Sweep the Leg

There's such a phenomenon that I've deemed cultural blasphemy. Some aspects of popular culture harbor a sacred quality. They've become entrenched in the cultural zeitgeist, embedded in the fabric of our social dealings, and intertwined with our personal stories. These hallowed memes deserve veneration (sometimes expressed only in jest), yet some cavalier individuals don't understand this. It's Miley Cyrus covering Yesterday, Schwarzenegger in Terminator 3, The Day the Earth Stood Still rebranded as an environmentalist screed, and LeBron appropriating the Jordan symbol. (Note: the Miley and LeBron ones haven't actually happened.) Some things should just be off limits.

With that in mind, I give you the following movie trailer.

Update: Some commenters have discussed this remake in the context of race. While the choice of a black Karate Kid probably has political undertones, that was irrelevant to my critique of this remake. Simply, The Karate Kid is an all-time classic that shouldn't be tampered with.

Is Love Colorblind?: Who do Black Men Marry?

In a recent comment thread, a liberal interloper brought up the purported HBD/conservative paranoia about black men and white women. According to these obnoxious visitors, conservative racial opinions primarily stem from a fear that the sexual marketplace for white women is becoming more competitive due to black men. Basically, black men are stealing white women and conservative white men are pissed off about it.

The logic of this is not actually wrong. As noted by any astute observer, women like bad boy alphas and black men, with their increased aggressiveness and physicality, often fit the caricature. The reality: The number of black men-white women pairs is so small that it warrants almost no consideration at all.

From this data represented in graphical form here, there are only 286,000 black men-white women marriages in the United States as of 2006. That represents only 0.5% of all marriages total. 286,000 white women is only about 0.3% of the total number of white women in the United States. When one considers that most of the white women in the BM-WW pairs are prole-types (with the token "Look how open-minded I am" Columbia sociology major on Teach for America), the loss of attractive potential white women is essentially zero.

In fact, according to the numbers, the number of Asian men-white women marriages is only one third less than the number of BM-WW marriages, showing the exaggeration of the BM-WW myth. And finally, just for fun: As of 2006, a whopping 41% of American-born Asian women marry a white man. This shouldn't surprise anyone who attended an elite college.

So much for the paranoia about black men stealing white women.

Note: Some argue that marriage rates don't tell the whole story. Well, most conservative types, including many HBDers, are looking for a stable relationship. Thus, marriage rates seem to be a good barometer of the preferences of white women for long-term relationships. Further, even if one wishes to look at only sexual relations, marriage rates are still a fine approximation. There may be some white women who eschew marriage and only fornicate with black men, thus excluding them from the potential sexual partners of white men. Yet, considering the minuscule rates presented above, I can't imagine this is at all substantial.

Lindsey Graham: Freudian Slip?

Occasionally, a mainstream figure lets slip some tacit allusion to racial intelligence differences and human biodiversity. Last week, Republican senator Lindsey Graham made this comment:

I have 12% unemployment in South Carolina. My state's on its knees. I have 31% African-American population in South Carolina.

So basically, Senator Graham lists a large black population as a problem concerning his state's economics. Was Senator Graham merely alluding to blacks being poorer than whites or actually making a more general statement that a large black population leads to economic turmoil? From a second clip shown below, it seems he intended the former. But it doesn't matter, Rachel Maddow is flabbergasted.

Given this reaction, imagine Maddow being told about racial intelligence differences.

Kim Peek (Rain Man) has Died

Sadly, Kim Peek, the inspiration for Rain Man, has died. He was an absolutely fascinating character. His gift (and his accompanying debilitation) came from an abnormality within the brain's hemispheres connection.

It has been theorized that this disruption of normal communication between the brain’s left and right halves resulted in a kind of jury-rigged rewiring. “Perhaps the resulting structures allow the two hemispheres to function, in certain respects, as one giant hemisphere, putting normally separate functions under the same roof, as it were,” Drs. Treffert and Christensen wrote. “If so, then Peek may owe some of his talents to this particular abnormality.”

It's amazing to think that similar abnormal cognitive structures, perhaps differing in some very tiny manner, have given rise to history's greatest geniuses (almost all of whom were plagued by general awkwardness). Peek's ability to gather information was quite remarkable.

He knows all the area codes and ZIP codes in the U.S., together with the television stations serving those locales. He learns the maps in the front of phone books and can provide MapQuest-like travel directions within any major U.S. city or between any pair of them. He can identify hundreds of classical compositions, tell when and where each was composed and first performed, give the name of the composer and many biographical details, and even discuss the formal and tonal components of the music.

Peek and other savants provide neurological researchers with important information regarding how our brains function, i.e. intelligence.

Smart Fraction Fertility: Smart People Do Have Babies, But Later in Life

TUJ continues his series on Smart Fraction Fertility. Part One and Part Two. Part Three follows. I know it's long and data-heavy, but believe me, it's very very very (not a typo) worth it. TUJ has made quite an impressive discovery. Concise summary at the end for lazy people.

Part III – Delayed Fertility is Reduced Fertility and Fun with Microsoft Excel

As was noted previously in Parts I and II of Smart Fraction Fertility, whether one is analyzing IQ, high housing values, advanced levels of education, or household income it seems that every positive social indicator imaginable negatively correlates with total fertility. I will now prove that this is utterly and completely wrong. When conservatives note the negative correlation between high fertility and positive social indicators they are being mislead. This is because they are only looking at overall TFR.

However, overall TFR represents a deceptive metric in analyzing the dysgenic conundrum. Instead, when expounding on the current dysgenic fertility, one should instead compare positive social indicators across various age groups.

Here's how I proceeded. When one ranks the states according to non-Hispanic white mean IQ and when one breaks down the non-Hispanic white fertility rate by age group, it becomes abundantly clear that higher white IQ positively and substantially correlates with higher white fertility after the age of 29. And by extension, lower white IQ substantially correlates with lower white fertility after the age of 29.

Let me make this ostensibly clear: High IQ = higher fertility after age 29, Low IQ = higher fertility before age 29.

This also applies to two other positive social indicators I looked at, namely, high housing valuations and high household income. The correct diagnosis of the problem is that positive social indicators only delay white fertility. After age 29, those positive social indicators work to increase white fertility just as nearly all positive social indicators increased white fertility prior to the Industrial Revolution. In a later part of this series, I will argue that the solution to the problem of dysgenic fertility is to use modern Artificial Reproductive Technologies (ART) to extend white fertility past age 40.

My calculations used the following data if anyone wishes to corroborate my findings.

1) Download the following pdf and go to page 31.

2) Look at the data provided by Audacious Epigone to see which states have the highest and lowest non-Hispanic white IQ scores.

3) Go to this link and observe which states have the highest and lowest housing valuations (data not broken down by race) .

Also look at the state level data for non-Hispanic white households ranked by income for 2007 inflation adjusted dollars I obtained from the US Census website. Below is the mean and STDV of white fertility rate by age group.

Age 20-24
STDV 23.242563
MEAN 89.292

Age 25-29
STDV 15.25
MEAN 113.588

Age 30-34
STDV 13.669
MEAN 92.04

Age 35-39
STDV 8.71
MEAN 38.08

Age 40-44
STDV 1.96
MEAN 7.04

As you go through the above data and look at the state level and age specific birth rates for non-Hispanic white women in the 2002 CDC pdf, you will note that individual states with positive social indicators do indeed positively correlate with state level fertility after the age of 29.

For example, high white IQ Colorado has a higher birth rate per 1000 than lower IQ Alabama after the age of 29. And high household income Massachusetts has a higher birth rate per 1000 than lower household income Arkansas after the age of 29. And high housing valuation California has a higher birth rate per 1000 than lower housing valuation Mississippi after the age of 29.

Overall correlation between white IQ by state and birth rate per 1000 for non-Hispanic white women by state:

Total Fertility Rate: +0.007

Age 18-19: -0.612

Age 20-24: -0.507

Age 25-29: +0.079

Age 30-34: +0.768

Age 35-39: +0.601

Age 40-44: +0.453

Overall correlation between non-Hispanic white household income by state and birth rate per 1000 for non-Hispanic white women by state:

Total Fertility Rate: -0.212

Age 18-19: -0.704

Age 20-24: -0.524

Age 25-29: -0.385

Age 30-34: +0.660

Age 35-39: +0.838

Age 40-44: +0.866

Overall correlation between housing valuations (not broken down by race) by state and birth rate per 1000 for non-Hispanic white women by state:

Total Fertility Rate: -0.466

Age 18-19: -0.710

Age 20-24: -0.556

Age 25-29: -0.592

Age 30-34: +0.410

Age 35-39: +0.738

Age 40-44: +0.853

Now that I have proven beyond all doubt that Historically Normal Fertility (HNF) returns after the age of 29 I will show how to achieve overall HNF. Because modern civilization causes white women to delay having children, we must therefore conclude that the best way to restore HNF is to simply extend white women’s average fertility life span using ART.

How much of an extension would be necessary to achieve natural population growth among and HNF among white American women? Let us return to the 2002 state level fertility data so we can calculate how much of an increase will be necessary. According to page 31 of this PDF the 2002 fertility rate for all non-Hispanic whites was 1.8285. Obtained by adding rates over age groups and multiplying by 0.005.

If white women increased their fertility in age 35-39 from 40.9 to 90.9 per 1000, and age 40-44 increased from 7.6 to 57.6 per 1000, the overall white TFR would be 2.3285, thus, achieving replacement level fertility and Historically Normal Fertility.

Unfortunately, women on average become considerably less fertile after the age of 35 because both the chromosomal quality and quantity of human eggs their ovarian reserves carry declines rapidly after the age of 35. Therefore, achieving a higher level of fertility after the age of 35 will require two new Artificial Reproductive Techniques which, very fortunately, have been perfected literally over the past six to 18 months.

***********************************************************************************************

Let me conclude by stating what I have shown:

1) It is true that overall fertility increases as positive social factors decrease. Put simply: Overall, stupid people are actually having more babies.

2) But if one breaks down the data by age group, this is not true. In fact, after age 29 amongst white women, positive social factors increase as fertility increases. Put simply: After age 29, smart people have more babies. Thus, one concludes modern society merely delays the fertility of smart people, it doesn't nullify it completely.

3) I have proved this by showing state income, housing valuations, and IQ have a strong positive correlation with state fertility for cohorts older than age 29.

Sunday Linkfest: Characters, Boring Science, GOP, AE's Card-Playing

In a discussion at GuyWhite, someone linked to this website from the USA network. The initative, entitled "Characters Unite" is described as follows:

At USA Network, we believe life is richer and we are stronger as a country when we see beyond stereotypes and appreciate each other for the characters that we are. This is why, together with the support of the nation's leading non-profits, we've launched CHARACTERS UNITE, a new multimedia initative designed to help form a more perefect union by:

1) combating prejudice, intolerance, discrimination, and hate
2) promoting greater acceptance, understanding and mutual respect of ALL people.

One could naively see this as a manifestation of core conservative principles that stress the importance of self and the individual's value. But we live in a time period when all this pontification about tolerance and inclusion actually means, "Hey whitey, stop being racist." Further, this represents a tacit denial of human biodiversity and racial intelligence differences. As in this example, the mainstream liberal somehow compartmentalizes the most contradictory of premises. He concurrently engages in gross identity politics, yet denounces any notice of racial and gender patterns, i.e. stereotypes. He advocates weak socialism in economics and culture, yet champions the individual's freedom. Finally, I just noticed there is a fricking pledge! Once again, we see the liberal pseudo-religion of all-encompassing egalitarianism.

Is science boring? The author of this article found science wasn't the mystical endeavor of guaranteed results and intellectual joy he had imagined it would be:

It is now time to come clean. This glittering depiction of the quest for knowledge is... well, perhaps not an outright lie, but certainly a highly edited version of the truth. Science is not a whirlwind dance of excitement, illuminated by the brilliant strobe light of insight. It is a long, plodding journey through a dim maze of dead ends. It is painstaking data collection followed by repetitious calculation. It is revision, confusion, frustration, bureaucracy and bad coffee. In a word, science can be boring.

My own brief and undistinguished research career included its share of mind-numbing tasks, notably the months of data processing which revealed that a large and expensive orbiting gamma-ray telescope had fixed its eye on the exploding heart of a distant galaxy and seen... nothing.

The science presented in college isn't exactly what one encounters in real-life. Everything is just so neat. The steps just seem to make sense, the solutions are elegant and attainable, and the lab experiments always give the correct result. But as the author states, laborious work can go absolutely nowhere and the professional scientist is left unfulfilled. For those willing to take the plunge and lucky enough to obtain substantial results, the risk was worthwhile, but for those unluckily wallowing in mundane despair, an intellectual career practicing medicine or finance might have proved a better choice.

This is your GOP!

Finally, Audacious Epigone has a post on...well I have no idea actually. From reading his blog, I imagine AE straddles the line between semi-nerd and regular dude. The post in question is undoubtedly an uber-nerd activity, yet in the very next post, he mentions lifting in a beater and has in the past mentioned hanging out with teenagers who look up to him. I say kudos to AE for resolving these two opposing social forces.

College as a Multicultural Utopia

Saturday Audience Participation

Caption Contest: Multicultural Edition

A couple years ago, I received a brochure for an educational statistics survey. It was a study to gauge the academic trajectory of current college students. I opened the brochure to find these pictures. (Click on photos for larger size.)

Picture 1

Picture 2

Caption either or both photos. (I may do another post on these pictures because they so wonderfully illustrate the PC ideology pervasive through elite academia and mainstream society.)

What is Kwanzaa

Today is Christmas, so naturally here's a post about Kwanzaa. Whites know about Kwanzaa, viewing it as one of those quaint aspects of black culture, but very few have intimate familiarity with its details. Basically, Kwanzaa reduces to a surprisingly brazen appeal for black separatism. Unsurprisingly, the United States government and our larger culture has mostly embraced this radicalism, as Kwanzaa has appeared twice on official postage stamps.

Kwanzaa was fabricated in the mid-1960's by a Marxist black nationalist pseudo-scholar named Ron Karenga. As I've noted before, the Civil Rights movement not only outlawed segregation, but encouraged blacks to formulate their own social and political spheres. As evident with almost exclusively black music forms like rap and sports like street basketball, blacks repudiated most mainstream norms. Kwanzaa represented a rejection of the white religion and instead focused on supposedly African traditions and black collectivism. The seven principles of Kwanzaa reflect this Civil Rights trend:

Umoja (Unity): To strive for and to maintain unity in the family, community, nation, and race.
Kujichagulia (Self-Determination): To define ourselves, name ourselves, create for ourselves, and speak for ourselves.
Ujima (Collective Work and Responsibility): To build and maintain our community together and make our brothers' and sisters' problems our problems, and to solve them together.
Ujamaa (Cooperative Economics): To build and maintain our own stores, shops, and other businesses and to profit from them together.
Nia (Purpose): To make our collective vocation the building and developing of our community in order to restore our people to their traditional greatness.
Kuumba (Creativity): To do always as much as we can, in the way we can, in order to leave our community more beautiful and beneficial than we inherited it.
Imani (Faith): To believe with all our heart in our people, our parents, our teachers, our leaders, and the righteousness and victory of our struggle.

I will admit that some of these are simply good conservative values (family, community, nationalism). But when sentiments like Ujamaa are expressed, the "for us, by us" mentality, racial socialism and nationalism become evident as the main goals. To put this into perspective, one notes the disdain spewed at the Tea Party and Sarah Palin/populist movements that never make explicitly racial statements. Ironically, for all the blustering about economic and communal autonomy, blacks don't seem willing (or able) to accomplish these goals.

I'm assuming not many of you celebrate Kwanzaa, so I'll say Merry Christmas to my readers.

Feminism Causes Anorexia

Sometimes, when I'm feeling masochistic, I peruse the various feminist blogs. It doesn't take long before one encounters some pitiful grousing about the "beauty myth", as if beauty is merely a social construct and not an undeniable facet of biology. Here's a recent article with the standard feminist whining:

O'Neill's stance was dispiriting, a sign of capitulation to unfair and unattainable beauty standards. I kept coming back to the increasingly cruel physical scrutiny that they're subject to. Impossible beauty standards seem like a subconscious cultural reaction against women's growing power. It's fine for women to do everything men do -- as long as they stay skinny, sexy, young, and soignée at the same time.

As a response to this presumed culture of unattainable beauty, feminists laud any physical form as the epitome of attractiveness. As a result, the women slightly deviating from an attractive figure, such as these women in the "Dove: Real Beauty Campaign" (ironic they still picked rather attractive women with straightened and dyed hair jobs), are lumped in with genuine fatties like these. Feminists, in an attempt to completely undermine any scale of beauty, champion the notion that young Britney is equal in attractiveness to Rosie O'Donnell. Such an obvious lie exposes feminism to all but its most deluded advocates.

While feminists tirelessly attribute anorexia to distorted media images, their obfuscation actually harms the situation. By repudiating any beauty hierarchy, feminists also cede authority on what constitutes a proper figure. The potential anorexic may be too skinny, but how can she trust the feminists and her female peers who attempt to allay her fears when these same individuals also champion Sarah Jessica Parker as good-looking? How can the anorexic trust the feminist's opinion when she clearly sees through their transparent lying? By championing "fat acceptance", the feminists can't inform any girl of her extreme skinniness. She can't view these supposed "beautiful fatties" and still believe she's being told the truth.

Feminists will gain no ground if they continue to engage in such obvious dissimulation. Noble lies only work on those willing to believe them. Anorexics don't fall into this category and feminist rhetoric will only worsen their problems.

Racist Computers

It's no longer just babies and statistics. Now computers are racist.

Hewlett-Packard is investigating a claim that Webcams built into its PCs are incapable of tracking the facial movements of black individuals and only function properly when Caucasians or people of other lighter-skinned races are in the frame.

The probe was prompted by a YouTube video in which a black man named Desi demonstrates the problem. The camera, which is designed to follow individuals' head movements, fails to track Desi as he moves in and out of the picture.

"I'm going on the record and I'm saying it, Hewlett-Packard computers are racist," adds Desi, who says he's using an HP Media Smart PC.

With each new instance of black grievance or white liberal placation, I'm increasingly tempted to invoke Poe's Law.

Update: I'm honestly not sure if this is a joke or not. But the fact that I'm unsure says something about race in this country.

Religious vs Secular Answers to Morality

Mangan and Auster are once again arguing about the philosophical contradictions of conservative atheism. Despite being a pious individual, Auster generally avoids direct religious proselytizing, instead focusing on the practical consequences of secularization. In this particular exchange, Auster and his acolyte Todd White claim the lack of absolutism implied by atheism logically leads to a society where individuals lack motivation for moral behavior. Mangan offers this brilliant rejoinder:

Communities and societies cannot exist without morality, which is simply the code of conduct that members of a society must adhere to in order for the society to exist. A society without morals is a mob engaged in the war of all against all. It wouldn't even have the cohesion of a wolf pack. Societies exist because they confer advantages on their members, and morality evolved to regulate behavior.

As for the motivations for an atheist to be moral, they're the same motivations others have, like approval and disapproval, reciprocity, love of family or fellows, or aversion to prison time. Plenty of Christians are in prison, after all - looks like belief in gods doesn't exactly guarantee being moral. Our society today is far less violent than Christian Europe during the Middle Ages.

In my opinion, religion is only useful commensurate with its ability to dissuade anti-social, dysfunctional behavior. As I've stated before, the "religion causes all evil" meme misdiagnoses the problem, attributing violence and turmoil to religious extremism instead of man's debased natural instincts. But if we can discard religion and the superstitious confidence that often results in psychotic delusion, we must replace it with a governing system that serves the same purpose. Prior to the 50's, this was called shame, but we've likely regressed too far for a potent revival of that. Alternatively, some biological conservatives, those leaning towards genetic determinism, advocate a government with little sympathy in punishment. Perhaps, the answer is a governing system, much like that implemented in Singapore, where the dysfunctional are not tolerated.

Such a system may have advantages over the currently peddled brand of religion. In a transparent effort to court adherents, religion, especially Christianity, has morphed into a self-help deal where past failures and acts are forgotten as long as one buys into the system. Gone are the rigid proclamations of John Edward. Gone are the Scarlet Letter and hellfire afterlife awaiting sinners of great magnitude. Instead, Christianity offers everyone a second chance no matter the gravity of one's misdeeds.

In this formulation, what motivates one to avoid immoral acts? If the standard for guaranteed forgiveness is set at simply accepting Jesus, then how does religion police its believers? Quick answer: It doesn't. Modern Christianity needs to return to its roots for it to have a practical impact. They must discard the "anything goes and everybody's welcome as long as you accept Jesus when you die" mentality of today's smiling preachers. Only then can Christianity compete with secular institutions, like prison and social shaming, in motivating moral behavior.

A New Generation of Computer Scientists - Who Aren't Nerds

Ray Kurzweil, the preeminent futurologist and foremost popularizer of the 2050 Singularity, describes the future as when every single object and device becomes a computer. In that world, one ostensibly dominated by technology, the working class will have been made obsolete by the infusion of computer manufacturing and robots. As the skill set of the middle class advances commensurate with our technological evolution, digital jobs will begin to dominate the middle class sector. In anticipation of our changing economic landscape, major companies and the government are attempting to subvert the negative stereotypes of computer scientists and encourage young people into these fields.

Hybrid careers like Dr. Halamka’s that combine computing with other fields will increasingly be the new American jobs of the future, labor experts say. In other words, the nation’s economy is going to need more cool nerds. But not enough young people are embracing computing — often because they are leery of being branded nerds.

Educators and technologists say two things need to change: the image of computing work, and computer science education in high schools. Teacher groups, professional organizations like the Association for Computing Machinery and the National Science Foundation are pushing for these changes, but so are major technology companies including Google, Microsoft and Intel. One step in their campaign came the week of Dec. 7, National Computer Science Education Week, which was celebrated with events in schools and online.

First, is the bolded statement really true? Is the supposed dearth of computer science minded individuals a result of social stigma or merely a reflection of a limited high IQ population? How many potential comp sci majors are we losing to these social factors? One would suppose these high IQ individuals instead pursue finance jobs or more practically based engineering, but the peer groups of potential comp sci majors generally wouldn't include those sneering at a comp sci position. Again, I applaud these initiatives, but I'm wary they're based on the misguided intellectual egalitarianism underpinning most educational programs.

Today, introductory courses in computer science are too often focused merely on teaching students to use software like word processing and spreadsheet programs, said Janice C. Cuny, a program director at the National Science Foundation.

Her computer science education, she said, is an asset every day in her work, less for technical skills than for what she learned about analytic thinking. “Computer science taught me how to think about things, how to break down and solve complex problems,” Ms. Lehtomaki said.

Note Ms. Lehtomaki doesn't actually use anything she learned in college. Instead, she uses the more general analytical tools one possesses naturally and can cultivate in an environment not costing 50,000 dollars a year for four years. As I've stated before, even in technical subjects, specific college curricula have little real world utility. The article closes by showing the broad applicability of computer science and how this can be used as an instructive tool:

“We need to gain an understanding in the population that education in computer science is both extraordinarily important and extraordinarily interesting,” said Alfred Spector, vice president for research and special initiatives at Google.

Kira Lehtomaki can attest to this. She came to computing by way of art and movies. Art projects, not computers, were her childhood passions.

I'm wary of such a pedological strategy. When I took coding courses in college, simply making a complex code run provided ample satisfaction. The interest derived from merely coding itself, not some fantastical application of it. If one doesn't cultivate an appreciation of the inner workings of code or computer technology, then one probably shouldn't enter a computer-based field.

Finally, on the subject of social ostracism, computer science can only temper the nerd stereotype by succeeding in a metric of high social status: money. Programming is a highly intellectual task; the only means to overcome this detriment to coolness is to market it as an economically successful field. Kids may be initially intrigued by flashy graphics, but the nerd quotient of the work increases as one delves into the field. To counteract this, these programs need to stress a computer scientist can get the thing everyone wants: money, which leads to social capitol. That's how to get people interested. Of course, if one doesn't possess the requisite intellectual ability, one won't succeed anyway.

The Revival of Bubblegum Pop

I've always had a fascination with the most bubblegum of pop music. I rarely enjoy it aesthetically, but rather from an academic point of view. This includes deconstructing the trends, analyzing the various social phenomenon that give rise to the most fervent of fandom, and understanding the basis of these wildly contagious memes. Whiskey's blog represents a good example of this exercise.

With this in mind, I asked my twelve-year old cousin to inform me of the current trends amongst her age group. She mentioned Miley Cyrus, the Jonas Brothers, and more mature acts like Beyonce and Jay-Z. Of course, I had a large measure of familiarity with these individuals, but not so for the act she considered the most popular: Justin Beiber, a seemingly prepubescent 15 year-old discovered by Usher. Baffled, I Youtubed him and found this video. Apparently, this melts the hearts of tween girls:


While Beiber's meteoric rise implies today's tween girls have a rather odd taste in pop megastars, it also may portend a coming bubblegum pop explosion. Bubblegum pop, typified by The Monkees, Debbie Gibson, New Kids on the Block, and NSYNC, comes in cycles, as the vapid, fickle tastes of tween girls can't be counted on for prolonged periods of time. The death of 1980's bubblegum came as the onset of Seattle grung directly opposed its wholesomeness. As that faded and the Spice Girls came to prominence, NSYNC and the Backstreet Boys, along with Britney, reigned over the most uber-successful era of bubblegum. These acts, unlike their predecessors, matured into either tabloid notoriety ala Britney or authentic musicianship ala Timberlake. But the Disney revolution in the mid-decade and the rise of Beiber currently may open the door for the ultimate act of bubblegum: the boy band.

The boy band represents the most shameless appeal to the tween girl's sensibility. The boy band eschews the controversial, offers music completely lacking in sexual explicitness, and embodies the socially benign. The carefully crafted image (will probably elaborate on this in another post) only engenders widespread hysteria if formulated in the right social environment. Perhaps this is the time for a revival of the boy band. If it is, someone is about to become very rich. I assure it won't be this guy though.

Update: Two hilarious boy band parodies - Conan O'Brien's Dudez a Plenti and MTV's 2ge+her.

Sunday Linkfest: Values, Gladwell, Boyle, and Gap Ad

I'll start by linking to a fellow blogger: Prime at the new Wordpress version of Beta Revolution. He discusses Robert Ringer's characterization of the West's downfall. The passage copied below resonated with me profoundly, as it underpins my entire political and personal philosophy, values I've had since I was a small child.

And those things being chipped away were: honesty, self-discipline, non-violence, self-sufficiency, the work ethic, respect for elders, aggrandizement of achievement, planning for the future, respect for the property of others, a stable economic system, reverence for the family unit, courtesy and consideration towards others, and above all, the right of the individual to be left alone.

A few weeks back, Sailer surmised that Gladwell's entire scope of reasoning ultimately reduced to opposing the connection between race and intelligence. In a discussion with Bill Simmons at ESPN.com, he corroborates this observation in a unaware manner reserved for only the most polite of PC intellectuals.

What we're talking about is what are called capitalization rates, which refers to how efficiently any group makes use of its talent. So, for example, sub-Saharan Africa is radically undercapitalized when it comes to, say, physics: There are a large number of people who live there who have the ability to be physicists but never get the chance to develop that talent.

Unrelated to the above, Bill Simmons is one of my all-time favorite writers. I have a sweet tooth for frivolous pop culture, a trait Mr. Simmons and I share. I never tire of his allusions to Teen Wolf and Rocky IV, two films I spent many a Saturday afternoon watching during my lazy youth.

Susan Boyle stayed atop the Album charts for the third consecutive week. While I've never opposed the image conscious marketing of today's music stars (whatever sells), it's refreshing to see a star made on talent alone. I can only describe her voice as angelic and her story as Rudy-esque. I can't imagine someone not getting chills watching her original audition.

Finally, while the war on the "War on Christmas" is dying, Gap sure gave O'Reilly and company some good material. I'm still struggling to comprehend the meaning of this ad. It seems to be a laughably ostentatious appeal to multiculturalism and anti-traditionalism. But at least it's catchy, in a cacophonous, grating, annoying type way.

Best and Worst Pundits

Saturday Audience Participation Post

A few years back, I was still in my apathetic phase concerning politics. At the same time, the American public witnessed the rise of Ann Coulter and her brash brand of conservatism. She became a ubiquitous force in political punditry, regularly appearing on talk shows espousing opinions entirely foreign to the polite mainstream rhetoric.

Coulter didn't eschew offering controversial statements, once advocating we "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." Such views, then largely dormant within my intellectual psyche, appeared sensible to me. The problem: Everyone else considered her a cantankerous nutjob. (I don't find Coulter's personality pleasant, but that doesn't diminish the strength of her arguments.) I would watch Coulter provide cogent arguments concerning single motherhood or liberal delusions, and while others would gasp in horror, I found myself nodding in agreement. She just made sense. So, that was my introduction to how everyone else views the anti-PC. My views on religion and eugenics evoked similar responses.

I don't consider Coulter a personally motivating figure (mostly reserved for Sailer and, increasingly, Auster), but the vitriolic response she garnered from just about everyone I knew did open my eyes to non-mainstream politics.

Today's question: What pundit, TV personality, politician, intellectual, or writer has influenced you the most? What pundit do you most enjoy reading? Also, just for fun, what pundit produces the worst garbage out there?

Sciencific Understanding from a Mexican Busboy

As I waited for Mexican takeout, I decided to make small talk with one of the guys working there so I brought up the World Cup. He got quite animated, telling me about his favorite players, teams, and the future of American soccer. He spoke broken English, so I struggled to comprehend what he was saying, but I caught this gem. While discussing the favorites for the 2010 Cup, he was pretty adamant that Argentina is a favorite. Here's his rationale:

They have the heart of the South American and the body of the European. They got both and that's what makes them the best. Best combination.

I smiled.

Noble Savages and Babies without Diapers

I've written before on the "noble savage" meme, such as the "Death by New Age" incident.

Thus, the oppressed non-whites and their noble savage wisdom must possess truths not readily available to the privileged Westerners. Further, the stodgy portrayal of Western science, with its empirical testing and data, speaks to a coldness perpetrated by an oppressive white ruling class. Contrastingly, the non-whites possess an exotic quality closer to the spiritual basis of man, not besmirched by the racist, classist, and sexist West.

Another recent instance of this phenomenon is the increased popularity of bare-foot running. This desire to live "naturally", a purposefully ambiguous term that roughly corresponds to an amalgamation of Gaiaism, New Age, and implicit multiculturalism, stems from a liberal rejection of Western norms. The non-Western norms of the noble savage, the mystical creation of Western sociology professors, gain credence. As I say above, the noble savage doesn't engage in the deleterious activities of the oppressive Western classes. While some use this idealism as justification for vegetarianism or marathon running, others take it a bit further. Notice even the Slate.com writer finds this proposition inane.

My partner and I are adopting twins! We plan to raise them without diapers. There's a method for this, and most of the world goes without diapers. We will also use only organic clothes and linens, and only natural wooden toys. I'm wondering how we can politely express this to the people attending our baby shower. It would seem a bit brash to simply tack a list of what we don't want to the bottom of the invitation. I'm afraid that giving no indication about our organic preferences would lead to us throwing out or giving away almost all of the gifts we receive, and that doesn't seem right, either.

Prudence responds in a classic sardonic tone, even mocking their extreme environmentalism.

It's true that there are swaths of the world—largely in rural Africa and Asia—where children go undiapered. However, in those places it's accepted that elimination means squat-and-go. (And I have the feeling that the villagers, given the choice, would take three years' worth of Pampers over a lifetime of carbon credits.)

The first time you take your undiapered duo to Whole Foods and they let fly on the organic arugula, the produce manager will communicate about eliminating you as a customer. I'm also trying to imagine the condition the twins will be in as you attempt to transport them from crib to car to grocery cart. As the mother of one, I'm here to tell you parenthood is hard enough without committing yourself to having your twins (twins!) defecate on your hemp clothing every time you pick them up. As for the baby shower, go ahead and register at Holier Than Thou Baby and have the host put out the word about your gift preferences.

This is an illustrative example of how ideology often trumps pragmatism (also a blight on mainstream conservatism). The proposed rationale for this downright stupid choice is mentioning how these "other cultures" do it. See that's it; other cultures do it, so it must be good. They also kill albinos for their body parts. Perhaps, they'll write Prudence about that next week.

[OT question: Are the general length of my posts about right or a little long?]

Jamaica vs. Singapore

A reader sent me this article on Jamaica vs. Singapore.

[W]e can contrast Jamaica and Singapore. Both are relatively tiny states, with under 5 million residents apiece. Upon Singapore’s independence in 1965—three years after Jamaica’s own establishment as a nation—the two nations were about equal in wealth. Both nations had a centrally located port, a tradition of British colonial rule, and governments with a strong capitalist orientation. (Jamaica, in addition, had plentiful natural resources and a robust tourist industry.) But four decades later, their standing was dramatically different: Singapore had climbed to a per capita GDP of $31,400, while Jamaica’s figure was only $4,800.

This is a fantastic real world trial of the HBD theory. Essentially, all variables besides racial demographics is controlled. The author, unwilling to wield the Razor of Occam, concludes the disparity manifests as a result of entrepreneurship laws.

But the disparate experiences of Singapore and Jamaica over the past four decades demonstrate why all of us should care about public efforts to stimulate entrepreneurship.

Perhaps this had some importance in the disparate economic trajectories. But more likely, all the wonderful theories and economic phenomena the author highlights derive from a rather simple root cause: racial intelligence differences. The political instability, corruption, lack of potent infrastructure are all caused by lower intelligence and arise much more often in populations with lower intelligence averages.

Of course, the "nurture" advocates will claim an inherited value system actually explains the differences in growth. But quite simply, I ask: how does value and encouragement make one intelligent or creative? The values argument presumes success is merely dependent on positive reinforcement rather than actual aptitude. Personalizing the issue represents an efficacious strategy for combating this idiocy.

As I argued in a previous post, math is "hard" because it has an objective right answer not amenable to subjective appraisals of correctness. So ask a person who is admittedly bad at math (any surprise most liberal creationists reside in sociology departments?) about his upbringing. Ask if he had been given an immeasurable amount of encouragement, could he have mastered college level math? The honest ones will say no and thus one wonders why the "values" argument applies to large groups and not individuals. If one can't drastically change an individual, then how can one change an entire population? In Real Education, Murray notes the most ambitious charter schools, the "stolen generation" kind, could only raise their students average score about 6-7% percentage points (note: scores were on left end of Bell curve where improvement is not g-loaded).

So Singapore vs. Jamaica represents yet another case study of real-life IQ viability. Ironically, the author, he of a libertarian bent, champions an open culture of business:

Resist the temptation to over-engineer. In many instances, government requirements that limit the flexibility of entrepreneurs and venture investors have been detrimental. It is tempting to add restrictions on several dimensions.

Policies of this sort, applied to the wrong populations, would actually cripple non-white, non-Asian nations. What low-IQ individuals need, whites and Asians included, is guidance and mild restriction to avoid engaging in analysis of which they're unqualified. Let me be blunt here: People are stupid and an entirely libertine economic and social system that ignores this truth is doomed to failure.

How Can you Fall in Love on TV?

Reality dating shows are quite an interesting slice of pop culture. Generally, these shows involve about 20 women vying to "win" the affection of a given D-list celebrity or an otherwise successful bachelor. The allure of these shows resides in the voyeurism it provides and, as is inevitable, the incessant drama amongst the competitors. But the public is also intrigued by these shows because they befuddle the viewer. How could so many women fall for a man in such a limited timespan and with limited contact between them? How could the strength of emotion felt by these women be sincere? How can one fall in love on TV, in front of cameras, with a horde of other women diverting the given man's attention?

It's pretty simple actually: the constructed environment of these shows parallels the proven strategies of Game. Three important factors of Game are inherent to any dating show.

Pre-Selection/Social Proof: Most normal people presume the presence of other contestants would dampen the ability to make a connection. Instead, it actually heightens this behavior, as it implies that this man is desired by other women. Once this trait is confirmed, the women view the man as a highly valued sexual commodity. Gamers use wing-woman and back stories to evoke similar responses in regular life.

Demonstration of Higher Value: The mere selection of the given man for a reality dating show implies higher value. Even if the man resides in the bottom realms of the celebrity hierarchy, the dating show has imbued him with status. The women are implicitly aware of this.

Qualification: In conjunction with demonstrating higher value, Game advises men to force women into qualifying themselves. The given woman seeks to win approval from the man, instead of the standard reverse approach. She not only views him as a higher valued commodity, but she lowers herself in the process. The rather rare female fear of rejection becomes an important aspect of the interaction. The dating show is set up explicitly in this manner, where the man rejects a potential suitor each episode. Thus, the women are under constant scrutiny and always eligible for rejection. The paranoia associated with this motivates the irrational love response.

While the audience is often confused as to the dynamics of these shows, sometimes the women themselves don't understand how they react. Yet, to those knowledgeable of Game, the histrionics of female dating show contestants is wholly explainable.

Politics and Science: Rational Conservative Skepticism

Here's a rather ironic article from Newsweek writer Sharon Begley entitled How Politics Changes Our View of Science. Take a guess where this is going. Awhile back, she criticized evolutionary psychology, a piece which Sailer subsequently skewered with the classic line: "So that's why 45 year old strippers make so much more money than 25 year old strippers!".

In her most recent anti-right attack, Ms. Begley depicts liberals as open-minded rationalists and conservatives as hidebound idiots.

Since people do not pore over oncology studies and reach their own conclusion on the credibility of the science, they have to trust experts—or not. And thus the partisan divide: Republicans tend to distrust "elites," especially now that the GOP is more Palin than George H.W. Bush or other scion of the white-shoe establishment. In the mammogram debate, that distrust encompasses pointy-headed scientists and makes those who disdain "the reality-based community.

[Liberals] are generally more open to new experiences and ideas, Jost and colleagues found in a 2003 study. [Conservatives] tend to be more conscientious, more energetic, and more emotionally stable, Jost later found, as did a 2007 study of 5,623 voters led by Chris Fraley of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

She continues, citing opposition to global warming as the chief piece of evidence. She then concludes conservatives reject global warming and other similar problems because it represents a failing of our current system. As I've stated before, such a view that conservatism obdurately adheres to tradition even in the face of failure doesn't encompass the entirety of the right. I'm a conservative simply because conservative institutions generally work, but in general, I'll champion a pragmatic solution even if it requires rejection of tradition. Ms. Begley ends with this gem:

It's comforting to believe our views on political and empirical questions are the product of rational thought and analysis. But belief doesn't make it so.

Let me go back to the beginning to put this quote into context. Ms. Begley remarks: "Republicans tend to distrust 'elites'". The Sarah Palin cohort of conservatives probably harbors some skepticism towards the academic and elite establishment. But is such incredulity warranted? A couple years ago, I would have answered a resounding no. Yet, my research into racial intelligence differences (primarily), global warming, AIDS funding, etc. have led me to believe the scientific establishment, supposedly the bastion of impartiality, represents an undeniably social enterprise. Scientists need funding and the funded research must square with the politically correct doctrine that runs our society. To ensure subsequent approval in their given field, they must produce results that don't disturb the status quo, those socially palatable ideas of today's pseudo-religions like Gaiasm, racial egalitarianism, and gender egalitarianism.

In the realm of politically impactful science, researchers understand their work will have practical implications. And if that work is supported by the government or done within a university, their results must conform to the present PC zeitgeist. If you think I'm exaggerating, look at the application for an NSF research grant.

All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. One of these is broader impacts: How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? Broadening opportunities and enabling the participation of all citizens, women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities, are essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.

Of course, they practice rampant affirmative action in giving out these grants as well. So conservative skepticism, from intellectually informed individuals, is wholly rational.

AIDS: How PC Affects Medicine and Health

Fantastic post from GuyWhite on AIDS and race/sexual orientation. The establishment has engendered mass hysteria over a problem primarily affecting two minority subgroups.

Imagine you are in New York City...you are 3 times more likely to get struck by lightning than to even walk by a white woman who has HIV without being a drug user or a prostitute.

The article has more shocking facts (though one commenter claims some of the statistics were misread). The amount of attention given to certain medical problems is undeniably affected by the politically correct doctrine.

Sunday Linkfest: Female Journalists, Female Violence, Howard Zinn, and "Rage of a Priveleged Class "

Yet another instance of Sailer's Law of Female Journalism comes from a Dear Abby type column in the UK (hat tip to Eileen). A robust 40 something man is afraid he's left too few progeny. He writes in asking for advice, citing the "continuation of his genetic lineage" as motivation:

There are a number of younger, healthier women available for me to choose from who could probably bear me more children and ensure the continuation of my genetic lineage. However I am tied up with notions of "love", "duty", "responsibility", "morality" and "guilt", but I am aware that these are just irrelevant Christian social hangovers. What should I do?

You seem very confident of the number of healthy women available to you for fertilisation; it sounds like you have acquired a harem! You are in your early 40s; your semen volume and your sperm motility (movement) will be falling as middle age spreads around the girth. Your best strategy is to support your wife enabling her to give her best to your son.

Let's summarize: You're 40, you should only pursue women in your age bracket. Younger women won't like you because your balls are shrinking. While the columnist may be supporting the notion of family, her sardonic opener leads me to believe she's bitter about young females' appeal.

MTV showcases the rampant glorification of female value in our media. "Snookie", a female cast member on the reality show Jersey Shore, got punched in the face after berating a man at a nightclub. MTV has removed the clip from next week's episode, citing the violent nature of the event. Of course, MTV reality shows have quite a history of absurdly violent scenes involving men, including a Real World: Austin episode where one cast member was punched and almost blinded by cracking his eye socket. MTV replayed the punch repeatedly throughout the episode, even in slow motion (can't find the clip online). Double standard once again.

Matt Damon is starting to irk me. He's now promoting Howard Zinn's Marxist fairy tale.

Matt was 5 years old at the time, and A People's History was far from finished. "When I was 10, I had one of the first copies of that book, and I took it to school on Columbus Day to read about Columbus to a shocked group of kids," the star told E! News. "The book's been a part of my life since then."

This is yet another sanctimonious, leftist actor who believes he has mandate to engender social change. The "book" he lauds is a polemic which glorifies the ever present "oppressed and silence" peoples. Zinn seeks to offer them a voice. As Churchill said: "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it." The architects of history, the ones filling classic and standard texts, are the successful pioneers of progress, not those that Zinn lionizes.

Finally, here's yet another article that ignores even the possibility of HBD. You've seen it before, so I'll refrain from carefully dissecting this idiocy.

The Black-White divide, to steal a phrase, this country's birth defect. (More accurately, it's one of two birth defects.) Some of it's greatest patriots--Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Frederick Douglass--were consumed by it. You can't understand presidential politics in the second half of the 20th century, without understanding the ghost of Jim Crow. You can't understand the American Revolution until you understand that a black man was one of the first people to die for America, and yet slavery is enshrined in the constitution.

You see, the entire narrative of America reduces to its racial sins.

And then following that, government--at every level--spent a century going to incredible lengths to engineer a black peasant class. When we ask questions like "Why are we still talking about race?" or "Why are black people still lagging?" or "Why am I responsible for what my grandparents did?" When we use cheap phraseology like "Achievement Gap" or "No Excuses," terms that reassure our most basic convictions about this country, it's worth considering that African-Americans spent roughly 350 years in bondage--literal and then virtual. This new thing, this experiment, is only 50 years in the making,

Pretty simple: HBD, Jews, Asians. If "history" precludes current success, then what of these groups? And when will the intervening time become substantial enough for "history" to no longer suffice as an excuse for black underachievement? When will whites be forgiven for the sins of their ancetors, when will this dubious birthright be expunged from America's record? In a nation dominated by PC, incessantly placating any non-white entities, one led by a black man yet still not pleasing its non-white members, I'm pessimistic that time will ever come.

What's your Guilty Pleasure?

Saturday Audience Participation

This Saturday, we'll lighten it up a bit. Ferdinand wrote yesterday about a new MTV reality series entitled Jersey Shore. It's about eight insufferable Italian-Americans, proudly self-proclaimed Guidos, "living it up" on the Jersey shore for the summer. Unless you've witnessed this travesty of humanity, you can't begin to fathom who these people are. Nonetheless, maybe due to voyeurism, maybe due to a relative ego boost, this show has quite the following amongst the growing list of detractors. Along with Lady Gaga and reading US Weekly, it's fast becoming a rather popular guilty pleasure.

So the question is: What's your guiltiest pleasure? What shallow and sophomoric pop culture offering do you imbibe? Please do not provide something obscure, as the word "guilt" implies others knowing of what you speak. For me, I have a soft spot for nineties Top 40.

(Oh and porn doesn't count.)

Tracy McGrady: Alll-Star by Default

Are people too stupid to vote? Yes.

Tracy McGrady is on track to start in the NBA All-Star game despite not playing yet this season. McGrady is nearing a return from microfracture knee surgery, but leads Steve Nash by more than 9,000 votes for the West's second guard spot.

It's likely due to Chinese voting, but similar situations have occurred previously when only Americans have been able to vote for All-Stars.

How Science Excites the Soul

Perusing through ScienceNews.org, I came across this article imploring everyone to experience the wonder of the cosmos.

But looking through a telescope can be a memorable experience, especially if the person peering into the eyepiece is properly instructed on how to see all that the telescope can reveal and is prompted to realize that the photons striking his or her retina have been traveling through space for seconds, or centuries, or longer. And all those photons, now collected by the telescope and concentrated into their eye, are in fact theirs and theirs alone to savor, as long as the memory lives.

The author continues, using a word often uttered by Carl Sagan, when discussing the insights science can offer:

Beyond the obvious romance of standing in the dark and viewing infinity,

But why does science, supposedly the domain of bland quantitative analysis, pique our imagination like it does? Why does the thought of endless space, an expanding universe, and the interconnections of matter provide undeniably "spiritual" emotions? Perhaps it's because humans evolved to explore, to desire the unknown and the vastness of space offers a glimpse into the ultimate undiscovered land.

I'm often awed by the singular brilliance of history's great mathematicians and physicists, those able to formulate precise laws to describe real world phenomenon. Tomorrow's physicists will delve into the most fundamental questions concerning how the universe formed and what forms the basics of matter. Maybe science excites the spirit because it's not really about the external, but ultimately, it's a question of where we come from and what we're made of.

War on Drugs and Liberal Oppostion

Over Thanksgiving, I had a few heated discussions with my very liberal sibling and another equally misguided relative. Both of them are ardent fans of The Wire and believe it depicts the government's culture of rampant corruption and the futility and deleterious "war on drugs". The "war on drugs" is one area where liberals all of sudden oppose government intervention. They transform into libertarians, descrying the use of force to manipulate personal choice. My sibling even went so far as to criticize the "Just Say No" campaign because apparently, we shouldn't inform children of the perils of drug addiction?

The war on drugs remain a contentious issue and, as with almost any hot button topic, it involves race, personal freedom and responsibility, use of force, low class behavioral norms, and other standard political arguments. Last week at NYU, six scholars debated whether America is to blame for Mexico's drug war. And some wonder why I believes liberalism implies an animus towards America.

If you look at any metric —the availability of drugs, the potency, the price—they suggest the drug war declared by Richard Nixon has failed, has done nothing to dampen demand, and has increased criminality. The effect outside the United States has been to internationalize the problem. We began by interdicting drugs in Miami, then moved offshore and to Central America. We had the heroic war of liberation in Panama, where [President] Manuel Noriega was indicted in a U.S. court for drug dealing. Then the supply shifted to Colombia, where the United States has now spent something like $10 billion, and the GAO recently reported it has had virtually no effect. So Mexico is only the last in a long line of these drug wars, and you have to ask: are we not in some way responsible? We are the largest consumer of drugs in the world. We have the largest supply of weaponry in the world. Two thousand guns cross the American border every day into Mexico. If the supply of weapons is coming from one place, and the demand for drugs is coming from one place, it seems self-evident that we are responsible.

OK, we needn't proceed with other arguments concerning the anti-drug war position. This encompasses basically every talking point. First, let me briefly summarize my position on the drug war. I generally have libertarian positions on most personal choice issues. You live your life, I live mine, just don't bother me. For "soft" drugs like marijuana, such a stance represents the most logical position. For "hard" drugs like cocaine or heroin, the societal implications are far more significant. The potency of these drugs and the value such potency affords it on the street makes these drugs a far-reaching problem beyond just drug users. While the government shouldn't delineate how a person acts, it can exercise force when those actions begin to affect others. Addicts of cocaine or meth inexorably affect the lives of others, through increased crime, welfare, STD rates, etc. Thus, as the government serves to protect its constituency, I fully support the war on hard drugs.

The most common rejoinder is bolded above in the first sentence: "The drug war doesn't do anything! It's still just as bad." The other side starts to get at the issue:

According to The New York Times, in the last seven years more than 100,000 soldiers have deserted the Mexican army. How many here think all of them turned in their guns? If you want to talk seriously about the drug war, you've got to talk about the institutionalized corruption within the Mexican government.

Now we're getting somewhere. The supposed failure of the drug war presumes a static situation in America. As we all know, the demographic and political shifts in the last 30 years have had grave effects on all aspects of life, including the virulence of drug addiction, increased acceptance of hedonistic liberalism, and the growing supply of these goods. What the pseudo-libertarian liberals overlook is that the drug war is likely depressing a problem that would be out of control if not for forceful intervention. The anti-drug agencies are fighting a growing problem, mostly fomented by Hispanic illegals and largely absent border control. Not only are we importing these individuals, we're importing the low-class standards and norms common amongst Mexican nationals. The standard for a drug war success must take into account the growing power of the opposition.

The other most frequent argument against the drug war is reproduced below:

The reason there are drug wars is because the drug trade is prohibited. Whether you think drugs should be legal or not, it's a fact that when you drive a market underground, it becomes violent. Why? Because participants cannot resolve their disputes with lawyers, or by complaining to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, but only by shooting each other.

I love the implication here: It's not their fault for shooting each other, it's America's. Many claim that the drug war actually causes drug violence. Perhaps, but what's the alternative? Importing hard drugs that will overtake cities, destroy communities, and depress culture. Completely removing any legal or social pressure against partaking in drug use? Is such a situation more appealing?

Liberals want to undermine any more of asceticism. It's Sluts Against Rape and Murphy Brown! Drugs represent one more hurdle towards a completely libertine existence with no boundaries on behavior. And I wonder who will foot the bill for drug induced health problems?

How HBD Denialists Argue

This is a guest post from frequent commenter 'Jay Silverheels', with my comments included in italics. As many have experienced in HBD related discussions, the liberal creationist is often a persistent and obfuscating sort of individual. Jay describes their argumentative strategies. The strategy I've encountered most frequently is when anti-race realists quibble over the most picayune of trivialities. The discussion then becomes completely bogged down in minutiae and the overall reality of race difference becomes irrelevant.

The "Climategate" scandal underscores the need for transparency and openness in the world of ideas. Nothing is more important for the progress of science than the willingness to be refuted – the definition of a theory is that it is potentially falsifiable.

The theory of human biodiversity is no exception. In fact, race realists and HBD proponents should welcome honest opposition, because a true and open debate can only benefit our side, by establishing ourselves as worthy contributors to the mainstream intellectual marketplace of ideas. Moreover, only a good debating partner can sharpen one's mental fencing foils.

But right now we are few, and our only place to exchange ideas is on blogs - anonymous blogs at that, because most of us can't afford to be publicly associated with the biggest taboo of all. Being and open HBD proponent is a career-killer. Just ask a certain Nobel Laureate.

Interlocutors employ a variety of dishonest debating methods to shut down debate, including but not limited to: evasion, denial, feint and derision, you should cease the debate and move on. When an HBD dissimulator attempts to force you to repeat basic points over and over, give up and move on before you become exasperated and exhausted. Communicating with a persistent denialist is like telling a particularly dense child how to add two and two over and over again. This is basically why I've just stopped participating in interminable discussions with liberal creationists on race. No argument or statistic ever satisfies them. When your interlocutor never actually makes a point of his own, hijacks the subject and forces it off-point, when he seizes upon minor side issues to distract, call it quits with a good conscience.

The following are examples of favored sneaky tactics of HBD denialists.

Focusing on a colloquialism rather than the subject:HBD Proponent: "No one is saying that blacks haven't suffered discrimination."

HBD Denier: "But Professor John Smith HAS said that blacks haven't suffered discrimination."

By offering an example of one person who has denied discrimination, HBD Denier pretends to have refuted HBD proponent's point about discrimination. HBD Proponent then has to explain the colloquialism: "No one is saying...." and make his point again in a different fashion, or rephrase the proposition: “Few people have denied that blacks have suffered....”

This is a clever way to create a minor pointless digression. Moreover, making the other guy respond to you is the essence of controlling the debate (or “discourse,” as liberals like to put it.) He who controls the debate is the default winner.

Personalizing issues. Example: You bring up the issue of black crime. You point out the massive disproportion between black crime rates and white crime rates, and between black-on-white crime, and white-on-black crime. The denier responds, “I have never excused a crime against a white person.” (This actually happened to me on Guy White's blog.) Of course, you never charged your interlocutor with personally excusing black crime, you were citing objective facts. Or stating, "What do you know? Do you have experience interacting with NAMs? Well how smart are you?

HBD deniers are masters at selective pattern recognition. To them, every incident of black-on-white crime is an isolated data point, while every incident of white-on-black crime is proof of a pattern of racism, even if the former vastly outweighs the latter. In my experience, the preferred denialist method of dealing with these uncomfortable fact is evasion. If you persevere and pose the question repeatedly, you end up looking like an unbalanced monomaniac persecuting an oppressed person of color. Often the HBD denialist engenders intense anger in the average HBDer and such intense rage can often lead one to corroborating the "you're just an angry racist" archetype.

Lastly, there's the “this issue is not important” line, usually used to dismiss the concept of IQ, heritability, and its ability to be tested. In other words, “let's not talk about what embarrasses me. Need I explain?

Constructive criticism and dissent are crucial to clear thought. Unfortunately I haven't run across an HBD denier who argues honestly and honorably. I can't recall many, though I have had discussions in real life with more honest individuals.

South Philly High Racial Attacks

There's been a recent trend in the mainstream media to just plainly ignore race when discussing violent crime. Even news reports that pertain to individuals still at large often don't include a racial description. In fact, it's now considered racist simply to relay facts concerning racial disparities in violent crime. And one must adhere to the idea that race is always completely orthogonal to the perpetrator's motivation.

With this i mind, here's a story about recent violence against Asian students at South Philly High school. Remember, there's nothing to see here. It's only your lying eyes.

Dozens of Asian students were attacked and beaten in the hallways of South Philadelphia High School by a gang of other students [Wonder who this "gang" might be.] Thursday.

Members of the South Philly Asian community say this is not uncommon [it's just a coincidence that Asians are always targeted], reports the Daily News.

A counselor at the Chinatown Development Corporation says 26 Asian students [remember, just a coincidence they were all Asian], many of whom are recent immigrants, were attacked in the school that has a violent history.

District officials say 10 students were suspended as a result of the assaults, but the high school’s principal declined to comment on the incidents. School officials told NBC Philadelphia that the 10 suspended students will be transferred to an alternative school and their names will be given to police for possible criminal prosecution [So rape SUSPECTS can have their name defamed, but the details of the "alleged" attack and these savages' identities are protected].

Though district officials told NBC Philadelphia they do not believe the attacks were racially motivated. [And here it is!] Xu Lin, of the Chinatown Development Corporation, who works with victimized students, told the Daily News that Asian teens at South Philadelphia High School live in fear every day .

"It's very, very scary," Lin told the Daily News, saying that he repeatedly was beaten up when he attended South Philly High. "You go to school and you don't know when you'll be attacked."

The school, which is 18 percent Asian [OK, what about the other 82%, wonder what racial group they belong to?], has been designated “persistently dangerous” by the state in the past three years, though one district official says assaults at the school are down 50 percent from last year.

"We didn't come from China to fight [no, just to fill up your elite universities and return home when our visa ends]," Wei Chen, who founded the Chinese-American Student Association after last year's attacks, told the Daily News.

Many of the students who were assaulted opted to stay home from school Friday.

[In regards to the last remark, I welcome a limited number of already educated, highly intelligent Asian immigrants.]

Ebonics: Setting the Standard Too Low

I spend most of my Sunday watching football. Today, in the Eagles vs. Falcons game, Michael Vick made his return to Atlanta. The crowd response, in this burgeoning black metropolis, had rather obvious undertones of race. I could delve into this issue and if anyone wants to, feel free to give your opinion in the comments. But instead, I'll point to a sign held up during the game:


Assuming the sign wasn't written as an imperative sentence, this woman committed the most egregious grammatical error possible. Conjugation represents the most basic set of rules of proper speech. I'll grant a reprieve if a more complex sentence doesn't have subject-verb agreement (I probably do it), but one can't formulate a more rudimentary sentence than the above.

The question is: Can we excuse such unbelievable ignorance? First, let's assume this error implied gross ignorance and not carelesslessness. To put that into a better context, even if she had constructed the sign in a perfunctory manner, the sentence above is equivalent to writing "1 + 1 = 5". Obviously, she learned this formulation through ghetto speech patterns generally referred to as Ebonics. One could argue that all language is reduced to arbitrary laws that only have value commensurate with their acceptance by others. So the notion that this represents a failing of language (or more generally a failing of the ability to communicate) is orthogonal to the discussion. Simply, we got her message.

The bigger question is whether or not she is to blame for such idiocy and whether we should accept it as "just the way it is". Likely, she grew up in the ghetto, was only exposed to this verbiage at home, and converses with acquaintances who purposefully make the same errors. (Note it's unlikely this woman actually resides in the lowest income bracket as good seats at an NFL game don't come cheap.) So her entire life has been lived in a bubble where everyone regularly butchers the language.

Still, even as an HBDer, such a standard where society actually accepts blacks not learning the basics of proper English (and don't give me this relativism crap, there's a set of rules to English) is mind bogglingly low. This post was motivated by a discussion I had with my ultra-liberal sibling who actually didn't see anything wrong with this. The response: "Well, she's black, what do you expect? You can't expect her to learn regular English." In this exchange, we see liberals sometimes illustrate an honest acceptance of HBD. Blacks can, and assuredly should, learn the most basic means of communicating in a mainstream setting. To classify such a task as impossible is ludicrous.

For this woman to not have learned the proper conjugation of "love" means she hasn't read a book, conversed with any non-Ebonics speaker, never gone to a bank, heard a politician speak (this may have been true until last year!), etc. One could also point to the multitude of minority children who learn two languages (ghetto Jews in Germany, Chinese immigrants' children, etc.). Accepting the relevant statement as an acceptable standard of communication is below even something I would propose.

Sunday LinkFest: Tiger, Birthers, Knox, Blow

Quick thoughts on some recent stories:

Two more attractive women are being rumored as mistresses of Tiger Woods. He has built quite a harem. I'm pretty ambivalent on the matter. Is cheating a moral wrong? Yes because it undermines the stable forming unit of society (family) and it represents one reneging on a promise. In my life, when I say I'm going to do something, I do it. It's that simple. Many people all too often trivialize the importance of one's word. However, even with his stunning wife, how can a man realistically avoid the immensity of temptation he faces?

At the Huffington Post, they're going crazy over Palin's neutral stance on the Birther Controversy.

As much as it shouldn't -- as much as I should just chalk it up to a brand of delusion that I'll never be able to successfully confront and vanquish -- for some reason the Sarah Palin Birther thing has been bugging the hell out of me.

But the thought of Palin -- who opportunist or not has never been the highest-caliber rifle on the rack -- really giving credence to and therefore perpetuating the utterly debunked myth that Barack Obama may not be a U.S. citizen somehow seems, even after all we've seen and heard from her, oddly unfathomable.

I have never contended that Obama is not an American citizen. Yet, I still can't rationalize why his birth certificate isn't a public document. In the article, the author alludes to a non-partisan group corroborating the existence of his birth certificate. OK, why must I, and the American public, be forced to accept this? Why hasn't Obama simply released it, going on TV presenting his birth certificate (and his college transcripts like every other US President) and saying, "Here it is assholes." Why must I rely on secondary sources to confirm one of the only stipulations for being President (age 35, born in America)? It makes no sense and one needn't be an ardent birther to feel exasperated with the Obama administration's opaqueness.

In a story I have barely followed, American college student Amanda Knox was convicted of murder last week in Italy. Something fishy went on there, but it seemed little physical evidence implicated Knox. The case against her amounted to the prosecutor conjuring up a lurid narrative involving Knox, her ex-boyfriend, and another man. I imagine she had some role in the death or coverup, but it seemed the reasonable doubt standard wasn't passed. I'm surprised the Roissysphere hasn't covered this trial more: pretty American party girl with a sense of entitlement potentially leading to a murder vilified by a foreign media.

And finally, my favorite NYT opinion columnist, Charles M. Blow. Seems like the post-racial utopia isn't coming to fruition. Guess who's to blame:

The racial animosity that Obama’s election has stirred up may have contributed to a rallying effect among blacks. According to a Gallup report published on Nov. 24, Obama’s approval rating among whites has dropped to 39 percent, but among blacks it remains above 90 percent.

However, the rallying creates a conundrum for blacks: how to air anxiety without further arming Obama’s enemies. This dilemma has rendered blacks virtually voiceless on some pressing issues at a time when their voices would have presumably held greater sway.

The Age of Obama, so far at least, seems less about Obama as a black community game-changer than as a White House gamesman. It’s unclear if there will be a positive Obama Effect, but an Obama Backlash is increasingly apparent. Meanwhile, black people are also living a tale of two actions: grin and bear it.

Politics and Genes

Saturday Audience Participation Post

There's been recent research on the supposed heritability of political persuasion.

"Political tendencies are like being left-handed or right-handed -- you're born feeling more natural using one hand or the other," says John Alford, a political scientist at Rice University. "It doesn't mean you can't switch -- for many years lefties were taught to be righties. But it's not easy."

It's a classic dispute of nature versus nurture, and it was Alford's study on nearly 10,000 twins that started the debate three years ago. The study showed identical twins, who share all the same genes, are more likely to share political views than fraternal twins, who share only about 50 percent of their genes.

In a study published last year in the journal Nature Neuroscience, the researchers found that liberals and conservatives processed information differently. Specifically, they found differences in activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, an area of the brain that processes conflicting information.

David Amodio, an assistant professor of psychology at New York University, and lead author of the study, says these results suggest that liberals and conservatives have some basic brain differences -- and those differences are influenced by our genetic makeup.

Of course, the liberal creationists hastily dismisss this supposed reductionism.

“It doesn’t make any sense [Of course, he doesn't give a reason.], and it’s historically inaccurate. Any similarities found in twins’ political beliefs can be attributed to environment, not genetics," Evan Charney, a professor of political science at Duke said. "These are very facile studies that make outrageous claims"

Dr. Alford, likely a closet HBDer elucidating a less contentious connection than that between race and intelligence, offers a fitting and caustic rejoinder:

“We can’t just fall for the fairy tale that all people are genetically identical,” Hibbing said. “Willful ignorance is unforgivable.”

So the question is simple: What are the political leanings of your close family relatives, especially those of your siblings? Do you share political perspectives or do you constantly argue concerning hot button issues? What is the general political environment of your family? Is political discussion encouraged or is it considered impolite?

For me personally, my sibling is like Bizzaro OneSTDV. Essentially every single viewpoint I have, my sibling disagrees, including actually campaigning for Obama last year. My family as a whole is largely politically apathetic. I have cousins who are staunch Republicans who voted for Bush twice and the rest of the family finds this somewhat amusing, though several voted for McCain last November. Mostly, they're nominal Democrats with very little political passion.