick and
tired of Spain being part of the EU, and thus having lost their
national sovereignty, and so they’re going to claim their own national
sovereignty and withdraw themselves from the EU?
VD:
That might be the case with the Catalonians. That’s not the case with
the Scottish. The Scottish actually want to get out of the United
Kingdom, and then join  the EU in their own right which….
TH: Which seems crazy to me.
VD:
It’s totally crazy to me, too. But that’s the whole point about
self-determination. What is it to us as Americans or whatever we might
be …
TH:
So do you think Lincoln should have just said when the South seceded,
even before… A number of the states seceded after he was elected but
before he was installed into office, because back then the elections
were in November and you were sworn into office in March. And during
that time, you had a bunch of states that said, “Ok, that’s it, we’re
out of here”… that he should have just said, “Goodbye”?
VD:
Oh, absolutely. In fact, the interesting thing is that before Lincoln,
about, maybe, 30 years before that, the secessionist states were the New
England states. They were the ones who were talking about seceding. I
don’t recall what the deal was, why they were interested. But it was
never really questioned that a state had the right to voluntarily leave
the union because, otherwise, if they didn’t have the right to
voluntarily leave, then it was just another militarily imposed empire.
TH: But that right is not laid out in the constitution.
VD: I’m sorry?
TH: That right is not laid out in the constitution.
VD:
Well, no, because the constitution has to do with the rights of the
federal government. It doesn’t have anything to do with the rights of
the states. If you’re writing a document limiting the federal
government….
TH: Well, actually, it does. It gives the federal government, for example, the right to regulate commerce between the states.
VD: Sure.
TH:
It says how states shall apportion their electors. It says how states
shall determine the number of representatives they’re sending to
Washington, DC. There are a lot of rules for the states in the
constitution.
VD: And those are all things that have to do with the operation of the
federal government. It doesn’t have anything to do with the operation of
the sovereign and several states.  Obviously, when you join a group, you agree to abide by the rules of that group.
TH:
So if Texas secedes, and becomes the independent nation of Texas, what
happens to those Americans in Texas who consider themselves Americans
who don’t want secession?
VD:
Well, presumably in a democratic country, in a free and democratic
country, those people would either have to decide if they wanted to stay
and accept it, the same way that the people in America at the time of
the revolutionary war …  You know,
many them either moved to Canada, or moved back to England, or in some
cases they just decided to stay and become Americans. It would be up to
them, and presumably the Texans would be focused enough on freedom that
they would let those people do whatever it was they wanted.
TH: What is it about the United States that …  first of all, what state do you live in?
VD: I don’t. Like I said, I’ve lived in Italy for 13 years.
TH: So you live in Italy right now?
VD: Yeah. I used to live in Minnesota.
TH:
In Minnesota. So… you really don’t have a dog in this fight. Doesn’t
that diminish your credibility somewhat in making these kind of
statements? I mean, this isn’t going to affect you.
VD:
Well, no, of course it’s going to affect me in the sense that I have friends and family there. I mean, I wouldn’t say that…
Would you say about somebody who lived in the states who has family back
in Scotland that they have no … Of course there’s an interest. But my
primary interest in this, as in practically everything, is primarily
intellectual.  Am I going to shed
any massive tears if Catalonia breaks away from Spain? No. Am I going to
be terribly upset if Texas decides to be independent? No. If you
support self-determination for one group of people in the world, you
should support it for everyone. And why shouldn’t Americans have the
same right of self-determination that we support for the people in
Libya, for the people in Egypt, for the people…
TH:
But most of the states who are talking about secession are states that,
for every dollar that they send to Washington, DC, they get back $1.10,
$1.20, $1.30. Texas gets more federal money in than they send out. So
when they secede, first of all, all the military bases in the state
would close. And that’s not even included in that equation that I just
shared with you. Secondly, everybody loses their Social Security,
Medicare, Medicaid, all those other things.  How is that state going to exist?
VD: First of all, Texas is not going to have any trouble existing,
because Texas is, would be one of the, I believe, twenty largest
economies in the world, thirty largest economies in the world. I mean,
if …
TH: Not without federal infrastructure.
VD:
Obviously it might not be quite as easy for them. But whether it is or
not, that’s their right to say. It’s not for you or me to decide. If
Delaware, for example … let’s take the most absurd example … Delaware
would be like, … Lichtenstein or something. Now, you wouldn’t think that they would have any business going independent.
But if they want to go independent and live in grass huts and that sort
of thing, what is that to you or me? That’s what freedom is all about,
is allowing people freedom to make stupid choices.
TH:
Well, you make a very compelling and libertarian argument…. Hm.
Interesting. I wonder if this is going to be THE thing for the
Republican Party.

(1)  Just to be clear, I can do the math.  I was referring to the post-1865 Union that was forcibly imposed, not the voluntary one that lasted from 1776 to 1861.

I’d call that a two-for-one

By voting for independence, Scotland will automatically leave the EU:

Scotland ‘would have to apply to EU and lose UK’s opt-out after separation’ Scotland would have to apply to the EU and lose the UK’s opt-out from the euro if voters back separation in the forthcoming referendum, the European Commission is claimed to have confirmed. In what would be a significant blow to Alex Salmond, the commission is said to
have drafted a letter to a Lords committee rejecting his claim that Scotland
would automatically inherit the UK’s membership.

Of course, the European Commission is lying, as it usually does.  I guarantee you that if Scotland voted to leave the UK, the EU will claim after the fact that it is still an EU member.  These guys know they didn’t get on the fascist gravy train by forcing fewer people pay their economic protection money.

The only reason they are discouraging the Scottish vote for independence from the UK is because without the Scots, the English and Welsh Euroskeptics will have a majority.

Speaking of Scotland, you can get an interesting perspective on secession and Scottish history from my interview with Thom Hartmann yesterday.  I’ll be posting a transcript sent in by SL soon.

We’re number 19!

John Hawkins has Vox Popoli at #19 on his list of top 60 conservative blogs.  I think that’s pretty good for a libertarian who is only slightly more conservative than Vladimir Lenin crossed with Alaric the Visigoth.

In potentially related news, I’m going to be appearing on The Thom Hartmann Program at 4 PM Eastern to discuss the secession movement inside and outside the USA.  This has the potential to be a bit more interesting than usual because apparently it is a left-leaning program.  You can listen live via stream at www.thomhartmann.com.

Dear Matt Drudge

The Hill writes to Matt Drudge:

I
have written before that, whether I like it or not, you are the one of
the most influential forces in modern media, possibly THE
most influential single player. You tower above your peers in what you
do. Despite my failed efforts, no liberal or Democrat has even tried to
create a legitimate competitor to what you do. But with your influence
comes power, and with power comes responsibility, and the Drudge Report
in recent months has become inundated, and saturated and permeated with
baiting stories about the president’s race, and about blacks generally.
These are beneath the standards you should set for yourself and your
profession.

You should be, and I hope you will be, a
better citizen and more worthy professional than is suggested by the
sheer number of race-related and often race-baiting stories that you
regularly banner on the Drudge Report.

 Translation:

Dear Matt,

We in the media have been successfully sweeping black-on-white crime under the carpet for decades.  Now that people are reading you instead of us, they are beginning to realize that vibrancy is not, in fact, our strength.  Please stop, or we will turn up our noses at you as our readers continue to turn to you for the information we are keeping from them.

Thank you,

The Mainstream Media

A sickness in Britain

After literally years of coverups by the BBC and the police, Scotland Yard finally appears to be something about the infestation of celebrity pedophiles in Britain:

Police are on the verge of arresting up to a dozen household names accused of sex abuse but missed an incredible seven chances to trap paedophile Jimmy Savile while he was alive, it has been revealed.  Scotland Yard is to act ‘within days’ as it emerged the pervert DJ abused at least 300 people because he was allowed to rape and sexually assault victims unhindered for decades.

Savile is believed to have had accomplices and celebrities named by victims – some huge TV stars – will be quizzed over serious sex assault allegations as police warned: ‘we will come for them’.

It’s informative to compare the BBC’s general lack of interest and insistence on absolute proof before permitting any mention of the situation to the public with how it behaved when covering similar child abuse cases committed by Catholic priests.  In light of this and Penn State, we’re rapidly learning that the problem isn’t the priests per se, it is with the bureaucracies that are more interested in protecting the interests of the institution than the children with whom their members come into contact.

And, of course, it tends to support my philosophy of never trusting any man who is inordinately interested in children.  Normal adult men find children to be tedious and teenagers to be obnoxious.  They tolerate them, they don’t actively seek out their company.  It never surprises me when a trusted, much-loved man who “just loves children” turns out to be a predator, for as with Willie Sutton and his banks, pedophiles will always go where the children are.

Note too that the police have been lying about their previous inaction:  “[D]espite their action now, police blew more than half a dozen chances to arrest Savile while he was alive.  The Met, who had previously said they had no record of complaints about the pervert’s campaign of abuse, have now confessed that one woman spoke to them in the 1980s as did another lady in 2003.”

How long will it be before the FBI finally begins to overturn rocks in Hollywood and investigate the gay pedophiles infesting the film industry?

On the radio

I’m on the Brian Greenberg show at 5 EST again.  WNJC 1360 AM in Philadelphia.  Here is the download link to the MP3.  If anyone is up for transcribing it, please say so here in the comments in order to prevent any duplicate efforts.  I’ll post it here once it’s been sent to me.

Nate Silver starts the spin

For someone whose vaunted statistical model was forecasting an 85 percent chance of an Obama victory next month, Nate Silver is really beginning to sound as if he’s attempting to retreat from his current predictions:

I feel as though it’s my duty to tell you when my subjective estimate of the odds differs by a material amount from the ones that our model produces. On Friday and Saturday, I wrote that I thought the model was underestimating Mr. Romney’s chances.

The model is designed to distinguish essentially random changes in the polls from more permanent reversals in the state of play. But it takes a one-size-fits-all approach to do this. Had there been no major developments in the news cycle over the past several days, there would be reason to be skeptical that the shift toward Mr. Romney had been quite as clear as the polls had seemed to imply. There have been other points in the election cycle when the polls appeared to show a shift in the race but without much news to drive it; the model has been fairly “smart” about avoiding being taken by these false alarms.

The trade-off, however, is that the model may be too conservative about accounting for a shift when there is real news behind it. The model is able to account for changes caused by some types of economic reports, since those are incorporated directly into the forecast; we also have special procedures to handle polling around the party conventions. Other types of news events, however — like the debates, major foreign-policy developments, or the vice presidential selections — may not be handled very adroitly by the model.

Those who like to get on my case about Obama defeating Hillary for the Democratic nomination tend to forget that I make a single prediction about the election long before the nominees are even known.  In 2008, I predicted that the Republicans would serve up a sacrificial lamb and the Democrats would win nearly 18 months before the election.  I was wrong about the specific individuals, but the general theme was correct.  In 2010, I predicted that the Republicans would win in a landslide.  In 2012, I predicted that the Republican candidate would win easily unless it was Mitt Romney, in which case I still expected him to win.

Meanwhile, the “professionals” like Silver are not only making new model-based predictions on a weekly or even daily basis, but are attempting to separate themselves from their predictions.  I leave it to you to determine which process is more useful, even if the success rate of those predictions made months in advance is lower than those “predictions” made in real time.

Yes, I was wrong about Clinton winning the nomination, about Pataki being the sacrificial lamb, and about Obama actually dropping out, but based on all the articles that have suddenly begun appearing about whether he is even interested in seriously contesting the election – and articles written by some of his most fervent supporters – it is clear that in the case of the latter, I was on the right track even though events did not turn out exactly as I thought they would.

It may be worth noting that despite what Silver and the mainstream polls say, I’m not the only one anticipating a Romney victory in November:

An update to an election forecasting model announced by two University of Colorado professors in August continues to project that Mitt Romney will win the 2012 presidential election.  According to their updated analysis, Romney is projected to receive 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes — down five votes from their initial prediction — and short of the 270 needed to win.

Hey, not gay!

Contra the accusations of the occasional critic, it would appear that Steve Sailer’s system precludes my homosexuality.  I know I’ll sleep better, for one:

Checking out these claims and insinuations is highly time-consuming and uncertain, but there is now a way to at least rapidly measure public perceptions of celebrities using what I call Google Gaydar.

When you begin typing a search phrase, Google offers ten auto-completion prompts in order of popularity. (This convenience came into the news recently when the wife of a German politician sued Google for auto-finishing searches on her name with helpful suggestions such as “prostitute” and “escort.”)

We can use the rank order of Google’s prompts to quantify what Mickey Kaus called the “Undernews” back when only the National Enquirer dared report on presidential candidate John Edwards’s illegitimate baby.

Apparently I am so straight that even typing in “Vox Day Ga” produces the results Vox Day Game, Vox Day Gamma, Vox Day Game Chart, Vox Day Game Thrones, and Vox Day Game Theory.  Contrast this to Kevin Spacey, who only requires “Kevin Sp” for autocomplete to throw out “Kevin Spacey Gay”.  And then, there is Tom Cruise, who requires nothing more than one merely think about typing the letter T in order for Google to suggest “Tom Cruise Gay”.

Clearly this is solid scientific evidence of my hypothesis that it takes a real and very straight man to drink a chick drink with umbrellas while wearing Italian loafers.  Oh, who am I kidding.  I’m living a lie.  In truth, I don’t drink anything but red wine and prosecco these days.