The Real Race Problem

Old-fashioned white racism is largely gone. That's old news.

What has replaced the old disgraceful kind is a new, sophisticated kind of racism. As Shelby Steele, Op-Ed columnist, described it today, "the sophistication for seeing what isn't there rather than what is." A la the parable of the Emperor's New Clothes.

Steele's column today, linked above, is a fascinating one for all to read.

In effect, the ascension of Barack Obama to the Presidency is the greatest indictment of this new kind racism. We the people saw an articulate part-black man who moved millions of people to action with his words. His speeches. And we got sucked right in. We couldn't resist it. We wanted to make history and elect a minority president. So we did. With no real regard to his true capability to handle the pressures and matters at hand. We could have made history and elected a Mormon president who, by the way, was far more capable at handling the economy than Mr. Obama will ever be. But, again, we were too sophisticated to see things as they really were.

The sophistication was to convince ourselves that we saw Mr. Obama clothed in royal colors -- i.e. a leader with the charisma, the vision, and the plan to move America -- but, along the way, we refused to acknowledge that he was naked. And that he had no material, realistic vision or plan.

Those leaning right are reading this, noses high, saying, "We saw it coming! We told you so!"

Those leaning left are reading this, noses high, saying, "Shut up, you racist!"

Obama is a talented, brilliant man. No doubt. You can't become the POTUS without being such. But, in reality, he is not who we, the people, thought he was. Frankly, that stark reality sucks. Even though I didn't vote for him and doubted him, I wanted to be wrong. I wish I were.

Nevertheless, rather than squabble about who saw this coming and who didn't, I would rather turn our focus to this variant of racism that is oh-so-prevalent. Will it someday go the way of the dinosaur as old-fashioned white racism has? Is it something that will simply require some generational turnover or is there something else that must happen along with that?

'Something else' probably needs to happen.

And unless Barack Obama comes to himself and, you know, puts on some clothes, as it were, then that 'something else' will have to include electing someone else in 2012.

Don't forget to check out the Steele column. Trust me.

Read more...

Worst. Decade. Ever.

More awesomeness from Reason Magazine:

Read more...

Uncle Sam Wants (to nanny) You

I am often told that I am unhinged, or over-the-top about how I feel about our intrusive government. But what I think or write is mostly irrelevant. It's clear that the aristocracy in D.C. doesn't give a damn about you or me or anyone else. They care only for themselves, and the power they can eliminate from We the People.

Brother Reid, the prominent senator from Nevada validated all of my concerns about our nanny state government today when he said: "Like those in the medical field, our responsibility as legislators is to care for all people, not just those that are fortunate. That's what this historic reform fixes. It starts to break down the wall between a class of Americans who can afford to stay healthy and another that cannot."

Ignore the fact that "caring for all people" will severely burden the vast majority of American citizens, and consider the following questions:

When did elected representatives start taking the Hippocratic Oath?

And when did only people "who are fortunate" monopolize being healthy?

Why should being insured be a "right"?

And how will universal health insurance eliminate anyone's poor health?

The Democrats are taking a very interesting approach to solving problems. I can outline it in 3 easy steps:

1. Identify the problem.

2. Make that problem illegal.

3. Problem solved.

[Another random number] people are uninsured. That is a problem, right? Yes it is! (but not really) But lucky for us, it has an unbelievably easy solution.

Make being uninsured illegal.

Problem SOLVED!

It's so easy, so obvious, that even a drug-addled fat blowhard like Rush Limbaugh can recognize it: "How many trillions of dollars have we wasted on the war on poverty? Why didn't we just make poverty against the law? Anyone earning under the poverty level will have to pay a fine or go to jail. Fifteen million people unemployed, throw them in jail if they won't work. Solvy dolvy. I mean we're just going to with the stroke a pen sign a law and fix the problem, look how easy it could be."

While we are at it we can outlaw guns, because they kill people and dead people are a problem. Fast food? Contraband! SUVs? Illegal! Stupidity, bigotry, racism? Banned! What about Trans Fats? Axed! (oh, wait, they already did that). How about those inconsiderate airlines that imprison passengers on the tarmac? Fine them! (also already done...) And so on.

I ask you this:

What is happening to the United States? Or rather, what has been happening for the last 60 years?

You probably know my answer.

Think about the question for yourself. Try and take off any partisan goggles you might be wearing, or any *ahem* labels (welcome back Sam) you might be using to determine what is right or wrong. Honestly answer the question: what is happening to the United States of America?

And then think on the follow up: Do you like what you see? If so, why? If not, why?

Your answer is due by Wednesday morning at 8AM. Any late assignments are subject to Brother Reid's wrath and a government tardy tax of up to $2,000. (HCR Code 34a43, page 2459, article 67, section 8, paragraph B, amendment 68)


One addition: I will admit that I am secretly hoping that the government succeeds in taking control of health care. That way I can bill them for any new bikes or skis - or any other equipment I need to go along with them. After all, I need those things to stay healthy, right?

Read more...

Labels

This will be my first post in half a year. Frankly, the world no longer needed me once Obama was coronated. But I'm back and with no particular agenda. Maybe just to give you intermittent breaks from the news flashes of our inevitable death-march toward socialism that your used to here on TTKS.

During the holidays I select a couple of good books to digest along with the ungodly amount of sugar and lard I plan to consume. This year I'm going to tackle Approaching Zion by Hugh Nibley. I got a head start on it due to its massive content. I'm not yet 100 pages in but already enthralled. Here's an excerpt that has me thinking about the labels I've subscribed to that help me to simplify who's right and who's wrong:

Every rhetorician knows that his most effective weapons by far are labels. He
can demolish the opposition with simple and devastating labels such as
communism, socialism, or atheism, popery, militarism, or Mormonism, or give his
clients' worst crimes a religious glow with noble labels such as integrity,
old-fashioned honesty, tough-mindedness, or free competitive enterprise. "You
can get away with anything if you just wave the flag," a business partner of my
father once told me. He called that patriotism.

Read more...

False Sense of Urgency

One of the now-common negotiation tactics that Obama uses is the false sense of urgency. (Or, at least it's what I call it, anyway.)

When he was running for President, the message was 'we are running out of time, we need to change America before it's too late.'

When his awful version of a stimulus bill was near death, the message was 'we don't have time to debate. We need a bill -- any bill will do!'

When health care reform lost its steam, the message was 'there is no time for squabling over the details. There are Americans without health insurance and we need reform -- any reform will do!'

And, yes, when two fruitless weeks in Copenhagen discussing climate change became the embarrassment that we knew it would, the message was (er, is) 'our future is hanging in the balance. The perception of our ability to get something done -- anything done -- hangs in the balance. Destruction is imminent and we have no time for quarreling. We must act.'

Such urgency!

It ought to be admired, right?! The man wants to get things done!

I happen to think this 'urgent' approach is not only hollow, it's irresponsible and costlier than simply working to find the best solution to each problem (and some 'problems' aren't as urgent as other 'problems,' btw).

And, frankly, you just can't be urgent about everything.

Read more...

Optimism.

Watch this video:



And then read this article.

I know I complain a lot about the bumbling morons in Congress (there I go again), but the truth is that, despite their best efforts, life is pretty good.

Read more...

Sex and Capitalism

Progressives want to control people. That point is hardly worth arguing. From Mussolini to Obama, Progressives have always had one ultimate goal in mind: control. Control equals power, and if orchestrated correctly, it can mean indefinite power. In other parts of the world Progressives have been impatient and brutish which yielded quick, dramatic results usually at the expense of the national economy, morale, and in many cases, the lives of millions of people.

In the United States, because of that thorny obstacle referred to by right-wing radicals as "the Constitution" the Progressive movement has taken much, much longer, and required a lot more legislative trickeration - The New Deal, The Great Society, The American Recovery and blah blah blah... you get the point. Would that they could just beat us with a club or shoot us in the streets. That at least would be cheaper, no?

One of the primary targets that has always and forever been in the cross-hairs of men like Obama has been capitalism. That evil, cold-hearted, exploitative greed machine. Never mind all the virtues of consensual economic transactions.

And that I think has been the colossal failure of 100 years of Progressive "intentions".

You cannot control or change behavior through brute force, high taxes, or "compassion".

You can, however change it through incentive (and this piggybacks on Bitner's post below) – whether money, eternal salvation, or a Green Jacket.

Perhaps you have heard about the problematic behavior of Tiger Woods? It's been in all the papers. As a result of his poor choices, however private, he is now bleeding dollars. You can bet that any other golfer, or well known celebrity with lucrative endorsement deals is cutting off and shutting up any of his...er, temptations, as quickly as possible. In other words:

One great lesson learned is the value of capitalism and its ability to enforce good behavior. Accenture and Gillette are cutting Tiger's pay over this. The supposedly "immoral" free markets are speaking louder and with more reprisal than anyone.

At the end of the day, it all comes down to male hubris and women's need for attention. What history teaches us and what Bear Bryant poignantly reinforced was that, even with all his victories over the years, sex remains undefeated. Tiger would do well to remember that.

And there you have it.

Instead of trying to legislate what doctor I see, or what car I drive, or what light-bulb I screw into my ceiling, just let the market determine that. Of course, that would take the well-intentioned jack asses out of the equation, leaving them powerless and irrelevant - exactly what a politician ought to be.

Capitalism also encourages other good behaviors, like honesty. If you don't deliver on your word with a good product, you wither away into oblivion. Oh sure, there are those who try otherwise. And they are nearly always ratted out and made an example of, while the world moves on and that company collapses. (Enron, we hardly knew ye!)

One wonders if Tiger's sponsors, had they found out about his escapades privately, a year ago would have warned him to clean up the mess before it went public, and whether he would have done so or not? Or, perhaps they have always known and just goosed him for all he was worth, knowing that the house of cards would come crashing down sooner or later, knowing they could admirably dismiss him, taking the principled high ground while laughing all the way to the bank? But save the effort of pointing out how unethical that would have been: first, its speculation, and second, it was all consensual, right? No, not the sex (well, that too apparently), but the contracts between Tiger and his sponsors. That is, we don't know what the other party knew. Only that they both stood to make a lot of money in collaboration.

Which I suppose can be said for all of these apparent women as well.



And, just because it's an amazing assessment, there is one more take home quote from the above cited article:

You would think Tiger's wife, Elin, would be in the clear here, but she did smash the window of a GM Cadillac with an African-American in it.

She will probably be charged by Attorney General Eric Holder with either defacing government property or with a hate crime.

If it weren't so plausible, it would be hilarious.

Read more...

More Freakonomics

I got a feva...and the only puhscription...is more freakonomics.

A few months ago I received an email from Shawn Nicholls, online marketing director for the newly released book Superfreakonomics. "Would I do a book review?" was the question.

Why yes. Yes I would.

I wasn't able to read it until my Christmas break began because school provided enough reading to make my eyes bloody. Once I picked it up, however, I haven't been able to put it down; I finished it on Tuesday.

As is the case with the first book, and the blog that came about afterward, Levitt & Dubner tackle some of the most fascinating questions and case studies. For example, no matter which side of the fence you're on with Global Warmism, the chapter on the commanlities between Al Gore and Mount Pinatubo is a must read. I found it to be quite objective and funny.

Clearly one of the main problems with Gore's message is that the incentives are not good enough to spur behavioral change.

In the aforementioned chapter, there is a discussion on geoengineering--the idea that we can essentially manufacture the atmosphere to negate the effects of pollution through, say emitting a certain amount of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere--and here is a brief excerpt:

Al Gore, meanwhile counters with his own logic. "If we don't know enough to stop putting 70 million tons of global-warming pollution into the atmosphere every day," he says, "how in God's name can we know enough to precisely counteract that?"

But if you think like a cold-blooded economist instead of a warm-hearted humanist, Gore's reasoning doesn't track. It's not that we don't know how to stop polluting the atmosphere. We don't want to stop, or aren't willing to pay the price...

Gore and other environmentalists are pleading for humankind to consume less and therefore pollute less, and that is a noble invitation. But as incentives go, it's not a very strong one.

Levitt & Dubner open the book with several short studies, one of which relates directly to today's global warming debate: how the advent of the automobile was a direct response to the nasty, polluting mode of transportation of the day -- the horse-drawn carriage. The market eventually came up with a superior substitute for methane-producing horses. You didn't see the government force the change.

Interestingly, the automobile is a rather unique instance of the solution being relatively costly and complex. Many problems can be solved cheaply and simply. For example, doctors can prevent the spread of disease by simply washing their hands; drivers and passengers can save their own lives by wearing a seatbelt; and we can mute the severity of costly hurricanes by deploying simple water-churning devices in the ocean.

Alas, governments aren't exactly famous for cheap or simple solutions; they tend to prefer the costly-and-cumbersome route.

If you read Freakonomics, and you're anything like me, you were probably enthralled with the chapter about why drug dealers live with their moms. In a follow-up to that study, Superfreakonomics takes a look at prostitution and the tradeoffs and choices that women have in that 'profession'. That chapter, while very interesting, is as carnal as you'd imagine. Consider yourself warned. One major takeaway for me was that pimps do a far better job for their clients (in terms of wages and protection) than real estate agents do for theirs (in terms of maximizing sale price). That's not saying a whole lot, but it is funny.

My favorite chapter was the one on altruism. Throughout the last century, numerous economists have tried to gauge altruistic human behavior. "Are people innately altruistic?" was their question.

[That] is the wrong kind of question to ask. People aren't "good" or "bad." People are people, and they respond to incentives. They can nearly always be manipulated--for good or ill--if only you find the right levers.

I take exception to the 'people aren't good or bad' statement, but I fully agree that people respond to incentives. In the altruism chapter Levitt & Dubner explore some of the game theory experiments used to gauge altruism, thus showing how people react to various sets of choices and incentives.

Would there be as much charitable donation in the United States if there were no tax incentives for doing so? I think not.

The book is a fun, insightful read. And the Epilogue is the best part. Seriously. I will leave it at that.

Ironically, I really did have a fever Monday and Tuesday. I read Superfreakonomics while I was forced to stay in bed. Bam! No more fever.

Read more...

Political Thoughts and Musings

I could continue to point out the absurdities of government intervention into private markets, but I think the bumbling idiots on The Hill are doing a fine job of self-destruction without my help. I could point out the stubborn (wasn't Bush the stubborn one?) tunnel vision of Barack Obama, who continues to push increasingly unpopular, and unimportant (global hoaxing) policies, but then, he is also doing a heckuvajob at squandering the political capital he "inherited".

So I won't.

As Ryan said earlier, it's just too easy to point and laugh at our political aristocrats who are tripping over themselves to try and cement their place in history as some visionary reformers or courageous pioneers. The sad truth is that they are only a few in a long history of incompetent nannies pushing an agenda that has been rejected since the days of Woodrow Wilson. Thus the Progressive strategy of "crisis management", "taking care of the poor" and "equality". If you can hide your motives in the cloaks of compassion then people seem readily willing to give away their autonomy.

But I've said all this before. And anyway, it will only spark the same arguments and discussions with the same people.

And yet, I still have not heard a good argument for government health care, cap'n tax, Keynesian economics or anything else being pushed by the Progressives rulership. The best they are coming up with is that "something needs to be done because the current system is broken." Hardly awe-inspiring.

I'd like to think that Obama the Naive is becoming Obama the Realistic. But I'm not optimistic. At least publicly, he seems to still be repeating the same, tired rhetoric about the "mess he inherited" (never mind that he sought out the job) and how darn tough it is to clean up. The first quarter of his term is nearly over with, and he is still complaining about GWB. It is unbecoming of a leader and a president. Perhaps internally he is realizing that governing the most powerful nation on Earth is a bit more difficult than "just words, just speeches". I honestly think he thought he'd stride into office, and with a wave of his hand turn the United States into his vision of Utopia.

The next 12 months promise to be quite interesting. I don't have a lot of confidence in the so-called blue dog Democrats to stand up for the wants of their constituents. It's a tricky spot they are in; vote for wholesale government take over and lose their seat, or oppose that and get re-elected but have to face the steely terror of Fancy Nancy. Neither is desirable, but actually representing the people who hired you seems...appropriate, to put it mildly.

If either the House or the Senate swings to the GOP (unlikely, although I think they will pick up many seats) I can only imagine the elevated complaining that we will have to endure from our unprecedented president, considering what we now endure while he enjoys a congressional supermajority.

In the meantime, I'm going skiing.

Read more...

Finishing the Decade on Leave

Ho Ho Ho has a whole new meaning

In the Woods household

So Tiger is on leave

From golf

And other stuff

Check out Bill Simmons' column

He calls it Tiger Zoo

It's not everyday

Where my wife updates me on sports news

Until Tiger Zoo

So don't fool yourself

You're following this story

As well

Because who isn't?

I'm still in the camp

Of people

Who think this is a hoax

It is a hoax

Right?

Ok, maybe not

But I really hope that

Tiger avoids Oprah

And Leno

If he does a public interview

I say

Go with Phil Mickelson

Ha, that would be hilar

Phil says

"When I took my leave,

My wife had cancer.

Why are you taking yours?"

And then

Awkward silence

Next question please

The whole event would be

High comedy

And high empathy

And it would be sooo much more entertaining

Than if Tiger sat down

With Rick Reilly

Or Jim Nantz

Actually

My honest suggestion for

his confessionapology

is Johnny Miller

Think about it

Miller would skewer him

As only Miller can

And Tiger would take it

Like a man

That's what he needs to do when

He emerges from hybernation

With Elin

Being paid to stand by him

What an end to the decade

Or the beginning

Of a new one.

Read more...

More, Please.

Wouldn't mind hearing more of this at home from our Commander-in-Chief, but I'm glad he said it to the world:

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples [of Ghandi and MLK] alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism - it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions - not just treaties and declarations - that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest - because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

The full text of his acceptance speech is pretty good. I wish he'd speak to America like one who his speaking for all America more often.

Read more...

Quiet?

The blog has been quite quiet. Most of us are quite busy at work and school which is probably contributing. Plus the fact that pointing out the failures of the left is now just a child's game and takes little effort or intellect.

That being said, I had a thought this morning while taking the bus to my last week of work.

That is the problem of cascading information. Many people liked to say that "Bush lied about WMD". Over here in Englandia people are upset with Blair and say he lied about WMD. It is a common claim that we're all familiar with. The argument from the right is that all the best intelligence from multiple countries indicated Saddam had WMD. It turns out that the intelligence communities were all copying each other and not doing their own research. Ergo, bad research and the desire to not be different from the group led to poor intelligence and war (which we won with the surge btw).

This brings us to Climategate. A favourite (note British spelling) topic of mine. Scientists and politicians proclaim with certainty that this is settled science. We must act now and take a pre-emptive strike against global warming. Impose trillions of dollars of new costs on businesses and countries to avert impending disaster.

Ask Scientist A why we should take such a course and his answer is "Scientific consensus on this issue makes it settled." Ask Scientist B and he will give a similar response. This continues until you get to Scientist M who it turns out has been changing numbers and adding "value added" temperatures to his model to make the problem seem worse than it is. Surprisingly, Scientist M gets millions of dollars in grant money and the figure goes up as the model predicts more dire consequences.

As I think of the 2 situations I am struck by a similarity and a key difference. In the one it was sloppy intelligence that led to a war that cost billions in blood and money though still will give us a potentially good outcome. In the climate situation it isn't sloppy science, it is deliberately misleading and falsified science and it is setup to cost trillions of dollars and many lives.

What was that? I just said the effort to reduce global warming will cost lives. When you live in the real world there are opportunity costs. For every dollar the US dedicates to this junk-science that is one dollar less we can send to Africa to combat malaria, AIDS, starvation, etc. Every dollar that is raised by charities to combat the rising tide and melting glaciers is one less dollar (actually it might be less than a dollar because some people give to charities for global warming that would otherwise spend that money on ski trips to Aspen) to send to improve the lives of less fortunate in our own country.

Every dollar spent on a costly cap and trade program or subsidizing the Ethanol industry is ONE LESS DOLLAR to spend on providing health care to everyone. That's right, we could be using all the money we've wasted on this junk science to give universal healthcare to the poor/unemployed.

Consider that next time you feel run into those Greenpeace dudes soliciting money standing on the street corner. We should be putting our money where we can improve the lives of people that are suffering today, not on the bad science practiced by second rate scientists.

Read more...

Hide The Decline

Read more...

ClimateGate

Great piece on freakonomics.

People are coming unglued over this. I'm just enjoying watching it unfold. I particularly optimistic that people will take a breather due to this and start asking themselves if the "science" is worth trillions of dollars.

Hey Climate Research Unit guys, the Catholic Church from 1300 called, they want their scientific method back.

Read more...

The ChiComs Have Better Tiger Coverage

This is just completely awesome. In fact, I think it redefines awesome. I knew American journalism was terribad, but who knew the Chinese gossip journos were so damn good?

Watch and learn MSNBC:

Read more...

The Enemy Camp

From the sage clown of the Left, Chris Mathews, on Obama's speech at West Point:

I watched the cadets, they were young kids - men and women who were committed to serving their country professionally it must be said, as officers. And, I didn't see much excitement. But among the older people there, I saw, if not resentment, skepticism. I didn't see a lot of warmth in that crowd out there. The president chose to address tonight and I thought it was interesting. He went to maybe the enemy camp tonight to make his case.

Read more...