Read it.

Too bad we the public cannot conspire, away from the calculating gaze of the political/media class, to pay no heed at all to “gaffes.” To starve them once and for all of the raw material of manufactured controversy, a random bludgeon of opportunity that only serves to introduce an element of caprice into politics and further chill our already tepid national discourse. No, occasional disciplinary lapses into honesty should be encouraged and welcome for what they often are: the brief lifting of the veil of rhetorical obscurity between the people and the governing elite.

Steve Sailer is always worth reading.

Read it.

A good thing for all of us to remember. The distinction between price and value has always confused socialists and others ignorant of basic economics.

David Friedman asks a very obvious question.

So far, however, they seem to have been unable to identify the girl who made the phone call. They did identify the man she accused–who turned out to be in Arizona, said he hadn’t been in Texas since 1977, and has not been arrested, which I assume means that the evidence supports his claim. 

Funny how that works out.

Which suggests an obvious conjecture—that the phone call was a fake, possibly by someone in law enforcement who wanted an excuse to raid the ranch, possibly by someone else in the area who disapproved of the FLDS and wanted to set off such a raid. I find it surprising that none of the news stories, at least that I have seen, have even mentioned that possibility.

Indeed.

Read it.

That’s because a lot of health care jobs are labor-intensive and don’t take a lot of training.

Rather like manufacturing jobs were during their Golden Age.

Perhaps someday we’ll be talking about “scrub-green collar” workers.

Read it.

Making excuses for autonomous human actors is always a form of condescension, I’d say. But when you make excuses for arguably what many people regard as normal, even laudable behavior, you double down on the disrespect, because you are also challenging your subjects’ moral framework

Would that more liberals realized that.

Read it.

If nothing else, do it for the children.

Read it.

Manifest behavior is always the summation of competing wishes and inhibitions, most of which are unconscious. When someone makes a great show of his personal piety yet his manifest behavior is often damaging to others, it is worth wondering if he is expressing forbidden unconscious wishes in ways that are disguised and acceptable to himself. Jimmy Carter, our nation’s worst ex-President, offers an excellent case in point.

Read it.

Wonder what they’ll do when the Episcopalian Church finally disintegrates.

Read it.

Of course, this is from the BBC, so you’ll want a second source for the information.

Read it.

Here’s a thought: How would it be if you could depend on every chain supermarket to have a mini-Emercency Room, where you could go and get stabilized and maybe transferred to a Real Hospital if necessary? What would that do for the health care system? What would that do for health care, period?

Read it.

One thing not taken into account is the negative effects of Security Theater.

For example: The hassles inflicted on passengers by the TSA don’t materially improve security so long as they are barred from doing the most effective thing they could do to prevent hijacking, which is profiling — indeed, they impose extra and unnecessary hassles just to demonstrate that they aren’t profiling and would never dream of doing so — so I refuse to fly. Some people don’t have that option, but a lot of people do, and many (like me) choose to exercise it.

Does this charade make life better for people? I suggest not.

But the reality of how we make security decisions begs an important question– should security professionals focus on real solutions to security problems, or just on making people feel better about security? Unfortunately, there’s no easy answer to this question. It depends on who’s paying the professional’s salary, what they expect, and how rational they area. At one extreme, any professional should certainly want to improve security in real terms, but delivering the perception of improved security may be a practical job requirement.

And there’s the rub. Far too often when politics gets involved — as it is with security and flying — being seen to be Doing Something is more important than actually doing something constructive, and the image is (to those who hold the reins of power) more important than the reality.

Read it and see.

Where do you draw the line?

Cringely has some surprising observations.

Few would look to the Amish as role models yet they are remarkably good at what they do.

Read it.

A question not often considered. English is famously more compact than languages such as French, and I think a good case could be made that Latin is more compact than most modern languages.

A thought just occurred to me — can you think of anything more absurd than putting Bill Maher in charge of a program called ‘Politically Incorrect’? Perhaps putting AlGore in charge of a program called ‘The Coming Ice Age’, but short of that, I can’t think of any.

Read it.

Now there’s a shocker.

Cringely takes on an unusual topic for a tech columnist.

As my friend Henry from down the road in Mansfield, Ohio, points out, the Amish have been on this same “new” educational path forever. Their ability to produce nearly 100 percent productive citizens (and very nice furniture) for about fifty bucks per student per year is especially galling to those government schools that spend $16K and turn out a lot of slackers.

Or maybe not.

Read it.

Note that they have joined neither the European Union nor the U.N. What do they know that we don’t.

The nation also has a high degree of personal freedom, linked to a decentralized government in which voters are the ultimate sovereign through an elaborate system of direct democracy—citizens can both propose their own laws and challenge any action of the government.

Well, quite a lot, really….

Read it.

Economists write the darnedest things.

Read it.

This sort of thing is why otherwise normal people consider going to law school.

Victor Davis Hanson thinks isolationism a Bad Thing.

On the other hand, there’s a lot to be said for Minding One’s Own Business.

Read it.

THE BEST-INFORMED PERSON I EVER KNEW was a friend of my grandfather’s back in the Bronx, where I grew up. Every morning of every day of his life, this elderly man — his name, as I recall, was Boris — would dress impeccably in a suit and waistcoat and shuffle to the public library, where more than a dozen of the day’s local and out-of-town newspapers were threaded through bamboo poles and hung from racks. One by one, Boris would read them all, front to back; at dusk, he would walk home alone. This daily pilgrimage was conducted with ecclesiastic solemnity, a quiet, dignified homage to the majesty of knowledge. Even as a little boy, in that intuitive if primitive way that children comprehend important things, I understood the fundamental truth that Boris was, in some clear but compelling way, a douche bag.

Not your usual newspaper story.

Jeremy Wagstaff is always worth reading.

The bigger solution, of course, is to ditch the whole ‘presentation thing’ in favor of participation. I know my class are more attentive if they know I’m going to ask random questions of them. An audience is going to be more attentive if the speaker is not merely droning on but offering a compelling performance and engaging them as much as possible. A meeting leader is going to have the attention of the room if s/he doesn’t waste their valuable day giving some PR schtick but keeps it short and genuinely meets the other participant, rather than lectures them.

The truest thing you’ll read today. Nobody checks e-mail in Kingsfield’s class.

This is where a tablet PC comes into its own. Not only does your note-taking (or whatever else you’re doing) look like traditional scribble-on-legal-pad activity, most tablets come with an unobtrusive built-in microphone quite adequate to capture a speaker or lecturer. Run the result through a program like Dragon Naturally Speaking and you have a verbatim transcript of the talk. Meld this with your notes in a program like OneNote, and you’re shiny.

Which is why I’m waiting for Apple to come out with a decent tablet. C’mon, Steve, get on the stick. And I want at least a 14″ screen.

Read it.

I find the following particularly trenchant:

Candor is surely the necessary starting point for a useful national conversation on race (the one that Obama didn’t seem to want to have until his pastor got him in political hot water). One side says, “You’re scared of young black men.” The other side says, “Yes, and here’s why.” Progress becomes possible. One side says, “You get all these breaks just because of your race.” The other side says ,”We have to be twice as good to get the same respect.” If you don’t ever have the argument you probably can’t get over the argument.

Jeremy Wagstaff on the unrealized potential of Starbuck’s.

I find it interesting that his mind would automatically go to what sort of things could be marketed to these hangers-on at coffee shops. Is that distinctively American, or merely human?

Read it.

Read it.

The Naked Ape meets Up the Organization.

Of course, no mention is made, in this Rousseauian analysis, of the observations of Hobbes. A glaring omission.

Cringely is nearly always worth reading.

The last major change to the way we educate children and young adults came with the introduction of the textbook in the 16th century. I think it’s about time.

We have the technology for inexpensive, individualized custom-paced education. Let’s use it.

Tom Stoppard. Yes, that Tom Stoppard.

Yeah, that’s pretty much the way I remember it.

Read it.

And no, it’s not about religion.

Read it.

Outsourcing taken to its logical extreme.

Ross Douthat is always worth reading.

What does it mean to be “rich” in America today? You might be surprised … at how “rich” you are. I know I was.

Read it.

Is it ‘offensive’ to hit too close to the sensitive weak spot of Democratic race-preference ideology in a Democratic primary? I guess.

Jerry Pournelle has an interesting essay on the subject.

Read it.

Some people have entirely too much time on their hands.

Read it.

An excellent question, to which I have yet heard no good answer.

To quote my old boss in the ’76 Reagan campaign, Larry Uzzell: “The next four years are going to be a disaster, and we’d rather they were a Democrat disaster than a Republican disaster.” And Jimmy Carter stepped up to the plate and provided us with one — and gave us Reagan.

Read it.

And the sooner they realize it, the sooner they’ll get better at it, and we’ll all beneift.

Mickey Kaus has a good point.

The meters measure the voter’s visceral reaction to whatever the candidate is saying. If the voter hates abortion, and Candidate A attacks abortion, the meter goes up. If the voter is pro-choice, the meter goes down. What the meter doesn’t capture is actual rumination–even fleeting doubts or flashes of confidence. The reaction loop’s too short for that. So if something Candidate B says, in the course of defending a right to abortion, actually makes a pro-life voter think twice about the issue, that will happen later, after the meter has moved on (and probably after the meters are locked up and everyone’s gone home). Indeed, the voter’s immediate reaction to a candidate who prompts reconsideration of a long-held position may be more negative than usual, reflecting the voter’s annoyance at being challenged and forced to think. ….

Mencius Moldbug, in the course of announcing a hiatus, generates an afflatus.

Unfortunately for nonprogressives, progressives run the world, so there has to be some way to get a message to them. Unfortunately for progressives, they are quite unaware that they run the world. They believe it is run by their enemies, who oppress them or are at least trying to, and must be resisted with all their energy. If we could convince them that this was a misperception, we could convince them to stop being progressives. The matter is not without delicacy.

And that’s the truest thing you’ll read today.

Read it.

This is the same Scott Nearing who was a regressive icon for his and his wife’s Good Life books.

Adolf, call your office.

David Friedman is always worth reading.

The whole subject of what constitutes “fair” taxation is insoluble, because different people have different ideas of what constitutes “fair”.

Most regressives think that “fair” means we all wind up with exactly the same. If that were ever to happen then all progress would STOP because progress requires investible surplus somewhere in society. (Which is why “progressive” is even more of an oxymoron than “Democrat”.)

The problem lies with those who don’t accept the premise that “fair” means that different levels of effort or thought ought to receive different levels of reward. Those who do not accept that premise exclude themselves from argument, because there is no common ground, which is what a real argument (as opposed to a quarrel) requires.

Steve Sailer takes a look at blacks and latinos in modern American politics.

Steve Sailer is always worth reading.

Read it.

Depends on your priorities, I suspect.

Read it.

 It’s a pretty good idea because when you have jokes that aren’t that great and music that isn’t that great, you can mix them together and create something that will entertain white people.

Read it.

Read it.

On the internet, nobody knows you’re not a PhD. Many people don’t care. And sometimes it doesn’t matter.

Read it.

Now this is a scary guy.