Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
FRC IV: Mike Huckabee Inverts a Cat
Left an interview late and missed the first few minutes of Mike Huckabee, but it's worthwhile hearing him ladle sugar down the throats of a friendly audience.
11:20: Some interesting framing of his immigration record. "I get down on my knees and thank God we live in a country that people are trying to break into and not one they're trying to break out of.
11:22: And on protectionism: "I don't want to see our food come from China, our oil from Saudi Arabia, and our manufacturing from Europe."
11:25: Here's a new rationale for the Fair Tax, or at least one I didn't hear when I asked him about it early this year. "We need stop the muzzling of ministers and the Fair Tax does that."
11:27: "Any federal judge who uses international law as precedent ought to be impeached."
11:29: Excellent, Huckabee blames our "work force problems" on the "Holocaust of liberalized abortion." Will Matt Yglesias withdraw his support?
11:30: "We need to move the cultural norms to fit God's standards." Huckabee tells a story about Billy Sunday being told he was "stroking the cat the wrong way." Sunday's comeback: "Then Lady, turn the cat around." I realize I'm not as religious as I thought I was. Or maybe not as Southern.
11:31: He's hit the Romney button! "It's important that people sing from their hearts and not just mouth the lyrics."
11:32: "There was a time among us when there were certain things that were negotiatiable." He's talking about taxes, sizes of departments and whether these things should exist... stuff that is still negotiable, actually, but Huckabee doesn't win with the base here, so--pivot! "Sanctity of human life, definition of marriage, and the purpose of our freedom. Let us not sacrifice our principles for anybody's politics: Not now, not ever."
11:36: "I don't ever want expediency or electability" to become more important than "our values."
11:38: Yes, he's really hammering this home. "I do not spell GOP G-O-D. Our party might be important but our principles are even more important." I anticipate at least one question in the media availability about whether he'd go third party. He'll say no.
Overall, a successful speech. But Mike Huckabee scoring a Roy Hobbs home run with this crowd is less impressive than Rudy Giuliani hitting a double.
|10.20.07 @ 11:42AM|#
I suppose he is right; I would rather our food come from Japan,
our weapons from China, our oil come from Mexico, and our
manufacturing come from India.
Sushi is better than them cheap Chinese joints.
Manufacturing from Europe with their high taxes and all? That would
be needlessly expensive.
Mike Laursen|10.20.07 @ 11:59AM|#
I thought our manufacturing came from China and our food from South America.
James Sorrell|10.20.07 @ 12:10PM|#
This is for ALL you know.......please help me spread this to
save lives......
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~S.O.S.~~~MayDay***
~~~"Suicidal thoughts, up since Katrina, PTSD survey
says........"
------->>>"Suicide rate among girls skyrockets 76%, says
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention"means, see to it that
your neighbor has it just as good as you do, self-lessly!~~~"Who is
my neighbor?"....EveryOne on the planet!
"LOVE is the Real Thing" on:
http://CaptainChurch.proboards57.com
http://groups.google.com/group/TeenAnswers
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BestTeenAnswers
http://blogs.albawaba.com/captainchurch
--->>>Also, the solution to impulsive
depression/suicide:::
SUICIDE VACCINE is on these sites...it works!!!
Jim Sorrell [CaptainChurch]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
iih|10.20.07 @ 12:37PM|#
kwais: Can you see anything coming from Egypt (other than the best-quality-in-the-world cotton)?
|10.20.07 @ 12:49PM|#
Can you see anything coming from Egypt (other than the
best-quality-in-the-world cotton)?
Maybe this?
;-)
Sarcasmo|10.20.07 @ 12:52PM|#
Thanks, CaptainChurch. If I find out any teens I know are contemplating suicide, I'll refer them to your incoherent website.
Alan|10.20.07 @ 1:19PM|#
11:30: "We need to move the cultural norms to fit God's
standards." Huckabee tells a story about Billy Sunday being told he
was "stroking the cat the wrong way." Sunday's comeback: "Then
Lady, turn the cat around." I realize I'm not as religious as I
thought I was. Or maybe not as Southern.
Southerner here. I have no idea what he is trying to say
either.
11:27: "Any federal judge who uses international law as
precedent ought to be impeached."
Guess he is unaware that there has been a solid basis of
international law followed by the courts that goes back to the
Colonial period.
alan|10.20.07 @ 1:22PM|#
11:30: "We need to move the cultural norms to fit God's
standards." Huckabee tells a story about Billy Sunday being told he
was "stroking the cat the wrong way." Sunday's comeback: "Then
Lady, turn the cat around." I realize I'm not as religious as I
thought I was. Or maybe not as Southern.
Oh, I get it now. It is a retro 90s Culture War thing.
|10.20.07 @ 1:39PM|#
Hey did anyone see this story...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/19/uk.race/index.html?iref=newssearch
I love it when stuff like this breaks. The average person sees this
and it confirms what they secretly think. Dark people are stupider
and we can't talk about it because of political correctness.
As for our liberals and educated classes, those that have had the
common sense educated right out of them, I imagine them curling up
in the fetal position trying to make the bad thoughts go away. And
for the rest of their lives they will have this little nugget that
adds to the doubt, weighing down on their need to believe in the
equality of all mankind.
And I imagine them going to the local Wal-Mart and seeing
refutation of the race and intelligence theory when the black
cashier makes correct change or when a white girl bumps into and
knocks over a shelf. Reminds me of once when Jared Diamond on a TV
show was hanging out with some Africans and was amazed by the
little hut that they built, saying no European could've
accomplished such a feat. My friends and I made better, more self
sustaining structures in grade school.
Assuming that history doesn't end and we wake up to the necessity
of eugenics before its too late, science will prove me right and
all you who disagree as delusional cowards! I'm having more and
more faith that I shall live to see the day.
|10.20.07 @ 1:49PM|#
J sub D
Sarcasmo didn't say he liked the teens. I thought you of
all people would appreciate where he's coming from.
TLB|10.20.07 @ 1:50PM|#
If Weigel wanted to do something beyond simply acting as a transcription service, he could ask Huck this question.
|10.20.07 @ 1:56PM|#
J sub D
Sarcasmo didn't say he liked the teens. I thought you of all people
would appreciate where he's coming from.
Hey, I resemble that remark!
|10.20.07 @ 1:57PM|#
Grande Cabron,
Dr. Watson's take on your interpretation of the evidence...
"To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that
Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only
apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly
from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a
belief."
|10.20.07 @ 2:00PM|#
Assuming that history doesn't end and we wake up to the
necessity of eugenics before its too late, science will prove me
right and all you who disagree as delusional cowards!
I nominate Grand Chalupa for sterilization, if not retroactive
abortion. It's for the gene pool! Won't anyone think of the gene
pool!
GP, Are you happy now?
|10.20.07 @ 2:09PM|#
Grande C,
Have you read this yet?
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/520.html
"Let me sum up.
1. The most common formulae used to estimate heritability are
wrong, either for trivial mathematical reasons (such as the upward
bias in the difference between monozygotic and dizygotic twins'
correlations), or for substantive ones (the covariance of
monozygotic twins raised apart neglects shared environments other
than the family, such as maternal and community effects).
2. The best estimate I can find puts the narrow heritability of IQ
at around 0.34 and the broad heritability at 0.48.
3. Even this estimate neglected heteroskedasticity,
gene-environment interactions, gene-environment covariance, the
existence of shared environment beyond the family, and the
possibility that the samples being used are not representative of
the broader population.
4. Now that people are finally beginning to model gene-environment
interactions, even in very crude ways, they find it matters a lot.
Recall that Turkheimer et al. found a heritability which rose
monotonically with socioeconomic status, starting around zero at
low status and going up to around 0.8 at high status. Even this is
probably an over-estimate, since it neglected maternal effects and
other shared non-familial environment, correlations between
variance components, etc. Under such circumstances, talking about
"the" heritability of IQ is nonsense. Actual geneticists have been
saying as much since Dobzhansky at least.
5. Applying the usual heritability estimators to traits which are
shaped at least in part by cultural transmission, a.k.a.
traditions, is very apt to confuse tradition with genetics. The
usual twin studies do not solve this problem. Studies which could
don't seem to have been done.
6. Heritability is completely irrelevant to malleability or
plasticity; every possible combination of high and low
heritability, and high and low malleability, is not only logically
possible but also observed.
7. Randomized experiments, natural experiments and the Flynn Effect
all show what competent regressions also suggest, namely that IQ
is, indeed, responsive to purely environmental interventions. "
|10.20.07 @ 2:11PM|#
Grande Cabron,
The average person sees this and it confirms what they secretly
think.
Damned mind reading mutants need to be stamped out.
iih|10.20.07 @ 2:14PM|#
The average person sees this and it confirms what they
secretly think.
What is the population you're averaging over? Supremacists? Well,
duh, yeah!
|10.20.07 @ 2:23PM|#
secretly think
The problem with your logic here GC is an assumption that your
subjective point of view is shared by others.
I believe X, therefore X must be what the average person thinks.
But, MOST people don't state assert a belief in X. To account for
the disparity between number of people who believe X and the number
asserting X, we must posit force PC.
But following Occam, PC seems an unnecessary complication. The
disparity between assertions of belief in X and the number of
people in the world results because most people don't believe
X.
Blind faith in the truth of X motivates finding a mechanism (PC) to
counter evidence against it.
|10.20.07 @ 2:26PM|#
J sub D:
Well, other than that!
Why not. Belly dancing has long been making inroads into mainstream
American culture. I would think that as a native Egyptian you'd be
proud to have a positive influence on our culture credited to your
national traditions.
It's a light topic, yes. But I'm not joking. One more item on the
Smörgåsbord is always welcome.
|10.20.07 @ 2:30PM|#
JsubD,
Have you visited this website
http://www.radiobastet.com/
Best internet belly dance station I have heard.
|10.20.07 @ 2:33PM|#
JsubD,
Have you visited this website
H&R - Stimulating conversation, witty repartee, and it's
educational too!
|10.20.07 @ 2:36PM|#
Neu Mejican, iih,
Isn't belly dancing a more pleasant topic than some imbecile's
racist rants?
|10.20.07 @ 2:41PM|#
JsubD,
The real question is: Why is there a positive correlation between
how cheesy the belly-dance album cover is and how kick ass the
music.
The more professional the graphics, the suckier the beats.
|10.20.07 @ 2:45PM|#
I'm I the only one that thinks this might be a Grand Chalupa impersonator? This is a little over the top even for him.
|10.20.07 @ 2:55PM|#
My friends, my friends...
Dr. Watson's take on your interpretation of the
evidence...
"To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that
Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only
apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly
from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a
belief."
You must be extremly naive. Here's Watson from a couple days
earlier
"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual
capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution
should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve
equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will
not be enough to make it so."
What's more likeley, that he made a 180 degree turn in a couple
days that happened to coincide with his losing his job and becoming
a social pariah or that James Watson simply isn't a very brave or
principled man?
And I only have personal anecdote to go on, but at least I've found
on my campus my views on race, and actually all conservative views
in general get you shouted down in front of a big audience and
agreement in small groups. This is impossible to prove, but white
nationalists have a saying that for every one that says he agrees
with us ten do in private.
As for the evidence you presented, Mr. Mexican, it's obvious that
the experts disagree and I don't have a PHD in social statistics
and I don't think you do either. The problem is putting the burden
of proof on those on my side. Different populations evolved
different looks, susceptibility to disease, and even testosterone
levels, there is no reason on earth to belive that evolution left
the brain and temperment alone. Claiming we're all equal where it
counts seems to be an extrordinary claim and you know what those
require.
I don't believe it and what makes me passionate about this is how
emotional our educated get over even asking the question.
From Wikipedia...
As a result the London Science Museum cancelled a talk that
Watson was scheduled to give on 19 October 2007. The museum
spokesperson stated that "We feel Dr. Watson has gone beyond the
point of acceptable debate and we are, as a result, cancelling his
talk."
On what other scientific topic would a spokesperson for a museum
say that something was "beyond the point of acceptable debate"?
Also, Watson was apparentley being investigated under Britain's
liberty smothering hate speech laws. We're a long way from
discussing these things rationally. Have a good day, off to faire
du shopping!
THIS CHALUPA WAS DROPPED|10.20.07 @ 3:20PM|#
THIS IS AN ACTUAL IMPERSONATOR. NOT ONLY IS THIS OVER THE TOP,
IT IS GUARANTEED 100% CONTENT FREE.
GARG BLATH BONG A DING FRIED DONG.
SIV|10.20.07 @ 3:26PM|#
11:27: "Any federal judge who uses international law as precedent
ought to be impeached."
I knew there had to be at least one thing I agreed with Huckabee
on.
|10.20.07 @ 3:33PM|#
Chalupa, I'd just like to say just because you think black people are genetically stupid and don't have the balls to say it in real life does not mean everyone else secretly thinks it, too.
iih|10.20.07 @ 3:40PM|#
I'd say it is the real GC.
GC: I thought you yourself were Arab. Does this mean that your
terroristic IQ is higher than average?
iih|10.20.07 @ 3:47PM|#
JsubD, NM:
So, good, Egypt has belly dancers and cotton.
By the way, talking about "what is made where", this is a very
insightful (and funny, especially the first 10-15 minutes or so)
talk by Sudha Shenoy. The question is: Why are Australians are
doing so well economically even though everything is "Made in
Elsewhere"? Of course this would apply here in the US, too. If only
Huckabee and followers would stop, listen, and think (something
they have shown very little capability of doing).
Alan|10.20.07 @ 4:17PM|#
Joe,
Sorry I accused you of hijacking a topic yesterday because your
approach to the topic was a bit indirect. That was certainly
nothing compared to this eugenics in a Huckabee smoozes his base
post.
|10.20.07 @ 4:42PM|#
Grand Chalupa makes me proud to be a liberal; you don't ever see
regulars at liberal web sites write nonsense like that, and there's
a reason.
I don't have to worry about how long I'll live, because I get to my
belief in racial equality vindicated every single day.
And people wonder why I'm smug.
|10.20.07 @ 4:52PM|#
Grand Chalupa makes me proud to be a liberal; you don't ever
see regulars at liberal web sites write nonsense like that, and
there's a reason.
Thats because you get banned. On libertarian sites it takes a lot
(witness TLB, Dan T., Lemur, et al) to get banned. You can do just
about anything on a libertarian blog except impersonate
moderators.
alan|10.20.07 @ 4:59PM|#
Since the subject has been breached, here is my 2 cents:
Watson is wrong in his assumption that aid to Africa has been based
on a false notion of equality of intelligence. If anything, the
treatment of Africans in the colonial period and in the modern
period by Westerners has been the opposite to a condescending
degree.
I don't need to point out that I have friends of the African
persuasion who are obviously intelligent, or point to the
brilliance of Thurgood Marshall in his early career as a rejoinder
here because mean intelligence is irrelevant to a functional
society.
Above a certain threshold point all humans who are not severely
mentally handicapped are capable of attaining a sustainable level
of well being within a functional society. Pointing
at the current state of Africa as a counterpoint to this argument
ignores the damage created by irredentist practices to traditional
societies in the colonial period.
You speak of intelligence as if it were a fixed point. Obviously,a
mind can grow sharp or grow doddery depending upon a persons
actions or inattention. When people are coddled the likely result
in diminishing of their common sense and intelligence. I believe we
witnessed this with Katrina.
The response of the people between Katrina and when my grandmother
lived through the devastation of Hurricane Betsy showed an
astounding degradation of the human condition. Welfare policy being
the main factor in the social changes of that time compared to
now.
|10.20.07 @ 6:00PM|#
And I only have personal anecdote to go on, but at least
I've found on my campus my views on race, and actually all
conservative views in general get you shouted down in front of a
big audience and agreement in small groups. This is impossible to
prove, but white nationalists have a saying that for every one that
says he agrees with us ten do in private.
Fat, virginal, and stupid is no way to go through life son.
|10.20.07 @ 6:40PM|#
I don't have to worry about how long I'll live, because I
get to my belief in racial equality vindicated every single
day.
Yes, I remember when the white people first tried to send a man to
the moon. The spaceship collided in outer space with the Mexican
ship and the black ship (blasting rap music of course!). All the
races watched the invent on the television that they all
simutaneously invented and went on to equal one another in
scientific advancement and economic matters.
The end.
The question is: Why are Australians are doing so well
economically even though everything is "Made in
Elsewhere"?
Because they're white you idiot.
Fat, virginal, and stupid is no way to go through life
son.
My first was a black girl, father. She later became a stripper and
told me she had had five abortions. Also, she voted for John Kerry
in 2004. All a coincidence? She did do well in school though, see I
am willing to look at opposing views.
|10.20.07 @ 7:40PM|#
""kwais: Can you see anything coming from Egypt (other than
the best-quality-in-the-world cotton)""
Well, I wrote a paper on the benefits of free trade, and I am
trying to translate it into Arabic. It seems whenever I tell a
local Egyptian that gas subsidies, and price controls are a bad
thin, they look at me as though I was crazy.
I think Egypt could contribute a lot more to the region and to the
world if they had a free market.
iih|10.20.07 @ 7:53PM|#
I think Egypt could contribute a lot more to the region and
to the world if they had a free market.
I thought they had one since Sadat? The problem is that much of the
population is poor and any really switch to a free market will
cause a very bad economic crisis. If they survive it, good. If not,
a revolution can take place (a la 1979 Iran). Don't you
think?
Are there any free-market reports on Egypt out there that I can
read?
|10.20.07 @ 8:03PM|#
I want to translate it both to fus'ha and to ameya.
I think that the population is poor due to government repression
and regulation, not in spite of it. I think that is also the reason
that the streets are full of trash, and that the pollution is so
bad.
I think that attempts to tax the rich and subsidize the poor only
lead to greater devide between the rich and poor.
|10.20.07 @ 8:08PM|#
If I get the paper translated, and I am happy with it, I will
email you a copy if you want.
It might be somewhat amateurish though.
Also, all I know about the Egyptian market is from talking to
Egyptian, I haven't seen the laws written, and I don't know the
exact impact. I just know that Egypt is poor, and that there is a
lot of government intervention of the free market, and I just got
done reading a book about Adam Smith.
iih|10.20.07 @ 8:19PM|#
I want to translate it both to fus'ha and to
ameya.
Don't worry about amiya. What would the point be?
I think that attempts to tax the rich and subsidize the poor
only lead to greater devide between the rich and poor.
Society is highly polarized also because, among other reasons, the
rich are better connected and get the opportunities than the rest
of the population.
I haven't seen the laws written
I do not think there are any laws. Saddat just said "let there be
free-market (so called 'open door policy') and, well, most
socialist regulations were dismissed but so abruptly that only
crooks, drug dealers, and corrupt opportunists (mostly not so-well
educated into free-market --or anything for that matter)
manipulated the new "system" and things went down hill from there.
Egypt is suffering the repercussions ever since.
For any real free-market economy, the manufacturing and
agricultural sectors have to boost themselves and Egypt has to be
good/best at something (especially cotton, potatoes, steel,
aluminum) to give to the world. The communications sector is
growing I believe. An Egyptian company has a contract for Iraqi
cell services I believe.
If I could be of any help, let me know. Are you there permanently?
Do you mind my asking about the nature of the work you do
there?
|10.20.07 @ 9:06PM|#
Grande C, (yes its the real guy folks)...
As for the evidence you presented, Mr. Mexican, it's obvious
that the experts disagree and I don't have a PHD in social
statistics and I don't think you do either. The problem is putting
the burden of proof on those on my side.
The burden of proof is always on the side making the claim to
reject the null hypothesis. In this case the null hypothesis is
that racial category is too weakly linked to intellectual capacity
to have an important impact.
You are wrong, of course, on the degree to which there is
disagreement between experts in this area. All agree on the
important point - we don't have evidence to make a definitive
determination in this area, but racial category will be a minor
factor even if the strongest versions of the race-intelligence
theory are proven correct. That geographic region provides a better
basis for population studies than race is also generally agreed
upon.
Remember, even Jensen only claims that 14% of the variance is
explained by race (an estimate that is certainly too high). That
leaves 86% explained by other factors. Those other factors, having
the bulk of the influence, are the ones you want to build you
social policies on...not the unimportant minor factor that you
obsess over.
I don't have a PHD in social statistics and I don't think you
do either.
Correct, I don't have a phd in social statistics.
|10.20.07 @ 9:22PM|#
And Grande C,
Regarding the phd in social statistics.
The "evidence" I presented you with was in the form of a link to a
post on heritability by a professor of statistics at Carnegie
Mellon University.
His latest post is a much longer and more detailed look at the
origins of the "g" factor of intelligence.
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html
|10.20.07 @ 9:34PM|#
Grand Choda,
Even if Watson and many others believe there is/may be a racial
element to intelligence, they do not advocate using that as a basis
for discrimination, eugenics,etc.
There are racists and then there are people who oppose PC-thought
and aren't afraid of the truth but still behave as decent human
beings. There is a big difference.
|10.20.07 @ 9:34PM|#
Buried in the three toed sloth link is a nifty
experiment...
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/fagan-holland-2007.pdf
|10.20.07 @ 10:31PM|#
Why do you all pay attention to Chalupa? He's either trolling or deranged, maybe both.
|10.21.07 @ 12:13AM|#
Can you see anything coming from Egypt (other than the
best-quality-in-the-world cotton)?
iih: How about
this?
Even though you prefer the Lebanese version ...
iih|10.21.07 @ 12:19AM|#
Even though you prefer the Lebanese version ...
I do indeed, though beauty pageants are probably the stupidest
thing ever.
iih|10.21.07 @ 12:22AM|#
I would add the tourism is an obvious industry. Search Wikipedia for "Egypt" --good stuff. Here is Cairo at sunset.
Mike Laursen|10.21.07 @ 12:24AM|#
Grand Chalupa makes me proud to be a liberal; you don't ever
see regulars at liberal web sites write nonsense like that, and
there's a reason.
If you think this blog is inferior to liberal websites, why do you
spend so much of your time here?
|10.21.07 @ 1:59AM|#
Grande Cabron,
I just noticed this...
white nationalists have a saying that for every one that says
he agrees with us ten do in private.
Does that mean you are a white nationalist of Arab descent?
You realize, I assume, that if white nationalist were in power, you
would be among the first to go...
You'll be the first to go
You'll be the first to go
You'll be the first to go
Unless you think…
|10.21.07 @ 2:07AM|#
But more importantly,
Good things from Egypt...
I love this stuff
http://www.realworldusa.com/albumpages/nile/default.html
And this man's writing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naguib_Mahfouz
JD|10.21.07 @ 9:16AM|#
iih - Actually, there is in Australia now a movement to
label things "Australian Made" or "Australian Owned". Not too
surprising...they're human and they've got national pride like
anybody else. And there's probably some national memory there too:
as I understand it, prior to WWII, there was basically no
manufacturing in Australia at all, so any kind of self-sufficiency
is new to them.
While I was there I caught a comedian on TV who noted that a lot of
people were getting tattooed with "Made In Australia", and quipped
that they should add "Of Imported Parts and Materials".
iih|10.21.07 @ 9:51AM|#
JD: The argument is that with protectionism there could/will be
less development and economic progress. Just make sure that you are
good at something and export it to the world.
Actually, I am learning about free markets right now (the von Mises
Institute online lectures
were very helpful in getting me started). One thing I still don't
quite see is that free-markets work so well on a macro-scale. I.e.,
an entire country benefits on average, but wouldn't that come at
the cost of those who make stuff that is imported from and better
made elsewhere?
|10.21.07 @ 10:36AM|#
7:34: David, have you ever had an inane thought that you
*didn't* write down?
7:35: I'm guessing no, but in case you ever did...
7:36: I think you should try that more. You might not
7:37: like it but I assure you the rest of us will.
7:38: Tha
7:39: nks!
|10.21.07 @ 11:26AM|#
iih,
what about real stuff to be given to the world?
I consider art and literature as real as any other product. The
arts and entertainment industry is among the largest export
industries of the US, the largest economy in the world.
but wouldn't that come at the cost of those who make stuff that
is imported from and better made elsewhere?
Yes, it does.
For a radically different view than you would get at von
Mises...read some Herman Daly.
"Against Free Trade: Neoclassical and Steady-State Perspectives by
Herman E. Daly
Journal of Evolutionary Economics.
Volume (Year): 5 (1995)
Issue (Month): 3 (September)
Pages: 313-26
Abstract The author argues against free trade as a default position
for international trade. He shows that arguments for free trade
based on comparative advantage do not hold in reality. First, free
trade makes cost-internalization for single countries difficult
leading to standard-lowering competition and misallocation. Second,
the international mobility of capital leads to absolute rather than
comparative advantage for single countries, thus leading to
maldistribution. Finally, the ecological basis seriously limits the
scope for catching-up. Priority should be given alternatively to
domestic production of a steady-state type with balanced
trade.
Wiki has links to more of his work
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Daly
Here is his UofM webpage
http://www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/facstaff/faculty/Daly.html
One that is on my reading list from Daly
http://www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/faculty/daly/WW%20rev%20pop,migr,glob%20copy%201.pdf
Free trade, specialization, and global integration mean that
nations are no longer free not to trade. Yet freedom not to trade
is surely necessary if trade is to remain voluntary, a precondition
of its mutual benefit. To avoid war, nations must both consume less
and become more self-sufficient.
The truth will, of course, rest somewhere between Daly and von
Mises, but I think it is important to understand the issues from
both sides.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|10.21.07 @ 11:33AM|#
No Ph.D. in social statistics here either.
So, anyways, how about that Huckabee, huh?
|10.21.07 @ 11:33AM|#
I do indeed, though I do indeed, though beauty pageants are
probably the stupidest thing ever.
iih, you've got it wrong, I'm afraid.
The correct statement is "beauty pageant CONTESTANTS are
probably the stupidest thing ever."
I'm just being picky. ;-)
iih|10.21.07 @ 11:34AM|#
NM:
Thanks for the link. I think that I have electronic access to the
journal.
The other thing, of course, seems to be that with more
decentralization of governments, and the weaker they become, with
freedom of movement (i.e., immigration/migration), and blurring of
national borders, the von Mises version tends to be more equitable
to everyone.
P.S. I see that you make many references to the UofM. FWIW, I did
not get my PhD from UofM Dearborn.
iih|10.21.07 @ 11:37AM|#
J sub D:
I wasn't feeling this morning, but watching that clip makes me feel
much worse. I have heard the story and the audio version, but first
time to watch the video. Oh, man!
|10.21.07 @ 11:40AM|#
Daly's publications page is quite extensive if you are
interested in more of his writing.
http://www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/faculty/daly/Dalypapers.html
Daly's main argument is that Free-trade arguments are based on
strategies for maximizing comparative advantage for nations, which
should be beneficial for both trading partners. The trouble is--if
you have truly free trade (not Free Trade), then nations are taken
out of the equation as entities, and absolute advantage is the more
appropriate way to conceptualize the situation.
Under absolute advantage free trade does not necessarily
benefit both partners although it does benefit the world as a whole
in net
terms; under comparative advantage it does benefit both partners.
Mutual benefit of free trade is a trump card that the IMF-WTO
doesn't want to give up. Without that trump card it would have
to
face the political question of distribution of these global gains,
and
explicitly acknowledge that some countries could lose from
free
trade.
iih|10.21.07 @ 11:40AM|#
NM:
Oh that was UofM as in Maryland. Duh! Well, for us Wolverines,
there can only be one UofM. So watch it buddy!
|10.21.07 @ 11:50AM|#
iih,
the von Mises version tends to be more equitable to
everyone.
I think that is incorrect. "Equitable" is not a goal or advantage
that the von Mises position would consider important. Despite being
an individualistic argument, the advantage seen in the totally free
trade (not Free Trade) argument, is for an aggregate advantage.
That aggregate advantage can result in extremely different outcomes
for individuals within the group. Big winners are thought to more
than balance out big losers, so equitable distribution of benefit
is not taken into consideration.
iih|10.21.07 @ 12:07PM|#
"Equitable" is not a goal or advantage that the von Mises
position would consider important. Despite being an individualistic
argument, the advantage seen in the totally free trade (not Free
Trade) argument, is for an aggregate advantage. That aggregate
advantage can result in extremely different outcomes for
individuals within the group. Big winners are thought to more than
balance out big losers, so equitable distribution of benefit is not
taken into consideration.
Yeah, that I realize. The goal is not to benefit everyone. On
aggregate, there is benefit, so goes the von Mises claim. And that
I have trouble with if we stop at the national level (it sounds
like a collectivist argument if one talks about "aggregate"
advantage, which the Austrian school seems to be talking about
--but I am still no expert). But again, if nations are
broken down into minute little communities and if there is absolute
freedom of movement, then free trade would have as a
consequence (and certainly not a goal) benefit for
all individuals. It will be left to the individual to choose to be
productive or not. It then becomes a matter of personal choice.
Depending on productivity and demand on one's "product", the wealth
of the individual will be determined.
BTW, when I say "equitable" I do not mean that we have a society in
which all are equally rich or poor (that would be communism).
Instead, I mean that we will have a society in which every
individual has an equal opportunity to excel. Those who do not
decide to excel or who were not endowed with the resources will end
up among the "have nots". I am a firm believer that it is part of
human nature to have diversity in income levels, wealth, and
resources. There will always be the "haves" and the "have nots".
The goal is to have an equal opportunity to be among the "haves",
and leave it up to the individual to be among those.
|10.21.07 @ 12:25PM|#
iih,
Instead, I mean that we will have a society in which every
individual has an equal opportunity to excel. Those who do not
decide to excel or who were not endowed with the resources will end
up among the "have nots". I am a firm believer that it is part of
human nature to have diversity in income levels, wealth, and
resources. There will always be the "haves" and the "have nots".
The goal is to have an equal opportunity to be among the "haves",
and leave it up to the individual to be among those.
Equal opportunity will, of course, always be unrealized as long as
you recognize the role of resources in the equation. Those who
start out in the "haves" column will have a resource advantage over
the "havenots" no matter the motivation or talents of the
individuals. The empirical question, of course, is what systemic
policy will balance the relative access to opportunity given the
inequitable distribution of resources. In my view, no absolutist
position will ever provide the best solution when you consider
things at the level of nations.
In nature, complex systems (think brains, ant colonies, forests,
ecosystems) all contain regulatory mechanism to optimize
performance. It seems that economies and nations are also complex
systems and will benefit from regulatory mechanism. The trick is to
avoid over-regulation, not eliminate regulation.
To extend the economy-is-like-a-brain analogy, an unregulated brain
results in epilepsy. We want to avoid an epileptic economy.
|10.21.07 @ 12:35PM|#
iih,
Another interesting paper on the problems inherent in systemic
behavior around resource allocation
http://www.santafe.edu/~bowles/WealthInequality1999.pdf
It is clear, then, that distributional and allocational issues
are thus inextricable,
and that while there can be no presumption that egalitarian
redistribution will improve
efficiency, the conventional presumption to the contrary must also
be rejected...Thus institutions may endure for long periods because
they are favored by powerful groups for whom they secure
distributional advantage. For this reason
inequality in assets may impede economic performance by obstructing
the evolution
of productivity enhancing institutions. In addition to the
incentive problems on
which we have focused, this may be true both because maintaining
highly unequal
distributions of assets may be costly in terms of resources devoted
to enforcing
the rules of the game and because at least under modern conditions
inequality may
militate against the diffusion of cultural norms such as trust that
are valued precisely
because they are often able to attenuate the problems arising from
contractual incompleteness.
|10.21.07 @ 12:40PM|#
And this one
http://www.santafe.edu/research/publications/workingpapers/01-01-005.pdf
Addresses the issues that Watson brought up in his statements (to
bring us back to the Grande C debate).
The perpetuation of a family's position in the distribution of
income from parents to children reflects the genetic and cultural
transmission of individual traits, as well as the inheritance of
group memberships and income-earning assets. We showthat the extent
of intergenerational economic status transmission is considerably
greater than was thought to be the case a generation ago, the
genetic inheritance of traits contributing to the cognitive skills
measured on IQ and related tests explains very little of the
intergenerational transmission of economic status, even if the
heritability of IQ is quite high, and the combined genetic and
cultural inheritance processes operating through superior wealth,
cognitive levels, and educational attainments of those with
well-off parents, while important, do not fully explain the
intergenerational transmission of economic status. We identify some
overlooked individual traits that enhance economic success that are
transmitted across generations.
iih|10.21.07 @ 1:03PM|#
Equal opportunity will, of course, always be unrealized as
long as you recognize the role of resources in the equation. Those
who start out in the "haves" column will have a resource advantage
over the "havenots" no matter the motivation or talents of the
individuals.
But isn't that what makes life interesting? Isn't competition and
struggle to do better every single human being's (at least those
who care and try) goal? Even the super rich will seek to do
better.
The empirical question, of course, is what systemic policy will
balance the relative access to opportunity given the inequitable
distribution of resources.
Ideally, the answer is to get rid of any entity that has a monopoly
over who "gives access" to opportunity. Or, at least, that entity
should be restricted only to the basic needs that guarantee that
all have access to the same opportunity to succeed, even with
limited resources. There is only one such entity that we know of.
Lets keep that entity (peacefully, within the law) under control.
But that still lies in the domain of theory.
In my view, no absolutist position will ever provide the best
solution when you consider things at the level of
nations.
Yes. Agreed.
In nature, complex systems (think brains, ant colonies,
forests, ecosystems) all contain regulatory mechanism to optimize
performance. It seems that economies and nations are also complex
systems and will benefit from regulatory mechanism. The trick is to
avoid over-regulation, not eliminate regulation.
Once we talk optimization, we have to define a metric of
performance, which in this case has to come from some commonly
agreed upon moral system. I would define that metric as "equal
opportunity" and not "equal return". You will probably define it
differently, a communist would have a different version, a
socialist another, and so on. That is what I find problematic about
"optimization". Instead, each "agent" or a "collection of agents"
in that dynamic situation defines its/his/her own metric and the
end result seems to be along the lines of the von Mises school (and
my personal philosophy).
To extend the economy-is-like-a-brain analogy, an unregulated
brain results in epilepsy. We want to avoid an epileptic
economy.
The fallacy here, I think, is that we are dismissing the fact that
there will be competitions between NGOs and between donors to give
to such NGOs (which include churches, research institutes, etc)
that would aim to benefit the less fortunate in society. Why would
the "haves" seek to help the "havenots". I can think of 2 good
reasons:
(1) a brilliant mind will always be sought regardless of whether
that brilliant mind was born in the "haves" column or not. Private
schools will seek students with potential (even if incapable of
paying tuition) since these students will then help boost the
schools reputation whenever such a student wins the Nobel Prize or
gets appointed as a Supreme court judge, or becomes a successful
business man or woman. Extend this to other NGO areas.
(2) By giving to the less fortunate who are not willing to help
themselves, the "haves" are essentially paying for a sense of
security as the tendency to commit crime etc is lower. But I admit
that that is a weak argument.
BTW, someone has recently told me that ant colonies actually do
exhibit elements of competition for food, in which that outcome is
(on aggregate) the overall system benefits.
iih|10.21.07 @ 1:12PM|#
NM:
Thanks for the other references.
As a side note, for the record since I am often asked about this,
is the above (more von-Mises oriented view) consistent with my
personal religious beliefs? The clear answer to me is "yes it
certainly is". Unequal resources are viewed as tests in humans'
lives. Will the "havenots" just give up, or will they
struggle (which is always interpreted in a
negative light in the West) within the bounds of the prevailing law
to better themselves? Will the wealthy just stay idle because they
are wealthy, or will they always seek to better themselves?
According to my view, if they seek to better themselves, they will
have to attempt to better others in society who are less fortunate
(but are willing to better themselves). I think that some of these
are also reflected here, though I have not
read everything at the web site to say whether I agree with them on
issues. My 2 cents.
|10.21.07 @ 1:32PM|#
All good points.
I, btw, was using "equal opportunity" as my metric when talking
about optimization.
someone has recently told me that ant colonies actually do
exhibit elements of competition for food, in which that outcome is
(on aggregate) the overall system benefits.
As do individual neurons in the brain. One of the reasons I chose
those entities as analogies to the economy is that they operate
under very similar mechanisms in the abstract. Aggregate complexes
of autonomous agents (at a certain level) operate under coherently
similar rules.
re: The fallacy here
I am not equating regulatory mechanisms with government as such. Or
maybe more accurately, I am not making a distinction between NGO's
and GO's in the process. Both will arise spontaneously in the
complex interactions of a society. The need met by one will not
need to be addressed by the other. The State is simply a type of
governing agent in a society. It does not, despite its claims, have
a monopoly on regulation of individual behavior.
|10.21.07 @ 1:33PM|#
J sub D: Ha! Did you get my message here?
Yep, I did. As Yogi Berra reputedly said "it ain't over till is's
over".
|10.21.07 @ 1:44PM|#
Neu Mejican, iih, & all other rational posters,
How do you feel about economic affirmative action? Should the coal
miners kid get preference over a Wal Mart heir? Not just
scholarships, but points towards admission in an elite university.
Realizing that economic preferences is certain to have unintended
consequences, I lean to a yea vote. IMHO, basing prefernces (and
dicrimination) on "race" is out of bounds for a multitude of
reasons, among them the constitution. Your thoughts?
|10.21.07 @ 2:02PM|#
JsubD,
I think, ideally, the scheme you are talking about is the better
idea.
Take a look at the disaster that Brazil is in the midst of trying
to define racial groups post-hoc to get their AAction programs up
and running.
Changing the grouping variable from Race to Class, of course,
doesn't really get rid of the complications. It just moves them
into another set of fuzzy parameters.
Basing things on income level is easier to measure accurately. It,
however, ignores the non-economic factors that provide advantages
to certain groups in our society.
|10.21.07 @ 2:51PM|#
Basing things on income level is easier to measure
accurately. It, however, ignores the non-economic factors that
provide advantages to certain groups in our society.
Doesn't meddling in non-economic (cultural?) factors have to be
avoided? That certain cultures value economic success more than
others is demonstrated every generation. If we wnat to
decrease/eliminate cultural transmission of lower socio-economic
status, wouldn't we have to decrease/eliminate cultural influence
on children?
I DEFINATELY don't want the government involved
with that. The Bush administation's incoherent attempts should
scare any rational being away from that idea. Just consider the
Aussies (well intentioned) attempts to modernize the aboriginal
culture to see where that can lead. NGO attempts to modify a
culture, from within and without, are going to happen, but cultural
habits and attitudes are going to require generations to make
significant changes. Patience is recommended for all social
reformers.
I guess where I'm leading is we can't give preferences to a group,
however defined, because they do not stress education, a work
ethic, or amassing wealth.
|10.21.07 @ 3:04PM|#
JsubD,
Well of course there may be a difference between meddling and
providing opportunities. I think AfAction programs are about
providing opportunities for members of disadvantaged groups that do
value the opportunity (even if other group members don't).
FWIW, education is always about changing the way people think
about, frame, solve, and define problems. AA programs for education
are about strengthening the shared space of the culture, the
confluence between groups to the betterment of all. Excluding
(whether actively or passively) a sector of society from that
process weakens that shared cultural space, imho.
|10.21.07 @ 3:24PM|#
And since we are in a thread about ethics (Huckabee,
right?).
How does everyone feel about outing someone without their
consent?
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2702644.ece
|10.21.07 @ 3:37PM|#
How does everyone feel about outing someone without their
consent?
If you out someone w/o their consent, you're an inconsiderate,
selfish piece of whale excrement. How would you feel if your wife,
significant other, or ex-lover, detailed your sexual habits,
desires, fantasies, performance, whatever, for the world to cluck
over? The immorality of it seems obvious to me.
|10.21.07 @ 3:42PM|#
JsubD,
I am with you on that.
I am not sure we can condemn JK Rowling in this case, however. She
seems to have special status that complicates the ethical
questions...
;^)
iih|10.21.07 @ 3:51PM|#
If you out someone w/o their consent, you're an
inconsiderate, selfish piece of whale excrement. How would you feel
if your wife, significant other, or ex-lover, detailed your sexual
habits, desires, fantasies, performance, whatever, for the world to
cluck over? The immorality of it seems obvious to me.
Ditto.
|10.21.07 @ 3:53PM|#
JK Rowlings gets a pass on this one.
"Because, celluloid heroes never feel any pain"*. I think that goes
for the print heroes as well.
*Ray Davies
iih|10.21.07 @ 4:05PM|#
Now, regarding affirmative action, well all of the above
discussion regarding equal opportunity and free markets (the von
Mises form anyways) is all theoretical. It is a dream/goal that has
to be sought from the bottom-up. People start with small
discussions like we're doing here. Eventually, this notion of
freedom and equal opportunity (as Ron Paul always says "individual
rights" as opposed to "any other kind of rights") propagates and
while everything else is failing, this notion/argument strength
should sustain the test of time. 600-800 years ago a few people
talked about a republic like we had in the US after independence,
and into the early 19th century, people would have said "oh that is
just theory/dream and has nothing to do with reality". Well, look
what we have (had?) in North America a few hundred years later.
Philosophers' and political thinkers' dreams became reality. So
while the above may sound like theory, I think it is a beautiful
philosophy that will not harm, if not result in something that is
beautiful.
In the meantime, however, going back to the current reality. It is
clear that race is a big issue. Minorities have started on the
wrong footing (the "wrong initial conditions" if you are a
dynamicist). Just the same way these wrong initial conditions were
intentionally created by the majority in a very unjust social
system, these injustices have to be fixed promptly, possibly using
intervention. We have to.
OK, what kind of intervention? I am for affirmative action in
public education. Not in employment, especially in critical
occupations such as hospital doctors. In these cases employment has
to be based on merit. My 2 cents.
|10.21.07 @ 4:06PM|#
JsubD, but the pain of Dumbledore is real. Oh so real...
http://fanfiction.mugglenet.com/viewstory.php?sid=65547
full disclosure...I couldn't make it through even one of Rowlings'
books.
iih|10.21.07 @ 4:08PM|#
I wholeheartedly supported UofM's position against the WH and
other groups regarding affirmative action.
But I also think that
NGO attempts to modify a culture, from within and without, are
going to happen, but cultural habits and attitudes are going to
require generations to make significant changes. Patience is
recommended for all social reformers.
was very well said by J sub D.
iih|10.21.07 @ 4:15PM|#
I could never, by the way, ever digest nor understand the hysteria surrounding Harry Potter. What's the big deal! I originally also dismissed Lord of the Rings, but only liked the effects in the movie later (still think the movie kind of silly, and also saw the danger of "good vs. evil" kind of theme, especially in light of the then Bush rhetoric "either with or against us" because, I for one, was really not with "him" nor with "them"). Also after dismissing the Da Vinci Code as yet another pop thing, I actually enjoyed reading the book (not for factual accuracy at all, but that it was outspoken, and simply suspenseful). Anyways...
|10.21.07 @ 4:29PM|#
iih,
Tolkien deserves a read.
His stories and characters are complex in very real ways despite
the mythical settings. (And the good vs evil thing is far more
complex in the books than the movies. It speaks more to the need to
demonize enemies than anything else, as well as allegorically
examining the personal toll that unethical decisions can have on a
person).
The recent release of Children of Hurin
Might be a better introduction to his stuff than the better known
works. A classical tragedy in the strict sense of tragedy.
http://fanfiction.mugglenet.com/viewstory.php?sid=65547
|10.21.07 @ 4:30PM|#
ooops,
That Childen of Hurin link is here
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0618894640/reasonmagazineA/
|10.21.07 @ 4:34PM|#
I guess I just outed myself as a geek.
Anyone want to discuss the relative merits of the Radio version of
Hitchhiker's Guide compared to the film?
;^)
iih|10.21.07 @ 4:42PM|#
Neu Mejican:
For me it has always been about finding the time to read. When I
do, I prefer (may be mistakingly as a friend of mine has been
trying to convince me) reading non-fiction. Though I am coming to
the realization that "fiction" could tell us much about man's
"reality" than non-fiction can.
Don't be fooled by the amount of time I spend on H&R. H&R
is a new (and good) habit that I am trying to self-regulate.
|10.21.07 @ 4:53PM|#
I guess I just outed myself as a geek.
Self outing is completely ethical.
On Lord of the Rings - IMHO the beauty of the thing is the two
concurrant struggles. In one, the battles get more and more
momentous. The forces engaged get larger and more powerful. In the
other, more important stuggle, the opposite occurs, eventually
reduced to two hobbits, weaponless, naked, and alone trying to
climb a hill. All in all a good read once you get past Bilbo's
birthday party.
Of course, the movie is NEVER as good as the book.
That's not an opinion, that's a rule to live by! ;-)
|10.21.07 @ 4:56PM|#
Hard to believe, I've only read the first in the Hitchhiker's Guide series. That's why I'm barred from the D&D tourneys.
|10.21.07 @ 4:58PM|#
"fiction" could tell us much about man's "reality" than
non-fiction can.
Well, Duh! There was this Greek storyteller, named Homer ...
iih|10.21.07 @ 5:04PM|#
Well, Duh! There was this Greek storyteller, named Homer
...
yeah, I know. I used to read like crazy back in college (fiction
and nonfiction). In one of the courses we had to read full books in
a week. Stuff like Gilgamesh, Brave New World (which I really did
enjoy), Hayy Bin Yaqdhan, Shakespear, etc. Then somewhere in the
middle of not getting a phd in social statistics i found
out that there is a lot of non-fiction stuff to read. My reasoning
was that non-fiction is more useful than fiction. But I am now
coming to realize that I might have been wrong. Oh well!
iih|10.21.07 @ 5:17PM|#
J sub D:
I knew that those Tribe of yours had something big
behind them.
In other news (I did post this before, but did not attract much
attention). Have you seen
this?
|10.21.07 @ 6:33PM|#
I knew that those Tribe of yours had something big behind
them.
iih, I saw that too. Fucking cheater.
In other news (I did post this before, but did not attract much
attention). Have you seen this?
It's not surprising. Kids imitating the adults that they see around
them. It helps explain, though not cure, hatreds that persist for
generations.
iih|10.21.07 @ 6:51PM|#
J sub D:
Wouldn't it be great if Iraqis learn how to have a right to bear
arms but keep its use to the absolute minimum? That would be a
greater lesson for the kids to learn --self control.
|10.21.07 @ 7:14PM|#
That would be a greater lesson for the kids to learn --self
control.
That and it's corollary, When you get offended you give enemies
control over your mind.
iih|10.21.07 @ 7:18PM|#
When you get offended you give enemies control over your
mind.
Very true! Many Muslims seem to need much of that. Unfortunately,
the culture of hollow rage has become popular amongst many
Muslims.
x,y|10.21.07 @ 7:33PM|#
"Any federal judge who uses international law as precedent ought to be impeached."
Precedent is bullshit. Judges cite it when it supports their
position and ignore it (or find any of an infinite number of ways
to distinguish it) when it doesn't support their position.
|10.21.07 @ 7:54PM|#
Very true! Many Muslims seem to need much of that.
Unfortunately, the culture of hollow rage has become popular
amongst many Muslims.
Don't feel like the Lone Ranger. Some atheists get the same way. I
mean, how could you give a damn about a manger scene in the town
square? Don't thet realize that makes them look as petty and
intolerant as the Puritans they so despise? Sheesh!
|10.21.07 @ 10:00PM|#
That's why I'm barred from the D&D tourneys.
They barred me because of all the pointing and laughing.
Oh, and the getting laid.
Full Disclosure: I played D&D once. Never got invited back. Was
fine with that.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245