Obama: No "Us" vs. "Them"

In two posts this week, I've stressed the importance of knowing the basic motivations and values of America's elite. And while the elite, buttressed by a liberal zeitgeist they've help create, aren't known for discreetness, they will sometimes present a less than honest outward front. In the current political landscape with populist ire continuing to bubble, liberal politicians have begun engaging in this type of obfuscation.

Yesterday, Obama made some statements on illegal immigrants:

“Let’s provide a pathway to citizenship for those who are already here, understanding that they broke the law, so they’re going to have to pay a fine and pay back taxes and, I think, learn English, make sure that they don’t have a criminal record,” said Obama. “There are some hoops that they’re going to have to jump through, but giving them a pathway is the right thing to do.

Liberalism works via persistence. They start with some reasonable, yet ultimately harmful initiative, then slowly and gradually become more radical as public opinion shifts. Above, Obama presents a speciously reasonable plan that will, no doubt, ultimately lead to full, unencumbered amnesty for illegals. But he continues and makes the following statement that one can only understand in the context of modern liberal thought:

“Now, unfortunately, right now this is getting demagogued,” Obama said. “A lot of folks think it’s an easy way to score political points is by trying to act as if there’s a ‘them’ and an ‘us,’ instead of just an ‘us.’ And I’m always suspicious of politics that is dividing people instead of bringing them together. I think now is the time for us to come together.”

To the idealistic moderates and apathetics, this is nothing more than a feel-good, Disney type appeal for "can't we all just get along." But to the informed, Obama is clearly appealing to a globalist conception of man. Now before you accuse me of Alex Jones, New World Order lunacy here, I mean that Obama believes borders and nations have no pragmatic, intrinsic, or moral value. To him, there is no "us" vs. "them" simply because the American people and their country exist as a mere conduit for the success of others (mostly third-worlders). In essence, "we" doesn't really exist as "we" have no moral autonomy.

By rejecting this salient distinction, Obama champions the neocon/liberal idea of a proposition nation. And as I've said before, "[t]he "proposition nation" fails due to its inherent globalism."

Rule 5 Post

I don't have time to write a post, so I'll just abide by Rule 5. The following picture (LSFW?), which IMO symbolizes the ideal feminine aesthetic, is dedicated to all the feminists who grouse that men are only attracted to stick-thin anorexic types.

The Elite Bubble: America Has Been Duped

In yesterday's post, I lamented the disconnect between America's elite and its middle class. In general, the elite insulate themselves inside a leftist bubble where any conservative position is rejected without pause. This schism precludes the elite from understanding the concerns of America's plebeians and their political decisions reflect this ignorance. Yet, what of the opposite phenomenon whereby an elite engages in harmful machinations while a naive public unknowingly complies?

Politico reports on a poll showing most likely voters are largely unaware of the depth of leftist lunacy as illustrated by MSNBC, Rachel Maddow, and Keith Olbermann.

The poll found that 81 percent of those polled get their news about the midterm elections from cable channels, like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, or their websites, compared with 71 percent from national network news channels, such as ABC, NBC or CBS, and their websites.

Among cable news channels, Fox was the clear winner, with 42 percent of respondents saying it is their main source, compared with 30 percent who cited CNN and 12 percent who rely on MSNBC.

As for popular political personalities, here's those results:

Bill O’Reilly was rated as having, by far, the greatest positive impact, with 49 percent of respondents rating him positively, and 32 percent negatively. Glenn Beck was the second most-positively rated personality, with 38 percent of respondents saying he had a positive impact, and 32 percent saying he had a negative impact. Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh was the third-most-positively ranked, with 36 percent saying he has a positive impact on the discourse, but his negatives far outweighed his positives, with 52 percent saying he has a negative impact.

MSNBC’s personalities were largely ranked as unknown by respondents: 70 percent said they had never heard of Ed Schultz, 55 percent said they had never heard of Rachel Maddow and 42 percent said they had never heard of Keith Olbermann.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about Obama as the most important conservative political figure, primarily because he so wonderfully represents the anti-American elite.

To my politically ignorant friend, the notion that the white elite, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Harry Reid, seek the same anti-American and anti-white policies as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson is simply untenable. The masses, removed from elite academia and largely unaware of Keith Olbermann's latest scornful prattling, can't fathom what the leftist zeitgeist has done to American politics. But when the valiant political Messiah won the Presidency amid an unparalleled fervor, these dormant conservatives couldn't help but notice.

The elite have never been a wholly trusted cadre amongst middle-class Americans, but the current populist uprising has taken this incredulity to an unprecedented level. Perhaps such ire derives from an awakening brought forth by Obama and the frustration at finally realizing what the elite has been doing all these years. Whatever the reason, the elite's furtive dealings have been exposed and the populace will hopefully hold them accountable for their transgressions.

The Elite Bubble: Colbert Testifies before Congress

Last week, Stephen Colbert testified on immigration reform and the hiring of illegal immigrant farm workers at a House judiciary committee. Colbert stayed in his conservative firebrand character throughout the testimony. Now, if you're wondering how such a farcical spectacle came about, the following quotes won't help.

the obvious answer is for all of us to stop eating fruits and vegetables...And if you look at recent obesity statistics, you'll see that many Americans have already started.

I certainly hope that my star power can bump this hearing all the way up to C-SPAN1.

Maybe the easier answer is to have scientists create vegetables that pick themselves.

Colbert says he was a "corn-packer that day," but understands it is a term for a "gay Iowan, and meant no offense."

Obviously, Colbert and the idiots who invited him made a mockery of this very important issue. In general, Colbert champions liberal policies by playing a prevaricating characterization of right-wing conservatives, using purposeful misinterpretations to garner laughs. By making conservatives the butt of the joke, Colbert doesn't even engage with the actual arguments, but instead precludes those he mocks from gaining social capital. In a democracy, a strategy like this one, evoking a basic need for social approval, works.

But Colbert's cursory dismissal of immigration restriction arguments isn't the only lesson learned from this charade. Note that there were actually House Democrats who believed this was a good idea. These Ivory Tower individuals view the concerns of middle America (broadly defined) as worthy of contempt, not consideration. In inviting Colbert and tacitly defining immigration restriction arguments as idiotic, they illustrate the limitless gap between the elite and everyone else. They can't even fathom normal, upstanding citizens advocating these positions. They can't fathom the personal affect engendered by unfettered immigration, manifested in occupational, residential, and cultural contexts.

Is it any wonder then that the Tea Party and other populists continually mention elite treason?

[Though even some Democrats have softly criticized the testimony.]

How Liberals View Education Reform

In Newsweek, Jonathan Alter illustrates the blithe delusion underpinning education reform. He waxes romantic sans evidence, declares initiatives effective without appeal to data, and champions reforms as inexorably successful despite 40 years of stagnating test scores.

My favorite part of the new documentary Waiting for Superman comes just after the audience learns that American students rank far below other advanced countries in math and science. Then, with footage of Jackass-style daredevils trying and failing to perform various ambitious stunts, we see that American teens do rate No. 1 in one area—self-confidence. Even when they’re 12th or 18th or 21st in some academic category, they still think they’re No. 1.

A cohort of children who bombastically proclaim their undue preeminence? Anyone want to wager a guess as to the makeup of these individuals (bonus points for anyone willing to corroborate my suspicions by enduring the movie).

The good news, which should in-spire a little hope (though not the usual complacent overconfidence), is that the education-reform movement in the United States—the most critical social movement of our time—has made more progress in the last year than in the previous 10.

According to Mr. Alter, shuffling around papers is equivalent to arranging them in an organized fashion.

Waiting for Superman (full disclosure: I appear in the film, directed by Davis Guggenheim) doesn’t cover Obama, but it’s a terrific primer on the political and institutional forces at work, as well as a heartbreaking human story.

I previously discussed the mendacious presentation of the "Harlem Miracle". Pretty underwhelming for something lauded as the ultimate solution to the most intractable of gaps.

Obama’s engine of reform, Race to the Top, has been phenomenally successful in using a relatively small pot of money, $4.4 billion from the 2009 stimulus package, to leverage a huge amount of change in education.

Umm, wouldn't the marker of "success" be something like quantitative increases in test scores and not merely instituting educational reforms that "experts" predict will engender such change? I'll bet Mr. Alter 100 million of Mark Zuckerberg's money that nothing will change.

The key to saving kids and thus the future of the country is to foster good teaching.

Well I have some other ideas, but I imagine Mr. Alter isn't open to listening.

When we look up in the sky, Superman isn’t coming. But a social movement “more powerful than a locomotive” is headed down the tracks, if only we’ll hop aboard.

Does repeating something endlessly make it true?

Teh Gays and Don't Ask Don't Tell

Saturday Audience Participation

So I realized I've written almost no posts about gays and lesbians. Well, I wrote a post on that crusading Uganda pastor, but mostly that was an excuse to highlight the phrase "eatin da poo poo". Other than, I've largely avoided the topic even though the normalization of homosexuality constitutes one facet of the post-60s progressive revolution.

Two recent stories deal with homosexuality and the potentially sobering truths of this biological "difference". First, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is under attack and Lady Gaga has taken up the fight. Second, in even more surprising news, a lot of gay men have AIDS. I'd comment on these stories, but since it's audience participation day I'll go Socratic here and allow the readers to do so.

Today's Questions: Are you teh gay? How do you resolve your presumed right-wing politics with your homosexuality? Ironic that leftists all of a sudden care about the military? Is DADT a good policy and will repeal of it disrupt military processes (a full quarter of military respondents would quit upon repeal of law)? Are we also discriminating against, via the social shame directed towards anyone openly admitting such deviancy, those with a sexual attraction to morbidly obese fatties, dressing up as a baby, and comic book porn? So lots of gay men have AIDS, surprised?

No Risk Opener for Approaching Women

In courting nubile young women, especially in contexts without prior social proof, the initial approach is sometimes an indomitable barrier many men never successfully bypass. Pick-up Artists and Game connoisseurs have dubbed this intense fear "approach anxiety." Much of pick-up "scholarship" deals with dampening this natural apprehension, primarily through packaged openers and heavily scripted routines.

But today, to my loyal readers, I give you the absolute easiest "opener" ever. In fact, this opener is not only extremely successful, but it involves absolutely no risk whatsoever. The ratio of success to risk, which essentially underpins the desire for men to engage in pick-up in the first place, is far greater than any other option. I describe the "opener" below:

Stand in the vicinity of the target along with a partner (male or female, doesn't matter). Your body language should be slightly open and facing the woman you intend to engage with. In a loud and authoritative, but conversational tone as to not rouse her suspicions, declare an interesting fact to your friend or ask your friend an open-ended question. Preferably it is relevant to your surroundings and of interest to a general audience. Remember to enunciate clearly and ensure you speak loudly enough so that she will hear it.

If you have chosen the proper fact or question, the target will undoubtedly hear it and, if piqued, will answer or inquire about said statement. This easily segues into a conversation about the germane topic and subsequent rapport building. Further, you needn't search for something she likes because she wouldn't have responded if she wasn't already interested. If the target is not interested, well you didn't approach her so you've lost nothing.

Simple, no risk, and effective. [And yes, I tried this successfully with a cute cashier a few weeks ago.]

GOP's Pledge to America and the Importance of Social Conservatism

Yesterday I discussed the failings of "Constitutional conservatism". Today, House Republicans released a document entitled Pledge to America detailing their agenda for this election cycle. It begins:

With this document, we pledge to dedicate ourselves to the task of reconnecting our highest aspirations to the permanent truths of our founding by keeping faith with the values our nation was founded on, the principles we stand for, and the priorities of our people. This is our Pledge to America.

According to CBS News, the highlights include mostly economic issues:

Jobs:
- Stop job-killing tax hikes
- Allow small businesses to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their income
- Require congressional approval for any new federal regulation that would add to the deficit
- Repeal small business mandates in the new health care law.

Cutting Spending:
- Repeal and Replace health care
- Roll back non-discretionary spending to 2008 levels before TARP and stimulus (will save $100 billion in first year alone)
- Establish strict budget caps to limit federal spending going forward
- Cancel all future TARP payments and reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

One notes a few apparent omissions (immigration), primarily a result of the economic bent designed to appeal to recession-affected voters. A late addition to the document appeals to social traditionalism:

"to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values."

A brief observation on social conservatism: I've argued for social conservatism despite having no religious qualms about a more sexually and morally libertine America. I've done so for a number of reasons. First, I simply don't want to live in a society where Lady Gaga or Madonna before her are exalted as brazen and venerable people. I don't want my popular culture Victorian, but it's simply unsettling (perhaps irrationally so) to see such ostentatious displays of social pathology in popular contexts.

Second, social conservatism is the most efficacious means to dampen potentially depressive consequences of capitalism. While America owes much of its success to free markets, individuals will surely take advantage of such an open system. This manifests in evidently economic situations, such as outsourcing of jobs and hiring of illegals, but also in regards to culture and its correspondence with politics (huge topic regarding race, gender, normalization of social pathology, and its affect on policies).

Basically, individuals will seek profit by pushing forth sensationalistic products and in the absence of social shame, the public will gladly imbibe. So porn goes from the clandestine movie theater to the cineplex, Father Knows Best turns into According to Jim, and Morgan Freeman is God and the President. Why do these memes persist, undermining culture, societal stability, and ultimately embedded into laws like anti-male divorce, affirmative action, and the welfare state? It makes money and there's no reason for anyone to stop because social shaming no longer exists.

Problems with "Founding Principles" Conservatism

Mainstream conservatives often express reverence for the Constitution and a return to the "founding principles." A Tea Party in Nevada echoes this sentiment:

[T]he two men agree on one thing: A need to return to fiscal responsibility, free markets and a constitutionally limited government.

So he started the Yuba-Sutter Tea Party Patriots, "ordinary citizens reclaiming America's founding principles."

Of course, I applaud such policies. America must reclaim its meritocracy, allowing open competition and pervasive ascendancy amongst its people. It is this idea, that a person's own hard work defines his success, that ultimately allowed America to progress further than its European peers. Yet, the libertarian, mainstream conservative outlook on America goes too far and imbues limited government policies with omnipotent power in shaping behavior. Mainstream conservatives replace the nanny state government with personal responsibility, a much better alternative means to motivating citizens, but still dismissive of real world truths. In point of fact, one can't blithely ignore the context of our founding documents and the assumptions built into the diktats therein.

The Founding Fathers lived in a time period where no one could fathom the current situation. They lived in a time period when "We" referred only to property-owning white males. They would find our contemporary political and social environment, including misandric child custody and divorce, glorification of "magic negroes" and black neurosurgeons, and rampant redistribution schemes to "underperforming (racial) groups," appalling if not wholly implausible. Further, even the most prescient early American leaders could not have foreseen our increasing globalism and imposed multiculturalism.

As a result, the Founding Fathers have nothing to say on many of our current controversies. And because of this, early American documents are an incomplete guide in shaping current policy, especially in the context of HBD and its commensurate implications for societal stability. Frequent OneSTDV commenter 'mike' pithily observes:

And, unfortunately, that's exactly what most of them expect to happen once they defeat "the welfare state" and get minorities off "the liberal plantation." Mainstream conservatives are just utopian fantasists of another stripe.

The problem with conservative liberal creationism is twofold. First, as mike states, underperforming minority groups won't magically start graduating college at rates equal to that of whites and Asians or behave properly in school. Second, if all mainstream conservatives focus on is "founding principles", then they ignore the consequences of imposed diversity and importation of third-world peoples. They don't call them "liberaltarians" for nothing.

This short-sightedness is why I'm encouraged by the growing social conservatism of the Tea Party. What began as a Ron "Ground Zero Mosque is awesome!" Paul-inspired libertarian movement has morphed into a more socially conservative movement (yes I like Christine O'Donnell). And while they continue to bend over backwards to the PC, social conservatism can act as a proxy for the kind of HBD-inspired policies we need.

Exercise Won't Make You Thin

More debunking of health myths: Exercise does not affect weight loss. The article lays out a remarkably simple, yet convincing, argument for this heterodoxy.

From StairMasters to kettlebells, Rosemary Conley to Natalie Cassidy, we understand and expect that getting in shape is going to require serious effort on our part – and the reverse is true, too, that we expect exercise to pay back the hours of boring, sweaty graft with a leaner, lighter body. Since the days of the Green Goddess, we've known that the healthiest way to lose weight is through exercise. It's science, isn't it?

More and more research in both the UK and the US is emerging to show that exercise has a negligible impact on weight loss. That tri-weekly commitment to aerobics class? Almost worthless, as far as fitting into your bikini is concerned. The Mayo Clinic, a not-for-profit medical research establishment in the US, reports that, in general, studies "have demonstrated no or modest weight loss with exercise alone" and that "an exercise regimen… is unlikely to result in short-term weight loss beyond what is achieved with dietary change."

Basically, diet remains the most important factor in determining weight loss. Killing oneself on the treadmill or jogging long distances may actually harm the human body. The article explains it in rudimentary detail.

Most of us have a grasp of the rudiments of weight gain and loss: you put energy (calories) into your body through food, you expend them through movement, and any that don't get burned off are stored in your body as fat. Unfortunately, the maths isn't in our favour. "In theory, of course, it's possible that you can burn more calories than you eat," says Dr Susan Jebb. "But you have to do an awful lot more exercise than most people realise. To burn off an extra 500 calories is typically an extra two hours of cycling. And that's about two doughnuts."

The fitness establishment repeats the aphorism that you must burn off more calories than you eat. Surprisingly (or not), such obvious idiocy has gone unnoticed for many years. First, as stated above, it's impractical to complete this goal. Second, and more simply, the body needs calories to function properly. Much of our energy intake goes to the brain and the rest of the body demands nutrients as well. If one burned all of the calories one eats, these vital organs would have no fuel with which to function. To illustrate the diet vs. exercise dichotomy further:

"If you want to lose a pound of body fat, then that requires you to run from Leeds to Nottingham, but if you want to do it through diet, you just have to skip a meal for seven days."

Of course, all of this research substantiates paleo wisdom and evinces the rampant bias of establishment science. I've already analyzed the motivations for championing vegetarianism and heavy cardio, so peruse those posts for discussion of that. Basically, mainstream science wishes to undermine masculinity and lionize (a crude representation of) non-Western indigenous populations.

Yet despite basic objections to the exercise paradigm, weight loss shows and companies still champion the "run till you drop" mentality. I've seen numerous shows with fatties exercising so intensely that they collapse; but, somehow, no one pauses and engages in just a little skeptical thinking.

The Tea Party Sucks - And Other Insightful Commentary

Writing at Slate.com, Jacob Weisberg (no comment) attacks the Tea Party or, in the impossibly puerile jargon of the left, teabaggers. He brings up a number of points. I respond below:

So who are these people and what do they want from us? A series of polls, as well as be-ins like Glenn Beck's Washington rally last month, have given us a picture of a movement predominated by middle-class, middle-aged white men angry about the expansion of government and hostile to societal change.

I've yet to read an article criticizing the Tea Party that doesn't mention "angry, middle-aged white men." (Like the Founding Fathers?) I imagine this is supposed to undermine their credibility.

It's an unorganized and unorganizable community of people coming together to assert their individualism and subvert the established order. But where the New Left was young and looked forward to a new Aquarian age, the Tea Party is old and looks backward to a capitalist-constitutionalist paradise that, needless to say, never existed. The strongest note in its tannic brew is nostalgia. Tea Partiers are constantly talking about "restoring honor," getting back to America's roots, and "taking back" their country.

More shaming language and some revisionist history regarding a "country that never existed". Weisberg points to the admittedly ambiguous slogans of "taking back the country". The Tea Party, desperate to avoid extremism smears (how's that working out?), use such ill-defined language because you can't talk about what those phrases actually mean.

Other than nostalgia, the strongest emotion at Tea Parties is resentment, defined as placing blame for one's woes on those either above or below you in the social hierarchy. This finds expression in hostility toward a variety of elites: the "liberal" media, "career" politicians, "so-called" experts, and sometimes even the hoariest of populist targets, Wall Street bankers. These groups stand accused of promoting the interests of the poor, minorities and immigrants—or in the case of the financiers, the very rich—against those of hard-working, middle-class taxpayers.

More shaming via the use of "resentment." If someone commits a moral wrong and another person justifiably condemns said wrong, how is that "resentment?" As for his main point about Tea Party ire towards the "elite", such admonishment and incredulity is warranted given the liberal undermining of these institutions. Reactionary movements of the past didn't fight a state-run media or an extremist academia bent on pushing whatever liberal fantasy suits their aims. And an educational money funneled only to failing schools and NAMs, freedom of association only for blacks, and all sorts of social pathologies that seep into the mainstream. So why then should the Tea Party venerate institutions that have long since abandoned them?

Anti-elitism defined in cultural terms is hardly a fresh theme for Republicans. But here, too, the Tea Partiers take it to a new level. The most radical statement of individualism is choosing your own reality, and to some in the Tea Party, the very fact that experts believe something is sufficient to disprove it.

When the elite engage in baseless invective and frame your constituency as stupid, unrefined, and hate-filled, is reactive enmity justified? When the entire cultural framework of the nation smears you and glorifies the unproductive and socially destructive, should one merely accept it lying down?

The media's insistence that Barack Obama was born in the United States, or that he is a Christian rather than a Muslim, merely fuels their radical skepticism. Other touchstones of the movement's separate reality include the view that Obama has a secret plan to deprive Americans of their guns, that global warming is a leftist hoax.

Can't imagine where anyone got those crazy ideas.

Nostalgia, resentment, and reality-denial are all expressions of the same underlying anxiety about losing one's place in the country or of losing control of it to someone else. When you look at the surveys, the Tea Partiers are not primarily the victims of economic transformation, but rather people whose position is threatened by social change.

"Nostalgia, resentment, and reality-denial" - yet more shaming language. Is Mr. Weisberg going to offer an actual counter-argument or just continue to illustrate why the Tea Party hates media? And is a majority demographic morally permitted to have "anxiety about losing control of it to someone else?" If a majority demographic and their attendant cultural, religious, social, and political edifices have always defined a nation, then doesn't that count for something? Or at least, aren't they justified in opposing change in order to maintain their way of life, their economic systems, and basically how the country runs. Let me answer for Mr. Weisberg: America exists as an entity for the betterment of others, primarily non-white peoples, and thus all collective interests of natives (even if they merely want a libertarian, pro-Western meritocracy) have no moral worth.

Because racial bias is unacceptable both in American political culture and in an individualist ideology, Tea Partiers don't say directly what Pat Buchanan used to: that moving from a predominantly white Christian nation to a majority nonwhite one is a bad thing and should be stopped.

The Tea Party can't stop prostrating itself towards minorities (Jews are up next!), yet this false portrayal continues. Of course, Mr. Weisberg accepts the evident idea that diversity equals vibrancy and god forbid anyone oppose such sagacity. To leftists like Mr. Weisberg, America does not, and has not, ever existed. It's that simple. America is stolen land by a rapacious peoples and now we must rectify these sins through globalist initiatives and letting in everyone who desires entry.

Over the past few months, I've found the Tea Party's increasing focus on social issues quite encouraging. We face an economic crisis brought forth by PC egalitarianism and social decay, but one can't reduce America's problems to the quantifiable.

[I've included far more links for evidence than usual primarily to contrast this response with Mr. Weisberg's vapid screed.]

Yet Another Idea to Make Everyone Smart: Exercise!

A reader, Alex, sends along an amusing study from the New York Times. The media's lunacy in regards to cognitive realism astounds even this jaded blogger. After years of pushing every initiative imaginable, more teachers, less teachers, better breakfast, more money, smaller classes, integrated learning, more testing, less testing, etc..., perhaps these intrepid researchers have uncovered the magic answer to cognitive uniformity: exercise.

So the researchers sorted the children, based on their treadmill runs, into highest-, lowest- and median-fit categories. [The] groups completed a series of cognitive challenges...Finally, the children’s brains were scanned, using magnetic resonance imaging technology to measure the volume of specific areas.

Previous studies found that fitter kids generally scored better on such tests. And in this case, too, those children performed better on the tests. But the M.R.I.’s provided a clearer picture of how it might work. They showed that fit children had significantly larger basal ganglia, a key part of the brain that aids in maintaining attention and “executive control,” or the ability to coordinate actions and thoughts crisply. Since both groups of children had similar socioeconomic backgrounds, body mass index and other variables, the researchers concluded that being fit had enlarged that portion of their brains.

So being fit makes kids smart. Yes, all the anecdotal evidence surely supports that.

This study illustrates how mainstream science, a once proud institution now benighted by the PC thoughtpolice, puts forth the "correct" type of scholarship. They do a fancy study, throw around some statistical methodology, use an MRI, find a correlation, then use said correlation to espouse whatever egalitarian fantasy they want. Whether the data constitutes a cogent and logical argument rarely matters. In this particular study, the authors conclude:

If exercise is responsible for increasing the size of these regions and strengthening the connection between them, being fit may “enhance neurocognition” in young people, the authors concluded.

On every single LSAT, there is at least one question guaranteed to deal with the elementary logical error present here: two correlated phenomenon do not have a cause and effect relationship despite the extant correlation, but are, in actuality, both caused by the same external cause. In this study, the obvious external cause is that an individual's higher intelligence and future time orientation tempers his propensity towards overeating, obesity, and nutritional ignorance. In other words, smart people/parents often choose to avoid behaviors that lead to obesity. I expanded on the connection between corpulence and intelligence in a post entitled Fat People and Class:

Besides the sanctimonious elitism derived from "healthy eating", most SWPLs understand what constitutes salubrious cuisine. SWPLs accept the rather transparent connection between processed food and obesity or bad health. Lower class individuals might have a minimal understanding of the cause-effect relationship, but it's surely not an embedded concept in their social spheres. Additionally, they probably aren't cognizant of the details of food consumption, such as the different food groups and what happens when you eat these foods. Finally, and likely most importantly, lower class individuals tend to behave impetuously due to a lack of future time orientation. Lower class individuals often avoid ruminating on the future consequences of their present actions. Further, the cumulative effect of continual noxious eating, as opposed to a sporadic bad meal, doesn't resonate amongst individuals in these classes.

But we can't expect the most popular newspaper in the world and researchers at a leading university (UIUC) to ponder these obvious alternative hypotheses. Finally, don't be fooled by the absence of race from this study. Essentially every cognitive study claiming to prove an intellectual Marxist fantasy ultimately comes from the "race is a social construct" school of thought. More politically motivated scholars use these types of studies as a proxy for 100 years of every cognitive test ever given. In essence, these studies conveniently shirk the incorrigible testing gap data and instead of arguing against the actual numbers, they can put forth untested theories seemingly backed by science. Read Malcolm Gladwell's convoluted theories or any study on "priming".

Talking Politics and Only Politics

Saturday Audience Participation

Roissy, the web's foremost purveyor of romantic advice, recently discouraged men from discussing politics in courting women.

The tedious, dreary world of politics engages her logical mind when you want to do exactly the opposite. If she’s the type that can’t take a breather from braying about this or that political pet cause then she has control issues you want to avoid.

And no two people are 100% in agreement on every issue. You spend an hour talking politics and there is bound to come up a disagreement over some by-line in the appropriations bill that kills the sexytime mood.

I often run into this problem in a more general context. Simply, I can't keep my mouth shut when a political issue arises. Then my cantankerous cynic comes out and the polite conversation goes from mundane to uncomfortable. And simply avoiding political discussion altogether is a tiresome restriction. I don't care for banal small talk or the goings-on of people who do not interest me, though I can feign interest and congeniality quite adeptly. Of course, this polite type of discourse dominates most social endeavors, so I have to silence my bombastic half quite often.

Today's question: Do you have trouble NOT engaging in polemical discussion when you should simply talk about the weather or this Sunday's game? Do you only want to talk about politics? Do you shy away from insipid small talk because it doesn't satisfy you? When political conversation comes up, do you refrain from joining in instead of exposing your heresy? Or do you let it all out because you simply don't care?

Christine O'Donnell and the Politics of Masturbation

Update: While the media has smeared Ms. O'Donnell as "crazy" for the past week or so, I hadn't seen any quote or appearance that gave credence to this depiction. That was until last night when I read this from an appearance on O'Reilly in 2007 (please someone confirm this was out of context!):

Christine O'Donnell: They are — they are doing that here in the United States. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. So they’re already into this experiment.

____________________________________________________________________

The mainstream media has become quite enamored with new Tea Party darling and Delaware Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell. But they've been remiss in comprehensively vetting Ms. O'Donnell. Oh wait, that deliberate ignorance concerned the guy who ran for President a couple years back, not the nominee for a Senate seat from one of America's smallest states.

No, instead, the media has drudged up every single appearance Ms. O'Donnell has made in the past 15 years. And they sure love her ardent disdain for masturbation. Here Rachel Maddow deigns to even play the clip, smirking that illustrative grin commonplace amongst intellectually sanctimonious liberals. I won't comment on Ms. O'Donnell's background (it's bad); instead, let me focus on her crusade against societal and cultural immorality.

Two brief thoughts come to mind in understanding the liberal denigration of Ms. O'Donnell as "crazy". First, her blatantly honest opinion on sex and the pervasive seuxalization of culture broaches the interminable debate over abstinence vs. sexual education. Ironically, or not considering one's familiarity with liberal philosophical whimsy, leftists abdicate the omnipotence of culture in pushing for sexual education and the biological imperative of sex. Liberals criticize the supposedly Victorian standards of conservative Christianity's view on sex, believing that society can not abate sexual desire, but can only motivate individuals to act responsibly. Of course, this position is a deck of cards built on a moving ship, with liberals accepting the pull of biology in regards to sexual desire, but not the obvious problems with teaching responsible behavior to those with more hedonistic impulses. Further, liberals seem to argue that one can not possibly stop teenagers, hell even 10 year-olds, from engaging in sexual activity, because after all, culture is apparently subservient to man's carnal wants. In the end, liberals simply want to undermine any notion of traditional culture, gain control of the moral high ground, and exonerate their pet groups who engage more frequently in this behavior.

Second, and perhaps even more ironic than the first inconsistency, is the liberal repudiation of collective loyalty. Given their professed admiration of Communist leaders, both present and past, their dismissal of collective repercussions in the context of masturbation seems odd. Ms. O'Donnell's primarily espouses the standard religious view on masturbation, a sort of Pat Robertson-infused version of Bette Midler's "God is Watching You (From a Distance)". Of course, to most people (like myself), this comes off as going a little too far. However, Ms. O'Donnell does stumble, likely unknowingly, upon the practical connection to personal behavior.

In essence, morality exists as a checks and balances on our biology - it civilizes us primarily through shame and social ostracism. And societal morality, supported by culture and somewhat by political policy, only works if we all agree to the rules. In the pre-60's West, these rules were agreed upon simply because they worked in creating and sustaining relatively stable societies. So while conservatives rightly support limited government and individual responsibility, they can't shortsightedly ignore the importance of collective social contracts, manifested in families, towns, cities, and nations.

Yet liberals reject the concept of the autonomous or morally viable West, trumping up "oppressed peoples" and failed third-world states. So collectivism intended to sustain the West, to impose a moral standard for benefiting our nation, is not acceptable. Instead, they champion "individual rights" as if the actions of an individual do nothing to the larger culture. They happily ignore how individual choice, embedded in a feedback loop of the private and anonymous Internet, our carnal desires, and capitalism, eventually builds until it goes mainstream and a female drag queen wearing a meat dress is the bell of the ball.

So do I think people (men) should relinquish "master[y] of their own domain"? No, but I'll qualify that by saying one can't untangle our most powerful urge, sex and hypergamy, from the potential consequences resulting from pursuit of that desire. One can't persist in delusion that there's no connection between encouragement of sexual satisfaction, via porn, open relationships, Viagra, etc... and destruction of family and nation. [I haven't gotten to the next part of the argument whereby I explain why sexual openness and gender identity politics causes quantitative problems for a nation, so please read the 'Misandry Bubble' and my posts on Feminism and Family for arguments to this end.]

A "Man" Needs Advice on Juggling Two Women

Here's a recent advice column from Salon.com featuring a "man" lamenting his blatant honesty.

[T]wo weeks ago, I tried online dating, immediately met S, and planned our first date. In the interim, I met B at a party, and we really hit it off and ended up sleeping with each other back at my place. The next night, I went with S on a first (wonderful) date and we also slept with each other.

So this "man" is somehow juggling two different, obviously chaste and demure, young women. This "man" suffers a rug rash from sex with the first woman and the second woman asks how he got it:

"You really want to know?"
"Yes."
"You sure?"
"Or course."
"It's from sex with another girl."
"You're kidding?"
"No."
"You're serious?"
"Yes."
"You mean you're not kidding?"
"No."
(with analytic lack of emotion) "When?"
"Two days ago."
"Where?" I point to the rug across the room.

A rather innocuous anecdote, especially given this woman has made her intentions for a sexual fling quite transparent. But apparently, this "man" can't get over such an egregious sin against a WOMAN:

[E]ver since I feel so, so sad for her and for me and for everyone. Yet I feel so scarred by the episode of misogyny that I want to flagellate myself.

He then makes some odd analogy to Ghandi and seems to suggest he can only exonerate himself through a grave act of selfless charity. Even the Salon.com columnist is on the verge of calling him a p*ssy:

Let's clear up something. In the third paragraph from the end, there are four words that don't belong: "Catastrophe," "scarred," "misogyny" and "flagellate." It wasn't a catastrophe, it wasn't misogyny, you're not scarred and there's no call for flagellation.

This seemingly inconsequential anecdote evinces the rampant female supremacism inherent to our society. It underpins "white knight" syndrome where men believe any perceived act against a woman is the ultimate moral wrong (note: violence is wrong in and of itself, independent of gender). It causes anti-male divorce and custody laws, cultural denigration of fathers in sitcoms, and social surrender to the capricious desires of many women. Women and their wants are considered the preeminent value, with men being subservient no matter the justification or benignity of their actions.

This "man" has so pedestalized women that he's fraught with guilt over an imagined offense. The mere possibility that he sort of, kind of, just maybe hurt her feelings is enough for him to self-flagellate. Hilariously, the woman responded positively as he unknowingly offered an indicator of pre-selection:

[S]he didn't storm out. Rather she just lingered for 20 minutes as we talked cordially.

[T]hings are ironically working out really well with S, and we are moving quickly into a great relationship.

Tea Party Wins, Moderates Lose!

Two Tea Party candidates, one in Delaware and one in New York, triumphed Tuesday over establishment GOP figures. Tuesday's results continue the trend towards more explicitly conservative candidates in this Fall's Republican primaries. In each of seven states, the Tea Party candidate defeated a Republican Party funded and backed opponent. A primarily economic movement until this past year, the Tea Party has grown into a viable force on the national stage, pushing candidates who espouse actual conservative politics. The biggest news came out of Delaware where Palin-lite Christine O'Donnell displaced career politician and RINO Mike Castle:

Virtually unknown a month ago, Christine O'Donnell rode a surge of support from tea party activists to victory in Delaware's Republican Senate primary Tuesday night, dealing yet another setback to the GOP establishment in a campaign season full of them.

O'Donnell defeated nine-term Rep. Mike Castle, a fixture in Delaware politics for a generation and a political moderate. Republican Party officials, who had touted him as their only hope for winning the seat in the fall, made clear as the votes were being counted they would not provide O'Donnell funding in the general election campaign.

I've looked briefly into Ms. O'Donnell's background, a past filled with outright lies, hardcore Christianity (anti-masturbation), and other just plain weird behavior. However one needn't focus on the ascendancy of a particular candidate, but rather the ardent repudiation of moderates. The sharp turn to the right, even on hot button social issues like immigration and culture, distinguishes this current conservative revival from its past incarnations.

I've argued that political moderation will ultimately fall to the indefatigable forces of modern leftism and thus any successful right-wing movement must assert itself in an explicit and unwavering manner.

The current mainstream doctrine, one based on the "anything goes" mentality, has defined "extremism" as any position with steadfast loyalty to a set of principles. An "extremist" is now someone who refuses to capitulate and surrender his values, even if said values represent some ultimate good. As Goldwater states, one must sometimes engage in hidebound pursuit of justice and avoid the easy out of moderation if chasing a worthwhile objective.

By brazenly disavowing GOP candidates, the Tea Partiers have collectively announced they will not accept political acquiescence. They will not toe the PC line, gradually ceding political and social capital like Republican liberals George W. Bush and his ilk. Perhaps this strategy will have short-term ramifications with O'Donnell likely losing to her Democrat opponent, but the ostensible precedent will hopefully motivate future candidates to adopt forthright conservative positions.

Some doomsday prognosticators foresee a schism arising in the Republican Party, but I don't share their pessimism. With the potential hardship imposed on the American people by Obama's furtive socialism, the ongoing social campaign against Main Street, and the gradual enervation of nationhood, the Tea Party has put their desperate foot in the ground. If some faux-conservatives jump ship, let them go - this nation can't afford a collusive ruling class like the one we have now. It's reasonable to risk political enmity if that's the only means for enacting the Right initiatives.

Racial Minorities and Morality: A Tea Party Case Study

From a few weeks ago, this picture encapsulates the cowardly and despicable manner in which many white Tea Partiers react to racism accusations. In my post on this issue, I wrote:

The Right must profess carefree indifference, frame themselves completely immune from unjustified smears, and avoid supplicating to the left's unreasonable standard. More James Crowley than James Watson.

By surrendering in this way, these individuals adopt the left's primary supposition - that white conservatives are motivated almost entirely by racism and hatred of minorities. It's this gradual and almost imperceptible acceptance of liberal ideals that undermines right-wing and conservative policies; unfortunately, conservative movements desperate for mainstream acceptance accept these conditions without consideration.

I found the following video showing a black conservative finding "people of color" at this weekend's 9/12 gathering. I hesitate to criticize potential allies, but I will do so anyway because the implicit assumption of this video dishearteningly reflects the liberal takeover of conservatism:



The video opens:

If you watch media reports, the Tea Party is all white; so we're here looking for people of color.

Clearly, this video contends that the presence of "people of color" refutes the popular conception of white racists comprising the Tea Party. But why would so called conservatives even engage in such a nauseating display? Why hold up these minorities as evidence for the inclusive nature of their movement?

The answer: these right-wingers have unconsciously accepted the idea that whites possess no moral autonomy. In this case, the ardent pronouncements of tolerance from white Tea Party members is not sufficient in exculpating them from racist smears. Whites' denunciation of racism can not stand by itself, the independent collective opinion of whites must be corroborated by some external racial entity. Racial and religious minorities are considered the ultimate arbiters of moral transgression. Videos like the one above yield to this prevailing moral hierarchy, a construct demanding that white (male) Christians appease the tender sensibilities of other groups. Without this, their word never seems good enough.

Why the Right is Attacking Islam

At Salon.com, author Joe Conason tries to explain the recent enmity directed at Islam. The first part of the article notes the parallels between Obama's dissembling on the "religion of peace" and Bush's similar framing of the issue. The second part deals with the Right's motivations. Shockingly, he reduces it to irrational hate and blind partisanship:

The answer is that until the advent of the Obama presidency, Republicans had no reason to scapegoat Muslims or demonize Islam. All that has changed since the inauguraton of a president whose middle name is Hussein and whose father was Muslim, because he provides a central focus for a politicized campaign against Islam. Figures such as Bolton and Gingrich, who never spoke out about Islam during the Bush administration, have discovered that Muslims pose an existential threat to Western civilization.

Based on a number of reasonable assumptions, Mr. Conason clearly believes populist ire derives from the influence of establishment GOP figures and big spenders like the Koch brothers. Thus, he proposes that all recent aggression towards Islam is a mere ploy to sustain conservative power, a tactic manifested amongst the unwashed masses as naive hatred:

Paranoia and prejudice have long been instruments of right-wing politics in America, from the Red Scare and McCarthyism to the Nixonite Southern strategy. The current outbreak of Islamophobia represents the latest product of the same old manufacturing process.

But Mr. Conason, eager to paint all right-wingers as avaricious power grubbers or doltish followers, misses the real point. What's really happening:

The pusillanimous mainstream Right avoids discussing the realities of race and diversity; therefore, instead of focusing on issues of demographics, racial strife, cultural cessation, and immigration, they must focus on the one issue (Islam) still somewhat removed from PC silencing.

The real problem, that of racial replacement and the continued enervation of American culture through immigration and social training, requires a fastidious consideration of the facts. And I think we know what happens when one even mentions the mere possibility of these facts. Instead, the Right offers a more easily argued narrative based on starkly representative images like 9/11, full burqa coverings, and the recent prayer takeover of Paris. Even a leftist has difficulty arguing with an irate 9/11 widow or denying the un-Americaness of full head coverings.

So the Islamic issue has become the new "Southern Strategy" - not because we face the same level of threat as the Netherlands or Germany, but rather because it will do. If the ultimate goal is cultural and national preservation and the real issues can't be broached due to social and occupational consequences, then the Right must focus on a viable proxy issue like Islam.

This Week in Cultural Decline: Lady Gaga and Semi-Precious Weapons

Liberalism encourages a culture of "un-criticism", a landscape where any desire is either aggressively normalized or tacitly accepted. Gradually, this libertine attitude seeps into the fabric of our nation and you get stuff like this (not exactly safe for work):



The androgynous lead singer makes this pronouncement at the end:

Semi-Precious Weapons and Lady Gaga proved, at Lollapalooze 2010, that Rock and Roll is fucking back!

Can someone explain the crowd's excitement? And what about their muddled performance interspersed by groping of Ms. Gaga constitutes a seminal shift in rock and roll music? The stage diving? Gaga being naked? The man wearing stripper heels?

In the end, I don't really know what I just witnessed, but I know it doesn't portend good things for this country.

Stephen Hawking's The Grand Design: The Never-Ending Struggle Between Science and Religion

Saturday Audience Participation

In Stephen Hawking's newest book, The Grand Design, the eminent physicist hesitantly argues against the cosmological argument for God's existence:

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

A Bishop quoted in the above article decries the coincidence of science and faith, believing religious topics exist outside the empirical realm:

Bishop of Swindon, Dr Lee Rayfield, said science "can never prove the non-existence of God, just as it can never prove the existence of God. Faith is a matter that's outside that."

From the time of Galileo, scientists, especially physicists, have viewed their expertise as justification for commenting on religious philosophy. Perhaps this derives from the overlapping goals of these two disciplines, both claiming authority in describing the inherent nature of reality. Galileo's seminal scientific discoveries shifted man from the physical center of the universe and, to the ire of the Church, downgraded us from the spiritual center as well. It is this interplay, with religion asserting our transcendent value and science portraying us as inevitable manifestations of physical processes, that underpins the philosophical enmity.

Today's questions: Should science comment on matters of faith? Can science provide answers to questions typically in the province of religion? What of Hawkings' cogitations on the multiverse and the almost infinite reality of the physical world? Will science ever find the Ultimate Truth, either vanquishing religion forever or finding some inherent designer code ala the book Contact? Why are physicists so intent on religious philosophizing? Should science persist the noble lies of religion even if untrue, as advised by Pope John Paul II?

Pastor Terry Jones' Koran Burning: Intolerant and Anti-American?

As a blogger often covering issues of culture, diversity, and nationhood, I'm obliged to comment on vacillating firebrand, Pastor Terry Jones. As of writing this, cult leader/Pastor Jones can't make up his mind while his proposed Koran burning has caused an international fervor. Obviously, the recent histrionics illustrate liberals' reflexive defense of Islam and the inherent violence associated with this "religion's" militaristic doctrine. For a comprehensive elucidation of these points, see Auster's VFR. In order to keep this succinct, I'll just assert that the Koran burning by itself is a morally neutral act of symbolic aggression.

In response to Pastor Jones' proposal, even "extremist right-wingers" like Sarah Palin have expressed their disapproval:

Book burning is antithetical to American ideals. People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation - much like building a mosque at Ground Zero. It will feed the fire of caustic rhetoric and appear as nothing more than mean-spirited religious intolerance. Don't feed that fire.

Two main points. First, many conservatives have condemned this act as "antithetical to American ideals," appealing to the liberal reconstruction of American history as primarily a tale of religious persecution and not the industriousness and insight of our Founding forebears. And while inherent freedoms ultimately underpin this great nation, we can't simply acquiesce to any ideology that comes upon our shores. A book burning is an aggressive, nonviolent act against foreign and, more importantly, destructive ideologies such as Islam. To preserve itself, a nation must rigidly define its own boundaries and its own autonomy - a truism ultimately American in its conception.

Second, devout Christian Palin defines this act as "mean-spirited religious intolerance". Of course, such a characterization reflects the liberalization of modern Christianity. One can never project emotions onto ultimate truth; truth exists independent of our wants, desires, and tender sensibilities. To Christians, the truth of Christ should exist solely as a revealed doctrine of objective reality. To assert the validity of Christianity and, concordantly denounce any competing religious doctrines as false isn't "intolerance" - it's logical consistency. If Christianity is the ultimate truth and not one of many paths to truth, then everyone else worships a false God, an act of blasphemy. Pointing out this ostensible conclusion has now become "intolerant" in our diversity-tinged society.

A Blatantly Flawed Study from the High-Carb, Low-Meat Nutrition Establishment

A new study from Harvard contends that low-carb, high-meat diets correlate strongly with higher rates of disease and early mortality. Dr. Dean Ornish at HuffPo triumphantly pontificates on the study's results:

A major study was just published in the Annals of Internal Medicine from Harvard. In approximately 85,000 women who were followed for 26 years and 45,000 men who were followed for 20 years, researchers found that all-cause mortality rates were increased in both men and women who were eating a low-carbohydrate Atkins diet based on animal protein.

However, all-cause mortality rates as well as cardiovascular mortality rates were decreased in those eating a plant-based diet low in animal protein and low in refined carbohydrates. Although this plant-based diet was called an "Eco-Atkins" diet, it's essentially the same diet that I have been recommending and studying for more than 30 years.

Initially, it sounds quite convincing. I mean: Harvard, correlation, "all-cause mortality". Of course, Dr. Ornish provides no data from the study so that readers may appraise its veracity independently. Instead, we get self-aggrandizing pronouncements on plant-based diets and then some moral proselytizing as below:

Finally, what's good for you is also good for our planet. Livestock consumption causes more global warming than all forms of transportation combined. It takes 10 times more energy to produce animal-based protein than plant-based protein.

So what exactly is wrong with the study and its criticism of paleo/Atkins type diets? A few common errors not apparent for this study: fancy statistical methods, long enough time span (26 years), and large enough sample size.

The big problem - the cohort supposedly representing low-carb dieters were actually high-carb dieters! Yes, seriously. A study disseminated by Harvard University, one ostensibly having gone through the travails of peer review, made this mistake. Since Dr. Ornish fails to provide actual data, it's a good thing other more intellectually honest individuals have done so. Here's the data for women and for men.

Looking at the male data, we note the group who best adhered to the "low-carb diet" ate approximately 35% of their daily calories from carbohydrates, equating to an average of about 160 grams of carbs per day (1 calorie = 4 grams). Characterizing that as low-carb is absolutely absurd. To evince this idiocy more concretely, 160 carbs per day equals (separately) 6.5 bowls of cereal, 11 slices of bread, 4 bowls of pasta, 3.5 bottles of soda, 3 pieces of chocolate cake, or almost 6 servings of Ben and Jerry's ice cream. Now tell me what paleo dieter would eat any of that in a week, let alone one day.

The authoritative tone of Dr. Ornish's article becomes even more laughable when one notes the study considered this as the "best" low-carb group. The least strict "low-carb" group ate an average of about 300 grams of carbs per day. Further, as noted in this article, the study relies on inaccurate survey data and does not control for quality of meat (processed lunch meat vs. grass-fed organic). Raw foods blogger Denise Minger deconstructs the study further:

Bottom line: In this study, when you look closer at the data, differences in mortality appear to be unrelated to animal product consumption. Changes in cancer and cardiovascular risk ratios occur out of sync with changes in animal food intake. Every time the researchers made multivariate adjustments to the data to account for the risk factors they did document (including physical activity, BMI, alcohol consumption, hypertension, and smoking, among other things), the hazard ratio went down for the Animal Group (meaning it got better) and it went up for the Vegetable Group (meaning it got worse).

It looks like what this study really measured was a Standard American Diet group (aka Animal Group) and a slightly-less Standard American Diet group (aka Vegetable Group). Both ate sucky diets, but the latter had slightly less suckage. You can bet the farm that neither was anything close to “low carb.”

In other words, the meat eaters ate a ton of carbs, likely refined ones such as Super Size bread, soda, and fries, as well as being fat, smokers, and sedentary. Plus, the paleo diet stresses the importance of fruits and vegetables, a class of foods likely absent from the "Animal foods" cohort in this study.

So given the dissimulating presentation of this study, one needn't ponder why an increasing number of individuals (exempting the reflexive contrarians) view mainstream science with incredulity.

Actual Advice on Choosing a College: Ivy League Experience at State School Price

Including yesterday's post, I've written extensively on the higher education racket, especially the dubious claim that one needs an elite school diploma in today's job market. In dispelling the accepted wisdom, I've adopted a reactionary tone and unfortunately proffered little practical advice. I'm unsure how many high schoolers read my blog, but I imagine this post could help parents currently pondering a college decision for their children. For additional advice, please see this post.

I've largely focused on pragmatic issues, a direct consequence of student loan slavery and the blithe ignorance of today's liberal arts majors. The post-graduation calamity caused by major choice (e.g. Women's Studies), rising tuition costs, and an overcrowded job market assures job prospects are a primary concern. But given the attendant social aspects of college life, one shouldn't reduce the experience to such brass tasks.

Unless you plan on entering banking, law, or the rat race of Manhattan, an Ivy League degree won't make you more money. Elite schools sell the idea that they imbue students with peerless ability and a recondite ken. Simply, it's not true - elite college students do better merely because elite college students are better in the first place. The educational experience at Harvard is much like that at your local state school: none of the TA's speak English and your lab section's only hot girl will inevitably be assigned to another group. As for the much hyped prestige factor, you'll need it in banking or law, but it will do little in other job markets. (I've come across studies showing Ivy League graduates do only minimally better than top state school grads, but I can't find any right now.)

Hopefully, I've disabused of the notion that only Ivy Leaguers prosper. But what of other aspects of the college experience - social life, a palpable campus culture, and academic rigor? My advice: go to a very large state school. College experts pontificate on the attraction of a small college, peddling specious claims about personal relations with professors, engaged administrators, and a tight-knit social community. See the link at the bottom of the first paragraph for arguments against this misleading information.

Now, let me qualify my admonishment of elite schools. The social environment is markedly different than that of state schools. All schools have an entrenched drinking culture, yet the students at elite schools do often strike a balance between "playing hard" and "working hard". Partying at large state schools encompasses almost the entire campus community and academic apathy usually accompanies such licentiousness. So if you go to Ohio State, you'll likely wear your Buckeyes gear and imbibe a little booze on Saturdays in the Fall.

However, all hope isn't lost for frugal, yet academically-minded students. While inundated with vapid girls, frat boys, and stale beer, large state schools do offer a small haven mirroring the environment of their Ivy League betters: Honors programs. Some schools have highly involved Honors programs, including residence halls, special classes, research opportunities, and other perks. Some schools offer merely a checkmark on your diploma. But for the former, the state school honors program can offer a peer group and academic challenges quite similar to that of elite colleges. The Honors Program at schools like the University of Michigan or Penn State offer the Ivy League experience at a state school cost. Further, large state schools lack the homogeneity of smaller universities, thereby offering a wide swath of potential cliques.

Graduate with Honors and a high GPA and little separates you from your Ivy League competition.

The College Bubble is Coming

People are catching on to the coming college tuition bubble. Roger Kimball at Pajamas Media discusses the inevitable calamity caused by cognitive romanticism and gross egalitarianism.

He tells the story of the poor — and “poor” is the mot juste — girl who graduated from some name school with a degree in Women’s Studies and Religious Studies and debt of $100,000. That’s about 3 times her current annual income. Her monthly payments for student loans are nearly a third of her take-home pay. Has she caught on? The sad answer is, probably not. For one thing, anyone who majors in “Women’s Studies” — the pseudo-discipline to end all pseudo-disciplines — may be presumed to be securely insulated from reality.

An interesting point I haven't broached in my posts on this subject:

One reason, of course, is that Johnny, assuming his parents are paying full freight, is paying not only for his own tuition: he is also helping to foot the bill for Ahmed, Juan, and Harriet down the hall. Colleges routinely boast about their generous financial aid packages, how they provide assistance for some large percentage of students, etc. What they don’t mention is the fact that parents who scrimp and save to come up with the tuition are in effect subsidizing the others. How do you suppose Johnny’s parents feel about that?

Charles Murray even gets a positive shoutout. Thankfully, Mr. Kimball notes the general uselessness of a college degree in the first place.

Is four years at Yale (or Harvard, Princeton, or any other “competitive” college) worth $53,000 x 4 plus annual tuition increases for a grand total (assuming you are entering right now) of roughly a quarter of a million dollars? This is a question that, to the consternation of academic administrators, more and more parents — not to mention responsible teenagers — are asking themselves.

I'll answer it: no. College used to accomplish two objectives. First, it provided a safe haven between adolescence and adulthood for children of the wealthy elite. In these suburban enclaves, they could adopt proper social etiquette and perhaps imbibe a little erudite scholarship to feign an intellectual bent at company parties. In conjunction with these primarily social goals, colleges did cater to our most intellectually astute individuals, an oblique but necessary goal to fashion themselves of rarefied status. College was a luxury, yet given the reasonable tag price, it was one attendees could afford or use as a valuable token in a relatively uncrowded job market.

But with the ostensible achievement gaps, politicians viewed college as political weaponry, engendering its progression into a requisite stopping point in the middle class trajectory. Now, deluged with underqualified applicants and backed by complicit government money tree, colleges have ample incentive to further increase costs. Here's a case study on GW - a former commuter school that realized big money lay in catering to a socially preening, yet intellectually lacking middle class:

What Trachtenberg understood was that perception is reality in higher education -- and perception can be bought. “You can get a Timex or a Casio for $65 or you can get a Rolex or a Patek Philippe for $10,000. It’s the same thing,” Trachtenberg says. The former president gambled that students who couldn’t quite get into the nation’s most exclusive colleges -- and who would otherwise overlook a workmanlike school like the old GW -- would flock to a university that at least had a price tag and a swank campus like those of the Ivy Leagues. “It serves as a trophy, a symbol,” he says. “It’s a sort of token of who they think they are.”

Read it if you skipped over it! It about sums up the entire higher education racket.

Taylor Swift and the "Sheltered" Middle-Class

Chris Robinson, the slovenly, pseudo-hippie lead singer of Black Crowes, has dissed America's sweetheart Taylor Swift.

"I find it embarrassing that adults are like, 'Taylor Swift is very talented.' She's not. She might be cute, but she's horrible," he told the magazine.

"They have stylists who dress them, they make records with producers who play a chord into the computer and it all comes out the same. ... When you have computers doing it all for you ... there's no individuality. Singing isn't always about being on key; it's about emotionality."

I've written before about the cultural implications of Ms. Swift's popularity and the stark contrast between Swift and her more tawdry peers. Here, Robinson attacks Swift both for her presumably concocted good girl image as well as the seeming vapidity of her music. As to the first criticism, perhaps we shouldn't credulously accept Ms. Swift's demureness considering the five year ruse Britney perpetrated on the American people. As to the second, Robinson makes the oft-repeated claim that artists like Swift lack depth, emotionality, and authenticity. First, let's take a quick gander at lyrics from "You Belong with Me" and "Love Story":

But she wears short skirts, I wear t-shirts
She's cheer captain and I'm on the bleachers
Dreaming bout the day when you wake up and find
That what you're lookin for has been here the whole time
If you could see that I'm the one who understands you
Been here all along so why can't you see?
You belong with me
You belong with me

That you were Romeo,
You were throwing pebbles,
And my daddy said, "Stay away from Juliet."
And I was crying on the staircase,
Begging you, "Please don't go".

Before you think I'm making Robinson's point for him, a HuffPo reader (!) comments:

Instead of spending her teen years writing cute songs about high school romance, she should have descended into a drunken/drug-fueled haze and written songs about her angst-ridden outsider status. Angry and defiant, she should have written wasted odes to blurry buzz-induced poetry slams, and then...and only then...she'd be taken seriously as an "artist." Shame on Taylor Swift for not being a tortured, drug-addled anti-social poster child for addiction!”

The music industry mostly accepts the notion that "real" artists only write about struggle - generally related to some type of drug addiction, criminal activity, or violence. Take the praise showered upon Eminem for his recent return from years of pill popping, the lauding of Madonna for singing candidly about her salacious affairs, and the American Dream narrative projected onto rappers like Jay-Z and 2Pac. The topics broached by these individuals, drug use, broken families, violent death, and other social pathologies, somehow imbue the artist with authenticity not present in Ms. Swift's tales of adolescent love and heartbreak.

We see this meme arising more generally with such derisive buzzwords like "sheltered", "spoiled", "daddy's girl", "rich boy", and "trust-fund baby". Of course, these terms don't merely denigrate New England prep schoolers, but regular middle-to-upper class suburbanites who grow up in nuclear families with two employed parents. You see, this normal, healthy background has actually become stigmatized by our larger culture - one that glorifies Murphy Brown, The Kids Are All Right, Modern Family, and gangsta rappers. So Ms. Swift, an artist who epitomizes this supposedly "sheltered" upbringing (sheltered from drug use, neighborhood shootings, divorce??) and sings about stuff all suburban girls go through is considered shallow.

Our society is eager to normalize destructive behavior because doing so frees blacks, Hispanics, and women from moral upbraiding. White middle-class suburbanites, the class engaging in what was once seen as good and normal, are considered "sheltered from the real world" and somehow not privy to "real experience." Thankfully, not all of us have fallen for this idiocy.

Intelligence and Political Candidates

During the campaign, one of Obama's former law professors referred to our esteemed President as the "best student [he] ever had". Throughout the campaign and his current tenure, the media has continuously lauded Obama for possessing an imitable intellect - thereby implying intellectual adroitness represents a vital component of great leadership. And I needn't relay the vitriolic portrayal of his opponent, Sarah Palin, as an ignorant, bucolic, and stupid hick.

But is intelligence really that important or should the electorate dampen their expectations if a potential candidate advocates the best policies? With that question in mind, here's Arizona governer Jan Brewer in a debate last week. Perhaps I should add a trigger warning prior to the clip:



Conservative luminary William Buckley once said: "I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University." Would Mrs. Brewer's dismal performance make him rethink that?

Honestly, given the pervasiveness of leftism and the unfortunate dearth of political figures espousing true conservative ideals, we gotta take what we can get. I don't need a politician to master esoterica like nuclear physics or tort law; I need them to believe in this nation as a sovereign entity with a traditional culture, peoples, and history. Yes my standard's low, but in the modern West, even the most qualified nationalism is considered beyond reasonable discussion. We're in a rut and maybe only a person of average intelligence and no elite social ambition, unlike say Ross Douhat, can bring us out.

White Knights Attack at US Open

Update: Another video which shows the fat woman had slapped blue shirt man (:08) with no subsequent retaliation. Obviously this guy is an asshole - but the white knight response and behavior of the crowd is illustrative.

I intended do a Saturday Audience Participation, but then I came across this video from the US Open tennis tournament.



Here's the set-up. The male in the blue shirt was apparently cursing profusely, so the fat woman and her father confront him. Blue shirt man takes offense and responds negatively. A verbal altercation commences until, at 1:09, the father attacks the blue shirt man physically. The two fall over a few seats and the blue shirt man gets up and walks away. At around 1:20, the fat woman then attacks him physically and the blue shirt man merely shoves her away to thwart the attack. Guess what happens next.

Three (and subsequently two more) white knights immediately run in and accost the blue shirt man with unjustified force and aggression. The fat daughter and father are completely ignored by everyone in the crowd as even more men start berating blue shirt guy. Throughout all this, the fat woman points at her fallen father as if he's an innocent victim in this whole affair.

The crowd's reaction is a wonderful illustration of white knight beta syndrome and female entitlement. Of course, such displays accomplish little in a society where chivalry brands one a boring beta provider. Men can no longer rely on the societal gender hierarchy to assert their relative social dominance and thus any hint at supplicating husband status (like this one) devalues them in the post-60s, feminist-tinged sexual marketplace.

Taboo Ideas in Comedy

On Wednesday I discussed the importance of popular culture in shaping public opinion and its attendant effect on political initiatives. Dealing with un-PC topics in the context of serious incidents, such as this tragic death discussed by Roissy and explained as a consequence of "[va]gina tingle", generally doesn't go over well. Most people respond negatively to taboo political arguments extracted from current events, especially if the incident is a personal and tragic one such as that highlighted.

So instead of the erudite discussion coming off as sterile and uncaring, perhaps the best alternative is humor. The hypothetical purveyors of this iconoclastic humor can shrug off any offense as misconstruing the intent or disregard the content as merely for the purpose of laughs. Here's a clip from Seinfeld, rife with incisive and hilarious social commentary, where George engages in a "preemptive break-up" (also see "bad-boy George" clip):

George: I...am gonna have to break up with...you.
Woman (note desperate qualification): But I thought everything was going fine...What? I don't understand - you didn't enjoy being with me. Didn't we have fun doing the crossword puzzle? I'm really confused...What do you want? I know I can make you happy.

Pretty standard pick-up strategy that if couched in more explicit terms would have branded Seinfeld a woman-hating PC heretic. The message is evident: women want men they can't have, a characteristic easily adopted by those that feign aloofness; yet the context inoculates it from criticism. I'm not sure how conservative messages can mesh with comedy, but these ideals become more amenable if the masses perceive the tone as less shrill.

Glenn Beck and Tacit Surrender to the Left

At Alternative Right (h/t: Auster), Hanna Saigo criticizes Glenn Beck for yielding to leftist smears via his insufferable pandering at last weekend's rally.

Instead, whether for career reasons, out of personal conviction or both, he's chosen to take white self-flagellation to a completely unheard of level.

Auster points to the same transparent behavior amongst rally attendees:

The attendees at Beck's rally were eager to show their non-racist bona fides, as in this picture. That is one of the most pathetic sights I've seen. But how can we blame them? The whole society, or at least the right half of the society, sends out the message that this is the way for whites to behave.

I needn't expound much further upon this point - the notion that any action besides abject political surrender will not placate the left. As I alluded to in my post excoriating moderates, a philosophy whose sole goal is attenuation of political animus can not simultaneously pursue any morally or pragmatically worthwhile goal. Beck's insistence on connecting his "crusade" to that of MLK Jr and his followers' palpable self-consciousness imply they're not well-suited for attacking the PC cabal. Conservative political movements can only succeed if they stubbornly avoid the constant push from liberal "progressives". Via the same AltRight article, contrite HBDer William Saletan explains:

This is how conservatives embrace progress. First they resist it. Then they lose to it. Then they assimilate it. They frame it as a fulfillment of longstanding values. They emphasize common threads between reformers and founders. They reinterpret the nation's origins to match the new ethos.

Unfortunately, especially since Beck recently retracted his infamous comment on Obama's "deep-seated hatred for white people", I see Beck moving in this direction. But let's see how his obvious pandering worked, including statements like, "We as citizens must all carry Martin Luther King's dream in all of our hearts today," "We believe, like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., in a colorblind, postracial society," and “We are the people of the civil rights movement." Here's Shirley Bergen discussing the rally in Newsweek:

the growing number of celebrations about being white [as in] one recent example, Glenn Beck’s weekend rally in Washington.

[I]t is fascinating how Glenn Beck’s weekend rally played up attendees’ white race and embrace of Jesus, something he and other right-wing cable TV and talk-radio hosts do with regularity.

So for all that, the comically desperate pictures of black Tea Partiers, Palin's Israeli flag in her office, and the explicit denunciations of racism - the mainstream media still sees what they want to see. The correct approach isn't advocating hatred or exclusion; instead, the Right must profess carefree indifference, frame themselves completely immune from unjustified smears, and avoid supplicating to the left's unreasonable standard. More James Crowley than James Watson.