CIS Privilege

CIS-Privilege explained in comic form.

Privilege Olympics

It's just so hard now a days to determine who is the most oppressed person in America but fear not! This question, perhaps the most important question of our age, is about to be put to rest.  Behold! The Oppression Olympics! Now, once and for all, we will get to know who has the biggest oppression bona fides and be able to clearly understand how exactly oppressed we are!

Disqueting Photo

Easily the most researched topic in history are wars and battles and you, like myself, probably can name a few historic battles and the number of men who fought and died in them.  It isn't unusual to that have casualties in the tens, and sometimes hundreds, of thousands. It is hard to comprehend how many people actually died, to paraphrase Stalin 'Killing one person is a tragedy but a million is just a statistic.'  Here is a photo that I found a  little disquieting, an artist sketched 9,000 human shaped silhouettes on a Normandy beach to honor the men who were killed that day. 

 

 

 

Chinese Seeking Surrogate Mothers In America

Wealthy Chinese have increasingly been looking for surrogate mothers overseas in America.  The numbers are very small right now, however, there are expectations that this business could grow quite a bit in a few short years. The reason? Firstly it is to help get around the 1 child per family law that is still being enforced, though less stringently than in the past, and the second, perhaps more important reason, is a way into America.  There is already a business around transporting pregnant Chinese women to the states so that they can deliver in an America hospital due to the better quality of care and the bonus of automatic citizenship for their children. Having a baby born in the United States also makes it easier, at least theoretically, for them to obtain permanent residency Visas.

Random Image

This Is Painful

Seattle is a great place to live for the most part, it's green, the weather is mild, the scenery is amongst the most beautiful in America, people aren't as fat as they are in the rest of the US, it's neither too  crowded, nor to spare, and the economy is relatively strong here.  Still, my city manages to embarrass me every once and a with absurd progressive policies. 

This time,  as I step into work this morning, I am welcomed with the news that some potential city council members are pushing for a fifteen dollar minimum wage.  Seattle already has one of the highest minimum wages in the country, $ 9.19 per hour, but at the same time the cost of living here is pretty high.  I can't really say that I am surprised that a potential Seattle politico is agitating for increasing the minimum wage, gotta procure them votes after all.

I understand that there are economist out there who maintain that raising the minimum wage will have a minimal effect on prices based on certain studies. The problem being that those studies examined the affect of incremental increases to the minimum wage of no more than 10%, not an increase of 60%. Raising the minimum wage by that amount will have an effect far greater than those same economists anticipate. You would think they learned a lesson from Obamacare but it looks like they haven't.

Monarchy and Republicanism

There was a brief opinion piece on Reason a few weeks ago that I have been meaning to comment on. I found the article rather odd concerning reasons normal fare, cosmotarian drug/gay/government pieces, as the piece was on the benefits of monarchy.  For many Americans the idea that monarchism would somehow be the best, and perhaps most libertarian, form of government is intrinsically at odds with out world view; or it at least it appears that way. 

Royal Birth to Boost UK Economy by 400 Million?

Now, I have nothing but the best wishes for William and Kate and their new son, but I have to ask, does anyone find the idea that the birth of a baby, even a royal baby, boosting the economy by around $400 a bit absurd?  Granted, I do not deny that the British Royal family is a powerful marketing tool; my mother, who like many women has a predilection for all things royal, has ceremonial wedding dolls of William and Kate. Yet the idea that the economy is actually boosted by one individual, an event or some such is just too hard to take seriously.

Yes memorabilia will see an uptick in sales, however, this is a one time thing, which is even admitted by the researchers, and one thing that consistently seems to be ignored by the newspapers is the concept of 'opportunity cost'.  How much of the memorabilia, programs, events and other items that are sold actually generate a profit that is higher than the item/event that was not created/put together in order to capitalize on the royal baby frenzy?  Frankly, I don't know, and perhaps there is an actual boost to the economy, but I am of the opinion that we should ignore one time events - (short of a Katrina/2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami event).

PIX: Why America Isn't Growing

 

 

 

Leftists Don't Want Jobs

I have a few posts in the docket, but I can't muster the energy to tackle them before work so I will post a video I find funny. This one is an oldie but goodie. Two guys go down to Seattle's hipster sister city, Portland, and walk around the occupy protest camp offering jobs.  They found few takers.

Cognitive Dissonance Is Strong

Libertarians and conservatives are obviously dissatisfied with Obama's leadership while President of the United States, but we forget that the President, and his party, have consistently failed to address the many 'suppossed' issues that progressive voters care about such as:

Modern Art Trolling

My disdain for modern art isn't a secret, it's mostly garbage put out by talentless hacks, so when my girlfriend showed me a video about some trolling an art museum, not just any art museum but the Smithsonian no less, I had to share it.

I love the absolute bullshit he spouts about the gently foating cardboard since it really isn't too far removed from the kind of nonsensical crap real 'artists' use to describe their 'pieces of work'. Kudos to the security attendant and her sense of humor.

If More Doctors Did This Health Insurance Would Be Lower

According to MSNmoney, more doctors are switching to a cash only business model.  The article doesn't state the reason why this is happening, though I suspect Obama care may be somewhat involved, but it doesn't matter. This is good news. The reason why is that the biggest reason why health care costs so much in America is the fact that we use insurance to pay for everything.  Name one industry or service other than health care where you have a third party pay some or all of the cost for a majority of Americans who are using it? There isn't any, and you can be assured that whatever costs the insurance company is paying, they are recouping and then some.

For more on why itself is the problem, please visit TrueCostofHealcare, a website run by one Dr. David Belk.

Keynesian Economics and Our Economy in a Single Picture

Want Spain? Well F$^$# You

I don't think I have to articulate my opinion on an organization that calls for the return of Andalusia back to the fold of Islam.

The IQ of Presidents

tA lot of individuals make a very big deal about a presidents intelligent quotient alternating between yelling it from the roof tops when it illustrates how 'smart' their favorite politician is or dismissing it as a useless metric.  Perhaps in the most recently well known instance is the I.Q hoax which claimed President Bush, the second Bush, had an I.Q at 91.  Now 91 one is below the average, which is statistically set to be 100, but not so low that he is terribly below average as he would still be within one standard deviation of the norm; in other words dim but not a moron or a retard.  When I was in college the extreme leftists in my college circle, and regretably sometimes extremely partisan professors, would cackle with glee and essentially say 'look at the proof how stupid Bush, and ergo republicans, are!'.

Those who weren't idiots themselves could see that something was fundementally wrong with the premise.  How would anyone, even if they were part of a political powerhouse family, ever be picked as president of a nation of 300 million if they weren't so smart? The intellectually lazy, or the intelligent prone to conspiracy theories, would postulate how the GOP leadership, or the illuminati depending on how conspiritorially minded they were, wanted someone they could easily manipulate. I've never bought this considering my personal experince. I more often than not saw extremely intelligent individuals being manipulated than the extremely stupid.  While it is only personal observation, and therefore doesn't form any sort of proof from which a reliable argument could be made, if what I saw was true then I would think it might have something to do with the person being more 'turned on' than others.

What I have noticed about the intelligent, bright or gifted is that their emotions are often more complex and succeptible to influence than the extremely stupid. Everyone can be manipulated via anger, greed, pride, love or any other emotion, however, I like to think of emotions as a color pallet. You have your prime colors, or base emotions, and then the subsequent shades, the more complex emotions.  The higher the IQ the more complex the kind of emotions you can have; once again this is all conjecture so I could be widely of the mark. For example you need only look at Socialism to see this in play.  The lower IQ individuals can be easily bought by promises of food, shelter and free stuff while higher up the intelligent quotient chain you will hear about acceptance, compassion or, in some cases, getting even; while above that are appeals to intellect and reason.  This also explains the shotgun approach of trying to string all those themes in every speech given or paper written. While everyone reads or hears the same words depending on your intelligence only a few will really strike a nerve - perhaps most maddening is that unless your on your guard you will be unaware of the attempted manipulation-. But I've gotten off topic.

I was, and am, extremely doubtful of any 'study' that tries to assert that a president was anything less than one standard deviation above average.  In a democratically decided representative system, what ever it's flaws, you just aren't going to see someone who isn't at least above avergage.  This doesn't have anything to do with leaders trying to ensure that the most capable are selected, not by a long shot, rather it has to due with group dynamics. All political parties are just a larger version of the social group and social dynamic comes into play.  The 'average' person would simply be unable to play all the games required to move up the heirarchy ladder.  In fact many extremely intelligent individuals, but whose emotional acuity may not be up to snuff, wouldn't be able to climb the ladder either; of course you will find individuals like congressman Paul who intentionally go against the flow knowing that it will hurt their 'career' but men like him are the exception and not the rule.

This also will explain why, that in this chart of presidential I.Qs, most of our presidents have been above 1 standard deviation but under 3 standard deviations; where a single standard deviation is plus or minus 15 IQ points. In other words, smart enough time impress the population but no so smart as to alienate themselves from the masses, while at the same time minimizing the risk of manipulation that I mentioned earlier. The number of presidents with IQs above 3 standard deviation range from as much as 12 to as little as 1 depending on which column you choose to use but either way the majority of president will be within that 2 standard deviation range.

The chart shown isn't necessarily 100% accurate. Seeing a standard deviation increase or decrease for some presidents, like President Clinton, is a reason to question it's validity. My major point of doubt comes with the corrected IQ score of Woodrow Wilson as there is no way that he had a corrected I.Q of only 102. Woodrow Wilson, statist though he may be, doesn't have the resume of a merely average man of intellect. He was president of Princeton, back when Princeton undeniably deseved its reputation, and President of the United States and both are not the accompishments of an average man.

The chart I posted certaintly isn't the definitive guide on the IQs of the presidents.  Most of the presidents IQs are best guesses taken from analysis of their writings rather than actually from taking the tests which opens up the possibility of errors. Yet at the same time I think its good enough to illustrate that the men who held our highest office aren't dummies.  Our presidents were certainly short sighted or made poor decisions based on ideology at times, after all they were only men. But when an individual talks about how stupid such and such a president is, and this includes the current president. They are letting their emotion, and not their reason, guide their opinions.

Universities Are Worse Than Wal-Mart

Another blog post courtesy of an article sent ot me by my girlfriend; she even offered an angle on comparing Universities to Wal-Mart. The article, which is really just a sob story piece, covers how adjunct professors are poorly paid and can barely make ends meet.  I wasn't exactly a hundred percent sympathetic to their plight on being unable to get tenure, I think tenure is an absolutely terrible idea, and I even laughed at loud at this particular gem:

“are not being given the quality their money is paying for, e.g. a well-rested professor who isn't a walking zombie from holding numerous teaching jobs to barely make the rent each month.”

My response to that particular individual is welcome to the 99% of Americans who hold jobs outside of academia.  Now, I have relatives who work in academia, some as teachers and some as professors, so it isn't like I hold my views in a vacuum or that I have a complete and utter disdain for highly degreed individuals; I don't, but I've learned to take a larger look at the various issues which has inundate me to sob story rhetoric the prevails in news media today.  For far too long individuals and groups have used our emotions and propensity towards charity to take our money. The cries of it's for the needy, education the enviroment only serve as shields with which they deflect warranted criticism. Question the veracity of their claims that increased spending on education will solve our problems when education spending increased by around 200% from 1970 to 2006 with no increase in test scores? Well obviously your simpleton who hates chidlren. Suggest that the problem isn't a lack of money but a severely structually unsound educational system and you might as well be a vampire to most academics. But back to the subject at hand.

While it may be unfortunate for adjunct professors of theology, literature, history or some other liberal arts field that their pay is so low the fact is that this is how the market works.  We live in an age of near ubiquitous information, meaning information is cheap. Why would you pay a university for a history degree specializing in ancient history when you can listen to top notch podcasts like the history of rome for free, or s small donation? What we now pay for is the instructor, his reputation, and ability to teach. Would all the professors making $ 800 a month teaching a course earn more if, rather than work as an employee of the university, set out and created their own programs and tried to draw in their own students on the merits of their ability? Most individuals would say of course they would earn money. But that just begs the question: why aren't you then? And the fact is that there are some individuals out there who would earn more money because they are phenomenal teachers. Conversely, there are many who probably are earning more than what they would ordinarily earn because they get to use the reputation of the university.

But lets look at the numbers, do they have a case for their complaints?

The tuition of a major state school in my city, the University of Washington is $ 12,950 a year. This doesn't include housing, books or any of the other myriad of college expenses that a student will incur during their tenure, this is tuition and tuition only.  The University of Washington has a quarter system, meaning that a student will acquire 45 credits each year.  This means that every credit costs around $ 287, and since most classes are worth 5 credits, each class can reasonably be priced around $ 1,438 quarter or $ 479 a month.  Quick recap:

University of Washington tuition: $ 12,950
A year of study: 45 credits
Per credit cost: $ 287.78
Cost per class a quarter: $ 1,438
Cost of class per month $ 479.63

Digging around, I found varying numbers for the University of Washington average class sizes.  The largest average class sizes were lectures, with 46 students, and the smallest were seminars, with 17 students. Using the cost per month this means that a class, depending on the class size, nets anywhere from $ 7,253 to $ 21,162 a month for the university.  The monthly pay for an adjunct, according to the article, is $ 900 a month. That leaves anywhere from $ 21,162 to $ 7,253 a month left over after paying for the instructor.  Another recap:

Average lecture class size in number of students: 46
Average lecture class size for a seminar: 17
Amount class earns a month for a lecture: $ 22,062
Amount class earns a month for a seminar: $ 8,153
Median pay for adjuncts a quarter: $ 2,700
Monthly pay: $ 900
Funds left for lecture classes: $ 21,162
Funds left over for seminar classes: $ 7,253

Running a university must be the greatest racket of all time. As a college you get to charge exorbitant sums, because of the public blind faith in institutionalize education, and short change your employees due to cost constraints, real or imagined. There very well may be cost constraints as universities have ratchet up their bills due to the addition of nice new buildings, machinery, departments, athletic centers and art pieces that are completely absolutely unnecessary if a university wants to become a first tier institution. Never mind that the university of eastern nowhersville in podunk USA has no hope of ever rivalling a top tier institution, the money must be spent!  It's the university version of accreditation, another ill of progressivism.

This is something that most professors don't understand about progressivism in its current incarnation. It's part because many don't hold very strong political viewpoints, though they do reliably vote progressively, due to greater interest in esoteric knowledge and a predisposition towards believing the technocratic fallacy. And part because some professors are simply politically zealots fanatics that hold ideology more important than empirical reality.

The fact is that universities are, not only the perfect breeding ground for statist progressives, but also the perfect example of what happens in a truly progressive society.  Universities, socially, are incredibly hierarchical and feudal. I would wager that this has always been the case but would also claim that progressivism exacerbates this issue.  The pecking order is very harsh, and department heads can run their departments like despots if they so choose. Ultimately both educator and educatee suffer for it, as real education and debate is stifled so that the university may impart its ideological worldview. The efforts, and ill-gotten results of progressivism to eradicate 'inequality' has been well documented, so I won't waste your time rehashing it. So I will just say that the end result is exactly the opposite of what is desired by the ardent believers; instead of an egalitarian society you get a very stratified one.  In the end, any ideological system that adheres to collectivism versus individualism will fall prey to the unscrupulous, and unlike in an individualistic society, little recourse is available. This is what has happened to the university.

The universities have become cash cows, and in the truest nature of progressivism, the most equal get first dibs. The presidents and administrators stick their hand in the trough, then it goes on to department heads and notable academics, and by the time you get down to the individuals teaching the students, there's nothing left. Individuals may protest my claim, but this is exactly how Soviet Russia worked then, and how China works now. In either nation the goal wasn't to be productive, innovative or an entrepreneur but to have connections. Most millionaires and business owners from China started out as bureaucrats or highly connected family members and because of that they have insider information which enabled them to build their wealth. But I digress, the ultimate point is that in a progressivism, or should I say the modern fuedal system, the lowest on the totem pole are screwed.

And ultimately this brings me to my point. Many leftists will argue about how horrible Wal-Mart is and how it is exploiting their workers. Frankly, I am not a fan of Wal-Mart and their Chinese made garbage, but Wal-Mart is only responding to what we the consumer demand. At the very least with Wal-Mart you benefit from cheaper goods. So the employees are screwed over, but you aren't.This isn't the case with the University. You pay more for a product that is fundamentally little changed from decades ago and should be cheaper due to technological innovation and your professor is paid very little relative to what they could be paid. So if an institution is like Wal-Mart, in the respect that it pays it's employees little, but unlike Wal-Mart, charges it's customers more for a product that should be cheaper, doesn't that make them demonstrably worse than Wal-Mart?

Black Salve Owners?

Interesting. Not something I have ever heard, but then I shouldn't be surprised. Slavery is often glossed over for the sake of political scoring political points in our school system, for example little is talking about the Africans who sold other Africans to the Europeans. Slavery was, and is, a tragedy, but it is a tragedy that the whole of humanity is guilty of.

Feelings Have No Place In the Gun Control Debate

An article by forbes concerning a gun control battle that could hurt the industry sparks another comment form someone whose opinions are not informed and only motivated by fear.

I don’t like concealed carry. I feel like the very nut cases that ought to be on the mentally unstable, no gun list, for their raging paranoia are the ones out stocking up on guns and bullets right now. If youy think the government is going to enslave you then you need to look for a different government somewhere else because this ones about as safe as any could be.
I liked it when there was no concealed carry and we let the cops take care of the criminals
 

This is really frustrating and sad. Frustrating because this individual has obviously zero knowledge about conceal carry laws and the statistics behind them. If he/she had bothered to do some basic research then he/she would have realized that a) In most mentally unstable individuals are unable to acquire a ccw, and b) that statistically a person with a ccw is far less likely to commit a crime, much less a violent crime, than the populace at large.

What is sad is that this comment illustrates how the vast majority of America's populace makes their political decision. He/she feels the mentally unstable are the very ones getting concealed carry. Feelings should never factor into policy, what someone feels is irrelavent. There are plenty of things that I do not like, that give me a bad feeling, like drugs, that based on feeling alone I would ban, however, empircal evidence from the drug war shows the banning drugs would not only fail to stop drug usage, but also result in something far worse. My feelings should have no sway on my stance on the politics of an issue.  Does the law expand or restrict liberty? If it restricts liberty is there a clear and definite cause and is it narrow inscope to make it as unrestrictive as possible?  For example, food sanitation laws*, yes they are a restriction of liberty, and no I am not against them for the most part provided that they are not obscenely complex or opaque, such as example testing food for salmonella. Requiring that products be tested for salmonella is a small.

It's statements like this that make me realize why the founders were so wary of democracy. Despite my libertarian leanings I sometimes wonder if we should restrict individuals from voting for certain laws until they have displayed understanding of said issue.

*This doesn't mean I don't think that there aren't a lot of useless FDA regulations out there, or that there even has to be a Federal entity. But a state or county requiring that food be tested for safety is something I am ok with. The whole food sanitations law conepts could be a post in and off itself.

Unfair Distribution of Brains Now?

I was doing my normal Sunday morning routine, workout, breakfast, and peruse the web when I happened onto an article about the tenth man on the Root.  I read the article, which I found mildly interesting when I happened to glance at the comments. Lo and behold the first comment was anti-capitalist comment, I couldn't help but chuckle.

The myth of some deserving, yet small, portion of any population who somehow "naturally" form an elite group or deserving class, is as pervasive as capitalism. Indeed, one could insist that one situationally depends on the other. The unfair distribution of either wealth or brains is not a uniquely negro problem.

First it was the unfair distribution of wealth and now of intelligence? Amusing.