ELSEWHERE
Keith Burgess-Jackson has asked what I think of the idea of national character. National character is still a rather suspect topic to most psychologists. The Left, in its usual simplistic way, seems to think that if you allow talk of national differences then you will also have to allow talk of racial differences and that of course is RACISM! On the other hand, there would hardly be an international traveller alive who has not thought that he/she could discern differences between the people of different countries: The Germans are in general seen as particularly efficient, the French are in general seen as particularly arrogant etc. The fact of the matter, of course is that there is absolutely no reason why nations or races should all be the same. People are not all the same so why should groups of them be the same? It is only bone-headed ideology that says otherwise. Two books that do look at psychological differences between nations are: MADARIAGA, S. DE. (1970) Englishmen, Frenchmen, Spaniards: An essay in comparative psychology 2nd ed. London: Pitman; and LYNN, R. (1971) Personality and National Character. Oxford, England: Pergamon. And I probably should resist the temptation to point out the excellent scientific evidence for large and important national differences in average IQ but I have never resisted it before so what the heck! See here.
Pope backs crooked Cardinal: "Pope John Paul II yesterday appointed Cardinal Bernard F. Law to a ceremonial job overseeing one of the four major basilicas of Rome, granting the former archbishop of Boston a prestigious appointment just two days after the Archdiocese of Boston announced that it was closing 65 parishes." The very man who condoned paedophilia by shuffling paedophile priests around rather than do anything to stop them! The Pope has made it clear he approves! What disgusting old farts they both are! No wonder Catholics are deserting the ship. Their church is a blot on the name of Christ.
And Queensland has its own paedophila disgrace too, summed up here. It involves the lesbian-looking Leanne Clair, a political appointee as Queensland's Director of Public Prosecutions -- an appointment made to ensure "balance" between the sexes in Queensland's top government jobs. A prominent sporting coach was committed for trial on child sexual abuse charges by a magistrate but Ms Clair has repeatedly refused (on the flimsiest of grounds) to prosecute the case. She thinks she is judge and jury. She was also one of a troika of Leftist females in high office who sent prominent conservative politician Pauline Hanson to jail on a legal technicality -- a conviction that was totally thrown out by the Court of Appeal only weeks later. These feminazis really think they are God.
But is this the flip before the flop? "Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry called for increasing the U.S. military by 40,000 troops, probably for a decade, in order 'to match its new missions' in the war on terror and homeland security. ... Kerry would pay for the added troops by making cuts elsewhere in the Pentagon budget. He gave no specifics."
More petty bureaucracy from the EU: "Italian officials want new rules on how big a pizza should be and how hot it's cooked, before being allowed to use the name. Department of Agriculture officials say they want to clamp down on so-called 'pizza pirates.' In order to be labelled a pizza, it must be three millimetres thick in the middle,. have a one to two centimetre thick crust and have been cooked at 450 degrees centigrade.The diameter should not exceed 35 centimetres. The ministry says the rule is part of a one million pound PR exercise and say they have signed up inspectors to check kitchens."
I have just put up here an article that shows the jargon used in the schools these days. No wonder teachers can't teach and students don't learn much of the time. Leftist "postmodernist" language is being used to confuse kids now too.
For more postings, see GREENIE WATCH and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH. Mirror sites here and here
********************************
The Left cannot face the fact that the American intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq is fundamentally humanitarian. The most effective response to the 9/11 events and the one in America's own best interests would have been a retaliatory strike using nukes to take the whole of Afghanistan off the map -- followed by a threat that Mecca would go sky high if there were any further Islamic attacks on the USA or its allies. That would have made Islam a religion of peace overnight. But GWB rightly rejected that easy road because it would have involved the death of millions of innocents. He chose instead to go after just the bad guys -- an extremely difficult task. And its difficulty is causing continuing American deaths in Iraq to this day. But Americans have always given their blood in order to be humane. They did it in two world wars and in Vietnam and they are doing it now in the Middle East. The only alternative strategy that the Left have is to do nothing -- thus inviting more and more attacks.
Comments? Email me or here. If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.
********************************
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Monday, May 31, 2004
LAKOFF REVISITED
I have had a couple of shots on this blog in times past at George Lakoff -- the Leftist linguistics professor who thinks that conservatives all want to be punitive fathers. There is of course a Mt. Everest of nutty Leftist psychological theories around so why have I given Lakoff special attention? Because what he writes does, when you read it, sound very moderate, balanced and reasonable. It sounds good and it persuades many. But it is still nonsense for all that. In the past I have simply pointed out where and why it is nonsensical and contradicted by the evidence but I don't think that is enough to shoot down his theory. Theories tend to be killed off by better theories rather than by evidence. So I have just added a new introduction to my article on Lakoff that reads as follows:
"George Lakoff is a Leftist linguistics professor whose linguistic theories seem now to have fallen out of favour but who seems to think he knows all about the psychology of politics. Lakoff has written a book (reviewed here) which purports to explain the Left/Right polarity of politics as Mother-oriented politics versus Father-oriented politics -- a book called: Moral Politics : How Liberals and Conservatives Think.
His program is an ambitious one. He rightly points out that there are many "contradictions" (I would call them compromises) in any real-life political program (he describes them eloquently here) and says he has a grand theory that explains how all such apparent contradictions arise -- a theory that shows the real consistency underlying the apparent inconsistency. That is undoubtedly a noteworthy and attractive claim.
I too think I can explain the inconsistencies Lakoff mentions but I think I can explain it, not in a book, but in one paragraph. Does that not trump Lakoff? I think it does. So here is the paragraph:
What I would say that is that the contradictions arise because neither side of politics is in fact much INTERESTED in being consistent. Conservatives don't like theories and just go by what seems to have worked well for people in the world to date -- in all the untidy complexity that the real world has. And Leftists are only interested in what sounds good at the time and are perfectly capable of advocating completely contradictory things from occasion to occasion as long as they sound good on each occasion [John Kerry, anyone?]. The example par excellence of Leftist contradiction is their common claim that right and wrong or good and bad is at least totally arbitrary if not meaningless altogether -- which claim can be followed almost immediately with a self-righteoous sermon on the rightness and goodness of (say) "tolerance". Leftists want to make us "better" while at the same time denying that there is any such thing as "better"!!
So Lakoff's program is foredoomed from the start. What he deals with is intrinsically INconsistent. There is no large-scale consistency there for a theory to describe. But a brief look at what he claims does nonetheless seem in order. His claim is an attractive one so deserves examination of its fit to reality...."
*******************************
I have had a couple of shots on this blog in times past at George Lakoff -- the Leftist linguistics professor who thinks that conservatives all want to be punitive fathers. There is of course a Mt. Everest of nutty Leftist psychological theories around so why have I given Lakoff special attention? Because what he writes does, when you read it, sound very moderate, balanced and reasonable. It sounds good and it persuades many. But it is still nonsense for all that. In the past I have simply pointed out where and why it is nonsensical and contradicted by the evidence but I don't think that is enough to shoot down his theory. Theories tend to be killed off by better theories rather than by evidence. So I have just added a new introduction to my article on Lakoff that reads as follows:
"George Lakoff is a Leftist linguistics professor whose linguistic theories seem now to have fallen out of favour but who seems to think he knows all about the psychology of politics. Lakoff has written a book (reviewed here) which purports to explain the Left/Right polarity of politics as Mother-oriented politics versus Father-oriented politics -- a book called: Moral Politics : How Liberals and Conservatives Think.
His program is an ambitious one. He rightly points out that there are many "contradictions" (I would call them compromises) in any real-life political program (he describes them eloquently here) and says he has a grand theory that explains how all such apparent contradictions arise -- a theory that shows the real consistency underlying the apparent inconsistency. That is undoubtedly a noteworthy and attractive claim.
I too think I can explain the inconsistencies Lakoff mentions but I think I can explain it, not in a book, but in one paragraph. Does that not trump Lakoff? I think it does. So here is the paragraph:
What I would say that is that the contradictions arise because neither side of politics is in fact much INTERESTED in being consistent. Conservatives don't like theories and just go by what seems to have worked well for people in the world to date -- in all the untidy complexity that the real world has. And Leftists are only interested in what sounds good at the time and are perfectly capable of advocating completely contradictory things from occasion to occasion as long as they sound good on each occasion [John Kerry, anyone?]. The example par excellence of Leftist contradiction is their common claim that right and wrong or good and bad is at least totally arbitrary if not meaningless altogether -- which claim can be followed almost immediately with a self-righteoous sermon on the rightness and goodness of (say) "tolerance". Leftists want to make us "better" while at the same time denying that there is any such thing as "better"!!
So Lakoff's program is foredoomed from the start. What he deals with is intrinsically INconsistent. There is no large-scale consistency there for a theory to describe. But a brief look at what he claims does nonetheless seem in order. His claim is an attractive one so deserves examination of its fit to reality...."
*******************************
ELSEWHERE
A reader draws attention to this bit of Leftist double standards: "They broke the rules and broke the law. Despite the controversy, some Tigard High School students will still get to participate in graduation. But fellow students are saying, 'Not so fast!' A letter sent to parents a few weeks ago seems to be very black and white, stating that any senior who is involved with drugs or alcohol in the last few weeks of school will not be allowed to take part in commencement ceremonies. But it didn't work. Six seniors were caught intoxicated at prom, but stop the band; they will be allowed to partake in graduation." My reader comments: "Though Tigard, Oregon, is not Seattle, (it's about 200 miles away) it is certainly a soulmate. I laughed out loud thinking about all of silliness regarding zero tolerence in our schools regarding anything that even closely resembles a weapon of any kind. Whether it's a toy gun, a sharp object or dinner utensils, anything brought on campus and discovered by the thought police (teachers) results in automatic suspension. I remember a story about a little boy who was suspended because he used his hand and forefinger like a gun. These students are just lucky nobody had a nail clipper on them. That would have been real trouble".
A reader responded to my post yesterday about Leftists being really interested only in power as follows: "I've got to agree with you on that. I've recently been trying to re-read Atlas Shrugged (not that I am really a libertarian ) because when I tried to read it twenty-five years ago I could not get past the radio speech. It amazes me how much the plot resembles what happened in Chile and what is now happening in Venezuela. Just in case you've never read the book, it describes a leftist government citing compassion in order to create the economic chaos preparatory to a takeover. Does this not resemble Allende's Chile, where the goverment policies drove inflation to over 200% and government policies on business which were ostensibly meant to help actually created more problems, and ended with the confiscation of private businesses and lands? Does this not now resemble Chavez's Venezuela? While Ayn Rand portrays the industrialists as implausibly noble, her portayal of the well-meaning idiots led by the unscrupulous does not seem at all far from the mark. The stories from France about the 15,000 dead in last summer's heat-wave, and the recently built Paris airport terminal falling down, also seem to agree with her plot-line of an increasing sacrifice of competence in leadership for political correctness."
Leftists excuse Stalin and hate Hitler, YET: "From 1929 to 1939, in peace time, Stalin and the Bolsheviks killed about 20 million Soviet citizens, for no predictable reason. Hitler and the National Socialists ruined the businesses and careers of hundreds of thousands of German citizens, but the number of people killed by them before the outbreak of the war was only a few hundred, most of them fellow Nazis and all of them for a predictable reason. Even immediately after the onset of the war, when it became known that the Nazis had begun to engage in mercy killings of the incurably insane (euthanasia), the Catholic bishops, led by Bernhard von Galen, openly protested, and German public opinion compelled the Nazis to halt the program. Bishop (later: Cardinal) von Galen survived the Nazi regime. Under Stalin and the Bolsheviks, any such opposition was impossible and Bishop von Galen would have been quickly disposed of." So what does that tell us? Easy: Stalin was even farther Left than Hitler so he was more murderous. Leftists love humanity -- it's just people they can't stand. It may be worth noting that Israeli historian Aryeh Unger long ago showed that Stalin was much more totalitarian than Hitler.
Bureaucratic idiocy: Butchers can no longer give the dog a bone: "Butchers across the UK are to be banned from giving left-over bones to customers' dogs. Under new EU rules bones are classed as a waste by-product and butchers must pay for them to be incinerated, says The Sun. Britain's 10,000 butchers are being sent letters by local councils warning them they face fines if they pass left-over bones to pet-owners in the traditional way."
Wicked Thoughts has been visiting a Greek Orthodox blog and even found some jokes there!
For more postings, see GREENIE WATCH and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH. Mirror sites here and here
********************************
The Left cannot face the fact that the American intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq is fundamentally humanitarian. The most effective response to the 9/11 events and the one in America's own best interests would have been a retaliatory strike using nukes to take the whole of Afghanistan off the map -- followed by a threat that Mecca would go sky high if there were any further Islamic attacks on the USA or its allies. That would have made Islam a religion of peace overnight. But GWB rightly rejected that easy road because it would have involved the death of millions of innocents. He chose instead to go after just the bad guys -- an extremely difficult task. And its difficulty is causing continuing American deaths in Iraq to this day. But Americans have always given their blood in order to be humane. They did it in two world wars and in Vietnam and they are doing it now in the Middle East. The only alternative strategy that the Left have is to do nothing -- thus inviting more and more attacks.
Comments? Email me or here. If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.
********************************
A reader draws attention to this bit of Leftist double standards: "They broke the rules and broke the law. Despite the controversy, some Tigard High School students will still get to participate in graduation. But fellow students are saying, 'Not so fast!' A letter sent to parents a few weeks ago seems to be very black and white, stating that any senior who is involved with drugs or alcohol in the last few weeks of school will not be allowed to take part in commencement ceremonies. But it didn't work. Six seniors were caught intoxicated at prom, but stop the band; they will be allowed to partake in graduation." My reader comments: "Though Tigard, Oregon, is not Seattle, (it's about 200 miles away) it is certainly a soulmate. I laughed out loud thinking about all of silliness regarding zero tolerence in our schools regarding anything that even closely resembles a weapon of any kind. Whether it's a toy gun, a sharp object or dinner utensils, anything brought on campus and discovered by the thought police (teachers) results in automatic suspension. I remember a story about a little boy who was suspended because he used his hand and forefinger like a gun. These students are just lucky nobody had a nail clipper on them. That would have been real trouble".
A reader responded to my post yesterday about Leftists being really interested only in power as follows: "I've got to agree with you on that. I've recently been trying to re-read Atlas Shrugged (not that I am really a libertarian ) because when I tried to read it twenty-five years ago I could not get past the radio speech. It amazes me how much the plot resembles what happened in Chile and what is now happening in Venezuela. Just in case you've never read the book, it describes a leftist government citing compassion in order to create the economic chaos preparatory to a takeover. Does this not resemble Allende's Chile, where the goverment policies drove inflation to over 200% and government policies on business which were ostensibly meant to help actually created more problems, and ended with the confiscation of private businesses and lands? Does this not now resemble Chavez's Venezuela? While Ayn Rand portrays the industrialists as implausibly noble, her portayal of the well-meaning idiots led by the unscrupulous does not seem at all far from the mark. The stories from France about the 15,000 dead in last summer's heat-wave, and the recently built Paris airport terminal falling down, also seem to agree with her plot-line of an increasing sacrifice of competence in leadership for political correctness."
Leftists excuse Stalin and hate Hitler, YET: "From 1929 to 1939, in peace time, Stalin and the Bolsheviks killed about 20 million Soviet citizens, for no predictable reason. Hitler and the National Socialists ruined the businesses and careers of hundreds of thousands of German citizens, but the number of people killed by them before the outbreak of the war was only a few hundred, most of them fellow Nazis and all of them for a predictable reason. Even immediately after the onset of the war, when it became known that the Nazis had begun to engage in mercy killings of the incurably insane (euthanasia), the Catholic bishops, led by Bernhard von Galen, openly protested, and German public opinion compelled the Nazis to halt the program. Bishop (later: Cardinal) von Galen survived the Nazi regime. Under Stalin and the Bolsheviks, any such opposition was impossible and Bishop von Galen would have been quickly disposed of." So what does that tell us? Easy: Stalin was even farther Left than Hitler so he was more murderous. Leftists love humanity -- it's just people they can't stand. It may be worth noting that Israeli historian Aryeh Unger long ago showed that Stalin was much more totalitarian than Hitler.
Bureaucratic idiocy: Butchers can no longer give the dog a bone: "Butchers across the UK are to be banned from giving left-over bones to customers' dogs. Under new EU rules bones are classed as a waste by-product and butchers must pay for them to be incinerated, says The Sun. Britain's 10,000 butchers are being sent letters by local councils warning them they face fines if they pass left-over bones to pet-owners in the traditional way."
Wicked Thoughts has been visiting a Greek Orthodox blog and even found some jokes there!
For more postings, see GREENIE WATCH and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH. Mirror sites here and here
********************************
The Left cannot face the fact that the American intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq is fundamentally humanitarian. The most effective response to the 9/11 events and the one in America's own best interests would have been a retaliatory strike using nukes to take the whole of Afghanistan off the map -- followed by a threat that Mecca would go sky high if there were any further Islamic attacks on the USA or its allies. That would have made Islam a religion of peace overnight. But GWB rightly rejected that easy road because it would have involved the death of millions of innocents. He chose instead to go after just the bad guys -- an extremely difficult task. And its difficulty is causing continuing American deaths in Iraq to this day. But Americans have always given their blood in order to be humane. They did it in two world wars and in Vietnam and they are doing it now in the Middle East. The only alternative strategy that the Left have is to do nothing -- thus inviting more and more attacks.
Comments? Email me or here. If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.
********************************
Sunday, May 30, 2004
ONLY POWER MATTERS TO THE LEFT
I know I shouldn't be, but I was slightly surprised that my considerable efforts to point out that party politics in modern democracies are essentially centrist were totally lost on the Leftist bloggers (calling themselves "One Good Move") who have been criticizing Keith Burgess Jackson for some fairly ordinary statements he made about the sources of ideology. Who, for goodness sake, disputes that aging makes you more conservative? Practically every conservative intellectual there is (including Keith and including the dreaded Neocons) started out on the Left! I am a considerable rarity in being a lifelong conservative intellectual.
But the fact that a centrist such as GWB is hated with a passion by so-called American "liberals" (really Leftists. Liberty is a very low priority for them) is itself instructive. If you look at the legislation and policies that Clinton and GWB have supported and implemented, it would be a hard task to say which was the more Leftist. With his support for all sorts of expansion of government, I would definitely say that GWB is the more Leftist but the fact that the matter can be reasonably debated shows just how centrist both men are. So why do the Left loathe GWB? I know of nothing directed towards John Kerry by conservatives that remotely approaches the rage and hate that is routinely directed towards GWB by the Left. Contempt for Kerry's dishonesty is common among conservatives but that is about all. So why do American Leftists take their party politics so seriously? Why were the "One Good Move" bloggers so completely incapable of taking on board the simple fact that a vote for the GOP is NOT automatically a vote for conservatism?
A vote for the GOP is SOMETIMES a vote for conservatism but American politics are essentially interest-group politics. Each party has its client groups (mostly minorities in the case of the donkeys and particularly New Testament Christians in the case of the GOP) and it is speaking for them that brings in the great majority of votes -- which is why lots of GOP supporters who deplore GWB's expansion of government will still vote for him in the next election and which is why American blacks who are conservative on lots of social issues almost always vote for the donkeys. It is only small minority of centrist (swinging) voters who decide which candidate will win or lose and that is a major part of the reason why both candidates themselves have to be centrist.
So it all boils down to power. Does your team occupy the top positions or not? Are people you can identify with in charge? And for Leftists, politics is NOTHING BUT power. They have no principles and openly ridicule (particularly via postmodernism) the idea that anything could be right or wrong. Policies that were once popular but which have become unpopular (such as eugenics) are abandoned so completely by Leftists that only historians know that such policies once had large-scale Leftist support. And with the way antisemitism is surging on the Left, the time will come when people will have forgotten that Leftists were for a time anti-racist. So for Leftists it is only party that matters and conservatives such as myself and Keith who take ideas, principles and ideology seriously are simply incomprehensible.
*********************************
I know I shouldn't be, but I was slightly surprised that my considerable efforts to point out that party politics in modern democracies are essentially centrist were totally lost on the Leftist bloggers (calling themselves "One Good Move") who have been criticizing Keith Burgess Jackson for some fairly ordinary statements he made about the sources of ideology. Who, for goodness sake, disputes that aging makes you more conservative? Practically every conservative intellectual there is (including Keith and including the dreaded Neocons) started out on the Left! I am a considerable rarity in being a lifelong conservative intellectual.
But the fact that a centrist such as GWB is hated with a passion by so-called American "liberals" (really Leftists. Liberty is a very low priority for them) is itself instructive. If you look at the legislation and policies that Clinton and GWB have supported and implemented, it would be a hard task to say which was the more Leftist. With his support for all sorts of expansion of government, I would definitely say that GWB is the more Leftist but the fact that the matter can be reasonably debated shows just how centrist both men are. So why do the Left loathe GWB? I know of nothing directed towards John Kerry by conservatives that remotely approaches the rage and hate that is routinely directed towards GWB by the Left. Contempt for Kerry's dishonesty is common among conservatives but that is about all. So why do American Leftists take their party politics so seriously? Why were the "One Good Move" bloggers so completely incapable of taking on board the simple fact that a vote for the GOP is NOT automatically a vote for conservatism?
A vote for the GOP is SOMETIMES a vote for conservatism but American politics are essentially interest-group politics. Each party has its client groups (mostly minorities in the case of the donkeys and particularly New Testament Christians in the case of the GOP) and it is speaking for them that brings in the great majority of votes -- which is why lots of GOP supporters who deplore GWB's expansion of government will still vote for him in the next election and which is why American blacks who are conservative on lots of social issues almost always vote for the donkeys. It is only small minority of centrist (swinging) voters who decide which candidate will win or lose and that is a major part of the reason why both candidates themselves have to be centrist.
So it all boils down to power. Does your team occupy the top positions or not? Are people you can identify with in charge? And for Leftists, politics is NOTHING BUT power. They have no principles and openly ridicule (particularly via postmodernism) the idea that anything could be right or wrong. Policies that were once popular but which have become unpopular (such as eugenics) are abandoned so completely by Leftists that only historians know that such policies once had large-scale Leftist support. And with the way antisemitism is surging on the Left, the time will come when people will have forgotten that Leftists were for a time anti-racist. So for Leftists it is only party that matters and conservatives such as myself and Keith who take ideas, principles and ideology seriously are simply incomprehensible.
*********************************
ELSEWHERE
I must say that it does rather surprise me how many bloggers depend on blogging software. I use blogger.com for this blog because of the permanent free blogspot hosting and to save a little bit of time but all my mirror sites are hand-coded. Basic html is very easy. I have never so much as opened a book on html or looked at a FAQ on it. I just see how other people have done things and copy that. So the only blogging software I use for my mirrors is a text editor plus what is in my noggin. I am rather moved to comment on the matter at the moment because of the loud grumbles coming from the MT people over recent price rises there. And some people pay for separate blogrolling software too! It all seems a bit sad to me when learning a tiny bit of html would enable people to do their blogging for free. I decided last night that I should put up some permalinks to the various parts of my online book about Leftism so I now know how to hand-code permalinks too -- dead easy! And hand-coded html loads twice as fast as the mass of junk produced by html editing programs. Here is a useful sample of my new permalinks (or here if that site is overloaded).
"A major poll of 1,388 American Roman Catholic voters shows Catholic presidential candidate John Kerry getting only 20% support among America's 51 million Catholics on issues where he opposes the Church's position -- with his support on some issues dropping as low as 6%."
Melanie Phillips on a "blame America" and "blame Israel" letter to The Guardian by Canon Paul Oestreicher of the Church of England: "This letter illustrates how the toxic combination of vicious prejudice and astonishing ignorance combine to produce an astounding inversion of moral values. These occupations [of Iraq and Palestinian areas] are not illegal. There is no brutal repression of civilian populations, but a defence against terror and mass murder in an attempt to restore order and respect for human life. As for his convoluted last thought, he appeared to be equating the deaths of Nazis during the occupation of France with the deaths of Israelis, Americans and British now, and proposing that Islamist mass murderers are the moral equivalent of the French Resistance."
Your government will protect you: "Australia admitted that its top spy agency ignored repeated attempts by convicted terrorist Jack Roche to warn it of the activities of the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) terror network two years before the Bali bombing".
Duplicitous translation: A Swedish speaker of Arabic compares mosque sermons to their press coverage: "America rapes Islam," the Imam roars in Arabic from the platform. The interpreter translates as: "We condemn USA's torture of Iraqi prisoners."
Don't laugh: The latest list of FBI Al Qaeda suspects includes a man raised on a goat ranch in Riverside County, Calif. He converted to Islam as a teenager after moving to Garden Grove, Calif. (presumably he was homesick!)
Slattery has picked out a nice selection of quotes from America's Leftist "celebrities". It certainly shows out of their own mouths what a nasty lot the "celebrities" are.
For more postings, see GREENIE WATCH and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH. Mirror sites here and here
********************************
The Left cannot face the fact that the American intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq is fundamentally humanitarian. The most effective response to the 9/11 events and the one in America's own best interests would have been a retaliatory strike using nukes to take the whole of Afghanistan off the map -- followed by a threat that Mecca would go sky high if there were any further Islamic attacks on the USA or its allies. That would have made Islam a religion of peace overnight. But GWB rightly rejected that easy road because it would have involved the death of millions of innocents. He chose instead to go after just the bad guys -- an extremely difficult task. And its difficulty is causing continuing American deaths in Iraq to this day. But Americans have always given their blood in order to be humane. They did it in two world wars and in Vietnam and they are doing it now in the Middle East. The only alternative strategy that the Left have is to do nothing -- thus inviting more and more attacks.
Comments? Email me or here. If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.
********************************
I must say that it does rather surprise me how many bloggers depend on blogging software. I use blogger.com for this blog because of the permanent free blogspot hosting and to save a little bit of time but all my mirror sites are hand-coded. Basic html is very easy. I have never so much as opened a book on html or looked at a FAQ on it. I just see how other people have done things and copy that. So the only blogging software I use for my mirrors is a text editor plus what is in my noggin. I am rather moved to comment on the matter at the moment because of the loud grumbles coming from the MT people over recent price rises there. And some people pay for separate blogrolling software too! It all seems a bit sad to me when learning a tiny bit of html would enable people to do their blogging for free. I decided last night that I should put up some permalinks to the various parts of my online book about Leftism so I now know how to hand-code permalinks too -- dead easy! And hand-coded html loads twice as fast as the mass of junk produced by html editing programs. Here is a useful sample of my new permalinks (or here if that site is overloaded).
"A major poll of 1,388 American Roman Catholic voters shows Catholic presidential candidate John Kerry getting only 20% support among America's 51 million Catholics on issues where he opposes the Church's position -- with his support on some issues dropping as low as 6%."
Melanie Phillips on a "blame America" and "blame Israel" letter to The Guardian by Canon Paul Oestreicher of the Church of England: "This letter illustrates how the toxic combination of vicious prejudice and astonishing ignorance combine to produce an astounding inversion of moral values. These occupations [of Iraq and Palestinian areas] are not illegal. There is no brutal repression of civilian populations, but a defence against terror and mass murder in an attempt to restore order and respect for human life. As for his convoluted last thought, he appeared to be equating the deaths of Nazis during the occupation of France with the deaths of Israelis, Americans and British now, and proposing that Islamist mass murderers are the moral equivalent of the French Resistance."
Your government will protect you: "Australia admitted that its top spy agency ignored repeated attempts by convicted terrorist Jack Roche to warn it of the activities of the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) terror network two years before the Bali bombing".
Duplicitous translation: A Swedish speaker of Arabic compares mosque sermons to their press coverage: "America rapes Islam," the Imam roars in Arabic from the platform. The interpreter translates as: "We condemn USA's torture of Iraqi prisoners."
Don't laugh: The latest list of FBI Al Qaeda suspects includes a man raised on a goat ranch in Riverside County, Calif. He converted to Islam as a teenager after moving to Garden Grove, Calif. (presumably he was homesick!)
Slattery has picked out a nice selection of quotes from America's Leftist "celebrities". It certainly shows out of their own mouths what a nasty lot the "celebrities" are.
For more postings, see GREENIE WATCH and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH. Mirror sites here and here
********************************
The Left cannot face the fact that the American intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq is fundamentally humanitarian. The most effective response to the 9/11 events and the one in America's own best interests would have been a retaliatory strike using nukes to take the whole of Afghanistan off the map -- followed by a threat that Mecca would go sky high if there were any further Islamic attacks on the USA or its allies. That would have made Islam a religion of peace overnight. But GWB rightly rejected that easy road because it would have involved the death of millions of innocents. He chose instead to go after just the bad guys -- an extremely difficult task. And its difficulty is causing continuing American deaths in Iraq to this day. But Americans have always given their blood in order to be humane. They did it in two world wars and in Vietnam and they are doing it now in the Middle East. The only alternative strategy that the Left have is to do nothing -- thus inviting more and more attacks.
Comments? Email me or here. If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.
********************************
Saturday, May 29, 2004
FROM BROOKES NEWS
Democrats violate "separation of church and state" dogma by telling bishops to whom they can give communion and to whom they should not In a brazen act of outrageous chutzpah forty-eight democratic Catholic congressman publicly Dictated theology to the Catholic Church by telling her to whom she should give communion.
Journalist bashes President Bush on polls and Iraq Greg Hywood, the Sydney Morning Herald's editor, slags President Bush over funding, polls and the Iraq war ? and gets it wrong.
This tells us all we need to know about the media A picture about Nick Berg that exposes the media's double standards and moral bankruptcy
The media, Abu Ghraib and the forgotten massacres Abu Ghraib has given our leftist journalists a club with which to beat President Bush and the war to overthrow Saddam. This is the same rotten crew who never seriously protested Saddam's vile tortures and mass murders.
Free markets and Gradgrind executives In his novel Hard Times Charles Dickens' caricature of a free marketeer was the calculating and apparently cold-hearted utilitarian Gradgrind.
Journalist accuses America of war crimes in Iraq The Bush-hating Brian Toohey accuses the US of murdering women and children in Fallujah who were then buried in a mass grave in the town's football stadium. This journalist also defends terrorist as resistance fighters.
Details here
*************************************
Democrats violate "separation of church and state" dogma by telling bishops to whom they can give communion and to whom they should not In a brazen act of outrageous chutzpah forty-eight democratic Catholic congressman publicly Dictated theology to the Catholic Church by telling her to whom she should give communion.
Journalist bashes President Bush on polls and Iraq Greg Hywood, the Sydney Morning Herald's editor, slags President Bush over funding, polls and the Iraq war ? and gets it wrong.
This tells us all we need to know about the media A picture about Nick Berg that exposes the media's double standards and moral bankruptcy
The media, Abu Ghraib and the forgotten massacres Abu Ghraib has given our leftist journalists a club with which to beat President Bush and the war to overthrow Saddam. This is the same rotten crew who never seriously protested Saddam's vile tortures and mass murders.
Free markets and Gradgrind executives In his novel Hard Times Charles Dickens' caricature of a free marketeer was the calculating and apparently cold-hearted utilitarian Gradgrind.
Journalist accuses America of war crimes in Iraq The Bush-hating Brian Toohey accuses the US of murdering women and children in Fallujah who were then buried in a mass grave in the town's football stadium. This journalist also defends terrorist as resistance fighters.
Details here
*************************************
ELSEWHERE
Sometimes the intellectual dishonesty (or should I say, the intellectual desperation) of the Left is so gross that it still has the capacity to amaze even me. After my big post yesterday pointing out that ideology and political party preference are only weakly correlated (25% overlap at a maximum) and that ideology therefore has to be studied separately fom party loyalty, the person to whom the post was replying emailed Keith Burgess-Jackson as follows: "I read John Ray's post. It was quite interesting. Nevertheless he presented no data that supports your assertions. Since you don't like exit poll data and John Ray's post attacks voting record as an unreliable way to identify ideology, I found some more stats for you. They are very much like the exit poll data, but are based on a survey. The stats still do not go in your favor". And what are the stats about? Political party preference! My entire post was devoted to pointing out the irrelevance of such statistics to the study of ideology yet he still claims to have read my post. What a fraud he is! And his claim that I "presented no data" is a colossal lie. I linked here to an academic journal article based on massive survey research that showed older people to have more conservative attitudes and I linked here to another academic journal article -- again based on massive survey research -- showing that people of higher socio-economic status tend to have more Leftist attitudes! Stalin's chronic lying has plenty of counterparts among modern-day Leftists.
America's so-called "liberal" intellectuals defended the Soviet system right throughout the cold war. And that still continues!. Popular young Leftist blogger, Matthew Yglesias, has just got himself into deserved hot water with his appalling claim that lots of Russians "got themselves killed" by Stalin: As if it were the doing of the victims rather than the doing of Stalin. See comments here and here. At the very least, it shows characteristic Leftist indifference to mass-murder. His further claim about the backwardness of pre-revolutionary Russia is sheer propaganda too. As one of the commenters on "Catallarchy" said: "Russia was not "a totally undeveloped country" in 1917. It was an industrial nation spanned by railroads with an emerging capitalist class, labor unrest, factory strikes and all the other attributes of a developed nation of the time.... Still, it had freed its slaves (serfs) before the US did and even gave them land though they had to pay for it in future installments." Russia was in fact the world's 4th largest industrial economy at the time and was steadily becoming more democratic -- and if the Tsar had not bothered his head with the Serbs, Russia would be a modern advanced nation today. There is even a photographic record of what Russia was like in the early 1900s -- in clear and brilliant colour too.
Brent Bozell notes some hate speech from Democrat leader Pelosi (about GWB, of course) and regrets that the media mostly ignored it. he says: "The public deserves to hear the words, and see the face, of the hate-filled Left."
I must say that I feel slightly overwhelmed by the fact that the National Library of Australia has just archived my entire website here: All 400+ files of it as far as I can see, including my blog archives. THAT'S backup for you. I suppose that being no. 42197 out of 20 million Australians is some sort of honour.
Great news for all internet users: "A US man who sent 850 million junk emails through accounts he opened with stolen identities has been sentenced to up to seven years in prison."
Rather surprising: The Australian presence in Hollywood goes back a long way. I didn't know that.
Arlene Peck has some more dreadful news from Israel: "there are actually children in Israel who are going hungry! Actually, to tell the truth, I was amazed that the situation has gotten so serious in Israel that there are now programs like Hazon Yeshaya soup Kitchens ... It seems the savage and senseless Intifada over the past few years has caused the number of Israeli children who live below the poverty line to be approximately 30% and climbing. That translates to over 690,000 Jewish children living in Israel who are going to bed hungry. Ironic how, one of the fears that we in America have is that school children are becoming obese because of lack of exercise and over indulgence in `junk food.'?"
Who moved my truth is really getting the knife into the female chauvinist sows.
David's Medienkritik has a fun picture from Germany of how one kid prayed for "peace" (meaning U.S. defeat) in Iraq.
For more postings, see GREENIE WATCH and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH. Mirror sites here and here
********************************
The Left cannot face the fact that the American intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq is fundamentally humanitarian. The most effective response to the 9/11 events and the one in America's own best interests would have been a retaliatory strike using nukes to take the whole of Afghanistan off the map -- followed by a threat that Mecca would go sky high if there were any further Islamic attacks on the USA or its allies. That would have made Islam a religion of peace overnight. But GWB rightly rejected that easy road because it would have involved the death of millions of innocents. He chose instead to go after just the bad guys -- an extremely difficult task. And its difficulty is causing continuing American deaths in Iraq to this day. But Americans have always given their blood in order to be humane. They did it in two world wars and in Vietnam and they are doing it now in the Middle East. The only alternative strategy that the Left have is to do nothing -- thus inviting more and more attacks.
Comments? Email me or here. If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.
********************************
Sometimes the intellectual dishonesty (or should I say, the intellectual desperation) of the Left is so gross that it still has the capacity to amaze even me. After my big post yesterday pointing out that ideology and political party preference are only weakly correlated (25% overlap at a maximum) and that ideology therefore has to be studied separately fom party loyalty, the person to whom the post was replying emailed Keith Burgess-Jackson as follows: "I read John Ray's post. It was quite interesting. Nevertheless he presented no data that supports your assertions. Since you don't like exit poll data and John Ray's post attacks voting record as an unreliable way to identify ideology, I found some more stats for you. They are very much like the exit poll data, but are based on a survey. The stats still do not go in your favor". And what are the stats about? Political party preference! My entire post was devoted to pointing out the irrelevance of such statistics to the study of ideology yet he still claims to have read my post. What a fraud he is! And his claim that I "presented no data" is a colossal lie. I linked here to an academic journal article based on massive survey research that showed older people to have more conservative attitudes and I linked here to another academic journal article -- again based on massive survey research -- showing that people of higher socio-economic status tend to have more Leftist attitudes! Stalin's chronic lying has plenty of counterparts among modern-day Leftists.
America's so-called "liberal" intellectuals defended the Soviet system right throughout the cold war. And that still continues!. Popular young Leftist blogger, Matthew Yglesias, has just got himself into deserved hot water with his appalling claim that lots of Russians "got themselves killed" by Stalin: As if it were the doing of the victims rather than the doing of Stalin. See comments here and here. At the very least, it shows characteristic Leftist indifference to mass-murder. His further claim about the backwardness of pre-revolutionary Russia is sheer propaganda too. As one of the commenters on "Catallarchy" said: "Russia was not "a totally undeveloped country" in 1917. It was an industrial nation spanned by railroads with an emerging capitalist class, labor unrest, factory strikes and all the other attributes of a developed nation of the time.... Still, it had freed its slaves (serfs) before the US did and even gave them land though they had to pay for it in future installments." Russia was in fact the world's 4th largest industrial economy at the time and was steadily becoming more democratic -- and if the Tsar had not bothered his head with the Serbs, Russia would be a modern advanced nation today. There is even a photographic record of what Russia was like in the early 1900s -- in clear and brilliant colour too.
Brent Bozell notes some hate speech from Democrat leader Pelosi (about GWB, of course) and regrets that the media mostly ignored it. he says: "The public deserves to hear the words, and see the face, of the hate-filled Left."
I must say that I feel slightly overwhelmed by the fact that the National Library of Australia has just archived my entire website here: All 400+ files of it as far as I can see, including my blog archives. THAT'S backup for you. I suppose that being no. 42197 out of 20 million Australians is some sort of honour.
Great news for all internet users: "A US man who sent 850 million junk emails through accounts he opened with stolen identities has been sentenced to up to seven years in prison."
Rather surprising: The Australian presence in Hollywood goes back a long way. I didn't know that.
Arlene Peck has some more dreadful news from Israel: "there are actually children in Israel who are going hungry! Actually, to tell the truth, I was amazed that the situation has gotten so serious in Israel that there are now programs like Hazon Yeshaya soup Kitchens ... It seems the savage and senseless Intifada over the past few years has caused the number of Israeli children who live below the poverty line to be approximately 30% and climbing. That translates to over 690,000 Jewish children living in Israel who are going to bed hungry. Ironic how, one of the fears that we in America have is that school children are becoming obese because of lack of exercise and over indulgence in `junk food.'?"
Who moved my truth is really getting the knife into the female chauvinist sows.
David's Medienkritik has a fun picture from Germany of how one kid prayed for "peace" (meaning U.S. defeat) in Iraq.
For more postings, see GREENIE WATCH and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH. Mirror sites here and here
********************************
The Left cannot face the fact that the American intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq is fundamentally humanitarian. The most effective response to the 9/11 events and the one in America's own best interests would have been a retaliatory strike using nukes to take the whole of Afghanistan off the map -- followed by a threat that Mecca would go sky high if there were any further Islamic attacks on the USA or its allies. That would have made Islam a religion of peace overnight. But GWB rightly rejected that easy road because it would have involved the death of millions of innocents. He chose instead to go after just the bad guys -- an extremely difficult task. And its difficulty is causing continuing American deaths in Iraq to this day. But Americans have always given their blood in order to be humane. They did it in two world wars and in Vietnam and they are doing it now in the Middle East. The only alternative strategy that the Left have is to do nothing -- thus inviting more and more attacks.
Comments? Email me or here. If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.
********************************
Friday, May 28, 2004
CONFUSING THE LEADERS AND THE LED
Keith Burgess-Jackson forwarded me a copy of the following email that he received: "Your recent article, "Expiating Liberal Guilt" seems to make two empirical claims. 1. There is a correlation between growing older and a predisposition to conservative politics. 2. There is a correlation between being brought up in a wealthy or at least middle class family and being liberal. I would have thought a scholar who describes himself as "anal" would have at least done a Google search to see if any statistics back up these claims. I found some exit poll data from the 2000 election that suggests you are dead wrong on both claims. I hope you will post a true mea culpa on your blog regarding this. If you do not, I question whether you are a philosopher who is interested in the truth. Here is the link".
The writer makes the common mistake of confusing the leaders and the led. There is a huge amount of research in the psychological literature showing that the two can be quite different. Keith was talking about those who preach "liberalism" rather than those who vote for the Democrat candidate in Presidential elections. The two are far from the same. Far more people vote Democrat than are committed to "liberalism". Only 20% of U.S. voters self-identify as "liberal". So why do so many others vote for Democrat candidates?
In part it is because ALL successful Presidential candidates (Democrat or Republican) are in fact centrists. They have to stay pretty close to the political centre (regardless of what their real, personal views might be) in order to maximize their appeal. No candidate can hope to win unless he appeals to a lot of centrist or "floating" voters and both candidates will try to offer something to everyone. The candidate can only be Right-leaning or Left-leaning rather than truly Rightist or Leftist. And there could be no clearer demonstration of that than John "flip-flop" Kerry. He carries the attempt to be everything to everybody to a ludicrous degree. And GWB too wooed "liberal" voters by stealing Leftist rhetoric and campaigning as a "compassionate" conservative. Another sign of how centrist successful Presidential candidates have to be is that there is a quite respectable case for arguing that Clinton was more conservative than GWB is. Work for the dole took off under Clinton and Clinton balanced the budget whereas GWB oversaw a major welfare expansion (prescription drug benefit) and ran the budget into deficit. So in those respects the two men did exactly the opposite of what the ideologies normally attributed to them would lead one to expect. Both have been conservative on some things and "liberal" on others.
So while it would be extremely odd indeed if conservative-leaning candidates were not preponderantly backed by conservative people, the differentiation is rarely strong (the strongest correlation I have found in my surveys was a correlation of .5 -- implying only a 25% overlap between ideology and vote). So GWB would have got votes from all sorts of people for all sorts of different reasons: For instance, as well as getting votes from Christians and committed conservatives, GWB would have got votes from centrists who liked his balance of "compassion" (i.e. being pro-handout) and caution about social change and from some genuinely compassionate "liberals" not because they liked his views in general but because they thought he would be most likely to bring about economic betterment for all (through economic growth etc.). A vote for GWB was, then, only only on some occasions an indicator of real voter conservatism.
Secondly, S.M. Lipset pointed out decades ago that vote is determined more by perceived economic self-interest (what in Australia we call the "hip-pocket nerve") than by ideological affinity -- so that you can have socially conservative working-class people (particularly blacks in the U.S. case) voting for Leftist candidates solely because they believe Leftist promises that the Left will give them personally a better deal. They might want to castrate homosexuals but they want bigger welfare cheques even more. See here.
So the fact that wealthier people were slightly more likely to vote for GWB is in fact good proof of Keith's contention. Wealthier people in general obviously saw GWB's policies as better for them but how come so many wealthy people voted against GWB? Obviously there was a big ideological pull among wealthy people that was influencing them to vote against economic self-interest. It shows that once you are well-off yourself, you are more likely to put money worries aside and concentrate on other goals -- such as telling the "peasants" what to do.
It has often been noted too (see again here) that it is education rather than occupation which is the major social class influence on ideology. Exposure to the educational system is a Leftist influence. And the Gore/Bush election results do show that. Gore's strength was among both those with the lowest level of education (for economic reasons) and those with the highest level of education (for ideological reasons). Just why education is a Leftist influence is set out at some length again here.
Economic self-interest matters a lot to older people too. The Democrats are big advocates of welfare and older people are big consumers of wefare so it was no surprise at all that GWB's share of the elderly vote was well-down. It was of course to help reverse his anti-welfare image among the elderly that GWB sponsored the prescription drug benefit initiative. Aging as such, however, is very strongly associated with conservative thinking. There is a list of some of the beliefs here that strongly differentiate the old and the young. You will see that what old people tend to believe is in fact rather amazingly Right-wing. Older people were likely to believe, for instance, that "Patriotism and loyalty to one's country are more important than one's intellectual convictions and should have precedence over them" and "Treason and murder should be punishable by death". They rejected views such as "Our treatment of criminals is too harsh: We should try to cure them, not punish them" and "People should be allowed to hold demonstrations in the streets without police interference".
So vote is the outcome of many influences and for most people ideology is not the crucial influence (remember that 25% maximum mentioned above). Ideology is important to party leaders and activists, however, so is still an important thing to study and analyse -- which Keith and I both have the habit of doing. I in fact have had over 200 papers reporting on aspects of it published in the academic journals.
As something of a footnote to the above, it may be worth noting that even self-identification as a "liberal" (etc.) may be misleading and unreliable. Not only vote but even self-identification may correlate poorly with ideology. Some recent Pew Research survey data (summarized again here) shows that the views held by so-called "moderates", for instance, can in fact be very Leftist. And there are no doubt many conservatives who regard themselves as moderate too. In other words, what people see as conservative, liberal etc varies widely. If GWB and Clinton are in fact both mostly centrists but are widely described as being of the Right or the Left, it should be no surprise that such confusions arise. It is only by asking questions about particular issues (as I did above in looking at the beliefs of the elderly) that one can have some hope of placing people realistically on an ideological spectrum. And it may be worth noting that when one does that, most people fall around the middle (in statisticians' terms, political ideology approximates a normal distribution) -- which is why successful politicians head in that direction too.
And some people reading this (particularly libertarians) will no doubt want to argue that the very idea of a Left/Right ideological spectrum is simplistic and wrong. To answer that, however, I will have to refer readers elsewhere.
********************************
Keith Burgess-Jackson forwarded me a copy of the following email that he received: "Your recent article, "Expiating Liberal Guilt" seems to make two empirical claims. 1. There is a correlation between growing older and a predisposition to conservative politics. 2. There is a correlation between being brought up in a wealthy or at least middle class family and being liberal. I would have thought a scholar who describes himself as "anal" would have at least done a Google search to see if any statistics back up these claims. I found some exit poll data from the 2000 election that suggests you are dead wrong on both claims. I hope you will post a true mea culpa on your blog regarding this. If you do not, I question whether you are a philosopher who is interested in the truth. Here is the link".
The writer makes the common mistake of confusing the leaders and the led. There is a huge amount of research in the psychological literature showing that the two can be quite different. Keith was talking about those who preach "liberalism" rather than those who vote for the Democrat candidate in Presidential elections. The two are far from the same. Far more people vote Democrat than are committed to "liberalism". Only 20% of U.S. voters self-identify as "liberal". So why do so many others vote for Democrat candidates?
In part it is because ALL successful Presidential candidates (Democrat or Republican) are in fact centrists. They have to stay pretty close to the political centre (regardless of what their real, personal views might be) in order to maximize their appeal. No candidate can hope to win unless he appeals to a lot of centrist or "floating" voters and both candidates will try to offer something to everyone. The candidate can only be Right-leaning or Left-leaning rather than truly Rightist or Leftist. And there could be no clearer demonstration of that than John "flip-flop" Kerry. He carries the attempt to be everything to everybody to a ludicrous degree. And GWB too wooed "liberal" voters by stealing Leftist rhetoric and campaigning as a "compassionate" conservative. Another sign of how centrist successful Presidential candidates have to be is that there is a quite respectable case for arguing that Clinton was more conservative than GWB is. Work for the dole took off under Clinton and Clinton balanced the budget whereas GWB oversaw a major welfare expansion (prescription drug benefit) and ran the budget into deficit. So in those respects the two men did exactly the opposite of what the ideologies normally attributed to them would lead one to expect. Both have been conservative on some things and "liberal" on others.
So while it would be extremely odd indeed if conservative-leaning candidates were not preponderantly backed by conservative people, the differentiation is rarely strong (the strongest correlation I have found in my surveys was a correlation of .5 -- implying only a 25% overlap between ideology and vote). So GWB would have got votes from all sorts of people for all sorts of different reasons: For instance, as well as getting votes from Christians and committed conservatives, GWB would have got votes from centrists who liked his balance of "compassion" (i.e. being pro-handout) and caution about social change and from some genuinely compassionate "liberals" not because they liked his views in general but because they thought he would be most likely to bring about economic betterment for all (through economic growth etc.). A vote for GWB was, then, only only on some occasions an indicator of real voter conservatism.
Secondly, S.M. Lipset pointed out decades ago that vote is determined more by perceived economic self-interest (what in Australia we call the "hip-pocket nerve") than by ideological affinity -- so that you can have socially conservative working-class people (particularly blacks in the U.S. case) voting for Leftist candidates solely because they believe Leftist promises that the Left will give them personally a better deal. They might want to castrate homosexuals but they want bigger welfare cheques even more. See here.
So the fact that wealthier people were slightly more likely to vote for GWB is in fact good proof of Keith's contention. Wealthier people in general obviously saw GWB's policies as better for them but how come so many wealthy people voted against GWB? Obviously there was a big ideological pull among wealthy people that was influencing them to vote against economic self-interest. It shows that once you are well-off yourself, you are more likely to put money worries aside and concentrate on other goals -- such as telling the "peasants" what to do.
It has often been noted too (see again here) that it is education rather than occupation which is the major social class influence on ideology. Exposure to the educational system is a Leftist influence. And the Gore/Bush election results do show that. Gore's strength was among both those with the lowest level of education (for economic reasons) and those with the highest level of education (for ideological reasons). Just why education is a Leftist influence is set out at some length again here.
Economic self-interest matters a lot to older people too. The Democrats are big advocates of welfare and older people are big consumers of wefare so it was no surprise at all that GWB's share of the elderly vote was well-down. It was of course to help reverse his anti-welfare image among the elderly that GWB sponsored the prescription drug benefit initiative. Aging as such, however, is very strongly associated with conservative thinking. There is a list of some of the beliefs here that strongly differentiate the old and the young. You will see that what old people tend to believe is in fact rather amazingly Right-wing. Older people were likely to believe, for instance, that "Patriotism and loyalty to one's country are more important than one's intellectual convictions and should have precedence over them" and "Treason and murder should be punishable by death". They rejected views such as "Our treatment of criminals is too harsh: We should try to cure them, not punish them" and "People should be allowed to hold demonstrations in the streets without police interference".
So vote is the outcome of many influences and for most people ideology is not the crucial influence (remember that 25% maximum mentioned above). Ideology is important to party leaders and activists, however, so is still an important thing to study and analyse -- which Keith and I both have the habit of doing. I in fact have had over 200 papers reporting on aspects of it published in the academic journals.
As something of a footnote to the above, it may be worth noting that even self-identification as a "liberal" (etc.) may be misleading and unreliable. Not only vote but even self-identification may correlate poorly with ideology. Some recent Pew Research survey data (summarized again here) shows that the views held by so-called "moderates", for instance, can in fact be very Leftist. And there are no doubt many conservatives who regard themselves as moderate too. In other words, what people see as conservative, liberal etc varies widely. If GWB and Clinton are in fact both mostly centrists but are widely described as being of the Right or the Left, it should be no surprise that such confusions arise. It is only by asking questions about particular issues (as I did above in looking at the beliefs of the elderly) that one can have some hope of placing people realistically on an ideological spectrum. And it may be worth noting that when one does that, most people fall around the middle (in statisticians' terms, political ideology approximates a normal distribution) -- which is why successful politicians head in that direction too.
And some people reading this (particularly libertarians) will no doubt want to argue that the very idea of a Left/Right ideological spectrum is simplistic and wrong. To answer that, however, I will have to refer readers elsewhere.
********************************
ELSEWHERE
The politics of unreason: "How do supposedly intelligent people view the Middle East? Recently: The Australian Broadcasting Company's former news director called for Israel's destruction. A majority of "quality" British newspapers falsely claimed Israel deliberately massacred large numbers of children in Gaza after two were killed by accident. A Canadian Broadcasting Company correspondent maliciously concocted a report to convince his viewers that Israel was responsible for the torture of Iraqis by US soldiers. That's in the moderate, Western, English-speaking democracies. Rather than easing the Middle East's madness, the West has caught the disease itself."
Homosexuals: An amusing comment from Interested Participant: "Preparations are well under way for this summer's Democratic Party National Convention in Boston and it appears that the Democrats are aggressively courting the homosexual population. According to this report, Democratic parties in 15 states and Puerto Rico are requiring that a specific number of their delegates be homosexual, bisexual or transgender.Quota numbers and specific states are not identified, but one has to wonder why 35 states are excluded in this affirmative action requirement for assignment of delegates. Certain populations of homosexuals will be geographically discriminated against by not being included in the quota scheme. Within the Democratic Party, it appears that homosexuals in some states are more equal than homosexuals in other states".
Professor Bunyip has divined the central motivations of Phillip Adams, Australia's best known Left-wing columnist: "[Adams] set out to provide further proof of his gifts by delivering a little lecture on the joys of Shakespeare. Well, that was the stated reason, but knowing Adams as we all do, the real inspiration was the usual one: "Look at me, my ignorant readers! Aren't I the smartie though, but?" Just a typical Lefty, in other words.
The movie reviewer in the Sydney Daily Telegraph of 27-May-2004 (Pg. T02), after saying that Michael Moore's Cannes winning documentary is even worse than his previous two efforts, called him the "Goebbels of the 21st century" (Not online).
One of my readers has put my "Hitler was a socialist" article online at Free Republic. It was interesting to read the comments. Several commenters seemed to think that everybody already knew that Hitler was a socialist. If only that were true. I have had many comments from conservatives saying that it came as news to them and Leftists all ridicule the idea, of course.
In my reading of other blogs, I occasionally come across references to the life of the academic. Here is an account -- only slightly tongue in cheek -- of what you need to do to get a Ph.D. and here is a very serious account of what you need to do in order to get a tenured university teaching job. My own experience was nothing like either of those accounts, however. I wrote my Ph.D. dissertation in six weeks and spent the rest of my Ph.D. period researching and writing for the academic journals. So when I applied for my first job, I already had several publications and was therefore not only given the job but was also given immediate tenure.
Wicked Thoughts has just put up a very topical joke.
For more postings, see GREENIE WATCH and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH. Mirror sites here and here
********************************
The Left cannot face the fact that the American intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq is fundamentally humanitarian. The most effective response to the 9/11 events and the one in America's own best interests would have been a retaliatory strike using nukes to take the whole of Afghanistan off the map -- followed by a threat that Mecca would go sky high if there were any further Islamic attacks on the USA or its allies. That would have made Islam a religion of peace overnight. But GWB rightly rejected that easy road because it would have involved the death of millions of innocents. He chose instead to go after just the bad guys -- an extremely difficult task. And its difficulty is causing continuing American deaths in Iraq to this day. But Americans have always given their blood in order to be humane. They did it in two world wars and in Vietnam and they are doing it now in the Middle East. The only alternative strategy that the Left have is to do nothing -- thus inviting more and more attacks.
Comments? Email me or here. If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.
********************************
The politics of unreason: "How do supposedly intelligent people view the Middle East? Recently: The Australian Broadcasting Company's former news director called for Israel's destruction. A majority of "quality" British newspapers falsely claimed Israel deliberately massacred large numbers of children in Gaza after two were killed by accident. A Canadian Broadcasting Company correspondent maliciously concocted a report to convince his viewers that Israel was responsible for the torture of Iraqis by US soldiers. That's in the moderate, Western, English-speaking democracies. Rather than easing the Middle East's madness, the West has caught the disease itself."
Homosexuals: An amusing comment from Interested Participant: "Preparations are well under way for this summer's Democratic Party National Convention in Boston and it appears that the Democrats are aggressively courting the homosexual population. According to this report, Democratic parties in 15 states and Puerto Rico are requiring that a specific number of their delegates be homosexual, bisexual or transgender.Quota numbers and specific states are not identified, but one has to wonder why 35 states are excluded in this affirmative action requirement for assignment of delegates. Certain populations of homosexuals will be geographically discriminated against by not being included in the quota scheme. Within the Democratic Party, it appears that homosexuals in some states are more equal than homosexuals in other states".
Professor Bunyip has divined the central motivations of Phillip Adams, Australia's best known Left-wing columnist: "[Adams] set out to provide further proof of his gifts by delivering a little lecture on the joys of Shakespeare. Well, that was the stated reason, but knowing Adams as we all do, the real inspiration was the usual one: "Look at me, my ignorant readers! Aren't I the smartie though, but?" Just a typical Lefty, in other words.
The movie reviewer in the Sydney Daily Telegraph of 27-May-2004 (Pg. T02), after saying that Michael Moore's Cannes winning documentary is even worse than his previous two efforts, called him the "Goebbels of the 21st century" (Not online).
One of my readers has put my "Hitler was a socialist" article online at Free Republic. It was interesting to read the comments. Several commenters seemed to think that everybody already knew that Hitler was a socialist. If only that were true. I have had many comments from conservatives saying that it came as news to them and Leftists all ridicule the idea, of course.
In my reading of other blogs, I occasionally come across references to the life of the academic. Here is an account -- only slightly tongue in cheek -- of what you need to do to get a Ph.D. and here is a very serious account of what you need to do in order to get a tenured university teaching job. My own experience was nothing like either of those accounts, however. I wrote my Ph.D. dissertation in six weeks and spent the rest of my Ph.D. period researching and writing for the academic journals. So when I applied for my first job, I already had several publications and was therefore not only given the job but was also given immediate tenure.
Wicked Thoughts has just put up a very topical joke.
For more postings, see GREENIE WATCH and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH. Mirror sites here and here
********************************
The Left cannot face the fact that the American intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq is fundamentally humanitarian. The most effective response to the 9/11 events and the one in America's own best interests would have been a retaliatory strike using nukes to take the whole of Afghanistan off the map -- followed by a threat that Mecca would go sky high if there were any further Islamic attacks on the USA or its allies. That would have made Islam a religion of peace overnight. But GWB rightly rejected that easy road because it would have involved the death of millions of innocents. He chose instead to go after just the bad guys -- an extremely difficult task. And its difficulty is causing continuing American deaths in Iraq to this day. But Americans have always given their blood in order to be humane. They did it in two world wars and in Vietnam and they are doing it now in the Middle East. The only alternative strategy that the Left have is to do nothing -- thus inviting more and more attacks.
Comments? Email me or here. If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.
********************************
Thursday, May 27, 2004
MORE ON GUN CONTROL
A reader who takes more of an interest in guns than I do has emailed me as follows:
"The Australian compulsory gun "buyback": See the red line in slide 17 of this Australian Institute of Criminology report (PDF). (Background to the report here). Note that the "gun buyback" happened in 1997 but the national homicide rate showed not a twitch in response.
A more international flavoured report is here (PDF) which describes Australia's gun-buyback scheme and associated bans as a "failed experiment". The article concludes: "In all cases, disarming the public has been ineffective, expensive and often counterproductive". Also of note is this summary of the Australian statistics -- showing that "The number of (firearm) offences has increased even when 642,000 guns were destroyed".
It is not necessary to agree with Lott's contrarian "more guns equals less crime" hypothesis to support the long established right to own firearms -- as this summary of British history shows. This Austrian paper (PDF), for example, accepts as a starting position the idea that reduced gun availability would reduce crime, but then argues that the cost of enforcement and the extent of evasion undermines the practicality of the whole scheme. The real value of Lott is that his work dramatically shows that the much more widely believed "less guns equals less crime" hypothesis is based on not much more than wishful thinking. Sometimes science requires stirrers to shift the dead weight of unthinking complacency. The relationship between guns and crime is probably complex, changeable, highly dependent on other factors, highly variable between societies and even generations within the same society, and not easily subject to any simplistic "one size fits all" rules.
Unfortunately legislators and antigun zealots think we belong to a deterministic world where humans behave as predictably as Skinner-box pigeons. As humans are not pigeons, their ham-fisted legislation almost always fails, usually producing unintended consequences that the hapless social engineers never imagined. In general the great cost of establishing and enforcing these systems is money that would be better spent on more direct crime prevention and law enforcement measures. Something many police forces have actually pointed out: "The New Zealand government discontinued firearms registration in 1984 after the New Zealand police recommended it's termination. The Canadian Police Association was at the brink ofwithdrawing it's support of the firearms registration because of it's serious shortcomings. At the height of the Austrian gun debate some two years ago leading police officials stated that a then called-for prohibition of handguns would not only be senseless and a waste of time and money, but that itwould be outright dangerous because of it's impact on the black arms market." (Source again here [PDF])
This Canadian site calls gun control advocates. Hoplophobics. It's great to see the old leftist debating device of psychologising every competitive opinion (eg xenophobia, homophobia etc) used against them!"
***************************************
A reader who takes more of an interest in guns than I do has emailed me as follows:
"The Australian compulsory gun "buyback": See the red line in slide 17 of this Australian Institute of Criminology report (PDF). (Background to the report here). Note that the "gun buyback" happened in 1997 but the national homicide rate showed not a twitch in response.
A more international flavoured report is here (PDF) which describes Australia's gun-buyback scheme and associated bans as a "failed experiment". The article concludes: "In all cases, disarming the public has been ineffective, expensive and often counterproductive". Also of note is this summary of the Australian statistics -- showing that "The number of (firearm) offences has increased even when 642,000 guns were destroyed".
It is not necessary to agree with Lott's contrarian "more guns equals less crime" hypothesis to support the long established right to own firearms -- as this summary of British history shows. This Austrian paper (PDF), for example, accepts as a starting position the idea that reduced gun availability would reduce crime, but then argues that the cost of enforcement and the extent of evasion undermines the practicality of the whole scheme. The real value of Lott is that his work dramatically shows that the much more widely believed "less guns equals less crime" hypothesis is based on not much more than wishful thinking. Sometimes science requires stirrers to shift the dead weight of unthinking complacency. The relationship between guns and crime is probably complex, changeable, highly dependent on other factors, highly variable between societies and even generations within the same society, and not easily subject to any simplistic "one size fits all" rules.
Unfortunately legislators and antigun zealots think we belong to a deterministic world where humans behave as predictably as Skinner-box pigeons. As humans are not pigeons, their ham-fisted legislation almost always fails, usually producing unintended consequences that the hapless social engineers never imagined. In general the great cost of establishing and enforcing these systems is money that would be better spent on more direct crime prevention and law enforcement measures. Something many police forces have actually pointed out: "The New Zealand government discontinued firearms registration in 1984 after the New Zealand police recommended it's termination. The Canadian Police Association was at the brink ofwithdrawing it's support of the firearms registration because of it's serious shortcomings. At the height of the Austrian gun debate some two years ago leading police officials stated that a then called-for prohibition of handguns would not only be senseless and a waste of time and money, but that itwould be outright dangerous because of it's impact on the black arms market." (Source again here [PDF])
This Canadian site calls gun control advocates. Hoplophobics. It's great to see the old leftist debating device of psychologising every competitive opinion (eg xenophobia, homophobia etc) used against them!"
***************************************
ELSEWHERE
An email from a born-in-Seattle reader: "More silliness in Seattle is on display as Seattle refuses to punish lawbreakers and votes to dump a law that impounded cars from people who had their licenses suspended. The newspaper headline is a classic, "City Council votes to dump unpopular impound law." I'm sure the law was unpopular with it's criminal targets. The argument used to oppose the law is a real head turner, "opponents said the law amounts to economic injustice because it treats violators who pay tickets better than those who do not, regardless of the public danger posed by both groups of drivers." The Seattle Council takes another step in the direction of creating another dysfunctional city".
Peggy Noonan: "Fast Eddy Doctorow told a story at the commencement all right, and it is a story about the boorishness of the aging liberal. An old '60s radical who feels he is entitled to impose his views on this audience on this day because he's so gifted, so smart, so insightful, so very above the normal rules, agreements and traditions. And for this he will get to call himself besieged and heroic -- a hero about whom stories are told! -- when in fact all he did was guarantee positive personal press in the elite media"
Amazing. The fat filmic slob is in favour of school choice: "Every parent wants to do what's best for their child. Whatever I can afford, I'm going to get my kid the best education I can get" More on Moore on the Adam Smith blog.
"Neocon" nonsense: "Although there are notable exceptions, many European commentators and much of the public are resorting to conspiratorial theories to explain the direction of U.S. foreign policy and somehow overlook the fact that American public opinion runs in favor of the president's handling of foreign affairs. Perhaps more important, however, they overlook the deep historical roots of the current direction of American foreign policy. It is not driven by a "neocon cabal." Rather, it is that certain individuals associated with the neoconservative label have been particularly articulate in expressing a set of policies that flow from two ideas that resonate deeply in American public opinion. The first is a belief that the United States has a responsibility to spread its vision of individual liberty. The second is that the primary and perhaps exclusive task of the federal government is to protect its citizens from external threats".
Carnival of the Vanities is up again -- blessedly free of strained attempts at humour this time.
For more postings, see GREENIE WATCH and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH. Mirror sites here and here
********************************
The Left cannot face the fact that the American intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq is fundamentally humanitarian. The most effective response to the 9/11 events and the one in America's own best interests would have been a retaliatory strike using nukes to take the whole of Afghanistan off the map -- followed by a threat that Mecca would go sky high if there were any further Islamic attacks on the USA or its allies. That would have made Islam a religion of peace overnight. But GWB rightly rejected that easy road because it would have involved the death of millions of innocents. He chose instead to go after just the bad guys -- an extremely difficult task. And its difficulty is causing continuing American deaths in Iraq to this day. But Americans have always given their blood in order to be humane. They did it in two world wars and in Vietnam and they are doing it now in the Middle East. The only alternative strategy that the Left have is to do nothing -- thus inviting more and more attacks.
Comments? Email me or here. If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.
********************************
An email from a born-in-Seattle reader: "More silliness in Seattle is on display as Seattle refuses to punish lawbreakers and votes to dump a law that impounded cars from people who had their licenses suspended. The newspaper headline is a classic, "City Council votes to dump unpopular impound law." I'm sure the law was unpopular with it's criminal targets. The argument used to oppose the law is a real head turner, "opponents said the law amounts to economic injustice because it treats violators who pay tickets better than those who do not, regardless of the public danger posed by both groups of drivers." The Seattle Council takes another step in the direction of creating another dysfunctional city".
Peggy Noonan: "Fast Eddy Doctorow told a story at the commencement all right, and it is a story about the boorishness of the aging liberal. An old '60s radical who feels he is entitled to impose his views on this audience on this day because he's so gifted, so smart, so insightful, so very above the normal rules, agreements and traditions. And for this he will get to call himself besieged and heroic -- a hero about whom stories are told! -- when in fact all he did was guarantee positive personal press in the elite media"
Amazing. The fat filmic slob is in favour of school choice: "Every parent wants to do what's best for their child. Whatever I can afford, I'm going to get my kid the best education I can get" More on Moore on the Adam Smith blog.
"Neocon" nonsense: "Although there are notable exceptions, many European commentators and much of the public are resorting to conspiratorial theories to explain the direction of U.S. foreign policy and somehow overlook the fact that American public opinion runs in favor of the president's handling of foreign affairs. Perhaps more important, however, they overlook the deep historical roots of the current direction of American foreign policy. It is not driven by a "neocon cabal." Rather, it is that certain individuals associated with the neoconservative label have been particularly articulate in expressing a set of policies that flow from two ideas that resonate deeply in American public opinion. The first is a belief that the United States has a responsibility to spread its vision of individual liberty. The second is that the primary and perhaps exclusive task of the federal government is to protect its citizens from external threats".
Carnival of the Vanities is up again -- blessedly free of strained attempts at humour this time.
For more postings, see GREENIE WATCH and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH. Mirror sites here and here
********************************
The Left cannot face the fact that the American intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq is fundamentally humanitarian. The most effective response to the 9/11 events and the one in America's own best interests would have been a retaliatory strike using nukes to take the whole of Afghanistan off the map -- followed by a threat that Mecca would go sky high if there were any further Islamic attacks on the USA or its allies. That would have made Islam a religion of peace overnight. But GWB rightly rejected that easy road because it would have involved the death of millions of innocents. He chose instead to go after just the bad guys -- an extremely difficult task. And its difficulty is causing continuing American deaths in Iraq to this day. But Americans have always given their blood in order to be humane. They did it in two world wars and in Vietnam and they are doing it now in the Middle East. The only alternative strategy that the Left have is to do nothing -- thus inviting more and more attacks.
Comments? Email me or here. If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.
********************************
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
THE NOT SO SHEEPISH LAMBERT
Tim Lambert is a computer maven at the University of N.S.W. -- where I spent most of my teaching career many long years ago. He seems to have an obsession with catching out John Lott Jr. on gun-usage statistics and he has an occasional blog which seems to be mostly devoted to that. He does also however takes some interest in other scientific issues such as climate change. He has sent me copies of several of his past posts that I have not linked to because I thought that they were too intemperate. Not much light is generated by arguing with an angry man, in my view, and I think all conservative bloggers have to get used to ignoring rage-filled emails from Leftists. Leftists are very good at rage. It seems to be their principal emotion. I did nonetheless address on this blog what substance I could see in Lambert's various posts. Being a terrible tease from way back, however, I deliberately posted here recently another quotation from Lott. I wanted to see what heights of wrath Lambert might rise to this time. Sure enough, another email from Lambert popped into my inbox shortly thereafter. He seems to be learning, however, as his comment this time is principally factual. So, although I am no expert at all on the matter, I thought I might make a few comments on some of the points Lambert raises -- in case John Lott Jr. does not see fit to do so (I could say more about Lambert's whole post but I think that would be too tedious).
Lambert accuses Lott of selective use of statistics but almost any use of statistics has to be selective so the only interesting question is whether alternative selections of statistics show substantially different results. Lambert presents statistics to show that Australia's 1996 gun-control laws have been beneficial. He disputes Lott's claim that serious crime has risen since then. What Lambert's alternative statistics show to me, however, is more a pattern of no change than anything else. Deaths by firearm are surely the biggest issue but Lambert's table shows that the average rate of murder with a firearm before the bans was 0.37 compared with .30 after the bans -- with the figures in most individual years being .20 plus or .30 plus. Given statistical error and the range of influences which could have affected the averages concerned, the bans would seem to have achieved nothing significant -- a very poor result considering the vast expense in money and the significant loss of liberties associated with the bans. I note too that even the slight difference in averages observed seems to have been largely the result of a single very anomalous year in 1997 -- making the averages used a poor guide to any underlying trend. I think that for trend calculating purposes it would in fact be most appropriate to exclude both 1996 and 1997 -- and when one does that the "before and after" difference becomes very small indeed: .31 versus .28. The differences for other gun crimes also seem to be too small to assert a real underlying difference. And even Lambert admits a lack of a clear pattern when he notes that the "assault-with-firearm rate has increased". So Lott's statistical selection shows ill effects from the firearm ban and Lambert's selection shows no clear effect. It seems to me therefore that NEITHER set of statistics support the ban.
Lambert also weighs in on the global warming debate with a critique of another author who says that you can show either global warming or global cooling according to what set of statistics you use. Lambert makes some reasonable criticisms of the statistics which were alleged to show global cooling and recalculates the statistics concerned in a more orthodox way. His conclusion? "When analysed correctly, their data shows neither warming or cooling, regardless of which average is used". In other words, contrary to the Greenies, the earth is NOT warming up. That certainly fits in with all that I know on the subject! I must quote him on that again sometime.
****************************************
Tim Lambert is a computer maven at the University of N.S.W. -- where I spent most of my teaching career many long years ago. He seems to have an obsession with catching out John Lott Jr. on gun-usage statistics and he has an occasional blog which seems to be mostly devoted to that. He does also however takes some interest in other scientific issues such as climate change. He has sent me copies of several of his past posts that I have not linked to because I thought that they were too intemperate. Not much light is generated by arguing with an angry man, in my view, and I think all conservative bloggers have to get used to ignoring rage-filled emails from Leftists. Leftists are very good at rage. It seems to be their principal emotion. I did nonetheless address on this blog what substance I could see in Lambert's various posts. Being a terrible tease from way back, however, I deliberately posted here recently another quotation from Lott. I wanted to see what heights of wrath Lambert might rise to this time. Sure enough, another email from Lambert popped into my inbox shortly thereafter. He seems to be learning, however, as his comment this time is principally factual. So, although I am no expert at all on the matter, I thought I might make a few comments on some of the points Lambert raises -- in case John Lott Jr. does not see fit to do so (I could say more about Lambert's whole post but I think that would be too tedious).
Lambert accuses Lott of selective use of statistics but almost any use of statistics has to be selective so the only interesting question is whether alternative selections of statistics show substantially different results. Lambert presents statistics to show that Australia's 1996 gun-control laws have been beneficial. He disputes Lott's claim that serious crime has risen since then. What Lambert's alternative statistics show to me, however, is more a pattern of no change than anything else. Deaths by firearm are surely the biggest issue but Lambert's table shows that the average rate of murder with a firearm before the bans was 0.37 compared with .30 after the bans -- with the figures in most individual years being .20 plus or .30 plus. Given statistical error and the range of influences which could have affected the averages concerned, the bans would seem to have achieved nothing significant -- a very poor result considering the vast expense in money and the significant loss of liberties associated with the bans. I note too that even the slight difference in averages observed seems to have been largely the result of a single very anomalous year in 1997 -- making the averages used a poor guide to any underlying trend. I think that for trend calculating purposes it would in fact be most appropriate to exclude both 1996 and 1997 -- and when one does that the "before and after" difference becomes very small indeed: .31 versus .28. The differences for other gun crimes also seem to be too small to assert a real underlying difference. And even Lambert admits a lack of a clear pattern when he notes that the "assault-with-firearm rate has increased". So Lott's statistical selection shows ill effects from the firearm ban and Lambert's selection shows no clear effect. It seems to me therefore that NEITHER set of statistics support the ban.
Lambert also weighs in on the global warming debate with a critique of another author who says that you can show either global warming or global cooling according to what set of statistics you use. Lambert makes some reasonable criticisms of the statistics which were alleged to show global cooling and recalculates the statistics concerned in a more orthodox way. His conclusion? "When analysed correctly, their data shows neither warming or cooling, regardless of which average is used". In other words, contrary to the Greenies, the earth is NOT warming up. That certainly fits in with all that I know on the subject! I must quote him on that again sometime.
****************************************
ELSEWHERE
The North Carolina News & Observer has an article by a sociologist explaining why VOLUNTARY segregation of blacks and whites is somehow wrong. It's all the usual Leftist theorizing except for one bit of research that is quoted misleadingly: "no one has managed to demonstrate -- and people have tried really hard -- that there's any connection between that genetic marker for skin color and any of the things we observe as differences between races". That's just evasion of course. Who needs to look at correlates of the genetic marker for skin colour when they can look at skin colour itself -- and that has PLENTY of connections to other things -- crime-rate, for example. And there is almost a century of scientific evidence to show that the lower intelligence of blacks is genetically inherited. But who expects anything but propaganda from a Leftist sociologist? The real reasons for voluntary segregation -- that whites flee black crime and that people in general (black, white or brindle) tend to like best those people who are most similar to themselves -- were not mentioned. The real reasons would never have made it into print, I guess.
Conservative Australian film-critic and economist Paddy McGuinness has a few choice words about Michael Moore's win at Cannes. He even has a picture of himself accompanying the article -- a lot slimmer than when I met him years ago but still weighty. He starts out: "Who ever imagined that the big prizewinners in the international film industry would be fat, hairy slobs?"
Students rebel against arrogant Leftist preacher: "E.L. Doctorow, one of the most celebrated writers in America, was nearly booed off the stage at Hofstra University Sunday when he gave a commencement address lambasting President George W. Bush and effectively calling him a liar.... Those lines provoked an outburst of boos so loud the "Ragtime" author stopped the speech. Rabinowitz approached the podium and called for calm. "We value open discussion and debate," he said. "For the sake of your graduates, please let him finish." Some students and most of the faculty responded with a standing ovation.." (Via Norm Weatherby).
China Hand has just put up some more posts. He sees developments in Taiwan and Hong Kong as worrying.
For more postings, see GREENIE WATCH and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH. Mirror sites here and here
********************************
The Left cannot face the fact that the American intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq is fundamentally humanitarian. The most effective response to the 9/11 events and the one in America's own best interests would have been a retaliatory strike using nukes to take the whole of Afghanistan off the map -- followed by a threat that Mecca would go sky high if there were any further Islamic attacks on the USA or its allies. That would have made Islam a religion of peace overnight. But GWB rightly rejected that easy road because it would have involved the death of millions of innocents. He chose instead to go after just the bad guys -- an extremely difficult task. And its difficulty is causing continuing American deaths in Iraq to this day. But Americans have always given their blood in order to be humane. They did it in two world wars and in Vietnam and they are doing it now in the Middle East. The only alternative strategy that the Left have is to do nothing -- thus inviting more and more attacks.
Comments? Email me or here. If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.
********************************
The North Carolina News & Observer has an article by a sociologist explaining why VOLUNTARY segregation of blacks and whites is somehow wrong. It's all the usual Leftist theorizing except for one bit of research that is quoted misleadingly: "no one has managed to demonstrate -- and people have tried really hard -- that there's any connection between that genetic marker for skin color and any of the things we observe as differences between races". That's just evasion of course. Who needs to look at correlates of the genetic marker for skin colour when they can look at skin colour itself -- and that has PLENTY of connections to other things -- crime-rate, for example. And there is almost a century of scientific evidence to show that the lower intelligence of blacks is genetically inherited. But who expects anything but propaganda from a Leftist sociologist? The real reasons for voluntary segregation -- that whites flee black crime and that people in general (black, white or brindle) tend to like best those people who are most similar to themselves -- were not mentioned. The real reasons would never have made it into print, I guess.
Conservative Australian film-critic and economist Paddy McGuinness has a few choice words about Michael Moore's win at Cannes. He even has a picture of himself accompanying the article -- a lot slimmer than when I met him years ago but still weighty. He starts out: "Who ever imagined that the big prizewinners in the international film industry would be fat, hairy slobs?"
Students rebel against arrogant Leftist preacher: "E.L. Doctorow, one of the most celebrated writers in America, was nearly booed off the stage at Hofstra University Sunday when he gave a commencement address lambasting President George W. Bush and effectively calling him a liar.... Those lines provoked an outburst of boos so loud the "Ragtime" author stopped the speech. Rabinowitz approached the podium and called for calm. "We value open discussion and debate," he said. "For the sake of your graduates, please let him finish." Some students and most of the faculty responded with a standing ovation.." (Via Norm Weatherby).
China Hand has just put up some more posts. He sees developments in Taiwan and Hong Kong as worrying.
For more postings, see GREENIE WATCH and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH. Mirror sites here and here
********************************
The Left cannot face the fact that the American intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq is fundamentally humanitarian. The most effective response to the 9/11 events and the one in America's own best interests would have been a retaliatory strike using nukes to take the whole of Afghanistan off the map -- followed by a threat that Mecca would go sky high if there were any further Islamic attacks on the USA or its allies. That would have made Islam a religion of peace overnight. But GWB rightly rejected that easy road because it would have involved the death of millions of innocents. He chose instead to go after just the bad guys -- an extremely difficult task. And its difficulty is causing continuing American deaths in Iraq to this day. But Americans have always given their blood in order to be humane. They did it in two world wars and in Vietnam and they are doing it now in the Middle East. The only alternative strategy that the Left have is to do nothing -- thus inviting more and more attacks.
Comments? Email me or here. If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.
********************************
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
MEDICAL MADNESS
Bureaucrats from Mars: A female psychologist was punished by officialdom because she entered into a relationship with a convicted armed robber whom she had originally met in jail while she was a counsellor there. Why was that wrong? Because of the "vulnerability" of the armed robber. Let me repeat that: An armed robber was "vulnerable" and had to be "protected" from sex by the authorities! Clearly, it is the authorities who have lost all reality contact and who should be locked up for the safety of the public. And where is the Leftist outcry? The story has been going for ages so there was plenty of time for protest but I have heard of none. And "anything goes" seems to be the Leftist view of anything sexual. Why not in this case? But it is not of course "anything goes" when you are suspected of having some power. Power is the one unforgivable sin for Leftists and must be stamped on -- unless it is in their hands of course. I'll bet the poor woman concerned wishes she did have some power.
And how about the case of the pregnant woman who was told by THREE public hospital doctors that her baby was dead inside her, who refused her request for a scan and who then arranged to have the "remains" scraped out? Fortunately, the woman went and got a scan privately and found that the baby was perfectly OK. So, any disciplinary proceedings against the viciously negligent doctors concerned? No way! All they got was "counselling". See here (scroll down) and also my post of 6th.
More bankrupt socialized medicine: "France offers its citizens the best healthcare in the world, and it isn't only the French who will tell you so. The World Health Organization ranks France at the top of its list. The trouble is, the country cannot afford it. The French public health insurance scheme is heading for a $15.5 billion deficit this year, threatening to bankrupt the system. 'Our health system has gone mad,' Health Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy told a parliamentary commission earlier this month. 'Profound reforms are urgent.'"
End the FDA! "Certainly one thing is clear and that is the FDA is far more harmful to our health than alternative medicine and supplements. It is time that the American people control their own health and medical choices with help from those in the medical field. ... It's time to end the FDA and turn over the power of medical choice to the American people. Since neither the Republicans nor Democrats will end this dangerous agency, the choice of who to vote for is clear."
"Cover the Uninsured Week" "Last week's national 'Cover the Uninsured Week' should have kicked off with a little honesty. The campaign is a coalition of over 100 groups that inundated Americans with advertisements, events, and pleas from former presidents and celebrity spokesmen 'to publicize the problem of allowing nearly 44 million Americans to live without health care coverage, and to highlight proposed solutions.' The first problem the coalition should have addressed is how it is misleading the public."
Can you have true health privacy? "Now some of the groups who previously supported federalizing health care and medical privacy are opposing the federal medical-privacy rule because they don't like how it applies to issues near and dear to them. And the problem with this rule -- as bad as it is now -- would only get worse with national health care, or a single-payer system."
The UK 14-year-old's 'secret' abortion shows that Left-leaning professionals now see Mum and Dad as the problem.
*********************************
Bureaucrats from Mars: A female psychologist was punished by officialdom because she entered into a relationship with a convicted armed robber whom she had originally met in jail while she was a counsellor there. Why was that wrong? Because of the "vulnerability" of the armed robber. Let me repeat that: An armed robber was "vulnerable" and had to be "protected" from sex by the authorities! Clearly, it is the authorities who have lost all reality contact and who should be locked up for the safety of the public. And where is the Leftist outcry? The story has been going for ages so there was plenty of time for protest but I have heard of none. And "anything goes" seems to be the Leftist view of anything sexual. Why not in this case? But it is not of course "anything goes" when you are suspected of having some power. Power is the one unforgivable sin for Leftists and must be stamped on -- unless it is in their hands of course. I'll bet the poor woman concerned wishes she did have some power.
And how about the case of the pregnant woman who was told by THREE public hospital doctors that her baby was dead inside her, who refused her request for a scan and who then arranged to have the "remains" scraped out? Fortunately, the woman went and got a scan privately and found that the baby was perfectly OK. So, any disciplinary proceedings against the viciously negligent doctors concerned? No way! All they got was "counselling". See here (scroll down) and also my post of 6th.
More bankrupt socialized medicine: "France offers its citizens the best healthcare in the world, and it isn't only the French who will tell you so. The World Health Organization ranks France at the top of its list. The trouble is, the country cannot afford it. The French public health insurance scheme is heading for a $15.5 billion deficit this year, threatening to bankrupt the system. 'Our health system has gone mad,' Health Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy told a parliamentary commission earlier this month. 'Profound reforms are urgent.'"
End the FDA! "Certainly one thing is clear and that is the FDA is far more harmful to our health than alternative medicine and supplements. It is time that the American people control their own health and medical choices with help from those in the medical field. ... It's time to end the FDA and turn over the power of medical choice to the American people. Since neither the Republicans nor Democrats will end this dangerous agency, the choice of who to vote for is clear."
"Cover the Uninsured Week" "Last week's national 'Cover the Uninsured Week' should have kicked off with a little honesty. The campaign is a coalition of over 100 groups that inundated Americans with advertisements, events, and pleas from former presidents and celebrity spokesmen 'to publicize the problem of allowing nearly 44 million Americans to live without health care coverage, and to highlight proposed solutions.' The first problem the coalition should have addressed is how it is misleading the public."
Can you have true health privacy? "Now some of the groups who previously supported federalizing health care and medical privacy are opposing the federal medical-privacy rule because they don't like how it applies to issues near and dear to them. And the problem with this rule -- as bad as it is now -- would only get worse with national health care, or a single-payer system."
The UK 14-year-old's 'secret' abortion shows that Left-leaning professionals now see Mum and Dad as the problem.
*********************************
ELSEWHERE
Further to my recent comments about the neo-Nazi links of Noam Chomsky, there is a book online which documents the matter at great length. It also of course points out how distorted and dishonest are many of the purported "facts" that Chomsky trades in. Chomsky is Jewish and Jewish self-hatred is not a new phenomenon. It is perhaps an understandable response to a history of persecution. But in Chomsky it reaches really pathological heights. I guess he subconsciously hopes that "when they come for the Jews" they will pass him by. Or perhaps he just didn't like his Yiddisher Momma.
It has always seemed to me that Australian Leftists are in general much more conservative than their American counterparts and it somewhat confirms that to hear that Australian Labor Party leaders are resisting calls for homosexual marriage. Peter Beattie, Premier of my home State of Queensland, has made some pretty balanced comments on the matter. See here (scroll down).
Jeff Jacoby says that criticisms of the Patriot Act are hysterical and wrong -- and he makes his case by looking at what it actually says.
I have just put up here a few good paragraphs from Oriana Fallaci's new book which blame the present day aggressiveness of Islamic fundamentalism on the Left-weakened culture of the West.
Diary Date has a very funny letter up that SHOULD be for real. It is the sort of letter that might make "soft on terrorists" Leftists think. But don't hold your breath.
For more postings, see GREENIE WATCH and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH. Mirror sites here and here
********************************
The Left cannot face the fact that the American intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq is fundamentally humanitarian. The most effective response to the 9/11 events and the one in America's own best interests would have been a retaliatory strike using nukes to take the whole of Afghanistan off the map -- followed by a threat that Mecca would go sky high if there were any further Islamic attacks on the USA or its allies. That would have made Islam a religion of peace overnight. But GWB rightly rejected that easy road because it would have involved the death of millions of innocents. He chose instead to go after just the bad guys -- an extremely difficult task. And its difficulty is causing continuing American deaths in Iraq to this day. But Americans have always given their blood in order to be humane. They did it in two world wars and in Vietnam and they are doing it now in the Middle East. The only alternative strategy that the Left have is to do nothing -- thus inviting more and more attacks.
Comments? Email me or here. If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.
********************************
Monday, May 24, 2004
THE JOKE THAT IS AMERICAN PUBLIC EDUCATION
Even the brighter kids learn only a small fraction of what they could. As for the rest .....
Where does the idiotic opposition to phonics come from? "Last week, President Bush met with researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) who have identified successful reading-instruction methods that break words into sounds. For nearly a decade, however, districts have ignored such research, preferring to stick with traditional - and less-effective - reading instruction that expects students to memorize words. Today, many districts are switching to the NIH approach only because the federal government has offered $900 million in grants to encourage them to change". I guess that because phonics was the old-fashioned method of teaching reading, it HAD to be wrong in the minds of Leftist educational theorists. Too bad about many kids not learning to read at all the "correct" way.
Separating school and state: "Is anyone happy with the public schools? It seems not. Those with no financial stake in the schools have translated their unhappiness into various reform proposals, such as charter schools or voucher plans. Those who do have a stake in the current system -- the teachers' union, for example -- point to the schools' bad condition as a reason for the government to appropriate more money. Whichever way they lean, people generally believe that the schools are not doing what they are supposed to be doing."
Leave them behind? "The Arkansas Education Association (don't let the name fool you -- it's just our branch of the national teachers union) chose to welcome George W. Bush to the state the other day by urging the president to leave children behind. Naturally the AEA's spokesman didn't use those exact words. His boilerplate criticism of the administration's No Child Left Behind Act concentrated on the wrinkles that need to be ironed out in the law, not the whole fabric of accountability it has finally given American education."
"Philadelphia schools are typical of poor-quality big-city schools. Susan Snyder, Philadelphia Inquirer staff writer, in her article "District to Help Teachers Pass Test" (March 24, 2004) reported "that half of the district's 690 middle school teachers who took exams in math, English, social studies and science in September and November failed."... The unflattering fact that we must own up to is that many, perhaps most, of those who choose teaching as a profession represent the very bottom of the academic barrel". At that rate they are not even IN the academic barrel. And it's no surprise. Nobody with any choices would agree to stand up in front of an undisciplined rabble every day.
"At least 75 California teachers helped students cheat on standardized exams since a new testing program began five years ago, according to a newspaper report citing state documents. Incidents include teachers who gave hints by drawing on the blackboard or leaving posters on the wall, told students the right answers and changed the students' responses themselves, the Los Angeles Times reported, referring to documents obtained through a Public Records Act request." Smallest Minority has some comprehensive comments on THAT one.
**************************
Even the brighter kids learn only a small fraction of what they could. As for the rest .....
Where does the idiotic opposition to phonics come from? "Last week, President Bush met with researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) who have identified successful reading-instruction methods that break words into sounds. For nearly a decade, however, districts have ignored such research, preferring to stick with traditional - and less-effective - reading instruction that expects students to memorize words. Today, many districts are switching to the NIH approach only because the federal government has offered $900 million in grants to encourage them to change". I guess that because phonics was the old-fashioned method of teaching reading, it HAD to be wrong in the minds of Leftist educational theorists. Too bad about many kids not learning to read at all the "correct" way.
Separating school and state: "Is anyone happy with the public schools? It seems not. Those with no financial stake in the schools have translated their unhappiness into various reform proposals, such as charter schools or voucher plans. Those who do have a stake in the current system -- the teachers' union, for example -- point to the schools' bad condition as a reason for the government to appropriate more money. Whichever way they lean, people generally believe that the schools are not doing what they are supposed to be doing."
Leave them behind? "The Arkansas Education Association (don't let the name fool you -- it's just our branch of the national teachers union) chose to welcome George W. Bush to the state the other day by urging the president to leave children behind. Naturally the AEA's spokesman didn't use those exact words. His boilerplate criticism of the administration's No Child Left Behind Act concentrated on the wrinkles that need to be ironed out in the law, not the whole fabric of accountability it has finally given American education."
"Philadelphia schools are typical of poor-quality big-city schools. Susan Snyder, Philadelphia Inquirer staff writer, in her article "District to Help Teachers Pass Test" (March 24, 2004) reported "that half of the district's 690 middle school teachers who took exams in math, English, social studies and science in September and November failed."... The unflattering fact that we must own up to is that many, perhaps most, of those who choose teaching as a profession represent the very bottom of the academic barrel". At that rate they are not even IN the academic barrel. And it's no surprise. Nobody with any choices would agree to stand up in front of an undisciplined rabble every day.
"At least 75 California teachers helped students cheat on standardized exams since a new testing program began five years ago, according to a newspaper report citing state documents. Incidents include teachers who gave hints by drawing on the blackboard or leaving posters on the wall, told students the right answers and changed the students' responses themselves, the Los Angeles Times reported, referring to documents obtained through a Public Records Act request." Smallest Minority has some comprehensive comments on THAT one.
**************************
ELSEWHERE
More glories of socialized medicine: "Overseas-trained doctors who have failed primary school level English tests are working in Queensland hospitals. An outraged Liberal Party deputy leader Bruce Flegg told State Parliament this week that there were hundreds of foreign doctors who could speak little better than "broken English"... A secret internal report by Queensland Health's medical adviser for rural health services, Denis Lennox, said a growing number of overseas doctors were being rushed into Queensland public hospitals and private medical centres to cover serious shortages, but their lack of competence was putting patients, employers and the community at risk"
John Lott Jr.: "Crime did not fall in England after handguns were banned in January 1997. Quite the contrary, crime rose sharply.... Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels. Australia has also seen its violent crime rates soar after its Port Arthur gun control measures in late 1996. Violent crime rates averaged 32 per cent higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did the year before the law in 1996. The same comparisons for armed robbery rates showed increases of 45 percent."
Dictators has some amazing and amusing stuff about the craziness of Mao Tse Tung. Mao sounds just as self-contradictory as modern American "liberals". Surprise!
Bill Whittle has another one of his famous essays up -- this time putting Iraq in full perspective. James Delingpole in The Spectator has a good summary of why we are in Iraq too.
Wicked Thoughts has one of his rare political postings up today. Sometimes reality can be pretty funny too.
I recently posted here a substantial article on Leftist elitism. Leftists do sometimes however fervently claim not to be elitists. That is much less true of Greenies. They are fairly outspoken elitists. They often say quite openly that they want to get rid of much of the world's population -- with the implicit sequel that they will then be left in sole command of a pristine planet. They are emphatic that they know best. Just to give substance to that generalization, however, it seemed worthwhile to gather on the same site just the most recent posts from "Greenie Watch" and this blog that record Greenie elitist attitudes. See here.
For more postings, see GREENIE WATCH and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH. Mirror sites here and here
Note that I have just put up a new rubric below.
********************************
The Left cannot face the fact that the American intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq is fundamentally humanitarian. The most effective response to the 9/11 events and the one in America's own best interests would have been a retaliatory strike using nukes to take the whole of Afghanistan off the map -- followed by a threat that Mecca would go sky high if there were any further Islamic attacks on the USA or its allies. That would have made Islam a religion of peace overnight. But GWB rightly rejected that easy road because it would have involved the death of millions of innocents. He chose instead to go after just the bad guys -- an extremely difficult task. And its difficulty is causing continuing American deaths in Iraq to this day. But Americans have always given their blood in order to be humane. They did it in two world wars and in Vietnam and they are doing it now in the Middle East. The only alternative strategy that the Left have is to do nothing -- thus inviting more and more attacks.
Comments? Email me or here. If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.
********************************
More glories of socialized medicine: "Overseas-trained doctors who have failed primary school level English tests are working in Queensland hospitals. An outraged Liberal Party deputy leader Bruce Flegg told State Parliament this week that there were hundreds of foreign doctors who could speak little better than "broken English"... A secret internal report by Queensland Health's medical adviser for rural health services, Denis Lennox, said a growing number of overseas doctors were being rushed into Queensland public hospitals and private medical centres to cover serious shortages, but their lack of competence was putting patients, employers and the community at risk"
John Lott Jr.: "Crime did not fall in England after handguns were banned in January 1997. Quite the contrary, crime rose sharply.... Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels. Australia has also seen its violent crime rates soar after its Port Arthur gun control measures in late 1996. Violent crime rates averaged 32 per cent higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did the year before the law in 1996. The same comparisons for armed robbery rates showed increases of 45 percent."
Dictators has some amazing and amusing stuff about the craziness of Mao Tse Tung. Mao sounds just as self-contradictory as modern American "liberals". Surprise!
Bill Whittle has another one of his famous essays up -- this time putting Iraq in full perspective. James Delingpole in The Spectator has a good summary of why we are in Iraq too.
Wicked Thoughts has one of his rare political postings up today. Sometimes reality can be pretty funny too.
I recently posted here a substantial article on Leftist elitism. Leftists do sometimes however fervently claim not to be elitists. That is much less true of Greenies. They are fairly outspoken elitists. They often say quite openly that they want to get rid of much of the world's population -- with the implicit sequel that they will then be left in sole command of a pristine planet. They are emphatic that they know best. Just to give substance to that generalization, however, it seemed worthwhile to gather on the same site just the most recent posts from "Greenie Watch" and this blog that record Greenie elitist attitudes. See here.
For more postings, see GREENIE WATCH and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH. Mirror sites here and here
Note that I have just put up a new rubric below.
********************************
The Left cannot face the fact that the American intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq is fundamentally humanitarian. The most effective response to the 9/11 events and the one in America's own best interests would have been a retaliatory strike using nukes to take the whole of Afghanistan off the map -- followed by a threat that Mecca would go sky high if there were any further Islamic attacks on the USA or its allies. That would have made Islam a religion of peace overnight. But GWB rightly rejected that easy road because it would have involved the death of millions of innocents. He chose instead to go after just the bad guys -- an extremely difficult task. And its difficulty is causing continuing American deaths in Iraq to this day. But Americans have always given their blood in order to be humane. They did it in two world wars and in Vietnam and they are doing it now in the Middle East. The only alternative strategy that the Left have is to do nothing -- thus inviting more and more attacks.
Comments? Email me or here. If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.
********************************
Sunday, May 23, 2004
FROM BROOKES NEWS
Journalist accuses America of war crimes in Iraq The Bush-hating Brian Toohey accuses the US of murdering women and children in Fallujah who were then buried in a mass grave in the town's football stadium. This journalist also defends terrorist as resistance fighters.
A journalist who lied about Iraq abuses also lied about Vietnam Selective outrage and cold-blooded lying come naturally to fanatical leftists likeAlan Ramsey of the Sydney Morning Herald. He lied about Vietnam and now he's reprising his role for Iraq.
Ignorant journalist claims minimum wages wipe out poverty One of the most damaging myths in economics is that effective minimum wages raise living standards. By effective I mean minimum wage rates that are set above market clearing levels. A minimum wage rate set below the market rate is ineffective because those to whom it will apply will either already be on that rate or even above it.
Ancient wisdom, minimum wages and media ignorance The late Spanish Scholastic (1300 to about 1550) warned minimum wages would cause unemployment and poverty. They, unlike profound thinkers of Adele Horin's intellectual standing, knew that people would not be hired if their wage rates exceeded the value of their services.
Beijing makes its move in Latin America Beijing has been using Cuba's Fidel Castro as a means to subvert South America and Central America while President Bush has been waging war against terrorism
Details here
************************************
Journalist accuses America of war crimes in Iraq The Bush-hating Brian Toohey accuses the US of murdering women and children in Fallujah who were then buried in a mass grave in the town's football stadium. This journalist also defends terrorist as resistance fighters.
A journalist who lied about Iraq abuses also lied about Vietnam Selective outrage and cold-blooded lying come naturally to fanatical leftists likeAlan Ramsey of the Sydney Morning Herald. He lied about Vietnam and now he's reprising his role for Iraq.
Ignorant journalist claims minimum wages wipe out poverty One of the most damaging myths in economics is that effective minimum wages raise living standards. By effective I mean minimum wage rates that are set above market clearing levels. A minimum wage rate set below the market rate is ineffective because those to whom it will apply will either already be on that rate or even above it.
Ancient wisdom, minimum wages and media ignorance The late Spanish Scholastic (1300 to about 1550) warned minimum wages would cause unemployment and poverty. They, unlike profound thinkers of Adele Horin's intellectual standing, knew that people would not be hired if their wage rates exceeded the value of their services.
Beijing makes its move in Latin America Beijing has been using Cuba's Fidel Castro as a means to subvert South America and Central America while President Bush has been waging war against terrorism
Details here
************************************
ELSEWHERE
Ya gotta laugh! The latest idea of the obesity warriors: "Among the suggestions featured in the plan, which will not be legally binding, are... the development of video games powered by bicycle" The kids will love that one!
I post on this blog only a tiny fraction of the emails I receive but I think this one deserves an airing because of what it says about Leftist oppression: "I am absolutely enthralled by your article on the psychology of Leftism and so pleased I found it. It's like you KNOW the situation I'm in. I run a website in the UK, the simple purpose of which is to allow local residents in my area an open platform to express opinions and comment on what goes on locally, nationally and internationally. You would not believe the abuse targeted at me and the site from left-wingers, and the attempts they have made to undermine it and close it down - actually, having read your article I know you would believe it. It's as if you know the individuals concerned. They demonstrate precisely the behaviour and techniques you describe, to the lettter, especially labelling everyone as Nazis and accusing them of hatred. The frustrating irony is that the only hatred ever shown is by them and from them and it's directed at normal, ordinary, decent local residents who have the nerve to voice their honest and perfectly reasonable opinions. Strangely enough, while wearing their alleged compassion on their sleeves, they see no problem with attacking everyone at their most vulnerable points, including some of the old folk who contribute and who are dismissed with hurtful and disparaging remarks about their age. When some very sensible teenagers joined the site and expressed majority views out of step with left-thinking, they were targeted with unpleasant patronism and teasing, and I was accused of being a paedophile for allowing them to join the site".
The policeman's blog continues to be an amazing read. I won't even try to summarize it other than to say that politically-correct policing is even worse and more useless than you would have imagined.
The UN: A failed organization: "The U.N. recently passed another blatantly anti-Israel resolution in support of extremist Arab Palestinian claims. There is no longer any point in entering into any serious dialogue with this organization. In countless ways, over many years, the U.N. has proven to be a discredited organization, with lawless elements, which can no longer claim to have any moral standing. Very few of its 191 members can be counted upon to put principle ahead of crass expediency."
Make tax cuts permanent: "Some critics of the Bush administration charge the tax cuts have dramatically reduced government revenues, causing big long-term deficits that will hurt the economy by driving up interest rates. That, however, is a misguided argument -- not only because of a very weak relationship between deficits and interest rates, but also because historical budget data show tax revenues in future years will be at their historical average ... even if the Bush tax cuts are made permanent."
The multi-culti dictatorship: Apparently it is "harassment" to expose students and teachers to conservative viewpoints. You can only object to "white" racism, not Hispanic racism: "Complainants say they were repeatedly harassed by the math teacher.... Kehowski posted hundreds of Internet links relating to "racial hatred, intimidation and supremacy," with titles including "Mexicans Think U.S. Belongs to Them!" and "Mexican Double Standard"."
There is a good article here which documents at length how desperately the European Left hang on to their hatreds (of the USA and Israel mainly) and are supremely uninterested in the facts. It also shows how the lies of Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore play a large part in feeding the frenzy of European Leftist hate. I was unaware, too, how close the ties have been between Noam Chomsky and neo-Nazis. I guess shared hatreds explain it.
Free market environmentalism: "The most horrendous environmental disasters happened and are still happening in regions of the globe where public ownership of nearly everything is routine. China, Cuba, North Korea and less Draconian instances come to mind. Why would this be so? Well, the tragedy of the commons is a good answer, one that's been noticed from ancient times to the present: When things are owned in common, they tend to be neglected."
For more postings, see GREENIE WATCH and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH. Mirror sites here and here
********************************
The Left have always wanted more spent on welfare and made "Fascism" a swear-word. President Bush deposed a brutal Fascist dictator and sponsored a big expansion of welfare. But instead of being admired by the Left, he is hated with a passion. What does that tell you about the Left? It tells you that they have no principles at all: That everything they have ever claimed to stand for is fake.
All politicians seek power but conservatives bring with them some concern for the welfare of their country. Leftists bring only their hate-filled Stalinist hearts and their pretend compassion. Voters, unfortunately, often believe the compassion is genuine
Comments? Email me or here. If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.
********************************
Ya gotta laugh! The latest idea of the obesity warriors: "Among the suggestions featured in the plan, which will not be legally binding, are... the development of video games powered by bicycle" The kids will love that one!
I post on this blog only a tiny fraction of the emails I receive but I think this one deserves an airing because of what it says about Leftist oppression: "I am absolutely enthralled by your article on the psychology of Leftism and so pleased I found it. It's like you KNOW the situation I'm in. I run a website in the UK, the simple purpose of which is to allow local residents in my area an open platform to express opinions and comment on what goes on locally, nationally and internationally. You would not believe the abuse targeted at me and the site from left-wingers, and the attempts they have made to undermine it and close it down - actually, having read your article I know you would believe it. It's as if you know the individuals concerned. They demonstrate precisely the behaviour and techniques you describe, to the lettter, especially labelling everyone as Nazis and accusing them of hatred. The frustrating irony is that the only hatred ever shown is by them and from them and it's directed at normal, ordinary, decent local residents who have the nerve to voice their honest and perfectly reasonable opinions. Strangely enough, while wearing their alleged compassion on their sleeves, they see no problem with attacking everyone at their most vulnerable points, including some of the old folk who contribute and who are dismissed with hurtful and disparaging remarks about their age. When some very sensible teenagers joined the site and expressed majority views out of step with left-thinking, they were targeted with unpleasant patronism and teasing, and I was accused of being a paedophile for allowing them to join the site".
The policeman's blog continues to be an amazing read. I won't even try to summarize it other than to say that politically-correct policing is even worse and more useless than you would have imagined.
The UN: A failed organization: "The U.N. recently passed another blatantly anti-Israel resolution in support of extremist Arab Palestinian claims. There is no longer any point in entering into any serious dialogue with this organization. In countless ways, over many years, the U.N. has proven to be a discredited organization, with lawless elements, which can no longer claim to have any moral standing. Very few of its 191 members can be counted upon to put principle ahead of crass expediency."
Make tax cuts permanent: "Some critics of the Bush administration charge the tax cuts have dramatically reduced government revenues, causing big long-term deficits that will hurt the economy by driving up interest rates. That, however, is a misguided argument -- not only because of a very weak relationship between deficits and interest rates, but also because historical budget data show tax revenues in future years will be at their historical average ... even if the Bush tax cuts are made permanent."
The multi-culti dictatorship: Apparently it is "harassment" to expose students and teachers to conservative viewpoints. You can only object to "white" racism, not Hispanic racism: "Complainants say they were repeatedly harassed by the math teacher.... Kehowski posted hundreds of Internet links relating to "racial hatred, intimidation and supremacy," with titles including "Mexicans Think U.S. Belongs to Them!" and "Mexican Double Standard"."
There is a good article here which documents at length how desperately the European Left hang on to their hatreds (of the USA and Israel mainly) and are supremely uninterested in the facts. It also shows how the lies of Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore play a large part in feeding the frenzy of European Leftist hate. I was unaware, too, how close the ties have been between Noam Chomsky and neo-Nazis. I guess shared hatreds explain it.
Free market environmentalism: "The most horrendous environmental disasters happened and are still happening in regions of the globe where public ownership of nearly everything is routine. China, Cuba, North Korea and less Draconian instances come to mind. Why would this be so? Well, the tragedy of the commons is a good answer, one that's been noticed from ancient times to the present: When things are owned in common, they tend to be neglected."
For more postings, see GREENIE WATCH and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH. Mirror sites here and here
********************************
The Left have always wanted more spent on welfare and made "Fascism" a swear-word. President Bush deposed a brutal Fascist dictator and sponsored a big expansion of welfare. But instead of being admired by the Left, he is hated with a passion. What does that tell you about the Left? It tells you that they have no principles at all: That everything they have ever claimed to stand for is fake.
All politicians seek power but conservatives bring with them some concern for the welfare of their country. Leftists bring only their hate-filled Stalinist hearts and their pretend compassion. Voters, unfortunately, often believe the compassion is genuine
Comments? Email me or here. If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.
********************************
Saturday, May 22, 2004
LEFTIST "IDEALISM"?
Doc Rampage has just put up a long post devoted to explaining why Leftists and conservatives don't understand one-another. He says, basically, that Leftists are aiming to produce perfect people while conservatives see that as an impossible goal. I think he has been deceived by Leftist rhetoric. Everybody knows that perfection is in the eye of the beholder so what is perfect for me will be imperfect for someone else. Similarly, people will differ over what is a good society. Spaniards think bull-fighting is a good thing. Anglos generally do not. Who is to say whether Spanish or Anglo society is objectively better? Certainly not Leftists. They don't believe in any objective values, standards or morality anyway. How can they makes us "better" when they think "better" is meaningless?
And even when they DO appear to advocate some standards, Leftists are far from consistent about it (which means it is not a standard). If "tolerance" is good, for instance, why do they have no tolerance of gun-owners and various other disfavoured groups such as "rednecks", Christians, patriots etc? So why, then, are Leftists -- as Doc Rampage has rightly noticed -- always trying to "improve" us -- by force and coercion if necessary? The answer is psychological, not philosophical: It's just to make themselves appear to be good and caring and wise (mainly because they are not). Other than that they don't really care what happens at all. Only their emotions matter to them. As a certain ex-"liberal" has just expressed it: "Liberalism has no soul, no brain, and no backbone. It is a seething cauldron of emotion: hatred, envy, fear, anger, and guilt"
The said ex-"liberal" (KBJ) does -- of course -- get hate-mail from unrecontructed "liberals" (which rather confirms his characterization of them!) but I was relieved to see in this example that he is merely a "charleton". It would have been a real worry if he were a "charlatan"!
***********************************
Doc Rampage has just put up a long post devoted to explaining why Leftists and conservatives don't understand one-another. He says, basically, that Leftists are aiming to produce perfect people while conservatives see that as an impossible goal. I think he has been deceived by Leftist rhetoric. Everybody knows that perfection is in the eye of the beholder so what is perfect for me will be imperfect for someone else. Similarly, people will differ over what is a good society. Spaniards think bull-fighting is a good thing. Anglos generally do not. Who is to say whether Spanish or Anglo society is objectively better? Certainly not Leftists. They don't believe in any objective values, standards or morality anyway. How can they makes us "better" when they think "better" is meaningless?
And even when they DO appear to advocate some standards, Leftists are far from consistent about it (which means it is not a standard). If "tolerance" is good, for instance, why do they have no tolerance of gun-owners and various other disfavoured groups such as "rednecks", Christians, patriots etc? So why, then, are Leftists -- as Doc Rampage has rightly noticed -- always trying to "improve" us -- by force and coercion if necessary? The answer is psychological, not philosophical: It's just to make themselves appear to be good and caring and wise (mainly because they are not). Other than that they don't really care what happens at all. Only their emotions matter to them. As a certain ex-"liberal" has just expressed it: "Liberalism has no soul, no brain, and no backbone. It is a seething cauldron of emotion: hatred, envy, fear, anger, and guilt"
The said ex-"liberal" (KBJ) does -- of course -- get hate-mail from unrecontructed "liberals" (which rather confirms his characterization of them!) but I was relieved to see in this example that he is merely a "charleton". It would have been a real worry if he were a "charlatan"!
***********************************
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
