Hedonism, according to Roissy
die post-coitus from a heart attack. Leave the world alone to enter a void of nothingness, no different than all those married schlubs who toiled for years to nurture and raise a legacy of strippers and delinquents
If there's nothing after death, then what are you slaving away for?
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Where is the future?
With the Middle East going up in flames in:
Egypt, Bahrain, Iran, Libya, and Yemen,
Where does it end?
According to Kristof
America has important interests at stake in Bahrain — and important values. I hope that our cozy relations with those in power won’t dull our appreciation that history is more likely to side with protesters being shot with rubber bullets than with the regimes doing the shooting.
But do you REALLY Want to know where the future really is?
Look no further than Jeopardy!>
“I for one welcome our new computer overlord,” Jennings wrote underneath his answer for the final clue of the night.
The protesters in Egypt and the rest of the Middle East can go out and whine all they want. But technology keeps accelerating. Islam isn't going to save them when artificial intelligence makes them question everything that makes us human.
Egypt, Bahrain, Iran, Libya, and Yemen,
Where does it end?
According to Kristof
America has important interests at stake in Bahrain — and important values. I hope that our cozy relations with those in power won’t dull our appreciation that history is more likely to side with protesters being shot with rubber bullets than with the regimes doing the shooting.
But do you REALLY Want to know where the future really is?
Look no further than Jeopardy!>
“I for one welcome our new computer overlord,” Jennings wrote underneath his answer for the final clue of the night.
The protesters in Egypt and the rest of the Middle East can go out and whine all they want. But technology keeps accelerating. Islam isn't going to save them when artificial intelligence makes them question everything that makes us human.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
More thoughts on Egypt
An article at National Review deserves quoting:
Many other questions are not being asked in the general euphoria over Mubarak’s demise. Why are the more oppressive governments of Syria, Iran, and Libya not subject to the same degree of popular unrest that is said to be surely spreading to Jordan or the Gulf? Is it because for all the authoritarianism of a Mubarak or a Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, there was never the threat of a genocidal Hama, or thousands perishing on the proscription lists under a Khomeini, or international assassinations of dissidents in the Libyan manner? (Would Egyptian-like protests ever have deposed Saddam and his Baathists [cf. the failure in 1991 after the Shiite/Kurdish uprising]?) Does the greater anti-Westernism of a Syria or Iran counterbalance its oppression in the minds of the populace? Much of this reminds me of a Gandhi being fortunate, to paraphrase Orwell, that he was rebelling against the British, and not Germans of the Third Reich.
What if Mubarak wasn't really that bad...he was just pro-American...
Much has been made of Western social-networking technology, whose entrance in the Arab world has ignited popular outrage over the absence of the elements of civilized life — decent housing, plentiful and safe food and water, effective sewerage, available employment. But how odd that brilliant Western technology — text messaging, Skypeing, iPhones, Google, Facebook — can facilitate the furor over endemic poverty and political oppression, but has so far been unable to materially alleviate the conditions of Middle Eastern poverty — as in novel, inexpensive methods of creating housing, cheaper energy, more plentiful food — that might trump the cultural and political impediments to wealth creation. We can spread Facebook page making to create anger over poverty, but not comparable Western innovations to more directly alleviate poverty.
In a flat world, you're value is defined by how intelligently you use a computer. Egyptians have only themselves to blame for falling behind...
Many other questions are not being asked in the general euphoria over Mubarak’s demise. Why are the more oppressive governments of Syria, Iran, and Libya not subject to the same degree of popular unrest that is said to be surely spreading to Jordan or the Gulf? Is it because for all the authoritarianism of a Mubarak or a Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, there was never the threat of a genocidal Hama, or thousands perishing on the proscription lists under a Khomeini, or international assassinations of dissidents in the Libyan manner? (Would Egyptian-like protests ever have deposed Saddam and his Baathists [cf. the failure in 1991 after the Shiite/Kurdish uprising]?) Does the greater anti-Westernism of a Syria or Iran counterbalance its oppression in the minds of the populace? Much of this reminds me of a Gandhi being fortunate, to paraphrase Orwell, that he was rebelling against the British, and not Germans of the Third Reich.
What if Mubarak wasn't really that bad...he was just pro-American...
Much has been made of Western social-networking technology, whose entrance in the Arab world has ignited popular outrage over the absence of the elements of civilized life — decent housing, plentiful and safe food and water, effective sewerage, available employment. But how odd that brilliant Western technology — text messaging, Skypeing, iPhones, Google, Facebook — can facilitate the furor over endemic poverty and political oppression, but has so far been unable to materially alleviate the conditions of Middle Eastern poverty — as in novel, inexpensive methods of creating housing, cheaper energy, more plentiful food — that might trump the cultural and political impediments to wealth creation. We can spread Facebook page making to create anger over poverty, but not comparable Western innovations to more directly alleviate poverty.
In a flat world, you're value is defined by how intelligently you use a computer. Egyptians have only themselves to blame for falling behind...
New era of HBD
With the death of publishing does this mean a new era in HBD and politically incorrect books will be coming out?
After all, these are some other titles sold on kindle:
"Time Jump Into Bondage,"
by John Savage
Dr Helena Carter suffers bondage, pain, whipping and all manner of extreme sexual torment as she "Time Jumps" uncontrollably from the body of one suffering woman in history to another.She was known as "The Ice Woman", because no man seemed to be able to get close to her. As a scientist, her interest was in studying history by "Time Jumping", now that the complex equipment had been re-designed and she was assured that there could not be a repetition of Dr Hutton's seemingly uncontrolled "Jumping". Almost at once, Dr Helena found herself in the wrong place at the wrong time. Worse, she too had lost control of Time Jumps, and finally when she was thrown into a future society where it had become normal for both male and female slaves to be kept and abused for the delight and sexual gratification of their owners, it seemed there was no hope for her.
"Bang Columbia: Textbook on how to sleep with Columbian women"
by Rooshv
Bang Colombia is a strategy guide designed to help you sleep with Colombian women in Colombia without paying for it. It contains dozens of moves, lines, and tips learned after six months of research in Medellin, where the author dedicated his existence to cracking the code of Colombian women, who are more challenging than their Western counterparts. In addition to teaching you the differences between Colombian and Western culture, it details the logistics of traveling through Colombia, tips on studying Spanish, a packing guide, and recommended nightlife for the country's three largest cities. You'll learn three effective methods of meeting Colombian women, how to combat their flakey nature, how to ask them out via email and phone, how to date them, how to seal the deal quickly using non-obvious shortcuts (even if you're staying at a hostel), and much more. With lines shared in both English and Spanish, Bang Colombia aims to be a must-read for every Western man visiting the country.
"Eugenics: A Reassessment (Human Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence) "
by Richard Lynn
fascinating, multi-faceted book.Professor Lynn sets outs to rescue eugenics from the lowly place to which it fell in the latter half of the twentieth century. It is an ambitious project, and Lynn emerges with scientific and ethical orthodoxy on many fronts. He does this with enthusiasm, moving effortlessly between history, genetics, demographics and ethics before delivering a startling prediction about the central role eugenics will play in 21st century world politics....A new debate is needed, and professor Lynn's book lays a provocative challenge to those who wish to avoid the dystopian future he foresees.
Interesting times ahead...
After all, these are some other titles sold on kindle:
"Time Jump Into Bondage,"
by John Savage
Dr Helena Carter suffers bondage, pain, whipping and all manner of extreme sexual torment as she "Time Jumps" uncontrollably from the body of one suffering woman in history to another.She was known as "The Ice Woman", because no man seemed to be able to get close to her. As a scientist, her interest was in studying history by "Time Jumping", now that the complex equipment had been re-designed and she was assured that there could not be a repetition of Dr Hutton's seemingly uncontrolled "Jumping". Almost at once, Dr Helena found herself in the wrong place at the wrong time. Worse, she too had lost control of Time Jumps, and finally when she was thrown into a future society where it had become normal for both male and female slaves to be kept and abused for the delight and sexual gratification of their owners, it seemed there was no hope for her.
"Bang Columbia: Textbook on how to sleep with Columbian women"
by Rooshv
Bang Colombia is a strategy guide designed to help you sleep with Colombian women in Colombia without paying for it. It contains dozens of moves, lines, and tips learned after six months of research in Medellin, where the author dedicated his existence to cracking the code of Colombian women, who are more challenging than their Western counterparts. In addition to teaching you the differences between Colombian and Western culture, it details the logistics of traveling through Colombia, tips on studying Spanish, a packing guide, and recommended nightlife for the country's three largest cities. You'll learn three effective methods of meeting Colombian women, how to combat their flakey nature, how to ask them out via email and phone, how to date them, how to seal the deal quickly using non-obvious shortcuts (even if you're staying at a hostel), and much more. With lines shared in both English and Spanish, Bang Colombia aims to be a must-read for every Western man visiting the country.
"Eugenics: A Reassessment (Human Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence) "
by Richard Lynn
fascinating, multi-faceted book.Professor Lynn sets outs to rescue eugenics from the lowly place to which it fell in the latter half of the twentieth century. It is an ambitious project, and Lynn emerges with scientific and ethical orthodoxy on many fronts. He does this with enthusiasm, moving effortlessly between history, genetics, demographics and ethics before delivering a startling prediction about the central role eugenics will play in 21st century world politics....A new debate is needed, and professor Lynn's book lays a provocative challenge to those who wish to avoid the dystopian future he foresees.
Interesting times ahead...
Monday, February 7, 2011
Friedman's BS
Mangan's blog does a great job in bringing IQ-reality to Friedman's Friedman's column.
When China can make Egyptian Ramadan toys more cheaply and appealingly than low-wage Egyptians, you know there is problem of competitiveness.
Well, yes, but why? Friedman won't go near that one, as it would upset everything he thinks he knows about global competitiveness.
Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Tunisia today are overflowing with the most frustrated cohort in the world — “the educated unemployables.” They have college degrees on paper but really don’t have the skills to make them globally competitive. I was just in Singapore. Its government is obsessed with things as small as how to better teach fractions to third graders. That has not been Hosni Mubarak’s obsession.
Another great Friedmanian theme with little or no basis in reality: education will solve all our problems. Let's see: Singapore has an estimated IQ of 103, of which the Chinese portion of the population must be closer to Hong Kong's 107 (link), and ranked at number 5 in the world, while Egypt's estimated IQ is 83, ranked number 60. Somehow I doubt that even if it were Mubarak's obsession to teach third graders fractions, Egypt will be a long time catching up to Singapore.
another Friedman column with no comments allowed. Lovely.
When China can make Egyptian Ramadan toys more cheaply and appealingly than low-wage Egyptians, you know there is problem of competitiveness.
Well, yes, but why? Friedman won't go near that one, as it would upset everything he thinks he knows about global competitiveness.
Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Tunisia today are overflowing with the most frustrated cohort in the world — “the educated unemployables.” They have college degrees on paper but really don’t have the skills to make them globally competitive. I was just in Singapore. Its government is obsessed with things as small as how to better teach fractions to third graders. That has not been Hosni Mubarak’s obsession.
Another great Friedmanian theme with little or no basis in reality: education will solve all our problems. Let's see: Singapore has an estimated IQ of 103, of which the Chinese portion of the population must be closer to Hong Kong's 107 (link), and ranked at number 5 in the world, while Egypt's estimated IQ is 83, ranked number 60. Somehow I doubt that even if it were Mubarak's obsession to teach third graders fractions, Egypt will be a long time catching up to Singapore.
another Friedman column with no comments allowed. Lovely.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Be careful what you wish for...
neocons and liberals agree on something, I get very nervous.
Here are the results of the Pew survey on Egyptian beliefs:
The Pew survey found wide streams of opinion in Egypt that seem at the very least inhospitable to democracy. When asked which side they would take in a struggle between “groups who want to modernize the country [and] Islamic fundamentalists,” 59 percent of Egyptians picked the fundamentalists, while 27 percent picked the modernizers. In a country in which the army will likely play a deciding role in selecting the next political leadership, just 32 percent believe in civilian control of the military. And a majority, 54 percent, support making segregation of men and women in the workplace the law throughout Egypt.
There’s more. When asked whether suicide bombing can ever be justified, 54 percent said yes (although most believe such occasions are “rare”) Eighty-two percent supported stoning for those who commit adultery.
Quiver. This is not going to turn out well, despite Kristof's optimism.
And we also owe it to the brave men and women of Tahrir Square — and to our own history and values — to make one thing very clear: We stand with the peaceful throngs pleading for democracy, not with those who menace them.
Who's democracy? The right to shut down women's rights? The right to go to suicidal war with Israel? The right to stone apostates to death?
After all the leg chopping, genocide, and witchcraft he's seen in Africa, why does Kristof think that backwards people are capable of ruling themselves?
Friedman urges Israel to create a Palestinian state before it's too late. Too late.
Here are the results of the Pew survey on Egyptian beliefs:
The Pew survey found wide streams of opinion in Egypt that seem at the very least inhospitable to democracy. When asked which side they would take in a struggle between “groups who want to modernize the country [and] Islamic fundamentalists,” 59 percent of Egyptians picked the fundamentalists, while 27 percent picked the modernizers. In a country in which the army will likely play a deciding role in selecting the next political leadership, just 32 percent believe in civilian control of the military. And a majority, 54 percent, support making segregation of men and women in the workplace the law throughout Egypt.
There’s more. When asked whether suicide bombing can ever be justified, 54 percent said yes (although most believe such occasions are “rare”) Eighty-two percent supported stoning for those who commit adultery.
Quiver. This is not going to turn out well, despite Kristof's optimism.
And we also owe it to the brave men and women of Tahrir Square — and to our own history and values — to make one thing very clear: We stand with the peaceful throngs pleading for democracy, not with those who menace them.
Who's democracy? The right to shut down women's rights? The right to go to suicidal war with Israel? The right to stone apostates to death?
After all the leg chopping, genocide, and witchcraft he's seen in Africa, why does Kristof think that backwards people are capable of ruling themselves?
Friedman urges Israel to create a Palestinian state before it's too late. Too late.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Democracy and Freedom
Following the chaos in Egypt and Tunisia over the last week, I've been thinking about the nature of democracy. Specifically coming to mind is the analogy of if Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what it for dinner.
The national review has a balanced article looking at responses to the question of if Islamists come after Mubarak.
Obsequiousness to dictators might seem a good short-term strategy, but in the long-term, it undercuts our interests and our moral authority tremendously.
I want to agree
We should not expect a pro-American regime should Mubarak flee into the dustbin of history. Egyptians are fiercely nationalistic and, across the region, ordinary peoples’ mindsets have been shaped by decades of anti-American propaganda. The Egyptian people will be angry that they have fallen so far behind the rest of the world.
How will the Islamic world react to HBD? Average Egyption GDP - 6,000 USD per capita.
Average IQ? 85. Seems about right to me.
Ross Douthat's column is especially enlightening:
The United States supported Mubarak for so long because of two interrelated fears: the fear of another Khomeini and the fear of another Nasser. Both anxieties remain entirely legitimate today.
The first fear everyone understands, because we’re still living with the religious tyranny that Ayatollah Khomeini established in Iran in 1979
Yup
We take refuge in foreign policy systems: liberal internationalism or realpolitik, neoconservatism or noninterventionism. We have theories, and expect the facts to fall into line behind them. Support democracy, and stability will take care of itself. Don’t meddle, and nobody will meddle with you. International institutions will keep the peace. No, balance-of-power politics will do it.
But history makes fools of us all. We make deals with dictators, and reap the whirlwind of terrorism. We promote democracy, and watch Islamists gain power from Iraq to Palestine. We leap into humanitarian interventions, and get bloodied in Somalia. We stay out, and watch genocide engulf Rwanda. We intervene in Afghanistan and then depart, and watch the Taliban take over. We intervene in Afghanistan and stay, and end up trapped there, with no end in sight.
Sooner or later, the theories always fail. The world is too complicated for them, and too tragic.
Current theories of international relations have not taken the differences in human IQ, nor the problems of Islam into account. Nor have they accounted for the disruption that technology will bring.
For all the hand wringing over what motivates people and human nature, I still stick to my main theme:
Follow the pussy.
Now, given the lack of acceptance that pickup ideology has faced in the current establishment, I doubt that International Relations theory is going to incorporate it's findings into the next trendy ideology.
So, we continue to grasp at straws trying to get a framework for understanding how we govern ourselves.
The national review has a balanced article looking at responses to the question of if Islamists come after Mubarak.
Obsequiousness to dictators might seem a good short-term strategy, but in the long-term, it undercuts our interests and our moral authority tremendously.
I want to agree
We should not expect a pro-American regime should Mubarak flee into the dustbin of history. Egyptians are fiercely nationalistic and, across the region, ordinary peoples’ mindsets have been shaped by decades of anti-American propaganda. The Egyptian people will be angry that they have fallen so far behind the rest of the world.
How will the Islamic world react to HBD? Average Egyption GDP - 6,000 USD per capita.
Average IQ? 85. Seems about right to me.
Ross Douthat's column is especially enlightening:
The United States supported Mubarak for so long because of two interrelated fears: the fear of another Khomeini and the fear of another Nasser. Both anxieties remain entirely legitimate today.
The first fear everyone understands, because we’re still living with the religious tyranny that Ayatollah Khomeini established in Iran in 1979
Yup
We take refuge in foreign policy systems: liberal internationalism or realpolitik, neoconservatism or noninterventionism. We have theories, and expect the facts to fall into line behind them. Support democracy, and stability will take care of itself. Don’t meddle, and nobody will meddle with you. International institutions will keep the peace. No, balance-of-power politics will do it.
But history makes fools of us all. We make deals with dictators, and reap the whirlwind of terrorism. We promote democracy, and watch Islamists gain power from Iraq to Palestine. We leap into humanitarian interventions, and get bloodied in Somalia. We stay out, and watch genocide engulf Rwanda. We intervene in Afghanistan and then depart, and watch the Taliban take over. We intervene in Afghanistan and stay, and end up trapped there, with no end in sight.
Sooner or later, the theories always fail. The world is too complicated for them, and too tragic.
Current theories of international relations have not taken the differences in human IQ, nor the problems of Islam into account. Nor have they accounted for the disruption that technology will bring.
For all the hand wringing over what motivates people and human nature, I still stick to my main theme:
Follow the pussy.
Now, given the lack of acceptance that pickup ideology has faced in the current establishment, I doubt that International Relations theory is going to incorporate it's findings into the next trendy ideology.
So, we continue to grasp at straws trying to get a framework for understanding how we govern ourselves.
Are you serious? Come on, Friedman.
I'm still laughing over a recent Friedman column praising Singapore for how they've adapted to the flat world.
But today its per capita income is just below U.S. levels, built with high-end manufacturing, services and exports. The country’s economy grew last year at 14.7 percent, led by biomedical exports.
...
Singapore probably has the freest market in the world
Props
So what's similar between Singapore and the United States?
Singapore is tiny and by no means a U.S.-style democracy. Yet, like America, it has a multiethnic population — Chinese, Indian and Malay — with a big working class.
HAHAHAHA. You're kidding, right? Friedman is essentially saying that being ethnically diverse is a characteristic in and of itself, and the type of diversity means nothing.
Singapore ethnic breakdown:
Chinese: 76.8%
Malay: 13.9%
Indian: 7.9%
Other: 1.4%
United States ethnic breakdown:
White: 60% (80-15% hispanic)
Black: 12.85%
Hispanic: 15%
Asian: 4.43%
Other: 2%
So, the Singaporeans have the Indians and Malays to work with, we have blacks and hispanics. Let's compare:
According to the wikipedia article
Today, Indians earn higher average monthly incomes than the Chinese or Malays and are more likely to hold a university degree than these groups.
Hmmm.....not exactly the equivalent for a minority group, eh?
this article speculates on why Malays haven't done as well as Chinese:
What is of particular in this subject is the way that Malays tended to retain their traditional social forms and many of their occupational patterns despite urbanisation, while the Chinese have embraced the whole process more wholeheartedl
Come on....do you really need to know the answer?
Here is the link: average IQ in Malaysia: 92. Average IQ in China? 100.
Even assuming that the average Malay has an average IQ of 90, African Americans have an average IQ of 85. Hispanic IQ is in the low 90's.
Therefore, Singapore has 14% minority population dragging it down, while the United States has 27.8% Black + Hispanic. Significant difference. This is in addition to a Chinese IQ higher than white IQ.
Thank god we have the jews
Yet another example of Thomas Friedman ignoring racial implications of his flat world theories.
The rest of his column, though, has good pointers about how to reform the government in the US.
But today its per capita income is just below U.S. levels, built with high-end manufacturing, services and exports. The country’s economy grew last year at 14.7 percent, led by biomedical exports.
...
Singapore probably has the freest market in the world
Props
So what's similar between Singapore and the United States?
Singapore is tiny and by no means a U.S.-style democracy. Yet, like America, it has a multiethnic population — Chinese, Indian and Malay — with a big working class.
HAHAHAHA. You're kidding, right? Friedman is essentially saying that being ethnically diverse is a characteristic in and of itself, and the type of diversity means nothing.
Singapore ethnic breakdown:
Chinese: 76.8%
Malay: 13.9%
Indian: 7.9%
Other: 1.4%
United States ethnic breakdown:
White: 60% (80-15% hispanic)
Black: 12.85%
Hispanic: 15%
Asian: 4.43%
Other: 2%
So, the Singaporeans have the Indians and Malays to work with, we have blacks and hispanics. Let's compare:
According to the wikipedia article
Today, Indians earn higher average monthly incomes than the Chinese or Malays and are more likely to hold a university degree than these groups.
Hmmm.....not exactly the equivalent for a minority group, eh?
this article speculates on why Malays haven't done as well as Chinese:
What is of particular in this subject is the way that Malays tended to retain their traditional social forms and many of their occupational patterns despite urbanisation, while the Chinese have embraced the whole process more wholeheartedl
Come on....do you really need to know the answer?
Here is the link: average IQ in Malaysia: 92. Average IQ in China? 100.
Even assuming that the average Malay has an average IQ of 90, African Americans have an average IQ of 85. Hispanic IQ is in the low 90's.
Therefore, Singapore has 14% minority population dragging it down, while the United States has 27.8% Black + Hispanic. Significant difference. This is in addition to a Chinese IQ higher than white IQ.
Thank god we have the jews
Yet another example of Thomas Friedman ignoring racial implications of his flat world theories.
The rest of his column, though, has good pointers about how to reform the government in the US.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Common Sense Immigration Policy
Here is a recent op ed on immigration policy advocating more skilled workers.
The United States issues far more patents - a primary measure of innovation - than any other country, but immigrants were responsible for about a quarter of them in recent years, according to a study by researchers at Harvard Business School and elsewhere.
At Intel, the world's largest maker of semiconductors, 40 percent of the patents are for work done by Chinese or Indian immigrants, the Council on Foreign Relations reported in 2009.
Immigrants create patents at twice the rate of native-born Americans because they disproportionately hold degrees in science and engineering, Marjolaine Gauthier-Loiselle and Jennifer Hunt concluded in a study published last year by the Center for Economic Research in London.
Yes, more high-IQ immigrants! I don't think the average American is opposed to that. However, they are opposed to low-IQ Mexican immigration.
Border security and skills have nothing to do with each other. Politically linking them may placate the nativists, but it also puts us on the road to national decline, which surely neither party wants.
What the hell does this mean? Look, just come out and say it: we want engineers, not dumb illiterate Latino peasants.
Now, was that so hard?
The United States issues far more patents - a primary measure of innovation - than any other country, but immigrants were responsible for about a quarter of them in recent years, according to a study by researchers at Harvard Business School and elsewhere.
At Intel, the world's largest maker of semiconductors, 40 percent of the patents are for work done by Chinese or Indian immigrants, the Council on Foreign Relations reported in 2009.
Immigrants create patents at twice the rate of native-born Americans because they disproportionately hold degrees in science and engineering, Marjolaine Gauthier-Loiselle and Jennifer Hunt concluded in a study published last year by the Center for Economic Research in London.
Yes, more high-IQ immigrants! I don't think the average American is opposed to that. However, they are opposed to low-IQ Mexican immigration.
Border security and skills have nothing to do with each other. Politically linking them may placate the nativists, but it also puts us on the road to national decline, which surely neither party wants.
What the hell does this mean? Look, just come out and say it: we want engineers, not dumb illiterate Latino peasants.
Now, was that so hard?
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
SOTU Point by point II
We need to teach our kids that it's not just the winner of the Super Bowl who deserves to be celebrated, but the winner of the science fair.
I would LOVE this to happen, but all I can do is point to a phrase:
FOLLOW THE PUSSY
Roissy explains here why nerd-worship is not possible among a broad selection of the population. Guys will always go for the image that's going to get them laid, not the image that's going to help the US maintain dominance!
And let's stop expelling talented, responsible young people who could be staffing our research labs or starting a new business, who could be further enriching this nation.
I actually agree with the DREAM act, from an HBD perspective. But, we also have to do the corollary policies: Build a wall, deport those who aren't contributing, and amend the immigration system to make it easier for educated workers to immigrate, and harder for peasants with nothing to offer.
China is building faster trains and newer airports.
When supposedly patriotic conservatives criticize high speed rail as pie in the sky, what is their reaction when they see China leaping ahead in train technology? They would rather continue subsidizing Saudi oil then making it easier to ride a train from LA to San Diego instead of driving?
Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail.
Nice sentiment, but geography is quickly becoming irrelevant. See here
What I'm not willing to do -- what I'm not willing to do is go back to the days when insurance companies could deny someone coverage because of a preexisting condition.
Which brings us back to the eternal fundamental health care debate: do I have the obligation to pay for the health care of another American? If, over the course of 30 years, an American is going to use 5 million dollars worth of health care, but only contribute 1 million dollars in taxes, does society have an obligation to keep him maintained?
Ok, I'm done.
SOTU Point by point I
I'm going to do what every blogger in the world has been doing: SOTU point by point. However, I hope two things will set me apart from the HBD-osphere:
1) I'm hardcore pro American
2) I was an Obama maniac in 2008, and honestly, I still like the guy and wish him well. While no one really knows whats going on in his head the way GWB or Reagan was readable, I think there is some inherent goodness in him.
Here we go, random quotes that I think are important either for their truth or shocking confusion:
We believe that in a country where every race and faith and point of view can be found, we are still bound together as one people; that we share common hopes and a common creed; that the dreams of a little girl in Tucson are not so different than those of our own children, and that they all deserve the chance to be fulfilled.
That, too, is what sets us apart as a nation.
Basic American creed, that the US, as a nation, transcends race and religion.
At stake is whether new jobs and industries take root in this country, or somewhere else. It's whether the hard work and industry of our people is rewarded. It's whether we sustain the leadership that has made America not just a place on a map, but the light to the world.
At stake is whether we or China dominate the Globe.
In a single generation, revolutions in technology have transformed the way we live, work and do business. Steel mills that once needed 1,000 workers can now do the same work with 100. Today, just about any company can set up shop, hire workers, and sell their products wherever there's an Internet connection.
Meanwhile, nations like China and India realized that with some changes of their own, they could compete in this new world. And so they started educating their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on math and science. They're investing in research and new technologies. Just recently, China became the home to the world's largest private solar research facility, and the world's fastest computer.
It was important for him to say this. Put our national challenges in a technological and globalized context. This, to some degree, pre empts the tea party "leave me alone" rhetoric.
What's more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea -– the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny.
A profound statement, but accurate. Unfortunate that it was buried amid other ideas. We really are the best.
The first step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation. None of us can predict with certainty what the next big industry will be or where the new jobs will come from. Thirty years ago, we couldn't know that something called the Internet would lead to an economic revolution. What we can do -- what America does better than anyone else -- is spark the creativity and imagination of our people.
That's it - no escaping it. The creative will dominate once automation and outsourcing become standard.
But because it's not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout our history, our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need.
This is basic economics. Basic research is a HUGE positive externality, so no one has the motivation to do it. Right wing libertarians have no way to generate basic research when free riding is so rampant.
So instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's.
Even if global warming is a sham, do we want to be behind China on this? Do we not want to be on the forefrunt of new industries? Do we want to keep subsidizing Russia and Saudi Arabia?
Over the next 10 years, nearly half of all new jobs will require education that goes beyond a high school education. And yet, as many as a quarter of our students aren't even finishing high school.
The singularity is coming. Automation is going to kill our workers more than cheap workers in China or India.
The quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations.
This is purely an HBD issue. Steve Sailer eloquently breaks down the dempgraphics of our PISA scores here .
1) I'm hardcore pro American
2) I was an Obama maniac in 2008, and honestly, I still like the guy and wish him well. While no one really knows whats going on in his head the way GWB or Reagan was readable, I think there is some inherent goodness in him.
Here we go, random quotes that I think are important either for their truth or shocking confusion:
We believe that in a country where every race and faith and point of view can be found, we are still bound together as one people; that we share common hopes and a common creed; that the dreams of a little girl in Tucson are not so different than those of our own children, and that they all deserve the chance to be fulfilled.
That, too, is what sets us apart as a nation.
Basic American creed, that the US, as a nation, transcends race and religion.
At stake is whether new jobs and industries take root in this country, or somewhere else. It's whether the hard work and industry of our people is rewarded. It's whether we sustain the leadership that has made America not just a place on a map, but the light to the world.
At stake is whether we or China dominate the Globe.
In a single generation, revolutions in technology have transformed the way we live, work and do business. Steel mills that once needed 1,000 workers can now do the same work with 100. Today, just about any company can set up shop, hire workers, and sell their products wherever there's an Internet connection.
Meanwhile, nations like China and India realized that with some changes of their own, they could compete in this new world. And so they started educating their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on math and science. They're investing in research and new technologies. Just recently, China became the home to the world's largest private solar research facility, and the world's fastest computer.
It was important for him to say this. Put our national challenges in a technological and globalized context. This, to some degree, pre empts the tea party "leave me alone" rhetoric.
What's more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea -– the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny.
A profound statement, but accurate. Unfortunate that it was buried amid other ideas. We really are the best.
The first step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation. None of us can predict with certainty what the next big industry will be or where the new jobs will come from. Thirty years ago, we couldn't know that something called the Internet would lead to an economic revolution. What we can do -- what America does better than anyone else -- is spark the creativity and imagination of our people.
That's it - no escaping it. The creative will dominate once automation and outsourcing become standard.
But because it's not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout our history, our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need.
This is basic economics. Basic research is a HUGE positive externality, so no one has the motivation to do it. Right wing libertarians have no way to generate basic research when free riding is so rampant.
So instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's.
Even if global warming is a sham, do we want to be behind China on this? Do we not want to be on the forefrunt of new industries? Do we want to keep subsidizing Russia and Saudi Arabia?
Over the next 10 years, nearly half of all new jobs will require education that goes beyond a high school education. And yet, as many as a quarter of our students aren't even finishing high school.
The singularity is coming. Automation is going to kill our workers more than cheap workers in China or India.
The quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations.
This is purely an HBD issue. Steve Sailer eloquently breaks down the dempgraphics of our PISA scores here .
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Japan vs. China
Is the China fear a rehash of the Japan fears? this nytimes article says possibly .
What I think is funny, though, is no worries about Nigeria, Brazil, Indonesia, India, and Pakistan challenging US superiority.
Why? IQ.
Does no one see the irony that the two non western countries to challenge the US while the Soviet Union was in decline are both Asian?
What I think is funny, though, is no worries about Nigeria, Brazil, Indonesia, India, and Pakistan challenging US superiority.
Why? IQ.
Does no one see the irony that the two non western countries to challenge the US while the Soviet Union was in decline are both Asian?
Saturday, May 15, 2010
What would Friedman say
So if he could say what he wanted, what would he say?
This analysis of Friedman's Dream Team column talks about the real kind of immigration that Friedman wants:
His enthusiasm is authentic, but the immigration he's endorsing is of a kind that never figures in any of the tediously repetitive Times editorials in favor of open borders. The immigration Friedman wants – "legal," "orderly," resulting in America's attracting and retaining "the world's first-round aspirational and intellectual draft choices" – can actually be seen as consonant with the Center for Immigration Studies' advocacy of a "pro-immigrant policy of lower immigration" predicated on the national interest.
In fact, it's axiomatic that immigration Friedman-style is wholly antithetical to current immigration policy and "comprehensive immigration reform" – which begins with amnesty, though that's an instrumentality, not remotely an end in itself.
This cataclysmic immigration will come overwhelmingly from oligarchic Latin American cultures with chasm-like divides between the rich and the poor, with oppressive, rigid class systems that give their citizenry, particularly their own poor, little access to learning or the means or motivation to pursue the life of the mind. It will result in the importation of a vast less-skilled demographic that is the inverse of Friedman's "Real Dream Team." According to data from the Pew Hispanic Center, some 30 percent of immigrants from Mexico have not finished 9th grade; some 62 percent lack high school diplomas.
Unlike the 40 finalists, a high proportion of the children of today's legal and illegal less-skilled immigrants from Mexico and Central America have parents with very low levels of education, and the parents' education attainment is one of the best predictors of a child's success. The result is that many children from Latin American immigrant families are dropping out of school and socializing downward. While Hispanics once had the highest rate of intact families of any group, the native-born children and grandchildren of Hispanic immigrants have rates of out-of-wedlock births second only to those in the African-American community, one of the principal causes and symptoms of the crises that beset the black community. Nearly half of Hispanic immigrant families use at least one federal welfare program, and the education system is not providing a basis for upward social mobility. In our knowledge-based, post industrial society it is unlikely that the immigrants who come here from Mexico and Central America will provide many of the finalists for the Intel Talent Search for generations; meanwhile we can predict inverse outcomes: high rates of academic failure, functional illiteracy in two languages, welfare dependency, out-of-wedlock births, and disproportionate rates of incarceration.
Devastating.
If Thomas L. Friedman chose to use his influential voice – one especially resonant among liberal Americans – to help them understand how radically different is the immigration he advocates from the sort being pushed by the cynical, greedy, or ethnically chauvinist "comprehensive reform" crowd, he might actually make a difference.
One is allowed to hope, right?
here is another realistic take on Friedman.
another piece actually accuses Friedman of pro-Asian racism:
In our brave new multicultural world presumably it’s okay to be racist so long as the preferred groups aren’t white. Friedman (or his “brainy Indian friend”) are arguing for more immigration by what used to be called the “model minorities,” East and South Asians, who unlike America’s own minorities apparently possess the human, social, and economic capital to become exemplars of the Protestant Ethic. Of course, arguing certain nationalities inherently possess these superior traits is the essence of racism, the flipside of the Nordicism of historical restrictionism and contemporary Buchananism. Though Friedman does make a passing genuflection for immigration by the world’s “best and brightest,” it’s clear who he thinks they are.
Is that really so bad?
Either way, Mexico is completely hypocritical in it's criticism of the Arizona law
And they are actually trying to push illegal immigrants to the US to remove the powder keg.
This analysis of Friedman's Dream Team column talks about the real kind of immigration that Friedman wants:
His enthusiasm is authentic, but the immigration he's endorsing is of a kind that never figures in any of the tediously repetitive Times editorials in favor of open borders. The immigration Friedman wants – "legal," "orderly," resulting in America's attracting and retaining "the world's first-round aspirational and intellectual draft choices" – can actually be seen as consonant with the Center for Immigration Studies' advocacy of a "pro-immigrant policy of lower immigration" predicated on the national interest.
In fact, it's axiomatic that immigration Friedman-style is wholly antithetical to current immigration policy and "comprehensive immigration reform" – which begins with amnesty, though that's an instrumentality, not remotely an end in itself.
This cataclysmic immigration will come overwhelmingly from oligarchic Latin American cultures with chasm-like divides between the rich and the poor, with oppressive, rigid class systems that give their citizenry, particularly their own poor, little access to learning or the means or motivation to pursue the life of the mind. It will result in the importation of a vast less-skilled demographic that is the inverse of Friedman's "Real Dream Team." According to data from the Pew Hispanic Center, some 30 percent of immigrants from Mexico have not finished 9th grade; some 62 percent lack high school diplomas.
Unlike the 40 finalists, a high proportion of the children of today's legal and illegal less-skilled immigrants from Mexico and Central America have parents with very low levels of education, and the parents' education attainment is one of the best predictors of a child's success. The result is that many children from Latin American immigrant families are dropping out of school and socializing downward. While Hispanics once had the highest rate of intact families of any group, the native-born children and grandchildren of Hispanic immigrants have rates of out-of-wedlock births second only to those in the African-American community, one of the principal causes and symptoms of the crises that beset the black community. Nearly half of Hispanic immigrant families use at least one federal welfare program, and the education system is not providing a basis for upward social mobility. In our knowledge-based, post industrial society it is unlikely that the immigrants who come here from Mexico and Central America will provide many of the finalists for the Intel Talent Search for generations; meanwhile we can predict inverse outcomes: high rates of academic failure, functional illiteracy in two languages, welfare dependency, out-of-wedlock births, and disproportionate rates of incarceration.
Devastating.
If Thomas L. Friedman chose to use his influential voice – one especially resonant among liberal Americans – to help them understand how radically different is the immigration he advocates from the sort being pushed by the cynical, greedy, or ethnically chauvinist "comprehensive reform" crowd, he might actually make a difference.
One is allowed to hope, right?
here is another realistic take on Friedman.
another piece actually accuses Friedman of pro-Asian racism:
In our brave new multicultural world presumably it’s okay to be racist so long as the preferred groups aren’t white. Friedman (or his “brainy Indian friend”) are arguing for more immigration by what used to be called the “model minorities,” East and South Asians, who unlike America’s own minorities apparently possess the human, social, and economic capital to become exemplars of the Protestant Ethic. Of course, arguing certain nationalities inherently possess these superior traits is the essence of racism, the flipside of the Nordicism of historical restrictionism and contemporary Buchananism. Though Friedman does make a passing genuflection for immigration by the world’s “best and brightest,” it’s clear who he thinks they are.
Is that really so bad?
Either way, Mexico is completely hypocritical in it's criticism of the Arizona law
And they are actually trying to push illegal immigrants to the US to remove the powder keg.
Monday, April 26, 2010
How to articulate an immigration policy Part 2: Thomas Friedman is HBD aware
So we've seen somewhat different perspectives on immigration. But ultimately this is the key fact:
Demography is destiny . The higher intelligence a country's population has, the stronger it will be. The better suited it will be to complete in a flat world. The more time will pass before the country's workers become irrelevant through automation. The more likely the country will not be a replay of what happened to Native Indians when the Europeans came .
Anyway, you got my point. But even more basically, I think the United States is the greatest force for good in the world. We spread freedom, communication, democracy, equality, human rights. And the best way for us to keep doing that is to stay as strong as possible by having the most productive people.
This means people with high IQ. This will mean an immigration policy that screens for IQ. This will mean disparate impact between races. This isn't allowed.
So, how do we gain such a policy without it being defeated by egalitarians? Marketing.
And we consult the go to guy of sexy policy marketing, Thomas Friedman.
In a recent column on America's capital, he talks about the role of intelligent immigrants in improving the US.
Linda Zhou, Alice Wei Zhao, Lori Ying, Angela Yu-Yun Yeung, Lynnelle Lin Ye, Kevin Young Xu, Benjamin Chang Sun, Jane Yoonhae Suh, Katheryn Cheng Shi, Sunanda Sharma, Sarine Gayaneh Shahmirian, Arjun Ranganath Puranik, Raman Venkat Nelakant, Akhil Mathew, Paul Masih Das, David Chienyun Liu, Elisa Bisi Lin, Yifan Li, Lanair Amaad Lett, Ruoyi Jiang, Otana Agape Jakpor, Peter Danming Hu, Yale Wang Fan, Yuval Yaacov Calev, Levent Alpoge, John Vincenzo Capodilupo and Namrata Anand.
No, sorry, it was not a dinner of the China-India Friendship League. Give up?
O.K. All these kids are American high school students. They were the majority of the 40 finalists in the 2010 Intel Science Talent Search, which, through a national contest, identifies and honors the top math and science high school students in America, based on their solutions to scientific problems. The awards dinner was Tuesday, and, as you can see from the above list, most finalists hailed from immigrant families, largely from Asia.
Not shocked. China and India are the two biggest countries in the world. So when both each are limited to only 50K immigrants per year you're naturally going to get some sort of cream. Also, the elites in both countries (especially so in India) have cultures pro-Education.
When I asked her the secret, she said it was the resources provided by her school, extremely “supportive parents” and a grant from Intel that let her spend part of each day inspiring and preparing students to enter this contest. Then she told me this: Local San Jose realtors are running ads in newspapers in China and India telling potential immigrants to “buy a home” in her Lynbrook school district because it produced “two Intel science winners.”
Haha. Supportive parents? That's code of high IQ and good parents. But yes, I agree. We've got to get the best talent possible.
But let's transition away. In wake of the Arizona law, we have to look at Mexican immigration. Well, let's see what Friedman has to say about that.
.....
No, I'm serious. On the biggest issue of the day, Thomas Friedman has absolutely nothing to say even though he's the guru of "how can America compete in the globalized economy" industry.
Oh, wait. I think I've found something from his column on green energy.
After months of heroic negotiations, Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joseph Lieberman had forged a bipartisan climate/energy/jobs bill that, while far from perfect, would have, for the first time, put a long-term fixed price on carbon — precisely the kind of price signal U.S. industry and consumers need to start really shifting the economy to clean-power innovations. The bill was supposed to be unveiled on Monday, but it was suddenly postponed because of Graham’s justified fury that the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid, had decided to push immigration reform first — even though no such bill is ready — in a bid to attract Hispanic voters to revive his re-election campaign in Nevada.
That's it? Oh, wait there's one more from another recent column.
This critical piece of energy legislation was supposed to be unveiled by the three senators on Monday, but it was suddenly postponed late Saturday because of Senator Graham’s fury that the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and the White House were planning to take up a highly controversial immigration measure before the energy bill.
If this is what the Obama administration is doing — to score a few cheap political points with Hispanics — it is a travesty.
This is something. Friedman rants about the paralysis in our political system, and is usually on. Too many extremists, not enough centrists. Too much political correctness. But I think he's trying to use complaining about our political system as a means by which to go against amnesty in immigration reform.
But he can't outright say it, or he'll lose alot of his neocon (invade the world/invite the world) supporters.
So, in today's column on the Mexico Narco war, he goes for the sensational.
The Mexican government just issued a travel advisory warning Mexicans about going to Arizona — where they could get arrested by the police for no reason — and the U.S. government just issued a travel advisory warning Americans about going to northern Mexico — where they could get shot by drug dealers for no reason.
Funny. Not so much for the people living there.
We take the Mexican-American relationship for granted. But with the drug wars in Mexico turning into Wild West shootouts on city streets and with our own immigration politics turning more heated, what’s happening in Mexico has become much more critical to American foreign policy and merits more of our attention. Mexico is not Afghanistan, but it also has not become all that it hoped to be by now. Something feels stalled here.
And that's all he has to say about immigration. How can you talk about Mexico and ignore the elephant in the room - illegal, low skilled immigration?
You can't, so he shut off comments for this column.
But anyway, the something feels stalled here has a very simple explanation. In terms of Mexico's potential it has already been reached. For the amount of educated, intelligent people in the country relative to the illiterate, Mexico has been maxed out. Unlike China and India, which still have a ways to meeting their potential, Mexico has been intertwined with the US for decades and so already has had the chance to meet it's potential but hasn't. We can't say that.
Demography is destiny . The higher intelligence a country's population has, the stronger it will be. The better suited it will be to complete in a flat world. The more time will pass before the country's workers become irrelevant through automation. The more likely the country will not be a replay of what happened to Native Indians when the Europeans came .
Anyway, you got my point. But even more basically, I think the United States is the greatest force for good in the world. We spread freedom, communication, democracy, equality, human rights. And the best way for us to keep doing that is to stay as strong as possible by having the most productive people.
This means people with high IQ. This will mean an immigration policy that screens for IQ. This will mean disparate impact between races. This isn't allowed.
So, how do we gain such a policy without it being defeated by egalitarians? Marketing.
And we consult the go to guy of sexy policy marketing, Thomas Friedman.
In a recent column on America's capital, he talks about the role of intelligent immigrants in improving the US.
Linda Zhou, Alice Wei Zhao, Lori Ying, Angela Yu-Yun Yeung, Lynnelle Lin Ye, Kevin Young Xu, Benjamin Chang Sun, Jane Yoonhae Suh, Katheryn Cheng Shi, Sunanda Sharma, Sarine Gayaneh Shahmirian, Arjun Ranganath Puranik, Raman Venkat Nelakant, Akhil Mathew, Paul Masih Das, David Chienyun Liu, Elisa Bisi Lin, Yifan Li, Lanair Amaad Lett, Ruoyi Jiang, Otana Agape Jakpor, Peter Danming Hu, Yale Wang Fan, Yuval Yaacov Calev, Levent Alpoge, John Vincenzo Capodilupo and Namrata Anand.
No, sorry, it was not a dinner of the China-India Friendship League. Give up?
O.K. All these kids are American high school students. They were the majority of the 40 finalists in the 2010 Intel Science Talent Search, which, through a national contest, identifies and honors the top math and science high school students in America, based on their solutions to scientific problems. The awards dinner was Tuesday, and, as you can see from the above list, most finalists hailed from immigrant families, largely from Asia.
Not shocked. China and India are the two biggest countries in the world. So when both each are limited to only 50K immigrants per year you're naturally going to get some sort of cream. Also, the elites in both countries (especially so in India) have cultures pro-Education.
When I asked her the secret, she said it was the resources provided by her school, extremely “supportive parents” and a grant from Intel that let her spend part of each day inspiring and preparing students to enter this contest. Then she told me this: Local San Jose realtors are running ads in newspapers in China and India telling potential immigrants to “buy a home” in her Lynbrook school district because it produced “two Intel science winners.”
Haha. Supportive parents? That's code of high IQ and good parents. But yes, I agree. We've got to get the best talent possible.
But let's transition away. In wake of the Arizona law, we have to look at Mexican immigration. Well, let's see what Friedman has to say about that.
.....
No, I'm serious. On the biggest issue of the day, Thomas Friedman has absolutely nothing to say even though he's the guru of "how can America compete in the globalized economy" industry.
Oh, wait. I think I've found something from his column on green energy.
After months of heroic negotiations, Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joseph Lieberman had forged a bipartisan climate/energy/jobs bill that, while far from perfect, would have, for the first time, put a long-term fixed price on carbon — precisely the kind of price signal U.S. industry and consumers need to start really shifting the economy to clean-power innovations. The bill was supposed to be unveiled on Monday, but it was suddenly postponed because of Graham’s justified fury that the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid, had decided to push immigration reform first — even though no such bill is ready — in a bid to attract Hispanic voters to revive his re-election campaign in Nevada.
That's it? Oh, wait there's one more from another recent column.
This critical piece of energy legislation was supposed to be unveiled by the three senators on Monday, but it was suddenly postponed late Saturday because of Senator Graham’s fury that the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and the White House were planning to take up a highly controversial immigration measure before the energy bill.
If this is what the Obama administration is doing — to score a few cheap political points with Hispanics — it is a travesty.
This is something. Friedman rants about the paralysis in our political system, and is usually on. Too many extremists, not enough centrists. Too much political correctness. But I think he's trying to use complaining about our political system as a means by which to go against amnesty in immigration reform.
But he can't outright say it, or he'll lose alot of his neocon (invade the world/invite the world) supporters.
So, in today's column on the Mexico Narco war, he goes for the sensational.
The Mexican government just issued a travel advisory warning Mexicans about going to Arizona — where they could get arrested by the police for no reason — and the U.S. government just issued a travel advisory warning Americans about going to northern Mexico — where they could get shot by drug dealers for no reason.
Funny. Not so much for the people living there.
We take the Mexican-American relationship for granted. But with the drug wars in Mexico turning into Wild West shootouts on city streets and with our own immigration politics turning more heated, what’s happening in Mexico has become much more critical to American foreign policy and merits more of our attention. Mexico is not Afghanistan, but it also has not become all that it hoped to be by now. Something feels stalled here.
And that's all he has to say about immigration. How can you talk about Mexico and ignore the elephant in the room - illegal, low skilled immigration?
You can't, so he shut off comments for this column.
But anyway, the something feels stalled here has a very simple explanation. In terms of Mexico's potential it has already been reached. For the amount of educated, intelligent people in the country relative to the illiterate, Mexico has been maxed out. Unlike China and India, which still have a ways to meeting their potential, Mexico has been intertwined with the US for decades and so already has had the chance to meet it's potential but hasn't. We can't say that.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
How to articulate an immigration policy Part 1
So, on the heels of a new immigration bill recently passed by the Arizona legislature , I'm going to dive into this issue.
First, I want to get both perspectives on this issue without hitting the key issue. here is a roundtable with different views.
Liberal View:
LUIS GUTIERREZ, D-IL, CONGRESSIONAL HISPANIC CAUCUS: The lunacy of rounding up people because they look a certain way or are suspected of being in violation of immigration statutes can only lead to one thing — violations of people's basic, fundamental civil rights — profiling
Not shocked
Conservative view:
RUSSELL PEARCE, R-ARIZ. STATE SENATE: Illegal is not a race. It's a crime. Our citizens have a constitutional right to expect our laws to be enforced.
Moderate View (Charles Krauthammer):
What liberals don't understand who support the rights of illegals in the country is that if the American people had a fence, that the borders are secure, they are shut — if we built a fence all the way — and we can — and they had a sense this is the last cohort of the illegals, the ten or so million already here, the majority of Americans including me would be in favor of amnesty. If that is the last group that were coming in and the border is shut, that would be OK.
As long as the border remains unsecure, as long as the fence is un-built, you will have states acting in this — I would agree with Fred, in this draconian way.
Frustrated View:
People who want amnesty for illegal immigrants here oppose a fence. And the people who want a fence don't want amnesty.
First, I want to get both perspectives on this issue without hitting the key issue. here is a roundtable with different views.
Liberal View:
LUIS GUTIERREZ, D-IL, CONGRESSIONAL HISPANIC CAUCUS: The lunacy of rounding up people because they look a certain way or are suspected of being in violation of immigration statutes can only lead to one thing — violations of people's basic, fundamental civil rights — profiling
Not shocked
Conservative view:
RUSSELL PEARCE, R-ARIZ. STATE SENATE: Illegal is not a race. It's a crime. Our citizens have a constitutional right to expect our laws to be enforced.
Moderate View (Charles Krauthammer):
What liberals don't understand who support the rights of illegals in the country is that if the American people had a fence, that the borders are secure, they are shut — if we built a fence all the way — and we can — and they had a sense this is the last cohort of the illegals, the ten or so million already here, the majority of Americans including me would be in favor of amnesty. If that is the last group that were coming in and the border is shut, that would be OK.
As long as the border remains unsecure, as long as the fence is un-built, you will have states acting in this — I would agree with Fred, in this draconian way.
Frustrated View:
People who want amnesty for illegal immigrants here oppose a fence. And the people who want a fence don't want amnesty.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Did Thomas Friedman miss the memo? Or did Africa?
So we live in a flat world, right? You know, borders don't matter, instant communication, location is irrelevant, information economy, etc.
At least that's what I thought.
Washington Post has a recent article on second life and the virtual economy.
Second World's economy looks remarkably like that of the physical world. At one end, where most users are, small-business owners such as Moore keep their physical-world day jobs but make a few hundred dollars a year selling niche products such as rain and T-shirts. But as Second Life has grown, some users have built much bigger, full-time businesses: Stiletto Moody sells thousands of high-end shoes for about $8 a pair, and Curious Kitties is a Japanese maker of somewhat risqué clothing.
More than 50 businesses in the virtual world made more than $100,000 each last year.
Second Life's owner, Linden Lab, makes money by selling land plots and islands. An island runs about $1,000, a high barrier of entry for most Second Life users. But to open a strip mall, dance club or office tower, or to build a home, avatars need land. Some Second Life users have taken on Donald Trump-like personas, buying land from Second Life and then leasing plots to small-business owners or would-be homeowners, or flipping their properties as speculators.
I think what we're seeing here is a precursor to a a greater prevalence of virtual reality. As time goes on and the virtual worlds become more sophisticated and people can make a living off of the virtual world, there will be more withdrawal and people will live out entire lives in their apartments since all interaction can be gained through the internet.
Despite it's low rate of success, internet dating has been in the mainstream for several years now.
Apparently, social networking sites are starting to see flattening demand.
Tom Friedman has his latest column on Intel and American Innovation:
While America still has the quality work force, political stability and natural resources a company like Intel needs, said Otellini, the U.S. is badly lagging in developing the next generation of scientific talent and incentives to induce big multinationals to create lots more jobs here.
These local incentives matter because smart, skilled labor is everywhere now. Intel can thrive today — not just survive, but thrive — and never hire another American. Asked if his company was being held back by weak science and math education in America’s K-12 schools, Otellini explained:
“As a citizen, I hate it. As a global employer, I have the luxury of hiring the best engineers anywhere on earth. If I can’t get them out of M.I.T., I’ll get them out of Tsing Hua” — Beijing’s M.I.T.
But there's a problem with this narrative. OK, so talent is everywhere. OK, so people are plugged in and compete with us. I get it.
But what about this:
The Genocide in the Congo with 4-5 million dead in the past decade from disease, starvation, and violence associated with the civil war.
The absolute mess in Somalia that the US is trying to clean up. Funny, I don't hear complaints about US imperialism when we're talking about Africa.
The genocide in Darfur
Continuing rampages of the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda
inter religious violence in Nigeria
breast ironing in Cameroon as a preventative measure to prevent rape of adolescent women.
Female genital mutilation throughout Africa
Modern Slavery in Africa
Honestly, I'm getting a bit tired of these example. We keep looking, and unfortunately it's not too hard to find continuous evidence of dysfunction on the lost continent.
But I think it demonstrates a key problem with the flat world thesis. Yes, technology makes us interconnected, and yes, we do have access to all the world's information. I don't deny that.
What Friedman forgets is a set of fundamental facts:
1) Not all people have the same level of intelligence or propensity to obey the law
2) This difference is highly correlated with ethnicity
3) In the world we live in, geography and nation states are still largely organized along ethnic lines for the majority of countries
4) Interconnectedness and access to information cannot help an individual if the said individual chooses to ignore it
5) Internet usage is different between countries and intelligence is the largest determinant of interest in adopting the internet
6) There is a multiplicative factor. Regions where intelligence is low and people are less likely to adopt the internet are even more likely to fall behind because the few intelligent people will have less access to the internet and will therefore have to spend a greater portion of their lives interacting with stupid people, therefore not gaining sufficient stimulation to utilize their brains
When was the last time Friedman wrote an article about Africa? He may gush on and on about India, but ignores the fact that India has more slaves than the US ever did in it's history.
I think to some degree that he an other flat worlders try to never mention the middle east, Africa, or latin America, or Southeast Asia, or the backwards part of South Asia, is that it really bring HBD into focus.
After all, even though there are more than 4 billion mobile phones in circulation, why has the internet penetrated only 1.4 billion of the world's 6.7 billion people?
After all, if all information is available, why are they still so backwards? If everyone is equal, shouldn't we all be on facebook? Should the stigma of being tagged on your myspace profile while performing a child sacrifice ceremony be enough shame to not do it anymore?
I guess not.
At least that's what I thought.
Washington Post has a recent article on second life and the virtual economy.
Second World's economy looks remarkably like that of the physical world. At one end, where most users are, small-business owners such as Moore keep their physical-world day jobs but make a few hundred dollars a year selling niche products such as rain and T-shirts. But as Second Life has grown, some users have built much bigger, full-time businesses: Stiletto Moody sells thousands of high-end shoes for about $8 a pair, and Curious Kitties is a Japanese maker of somewhat risqué clothing.
More than 50 businesses in the virtual world made more than $100,000 each last year.
Second Life's owner, Linden Lab, makes money by selling land plots and islands. An island runs about $1,000, a high barrier of entry for most Second Life users. But to open a strip mall, dance club or office tower, or to build a home, avatars need land. Some Second Life users have taken on Donald Trump-like personas, buying land from Second Life and then leasing plots to small-business owners or would-be homeowners, or flipping their properties as speculators.
I think what we're seeing here is a precursor to a a greater prevalence of virtual reality. As time goes on and the virtual worlds become more sophisticated and people can make a living off of the virtual world, there will be more withdrawal and people will live out entire lives in their apartments since all interaction can be gained through the internet.
Despite it's low rate of success, internet dating has been in the mainstream for several years now.
Apparently, social networking sites are starting to see flattening demand.
Tom Friedman has his latest column on Intel and American Innovation:
While America still has the quality work force, political stability and natural resources a company like Intel needs, said Otellini, the U.S. is badly lagging in developing the next generation of scientific talent and incentives to induce big multinationals to create lots more jobs here.
These local incentives matter because smart, skilled labor is everywhere now. Intel can thrive today — not just survive, but thrive — and never hire another American. Asked if his company was being held back by weak science and math education in America’s K-12 schools, Otellini explained:
“As a citizen, I hate it. As a global employer, I have the luxury of hiring the best engineers anywhere on earth. If I can’t get them out of M.I.T., I’ll get them out of Tsing Hua” — Beijing’s M.I.T.
But there's a problem with this narrative. OK, so talent is everywhere. OK, so people are plugged in and compete with us. I get it.
But what about this:
The Genocide in the Congo with 4-5 million dead in the past decade from disease, starvation, and violence associated with the civil war.
The absolute mess in Somalia that the US is trying to clean up. Funny, I don't hear complaints about US imperialism when we're talking about Africa.
The genocide in Darfur
Continuing rampages of the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda
inter religious violence in Nigeria
breast ironing in Cameroon as a preventative measure to prevent rape of adolescent women.
Female genital mutilation throughout Africa
Modern Slavery in Africa
Honestly, I'm getting a bit tired of these example. We keep looking, and unfortunately it's not too hard to find continuous evidence of dysfunction on the lost continent.
But I think it demonstrates a key problem with the flat world thesis. Yes, technology makes us interconnected, and yes, we do have access to all the world's information. I don't deny that.
What Friedman forgets is a set of fundamental facts:
1) Not all people have the same level of intelligence or propensity to obey the law
2) This difference is highly correlated with ethnicity
3) In the world we live in, geography and nation states are still largely organized along ethnic lines for the majority of countries
4) Interconnectedness and access to information cannot help an individual if the said individual chooses to ignore it
5) Internet usage is different between countries and intelligence is the largest determinant of interest in adopting the internet
6) There is a multiplicative factor. Regions where intelligence is low and people are less likely to adopt the internet are even more likely to fall behind because the few intelligent people will have less access to the internet and will therefore have to spend a greater portion of their lives interacting with stupid people, therefore not gaining sufficient stimulation to utilize their brains
When was the last time Friedman wrote an article about Africa? He may gush on and on about India, but ignores the fact that India has more slaves than the US ever did in it's history.
I think to some degree that he an other flat worlders try to never mention the middle east, Africa, or latin America, or Southeast Asia, or the backwards part of South Asia, is that it really bring HBD into focus.
After all, even though there are more than 4 billion mobile phones in circulation, why has the internet penetrated only 1.4 billion of the world's 6.7 billion people?
After all, if all information is available, why are they still so backwards? If everyone is equal, shouldn't we all be on facebook? Should the stigma of being tagged on your myspace profile while performing a child sacrifice ceremony be enough shame to not do it anymore?
I guess not.
Monday, January 25, 2010
HBD Denialism kills: Part 2
But there's hope. David Brooks in his column on the underlying tragedy of Haiti.
The simple fact is that the tragedy in Haiti is a tragedy of poverty. It’s a story about poorly constructed buildings, bad infrastructure and terrible public services.
So, if the 50,000 dead in Haiti is due to Haiti's poverty, what causes Haiti's poverty?
The first hard truths are universally known but rarely acknowledged among economists:
- the countries that have not received much aid, like China, have seen tremendous growth and tremendous poverty reductions. The countries that have received aid, like Haiti, have not.
- There are no policy levers that consistently correlate to increased growth. There is nearly zero correlation between how a developing economy does one decade and how it does the next. There is no consistently proven way to reduce corruption. Even improving governing institutions doesn’t seem to produce the expected results.
-By some estimates, Haiti has more nongovernmental organizations per capita than any other place on earth. They are doing the Lord’s work, especially these days, but even a blizzard of these efforts does not seem to add up to comprehensive change.
This is Brook's explanation:
Haiti, like most of the world’s poorest nations, suffers from a complex web of progress-resistant cultural influences. There is the influence of the voodoo religion, which spreads the message that life is capricious and planning futile. There are high levels of social mistrust. Responsibility is often not internalized. Child-rearing practices often involve neglect in the early years and harsh retribution when kids hit 9 or 10.
So this is why Haiti is poor, in comparison with Barbados and the Dominican Republic, which have had similar cultural influences.
But there are two serious problems with his piece. He points to "intrusive paternalism" as a potential way to salvage the people of Haiti, pointing to the Harlem CHildren's Zone. But what's the reality?
As Steve Sailer blogged last year about the Harlem miracle, he made a key point:
there's no control group of white students in this study. Nobody bothered to check to see how much white students' scores would go up if a huge amount of money was given to a well-known superstar educator
It's the same situation as the Head Start Program
Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, authors of Freakonomics, conclude that Head Start participation has no lasting effect on test scores in the early years of school, based on regression analysis of data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study
So if we give up on paternalism, David Brooks has a quote hidden in his column earlier by the economist Abhijit Banerjee It is not clear to us that the best way to get growth is to do growth policy of any form. Perhaps making growth happen is ultimately beyond our control
The scary thing is that alot of economists are throwing their hands up in the air and giving up. But to do that is to continue to condemn the millions of children who will die this year because of preventable causes. And that's simply not something we should accept.
The simple fact is that the tragedy in Haiti is a tragedy of poverty. It’s a story about poorly constructed buildings, bad infrastructure and terrible public services.
So, if the 50,000 dead in Haiti is due to Haiti's poverty, what causes Haiti's poverty?
The first hard truths are universally known but rarely acknowledged among economists:
- the countries that have not received much aid, like China, have seen tremendous growth and tremendous poverty reductions. The countries that have received aid, like Haiti, have not.
- There are no policy levers that consistently correlate to increased growth. There is nearly zero correlation between how a developing economy does one decade and how it does the next. There is no consistently proven way to reduce corruption. Even improving governing institutions doesn’t seem to produce the expected results.
-By some estimates, Haiti has more nongovernmental organizations per capita than any other place on earth. They are doing the Lord’s work, especially these days, but even a blizzard of these efforts does not seem to add up to comprehensive change.
This is Brook's explanation:
Haiti, like most of the world’s poorest nations, suffers from a complex web of progress-resistant cultural influences. There is the influence of the voodoo religion, which spreads the message that life is capricious and planning futile. There are high levels of social mistrust. Responsibility is often not internalized. Child-rearing practices often involve neglect in the early years and harsh retribution when kids hit 9 or 10.
So this is why Haiti is poor, in comparison with Barbados and the Dominican Republic, which have had similar cultural influences.
But there are two serious problems with his piece. He points to "intrusive paternalism" as a potential way to salvage the people of Haiti, pointing to the Harlem CHildren's Zone. But what's the reality?
As Steve Sailer blogged last year about the Harlem miracle, he made a key point:
there's no control group of white students in this study. Nobody bothered to check to see how much white students' scores would go up if a huge amount of money was given to a well-known superstar educator
It's the same situation as the Head Start Program
Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, authors of Freakonomics, conclude that Head Start participation has no lasting effect on test scores in the early years of school, based on regression analysis of data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study
So if we give up on paternalism, David Brooks has a quote hidden in his column earlier by the economist Abhijit Banerjee It is not clear to us that the best way to get growth is to do growth policy of any form. Perhaps making growth happen is ultimately beyond our control
The scary thing is that alot of economists are throwing their hands up in the air and giving up. But to do that is to continue to condemn the millions of children who will die this year because of preventable causes. And that's simply not something we should accept.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
HBD denialism kills
I'm not going to lie to you and say I feel truly saddened and emotionally upset with what happened in Haiti.
WHAT? WHAT KIND OF MONSTER ARE YOU?
Maybe I am a little to unemotional, but to a utilitarian, every person's life is important, every needless death a tragedy. Regardless of whether it's a single incident or spread out over the course of a day .
I think the website has a key quote which we should look at:
The continuation of this suffering and loss of life contravenes the natural human instinct to help in times of disaster. Imagine the horror of the world if a major earthquake were to occur and people stood by and watched without assisting the survivors! Yet every day, the equivalent of a major earthquake killing over 30,000 young children occurs to a disturbingly muted response. They die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death."
Does anyone see the irony in this? 50,000 Haitians are dead as a result of this earthquake. It's a tragedy, sure. But this tragedy happens literally every day.
So I was again dismayed by the predictable response to such an event.
WHAT? WHAT KIND OF MONSTER ARE YOU?
Maybe I am a little to unemotional, but to a utilitarian, every person's life is important, every needless death a tragedy. Regardless of whether it's a single incident or spread out over the course of a day .
I think the website has a key quote which we should look at:
The continuation of this suffering and loss of life contravenes the natural human instinct to help in times of disaster. Imagine the horror of the world if a major earthquake were to occur and people stood by and watched without assisting the survivors! Yet every day, the equivalent of a major earthquake killing over 30,000 young children occurs to a disturbingly muted response. They die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death."
Does anyone see the irony in this? 50,000 Haitians are dead as a result of this earthquake. It's a tragedy, sure. But this tragedy happens literally every day.
So I was again dismayed by the predictable response to such an event.
Friday, January 8, 2010
What century are we living in?
I have trouble believing that in the age of the apple tablet we have access to all the recent published books and all the information of the world available over a wireless internet signal,
but in this same world we have child sacrifice.
Do people who are protesting democracy and free speech and open markets in Afghanistan have any clue as to how backwards a good chunk of the world is?
Do the invite the world invade the world cohort realize that most of the world still has not internalized the values that western nations have cherished for the last 100 years?
Is the human race any better than animals?
but in this same world we have child sacrifice.
Do people who are protesting democracy and free speech and open markets in Afghanistan have any clue as to how backwards a good chunk of the world is?
Do the invite the world invade the world cohort realize that most of the world still has not internalized the values that western nations have cherished for the last 100 years?
Is the human race any better than animals?
Monday, January 4, 2010
IQ reality and terrorism
So when the HBD-friendly community talks about Islam and terrorism, they make the obvious connections: Islam is a backward, violent religion. I don't deny it. I know that from Paris, New York, and London, to Sudan, Nigeria, and Somalia, all the way to Southern Thailand/Phillipines, and Bali, Islam's borders have been violent, and we can point to the Koran and ant secular attitudes of the religion to blame.
But in the course of discussing the < a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab"> recent Christmas terror plot, we've been missing out the role of IQ.
One, is the role of IQ in Yemen becoming a terror haven. Well, let's see:
This Slate article tries to get at it, and they largely succeed. Yemen is poor because of civil war, corruption, and economic mismanagement. And of course low oil reserves.
But they also ask a question:
Lebanon, for example, generates six times as much wealth with no oil at all. How did Yemen get so poor?
Hmmm, just look at the Lebanese diaspora. Lebanese dominate tons of businesses in Africa with a tiny population. The world's richest man at one point was of Lebanese descent, a first generation immigrant in Mexico.
But anyway, does anyone ask WHY Lebanon is so corrupt and mismanaged? Well, let's look at a basic indicator: Average IQ and corruption index!
Top 5 least corrupt countries and their and their average IQ :
1 New Zealand 100
2 Denmark 98
3 Singapore 103
3 Sweden 101
5 Switzerland 101
And the bottom 5:
176 Iraq 87
176 Sudan 72
178 Myanmar 87
179 Afghanistan 84
180 Somalia 68
I'm shock and appalled. Yawn.
This should make us think long and hard about our overseas. post up. Shouldn't the failure of our previous policies in Afghanistan and Iraq make us think a little harder about imagining utopia in other countries?
We are all not the same.
Anyway, I've been profiled before. You learn to deal with it.
But in the course of discussing the < a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab"> recent Christmas terror plot, we've been missing out the role of IQ.
One, is the role of IQ in Yemen becoming a terror haven. Well, let's see:
This Slate article tries to get at it, and they largely succeed. Yemen is poor because of civil war, corruption, and economic mismanagement. And of course low oil reserves.
But they also ask a question:
Lebanon, for example, generates six times as much wealth with no oil at all. How did Yemen get so poor?
Hmmm, just look at the Lebanese diaspora. Lebanese dominate tons of businesses in Africa with a tiny population. The world's richest man at one point was of Lebanese descent, a first generation immigrant in Mexico.
But anyway, does anyone ask WHY Lebanon is so corrupt and mismanaged? Well, let's look at a basic indicator: Average IQ and corruption index!
Top 5 least corrupt countries and their and their average IQ :
1 New Zealand 100
2 Denmark 98
3 Singapore 103
3 Sweden 101
5 Switzerland 101
And the bottom 5:
176 Iraq 87
176 Sudan 72
178 Myanmar 87
179 Afghanistan 84
180 Somalia 68
I'm shock and appalled. Yawn.
This should make us think long and hard about our overseas. post up. Shouldn't the failure of our previous policies in Afghanistan and Iraq make us think a little harder about imagining utopia in other countries?
We are all not the same.
Anyway, I've been profiled before. You learn to deal with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)