moonbattery logo

Apr 06 2012

Open Thread

al-sharpton-got-hate

Via Draw for Truth. Hat tip: I’m a Man! I’m 41!

Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Share on Facebook


  • http://www.grannyjanandjihadkitty.com/ Granny Jan

    Obama crazy or crazy like a fox? This is best anaylsis I’ve read on why Obama is taking on the Supremes. (I still think he’s crazy, too)

    PRUDEN: Obama’s Supreme Court ploy: When clever only looks like dumb

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/6/pruden-obamas-supreme-court-ploy-when-clever-only-/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

  • AC
  • AC

    $73,000 Debt Per American Under Obama’s Budget Plan

    This does not include unfunded liabilities.

    Meanwhile, Paul Ryan’s fiscally irresponsible budget alternative spends 46% more than Bill Clinton’s, even when adjusted for inflation.

    There was one guy who wanted to balance the budget at a responsible level of spending, but the GOP pushed him aside, deciding instead that they’d like the ring of big government for themselves. No no, we can’t have any crazy uncles casting it into the fire.

    Whether under Obama or Romney, the end will be hyperinflation and bankruptcy, the only question is a matter of when.

  • AC

    Moonbat journalist compares NRA to Mexican drug cartels, issues predictable call for government to come after our Second Amendment rights

  • Festivus

    Granny Jan (love your videos, btw), all that is plausible enough.

    However, the underlying premise is that BO thinks the law is in serious jeopardy. Why?

    Drudge speculated earlier this week that BO was the recipient of leaked information about what the non-binding vote of the justices was last Friday. It’s certainly a distinct possibility since he appointed two of the justices, one of which was a pro-AHA Solicitor General in his Administration.

    If it was a partisan vote to strike the law down (5-4), he really wouldn’t need to make much of a fuss about it until after the final vote was made public. He can make the argument then that it was a partisan vote and he needs to be re-elected in order to appoint another liberal justice or two to the SCOTUS. He can use it in the manner that’s described in that piece you linked to. Using it then (in June when the decision is expected to be handed down) is more powerful in terms of the timing in terms of being closer to the election.

    He gains nothing by coming out now with this pre-emptive strike and, in fact, has taken quite a political beating over it. That could be incompetence, of course, since his presidency has been rife with incompetence since the get-go.

    But maybe there’s another explanation.

    Which leads me to an alternative theory. Maybe the vote was 6-3 or 7-2 to strike. That would be a crushing blow to the WH and the Democrats. If that were the case, then it makes all the sense in the world that his comments earlier this week were an act of desperation to try and publicly pressure the liberals to stand by him.

    Just a though that occurred to me.

    On the other hand, it is widely recognized that the Administration’s attorneys didn’t do an effective job defending the act and he may be feeling some pressure from his base to publicly stick up for it as a result.

    Either way, he will no doubt demogogue the SCOTUS decision in the campaign no matter the outcome. If he loses, it will be conservatives on the court that are responsible. If he wins, he will have prevailed against conservatives that challenged the law.

  • Festivus

    For what it’s worth, AC, the Ryan budget does reduce deficts to zero theoretically. Check it out (ignore the liberal commentary – the graph is what is important):

    Visual Representation of the Ryan Budget 50 Years Out

    Naturally, this is highly speculative in the sense that future congresses can shit-can Ryan’s budget at any point in the future (and most likely will at some point). The idea is to gradually reverse the situation.

    It’s just not realistic that any Congress would approve a slashing of the budget no mater who is president. It’s just simply not going to happen. I’m all for a budget with 2008 numbers (or less) but the political will and conviction (i.e., votes) just isn’t there presently.

  • AC

    I’m tempted to invoke Occam’s Razor and suggest the scary words were merely a slip of the tongue, revealing his true contempt for the Constitution and the courts.

    He has expressed disdain for our Constitution before. He instead believes in a social justice based “living constitution”

    As a marginally competent associate professor of constitutional law, he also knows how the Supreme Court obstructed FDR’s unconstitutional power grab, giving in only when the socialist strongman threatened to dilute its composition with his own statist apparatchiks. If it weren’t for the Supreme Court, we’d have had a stronger dose of New Deal moonbattery with a faster acting onset. Obama knows this and is actively trying to emulate it.

    Why do you think he talked a tough game on marijuana law reform as a state’s rights issue, then completely abandoned that campaign promise when he realized that attacking Gonzales v. Raich as being decided in error would also undermine Wickard? Losing the precedent from Wickard would destroy probably half of the federal budget and most of its bureaucracies and regulations.

  • AC

    For what it’s worth, AC, the Ryan budget does reduce deficts to zero theoretically. Check it out (ignore the liberal commentary – the graph is what is important)

    Predicting budgets 50 years out is sheer lunacy. Ten is pushing it.

    The problem is that these budgets allow for short-term fiscal recklessness.

    Washington is not responsible. It is run by spending addicts. Like all junkies, they will promise to get themselves cleaned up, but not this week. The junkie is a master of excuses for why he can’t quit now.

    When dealing with an addict, there are two timeframes: immediate and indefinite.

    Ryan’s GDP numbers are also highly suspect. That’s a topic for another discussion.

    It’s just not realistic that any Congress would approve a slashing of the budget no mater who is president. It’s just simply not going to happen. I’m all for a budget with 2008 numbers (or less) but the political will and conviction (i.e., votes) just isn’t there presently.

    It isn’t realistic, which is why we either needed a stubborn old coot in the White House, or a constitutional convention among the several states. Congress is not going to stop the madness until they’re dragged kicking and screaming, in a constitutional straightjacket, off to fiscal rehab.

    Helicopter Ben is the enabler.

  • Festivus

    I can go with the Occam’s Razor concept. lol

    Although I don’t think it was a slip of the tongue. It was deliberate. For what purpose, I’m not sure. Probably he was getting heat to publicly try to make up for the Solicitor General’s poor performance.

    What about rolling back Wickard v Filburn to some extent? If they are thinking they are going to lose, they must be concerned about that possibility. That would also be devastating for them.

  • AC

    51 Months After The Start Of The Recession, Here Is The Report Card

    Does this look like a foundation for growth?

    We are not in a cyclical recession. We are in a structural depression being disguised by government and the media as a cyclical recession.

  • Festivus

    AC, I agree that 50 years out is a pipe dream, but Ron Paul couldn’t get people behind his legislation in Congress and I doubt he could do it as President. No one could, frankly.

    I also disagree with the Constituational Convention idea. We would come out worse off for sure.

    A Constituational Balanced Budget Amendment, on the other hand, I could see working. I think it’s our only hope, actually.

  • AC

    Wickard won’t be overturned to any meaningful extent without a constitutional amendment.

    Whether the White House and Senate are red or blue, there is one unshakable qualification for federal judges: adherence to and belief in the cornerstones of federal power, such as Wickard. The two parties disagree over some disqualifiers, but they can both agree that judges posing a threat to their very power are unacceptable.

    I can’t think of one Senator who would stand behind a Supreme Court judge who disagrees with the better part of Wickard. This is yet another consequence of amending the constitution to allow for direct election of senators.

    Our founding fathers created a system of checks and balances, not redundancy in the legislature.

  • AC

    AC, I agree that 50 years out is a pipe dream, but Ron Paul couldn’t get people behind his legislation in Congress and I doubt he could do it as President. No one could, frankly.

    I doubt Congress would be able to find 2/3 in both chambers to override a veto from Paul.

    Two thirds of voters supported cap, cut, and balance. Paul can strike down these horrible budgets and Congress will dare not cross him, except for reps from the moonbattiest of districts.

    I also disagree with the Constituational Convention idea. We would come out worse off for sure.

    How many constitutions survive intact after national bankruptcy and hyperinflation? Whether the end comes from a socialist dictator or a military junta, par for the course is a wholesale suspension of liberties in the name of continuing business as usual for big government.

    A Constituational Balanced Budget Amendment, on the other hand, I could see working. I think it’s our only hope, actually.

    It’s our only remote hope.

    Or, we can admit that it’s probable that five watertight compartments have already been breached.

  • http://www.grannyjanandjihadkitty.com/ Granny Jan

    @ Festivus, I thought, like you did, that BHO’s comments didn’t make sense and were politically self-defeating. That’s why I liked Pruden. He tried to make sense of it all.

    I’ve been watching a lot of Obama 08 campaign videos and my estimation of what makes him tick is that he is a con man. That was my original view of him and still probably the best.

    And I mean a con man of the psychopathic variety but I’m not entirely sure of the psychopathic part because you who would have to kmow what he’s like off camera and that can’t happen. Furthermore, his whole life history has been scrubbed so it’s all conjecture.

  • Festivus

    Lopez (1995) was a restriction on Wickard v Filburn and if the law is tossed they will have to address Wickard somehow. I wouldn’t expect any major roll back, but they’d have to acknowledge the limitations of Wickard in the process I would think.

  • AC

    Lopez was unbelievably narrow and it didn’t seem to have much practical impact in actually reducing existing federal power in line with what was thrown out in the case. Lopez was essentially a one-off strikedown from the court, in which it told Congress to be a little less brazen with exercising unchecked power.

  • Bob Roberts

    A BIT TOO FAR! Christians NAILED to crosses in gruesome Good Friday re-enactment of Jesus’s death in the Philippines

    MOONBATS REJOICE! Good news for MOONBATS: Bill Gates funds new machine that filters your toilet waste back into ‘drinkable’ water

    But how many of them will buy/use it? Or will they just pass legislation to force us to do so and grant themselves exemptions?

    Deputies: Shots fired at Augusta Waffle House stemmed from Facebook

    Controversial Media Matters analyst leaving rather than ‘harm’ the site over Israel criticism MJ Rosenberg, who also got into hot water for mistakenly accusing the Drudge Report website of racism in coverage of the Trayvon Martin case, announced Friday on the Media Matters website that he was “striking out on my own with a brand new website and blog.”

    HEY LAO – maybe you’d be more welcome there than here?

    $73,000 Debt Per American Under Obama’s Budget Plan I didn’t authorize a penny of it and I’m not paying a penny of it.

    When asked whether he read The New York Times every day, Thomas replied, “Oh, God, no!”

    Well… he did have two of them! Boy ‘sells kidney to buy iPad’ – the face of MOONBATTERY in China? Seriously, who would do that? It shows what’s wrong with allowing people to sell their organs.

    IN MOONBAT MA: Shrewsbury Man Accused Of Killing Wife, Cannibalism It’s what’s for dinner in Moonbat households across the U.S.? Seriously, he was hungry and he had already finished off the cat AND the dog.

    Mother was an incubator, father was the contents of a test tube in an icebox in the factory of birth. Brave new world? Somehow, I doubt it.

    Bill her estate. It can afford it. OUTRAGE: Newark Residents Hit With $187,000 Police OT Bill For Whitney Houston Funeral.

    It cost the city of Newark more than $187,000 in police overtime, representing 5 percent of the $4 million budget for the year.

    However, one question – all those people who came to see – did they generate tax revenue and such? Gas, hotels, meals, etc.?

  • Festivus

    GJ, I don’t disagree with anything Pruden says, but I don’t think it fully explains things.

    For instance, why does BO think he’s going to lose this case (or at least feel that it’s a real possibility) and why go on this pre-emptive strike now as opposed to just making the argument after the decision comes down?

    After all, if the decision goes his way, he needn’t worry about making this tortured argument.

    He gains nothing with his admonishment on Monday in terms of the electorate and the campaign right now and actually appears to have suffered a political bloody nose as a result.

    It’s either sheer incompetence (entirely possible) or maybe something else is going on behind the scenes.

  • Festivus

    AC, they’s still have to put their decision (assuming it is to strike down the AHA) in the context of Wickard and explain the limitations of Wickard (as to why this decision does not fall within the parameters of Wickard). Again, I don’t anticipate any dramatic roll back, but striking down the law presumes Wickard has some limitations and those will be discussed in the decision presumably.

  • AC

    They’ll make shit up as they go along, saying whatever is necessary to continue the charade of Wickard being necessary and more good than bad.

    It’s like a 7 year old girl claiming that her pet unicorn has a vet appointment on Tuesday. It might not make much sense, but that’s what you’ll hear when she’s asked to bring it for show and tell. The week after, the pet unicorn will be unavailable for another reason.

  • Bob Roberts

    AC says: April 6, 2012 at 9:03 pm
    ———–
    You know, he was essentially the “occupy” movement and the Martin race war inciters all rolled into one!

    I posted this pic, well a smaller version, on the last open thread, but your pic is much better!:

    Bob Roberts says: April 5, 2012 at 10:10 pm

    But you know the scary thing? Scroll down the page of your link to the two pictures that show him back in the early days then just a while back. In this pic he is the SPITTING IMAGE of a moonbat I know. I swear, I could post a pic of this moonbat I know and you would swear it was Manson as pictured here.

  • Bob Roberts

    Granny Jan says: April 6, 2012 at 8:17 pm
    ———————–
    Am reading your link.

    But, before I do, and before I’ve read other opinions (I’ve basically glanced at the headlines but haven’t read the opinions because I wanted to form my own first.), I wanted to say that I can think of two reasons Obama said what he said:

    1) He’s really that big a narcissistic megalomaniac. He really thinks what he said is true. Of course, it’s really difficult to accept this possibility even though I caution you all not to completely reject it either.

    2) He’s just pulling the usual “lie through your teeth to the base because, after all, at least 50% of voters are really stupid enough to accept what they’re told and run with it, particularly if you use emotional, disingenuous arguments instead of logical, honest ones.

    Seriously, the second is the likely one as far as I’m concerned. Everything about his & Democrats’ actions screams that they’re going to go to a max fear and hate campaign and just overload people so they stampede to him so he can save them.

    You know they’re going to ferment a race war over Treyvon Martin and any other cases that happen between now and November where the “victim” (even if he’s the violent thug that incites it) is black and the criminal (even if he’s as innocent as the day is long) is “white” (or hispanic).

    You know they’re going to whip up “occupy” and “the 99%” in hopes one or both will lead to riots and anarchy across the U.S.

    And who knows what else they will pull between now and then?

    Really, does anything surprise you after the last several years (going back to when the Democrats gained control of Congress) of Obama, Reid, Pelosi and their ilk?

  • Festivus

    Bob Roberts says: April 6, 2012 at 10:26 pm

    Good news for MOONBATS: Bill Gates funds new machine that filters your toilet waste back into ‘drinkable’ water.

    Bill and Melinda Gates built a fairly sizeable two buildinig office complex for their charitable foundation near the Space Needle over the last year and a half, or so. They incorporated a huge underground cistern that captures rain water (of which there is no shortage here in Seattle) – something like 1 million gallons, if I recall correctly.

    I’d rather do something like that than drink from the toilet. lol Wouldn’t work well for those who live in arid areas, though.

    Maybe I could bottle and sell it to folks in Arizona?

    hmmm

  • Bob Roberts

    Granny, really the link you provided sums up nicely in the last sentence:

    One outraged pundit decides that Mr. Obama has revealed himself to be “no longer a serious man. Nor an honest one.” This misses the point, too. Barack Obama never was.

    Yes indeed, Obama has been a Liar in Chief from the start. He was a liar every day he’s held any political office. The penultimate politician. You can tell when he’s lying – his lips move!

  • Bob Roberts

    Festivus says: April 6, 2012 at 10:47 pm
    ————
    If I read them right, the plan is to send it to the “third world” thus solving the issue of inadequate sanitary sewage and inadequate drinking water in one fell swoop.

    I can just see the moselms when they get hold of these things.

  • Bob Roberts

    The problem with Wicard, and the reason it will eventually be overturned when we get a court that comes to it’s senses, is that government has no business setting wages, prices, etc. Government has no business providing subsidies, etc., in order to manipulate prices. We talk about the Chinese, the Japanese and others “dumping” and otherwise affecting world markets by favoring their own industries in different ways. Well isn’t that what we’re doing when we try to affect the price of commodities as Wickard supported?

    Now you could argue that it was “necessary” at the time and fine, if you wish to believe that, please do. The fact is government intervention likely caused, prolonged and deepened the Great Depression and it took a war to get us out of it as a result. Which, if you’re paying attention, is where the Democrats are taking us today. Only this time it’s going to be a full on nuclear war and, as Einstein famously said, “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” It’s another of his theories that appears close to being proven right.

  • Bob Roberts

    D’OH… forgot to close my tag, apparently.

  • Bob Roberts

    The problem with the typical interpretation of the Commerce Clause and indeed any clause of any part of the Constitution when liberal, activists are doing the interpreting, is that one forgets that the whole point of the Constitution was to LIMIT government, not grant it powers. The granting of powers was CLEARLY only done where ABSOLUTELY necessary and the later clause, well, later Amendment, that states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” is CLEARLY an attempt to point out that the courts are to generally side with the States or the People, and not the Federal Government, in conflicts with government absent a compelling reason not to do so. Naturally there will be exceptions – there are exceptions to every rule. The problem is “liberals”, “progressives”, activists, moonbats think that EVERY exception is justified. The exceptions must be few and far between and have overpowering justification.

    The problem in Wickard was caused BY the government and was made worse BY that ruling.

  • Bob Roberts

    Mr. Blount’s picture, even though it’s an obvious distortion, illustrates an important point. Often when you see images of psychotic people you will find there’s something about the eyes, something that’s not quite right. The image used above captures this concept beautifully.

  • Bob Roberts

    RE: My “eyes” comment, above, compare the eyes:

    HERE

    AND HERE

    (Be sure and note the URL of the second image.)

    There is DEFINITELY something about those eyes…

  • Bob Roberts

    You Will Never Guess Which Liberal Groups Are Demanding ID

    OUTSTANDING!

    You have a constitutional right to petition for redress of grievances, but if you want to see Eric Holder or anyone else at the the Department of Justice to explain your grievance, you need a photo ID.

  • Bob Roberts

    Anyone heard of Easterbrook’s first law of doomsaying?

    It basically says this:

    “Always predict catastrophe soon enough to worry people, but far enough in the future that people will forget when you are wrong.”

    Of course with AGW the rule was “far enough in the future most of us alive today will be dead or dying and really won’t much care if it turned out to be right or wrong.”

    The thing is this: We’re far enough into the future to see that the predictions simply are not coming true. The world is not warming catastrophically – if anything, despite ongoing attempts to fake and manipulate data, it’s cooling. The sea levels are not rising dangerously – if they were, why are Al Gore and The University of California Scripps Institute of Oceanography buying/building multi-million dollar properties a stone’s throw from the current mean high tide line?

    Polar bears aren’t dying, we are NOT in the middle of a mass extinction event and human CO2 emissions are not only a fraction of a fraction of natural emissions, but the change in atmospheric CO2 is a fraction of a fraction of the total atmosphere. How the alarmists propose that a trace gas which has orders of magnitude less influence than water, itself admittedly not more than 3-5% (average) of the atmosphere, would dominate weather, temperature and climate simply boggles the mind. Are they that stupid, or do they think you are?

  • Bob Roberts

    But you know… you got to hand it to Obama. After all, he talks about being green and he sure is recycling the same old tired lies over and over!

    OMG – NUCLEAR! TIME TO PANIC (not)!

  • nobody

    …….an individual black man is fourteen times, or 1400%, as likely to murder a white man than the other way around.

    According to the FBI’s most recent statistics, where available, twice as many whites are murdered by blacks, numerically, as blacks by whites in the U.S. In the case of 2010 (where reported) 447 vs 218.

    This means, statistically, that a black (man in this case) is well over 100% more likely to kill a white man than the other way around.

    BUT WAIT! This math is not complete.

    Let us also remember that blacks are a “minority” population, representing only 12.8% of the US population.

    Suppose not so different in Florida.

    If we devise a “killing per race per race pop” (Kpop) ratio we get:

    Kpop 447/12.8 = Kpop factor 34.9 for black on white and Kpop 218/87.2 = Kpop factor 2.5 for white on black murders.

    What that means is that an individual black man is fourteen times, or 1400%, as likely to murder a white man than the other way around.

    And while we await facts on the Zimmerman case…

    Whites cower at the threat of a “black riot for justice.”

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2869201/posts

  • Rob Banks
  • IslandLifer
  • IslandLifer
  • http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.ca Reaganite Republican
  • Sam Adams

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/lightning-rod-for-controversy-another-american-flag-with-obamas-face-shows-up-in-south-jersey/

    Another flag shows up with Obama’s face on it; this time in New Jersey.

    Actually a flag with Obama’s face is a nearly perfect metaphor for our 4th best president ever. The stars on the flag represent the states. Of course the states have the constitutional right to regulate everything not specifically delegated to the federal government, including health care (ever notice that it is the states, not the federal government, that licenses physicians?).

    But the Dear Leader would sweep that all aside, replacing the states with his will and desires.

    Long live the Dear Leader!!!!

  • Sam Adams

    Bob Roberts says:
    April 6, 2012 at 10:58 pm

    The problem with Wicard, and the reason it will eventually be overturned when we get a court that comes to it’s senses, is that government has no business setting wages, prices, etc. Government has no business providing subsidies, etc., in order to manipulate prices. We talk about the Chinese, the Japanese and others “dumping” and otherwise affecting world markets by favoring their own industries in different ways. Well isn’t that what we’re doing when we try to affect the price of commodities as Wickard supported?
    _______________

    Excellent points. The government has no business “managing” the economy, “managing” our money supply, etc. Our economy does much better when it is not managed, but people are allowed to “pursue happiness” and gain as they think best, within a framework of laws.

    ____________

    Now you could argue that it was “necessary” at the time and fine, if you wish to believe that, please do. The fact is government intervention likely caused, prolonged and deepened the Great Depression and it took a war to get us out of it as a result.
    _______________

    I take issue with this common characterization; a war didn’t end the depression. The US was essentially turned into a command economy by WWII, and the big concern of economists of the day was that the sudden drop in government spending at the end of WWII would cause the economy to stall and the Great Depression would continue, especially as millions of men suddenly entered into the civilian work force once again.

    What prolonged the depression, as you rightly point out, was FDR and his policies. Businessmen and those with money to invest simply couldn’t trust him or the government. He had stolen value from the US public by first demanding the exchange of gold for federal reserve notes, followed by devaluing those federal reserve notes by repricing gold from $20 to $36 per ounce.

    Then as the depression continued, and people were unwilling to invest, he instituted the “excess profits tax” in 1936, causing a recession within the depression. The demands of WWII and huge infusions of cash both from Europe, as well as borrowing from future generations put a lot of people back to work for the war effort.

    However, the death of president for life, FDR, was what actually turned around the economy. People started having confidence again that the free market could/would return, that the government wouldn’t confiscate their wealth, so they could actually profit from their investments, having some confidence in the future restored.

    At least that is how I see it.

  • Fiberal

    Rob Banks says:
    April 7, 2012 at 3:52 am

    John Derbyshire in Establishment crosshairs.

    I’m not surprised. Derbyshire has penned “The Talk” for white people.

    I can only imagine the outrage of warning white children as to how to keep safe around blacks.

    As for National Review (WF Buckley Jr.’s once-reputable magazine) standing tall on this one, I doubt it. The editors threw Ann Coulter under the bus and called Joe Arpaio and all those concerned with the citizen clause of the Constitution, a bunch of “fools”.

    Derbyshire is a good mathematician, writer and apparently knows something about statistical variation in IQ scores.

    I expect he would do better to “cancel his own damn subscription” and start his own magazine.

    Festivus,

    I have posted an answer to your question on the black IQ issue down at the fast-disappearing Obama’s Occidental Transcript

  • AC
  • Fiberal

    Ah yes. Rich Lowry, who edits Derbyshire at NR, has condemned Derbyshire’s piece.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/04/07/derbyshire_again.html
    .

    At least Derbyshire has united liberals and conservatives in their shared animosity for warning white children how to stay safe around blacks.

    And this just in: Apparently, Taki’s Magazine, the site that posted the Derbyshire article, has been taken down.
    http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Recent/page.html

    Ah…here’s a last remaining link that still seems to be functioning on which you can read the dangerous “The Talk. Nonblack Version”

    (Caution– this article has been uniformly denounced as constituting a hate crime. Reading Derbyshires’s opinion could have unforeseen consequences, such as a twitter from Spike Lee concerning your address).

    .
    Dave,

    You may want to hold this post for review.

    .

    Here’s Derbyshire’s radio show– delightful. He has announced his last show on NR. Sad.
    http://radio.nationalreview.com/radioderb/post/?q=NDI0MjgxMTgxM2E0ODc0YmY0ODI3ODI2NTJlODEyZDM=

    http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Recent/page.html

  • AC

    WWII ended the depression, but only on paper. The people were still subject to heavily impaired standards of living due to wartime rationing, inflation, and taxation.

    What turned the economy around and brought prosperity to the masses was an era of cheap energy. After the war, the wide availability of cheap oil products allowed a massive expansion of industry and the nation’s housing stock.

    Americans were able to build prosperity once government got off their backs.

  • Sam Adams

    AC says:
    April 7, 2012 at 7:07 am

    WWII ended the depression, but only on paper. The people were still subject to heavily impaired standards of living due to wartime rationing, inflation, and taxation.

    What turned the economy around and brought prosperity to the masses was an era of cheap energy. After the war, the wide availability of cheap oil products allowed a massive expansion of industry and the nation’s housing stock.

    Americans were able to build prosperity once government got off their backs.
    _______________

    True enough. My point is that the belief that WWII ended the depression leads to the “broken window” theory of economic growth, specifically that a war would lead to a better economy and lower unemployment.

    Many conservatives have bought into the idea that wars are good for the economy (as well as liberals), while, in fact, wars end up impoverishing us overall, since wars are essentially unproductive activities which destroy wealth.

  • Hail The Amberlamps!

    A suspect described as a “white man in a white truck” is linked to five shootings with 3 KIAs in Tulsa yesterday. It’s Sanford x 5.

    Guess what Obama The Agitpropist is doing? Dedicating the 50th anniversary of To Kill a Mockingbird with a TV appearance this evening.

    Made to order civil disorder.

  • Bob Roberts

    Sam Adams says: April 7, 2012 at 6:15 am
    ————-
    The First Amendment notwithstanding, I can see how many, particularly veterans, would be enraged by this.

    There are many ways those who wish to support Obama can do so without such a blatant slap in the face to those who’ve given all for this country. This is just wrong.

  • Bob Roberts

    The thing about the IQs is this: I suppose if you worked hard enough to cherry pick your populations you would find zero difference between races. But, apparently, it simply is a fact we need to accept that, as a whole, Asians (at least Southeast Asians, I believe it was, but I could be wrong) do better than Caucasians and Caucasians do better than Africans.

    Does this mean we need to permanently discriminate against Caucasians and permanently discriminate even more against Asians? I think not. The best way to achieve the best result is to let people achieve as much as they can. So perhaps we will wind up with a world where you see a lot of Asians in medicine and other high end fields, a lot of Caucasians in the middle and a lot of Africans in sports.

    Is that really so bad?

    I mean, it seems to be working pretty good to me!

    Because if we’re going to start discriminating then we need to work out some way to give Caucasians a better chance in the NBA, the NFL and other sports.

    I mean, it’s only fair.

  • Bob Roberts

    I went over “The Talk – Non-black Version” quickly. I didn’t see that much in it that would cause anyone but a reverse racist to object to it. Even the critics either mistakenly or grudgingly admit the author backed up each thing he said with facts.

    Except, perhaps, one:

    (10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.
    ————–
    In fact had we even taken the very basic steps to qualify Obama, the very same simple considerations we use to qualify ANY politician, he would have been found wanting and quickly passed over.

    I don’t think we should treat blacks any different with respect to considering them for elective office. A single set of standards will do.

  • Bob Roberts

    Apparently the moonbats are attacking takimag.com since they just can’t stand any free speech that doesn’t parrot what they say and think.

  • Bob Roberts

    I haven’t been watching others’ links, so some of these may already be listed here:

    OBAMANOMICS:

    Number NOT in labor force rises to record 88 million.

    Bernanke Warning on Jobs Vindicated by March Payrolls Report So obamacare, a promise of more and higher taxes and other overreaching by the obamunists is hurting wages – is that supposed to be surprising?

    Jobs Data Breaks Pattern That Was Boosting Obama Re-Election Would I rather the economy recovered with the corresponding increase in chances of 4 more years of Obama? OF COURSE! That’s a no brainer.

    Mild winter may have artificially inflated jobs data, economists fear

    CRIME:
    IN OBAMALAND: 5 people shot Friday night, Saturday morning across city

    Crowd Beats, Strips & Robs Tourist On St. Patrick’s Day; Incident Caught On Camera NOTE the victim is white, the attackers black. Where’s the outrage from Obama, Holder, Jackson, Sharpton and the others? Oh, wait, they think there’s nothing wrong as long as the perps are black and the victims are white, I FORGOT!

    ARAB SPRING morphs into al QAEDA SUMMER. THANKS OBAMA!

    Van Jones plans to destabilize America.

    Dick Durban Dumb CO2 does not cause tornadic storms. In fact “global warming” REDUCES the factors which cause such storms.

    Energy Dept. offers prize to create mobile apps that already exist

  • Bob Roberts

    You know, I found Glenn Beck to be really too over the top to keep watching when I checked him out. But you have to hand it to him. See the VAN JONES link in my last post.

    Did Glenn Beck call it, or what?

  • Bob Roberts

    Hail The Amberlamps! says: April 7, 2012 at 8:44 am
    ——————
    Do you got a link?

    No, it’s not Sanford X 5.

    Sanford was a totally justified shooting. The details you provide suggest this is not, though it will be interesting to see what comes of the investigation.

    But, as for your prediction this will be used to start race riots, yeah, you’re on target with that.

  • Sam Adams

    Bob Roberts says:
    April 7, 2012 at 9:00 am

    The thing about the IQs is this: I suppose if you worked hard enough to cherry pick your populations you would find zero difference between races. But, apparently, it simply is a fact we need to accept that, as a whole, Asians (at least Southeast Asians, I believe it was, but I could be wrong) do better than Caucasians and Caucasians do better than Africans.
    _______________

    There is, IMHO, a better explanation. The percent of blacks born into single parent households 40 years ago was about 22%, while the rate among whites was around 2%. Now we have 70% of black kids born into single parent households, with maybe 24% of white kids born into single parent households. Asians are lumped in with Pacific Islanders, but even so, the rate is 16%.

    http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=107

    Personally I think there is a high correlation between kids that are born into single parent homes and kids that have problems in school, problems in relationships, etc. I suspect that if you compared kids in two parent homes, the differences in IQ between races would essentially disappear.

    Two parents in a home means that there is time and energy to be involved with kids. It means that kids are more likely to have a parent raising them than to be shoved into daycare. It means that a parent has the time to read to their kids. It means that someone is available to go to parent-teacher conferences.

  • FrankW

    I recently heard a bammy speech from last year along with one from last week, and it was the same speech (a few minor additional words were added or reordered). A speech class teacher would have given a “F” for effort (unless it was a public school in which case our dear reader would have been socially promoted).
    http://syracusefan.com/threads/obama-repeats-last-years-budget-speech-word-for-word.24490/

  • Hail The Amberlamps!

    Bob, yes I mean as agitprop not drawing parallels to justification. Its the lead all over MSM outlets. This is the race war the left wants.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-04-07/oklahoma-shootings/54094146/1

    http://www.tulsaworld.com/scene/article.aspx?subjectid=275&articleid=20120406_44_D1_Thecla88904

  • http://im41.com BC

    Thanks Dave!!

  • Festivus

    Fiberal says: April 7, 2012 at 6:42 am

    Festivus,

    I have posted an answer to your question on the black IQ issue down at the fast-disappearing Obama’s Occidental Transcript.

    Got it. Thanks.

    It’s been interesting.

    I’ll admit that I’m a bit surprised to find that this disparity isn’t really disputed. What is much more contentious, of course, is the question as to why the disparity exists and what to do about it.

    If it’s a case where one is making the argument that blacks are somehow genetically or biologically inferior and as a consequence their fate in terms of IQ potential is a fait accompli despite other factors (such as environment), it doesn’t appear to me that it is settled science.

    I would make a different observation with respect to Asian/White comparisons. As Bob pointed out, being a product of single-parent households correlates with higher incidences of poverty and violent crime, for example. You will find no stronger familial units than in the Asian community. Perhaps that can help explain that environmental factors are indeed an important factor.

    I think the difficulty I have with someone like Derbyshire and his article, “The Talk,” (which is down at the moment, so I’ve only read bits and pieces of it), is this presumption that lower IQs translate into irredeemable black people that are destined to act like animals and commit violent crime and other anti-social behavior (like rap music – lol) as a result.

    I know that blacks are disproportionately represented in crime statistics, but I’ve also noticed in my reading that the correlation between violent crime offenders and low intelligence is not exactly settled science either.

    The question that flows from this is that if you truly believe that blacks are genetically/biologically inferior in terms of potential IQ and, as a result, are predisposted to anti-social behavior and violent crime (that environmental factors are largely irrelevant), what is to be done about it?

    Derbyshire’s solution, it seems to me, has at its core a very bleak and pessimistic outlook for society and, yes, humanity (I hate to use that term like this as it smacks of and emotional plea ala liberalism). He is essentialy advocating for segregation which people can do by staying out of certain neighborhoods, malls or parks and such. What about schools, though?

    It seems to me to be very much a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. A strategy that theoretically would work (segregation would keep whites safe from black-on-white crime, so to speak), but is it good policy and something we should be teaching our children in “The Talk” as Derbyshire suggests?

    It reminds me to some extent of the whole AGW argument and what should be done about it. One school of thought is to reduce carbon emissions. But what if they’re wrong and temperature continues to climb (not saying it is, but using this for illustrative purposes) despite emission reductions. They never offer adaptation as an alternative. It is a fatal perspective with a very narrow and quite potentially wrong solution (and we all know why that is).

    You can go fall in with Derbyshire’s fatalistic prescription of segregation, or perhaps you might take up with a more optimistic approach of free market and capitalism principles to improve environments (schools and families) in the hope that it will elevate the group over time.

    I think the two approaches are mutually exclusive actually. Which side do you want to err on?

  • AC
  • http://genelalor.com berlet98

    Unemployment Smoke and Mirrors

    “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.” (Thomas Jefferson)

    Based on mainstream media reports and liberal pundit commentaries, one would think that America’s economy had turned a corner, that massive numbers of people were getting back to work, that the re-recession was over, that God’s in His heaven and all’s right in Obamaworld.

    Much as all Americans would love to believe that rosy picture, it would be as accurate as believing Obama reveres the United States Constitution.

    The Bureau of Labor Statistics released data on Friday showing that 120,000 jobs opened up in March and that the official unemployment rate declined from 8.3% in February to 8.2% last month, the lowest rate in over three years.

    That was the good economic news, deceptively good and the only good news.

    In point of fact, those 120,000 jobs represented a 107,000 decrease from February’s numbers and far less than the expected 205,000 and were the fewest jobs added in five months, people are leaving the workforce in droves with a record 88,000,000 now not employed at all, the Institute for Supply Management’s factory index was 53.4 in March, down from a high of 59.9 in January, 2011, and Americans are working fewer hours and earning less money.

    If this is a recovery, what’s a recession?

    CNBC’s voice of reason, Rick Santelli, . . .
    (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=20864.)

  • Fiberal

    Fest,

    Of course environmental factors are important in IQ, but as I said earlier, when you get into the universe of those variables, its anyone’s guess.

    And everyone’s option to put forth their favorite variable.

    BF Skinner took science down the road of environmental factors as causative of the human condition and we’re only starting to recover from it after decoding the human genome.

    The notion of environmental factors as controlling and the solutions deemed necessary has been both wrong and devastating. The approach has produced an entire subculture of millions of disenfranchised, entitled “victims” who will commit racial murder in order to satisfy their sense of injustice.

    Single-parent families are an ever-exacerbating result of low intelligence; not the other way around. Making this chicken-egg error is exactly what going down the infinity-path of environment is the great error of social-psychology “science”.

    Family cohesion can be found not just with Asians, but can be found in all subcultures not directly infected by liberalism.

    .

    Derbyshire has presented the equivalent of “The Black Talk” where blacks teach their kids how to deal with whites.

    But notice that Derbyshire’s “Nonblack talk” not only is supported with facts, there is also no teaching of hate —not something that I think would necessarily be in common with “The Black Talk.”

    Moreover no one has a problem with “The Black Talk”; it has been met with sympathy and understanding in light of the Trayvon Martin debacle.

    .

    Why is everyone upset with “The NonBlack Talk?” Don’t whites have a right and a duty to warn their kids of the dangers associated with blacks?

    Do you think that the video of a lost white man getting pounded on, stolen from and stripped naked on the streets is made up? Or even represents an exception to what would happen to a lone white guy in a black neighborhood?

    You can do what you want to with your kids for the sake of “society”. But if I had kids, my message to them would be Tony Soprano’s lecture to his daughter:

    “It may be 1999 out there, but it’s 1950 in here!”

  • Festivus

    It’s exactly the chicken and the egg quandry that is what I’m trying to get at.

    Was it low IQs that resulted in destroyed black families, or was it an absolution of personal responsibility vis-a-vis “The Great Society” initiatives in the 60s and beyond?

    If, as you seem to imply, low IQs resulted in a breakdown of the black family unit, to what do you owe the fact that the black family unit was reasonably intact before that time? Was there a shift in the IQ?

  • Festivus

    I’ll just append that last post with an observation regarding your acknowledgement that environmental factors are indeed, “important.”

    It was the result of desegregation that blacks were mainstreamed into white schools before the deterioration of the black family unit – wouldn’t that have had a positive impact on IQ and staved off any deterioration of the black family unit?

    The opposite seems to have occurred.

  • Festivus

    I mean the opposite seems to have occurred according to your construction, which is to say that environmental factors improved, yet the family unit deteriorated anyway.

  • AC

    Native Americans became addicted to the government cheese even before the Great Society welfare state came along, with similar results. Dave’s post yesterday highlighted a laundry list of social ills very similar to those faced by the black community.

    It all goes back to Reagan’s scariest words in the English language.

  • Sam Adams

    If the breakdown of the family is a consequence of lower IQs, then the dramatic increase in single parent white families would indicate that whites are getting stupider, too.

    Personally I don’t believe that the breakdown of the family is a result of lower IQs as much as it is society’s changes towards single women. Forty years ago, a white girl gets pregnant, her family is shamed (they may move out of town), and the child is likely given up for adoption rather than the girl living in her parent’s basement.

    The government stepped in, made it possible for these girls to get all sorts of assistance so they could live on their own with “their cute little baby,” society stopped looking down on these idiots for their stupid behavior, and the government provided incentives for the girls to not be married.

  • Fiberal

    Just served the amanitin soup to the guests.

    Will be back…..great questions, comments.

  • Festivus

    Oh, sure, consume some hallucinogens and get back to us! lol

  • http://wyldgoose.wordpress.com Wyld Goose
  • lao

    Parting Ways

    Derb is effectively using our name to get more oxygen for views with which we’d never associate ourselves otherwise. So there has to be a parting of the ways. Derb has long danced around the line on these issues, but this column is so outlandish it constitutes a kind of letter of resignation. It’s a free country, and Derb can write whatever he wants, wherever he wants. Just not in the pages of NR or NRO, or as someone associated with NR any longer.

  • Bloodless Coup

    Investigation reveals numerous bogus claims on Obama resume

    Continue reading on Examiner.com Investigation reveals numerous bogus claims on Obama resume – National Conservative | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/investigation-reveals-numerous-bogus-claims-on-obama-resume#ixzz1rP9Ft7Kr

  • Festivus

    Captain Obvious made a redundant post. How special.

    All of a sudden it smells like flatulence in here.

  • Fiberal

    Correction Lao-Z,

    It’s a free country, …

    It is not a free country. And NR has contributed to its demise.

    Will Mark Steyn take up the cause and protest to NR or even resign? Does this kind of censorship continue until the government starts prosecuting Americans for their speech as they do in Canada?

    Unlike El Rushbo Derbyshire, does not have the sponsor support to fight back.

    You might want to know as a mathematician and writer, Derbyshire has struggled with crushing poverty and hard work since coming to the states. Whether you agree with his article or not, he has now taken one in the chest for the cause of one of our basic rights: free speech.

    .

    And Lao-Z still can’t muster enough of an independent thought to do more than cut and paste some crap about his personal affairs.

    Well, by all means, continue your celebratory giggling at a much better man than yourself, Lao-Z.

    Its all you will ever be capable of doing.

  • Rob Banks

    What galls me is a sitzpinkler conservative like Lowry claiming Derbyshire was using his association with NR to get “oxygen” for his views. Is he kidding? Derbyshire was the last good reason to take NR seriously. I certainly don’t see any reason to continue reading that rag now.

    I hope Derb keeps up with his Radio Derb feature. It’s a national treasure. Good luck to Derb, and a pox on NR.

  • Festivus

    Derbyshire was not censored. He was fired by his employer for writing an article they found objectionable.

    Only the government can censor someone in a legal sense.

    People are free to say or write what they wish but they are not free from the consequences thereof. That is not guaranteed.

  • AC

    Thanks to the Internet, anyone can publish their views, and thanks to our lack of compulsion in media, nobody is under any obligation to listen to those views.

  • Rob Banks

    I suggest a campaign of everyone mailing Rich Lowry a tampon in protest. I’m sure you understand the implication….

  • Festivus

    Good luck with that, Bob.

  • Fiberal

    Was it low IQs that resulted in destroyed black families, or was it an absolution of personal responsibility vis-a-vis “The Great Society” initiatives in the 60s and beyond?

    Yes.

    You cannot go down the road of environmental factors and get clear answers. First of all, in doing this, you present a false dichotomy.

    Secondly, while important, environmental factors are not useful units of analyses. There are far too many interactions between unmeasurable environmental variables but that in turn play a hard role on the range of individual genetic make-up.

    Eg, Some men rape. Does rape go up when women wear provocative clothing? How about high heels? How about red lipstick? How about hairstyle? How about suggestive looks? How about opportunities?

    Well, yes and no.

    Feminists used to call this PAV—Pick Any Variable. And they were correct. When you can pick any variable, you can pick any variable. The list is not useful to explain rape. (Then we go to a new list….on and on).

    If, as you seem to imply, low IQs resulted in a breakdown of the black family unit,

    I do not mean to imply that.

    to what do you owe the fact that the black family unit was reasonably intact before that time?

    Ambition and aspirations to become a functional unit in a productive and peaceable society.

    Was there a shift in the IQ?

    You couldn’t tell without a way of comparing IQ tests across generations. Remember, the average IQ moves with the population it is derived from, bc it is a moving average.

    It was the result of desegregation that blacks were mainstreamed into white schools before the deterioration of the black family unit – wouldn’t that have had a positive impact on IQ and staved off any deterioration of the black family unit?

    Not necessarily. The black family unit starts to deteriorate with liberal policies that directly affect the individual and indirectly, the family.

    Whereas IQ is only relative to a population mean at any given time; a score of 100 in 1950 is a score of 100 in 1960. The previous arguments have been about comparisons between means and SDs at a single time period. The former is not very do-able and wouldn’t result in hard, fast data. The latter is legitimate and is done all the time.

    Therefore, “deterioration” of black IQ may not be real. In fact there could be an increase in the overall IQ of blacks relative to a generation ago, but there may have also been an increase in the IQ of whites, correspondingly. You can’t tell you can’t measure. The attempts to do so have been laughable.

    Case in point:
    Personally I don’t believe that the breakdown of the family is a result of lower IQs as much as it is society’s changes towards single women.

    Right. It is entirely a personal viewpoint.

    .
    Is genomic analysis the answer to problems of race, IQ, or any other social difficulty? Depends on how the question is asked and what your objectives are in attempting to use genetics to answer. So the answers will likely be incomplete and qualified. That’s the state of science today.

    But at least with genetics and its corresponding mechanism, molecular biology, there is at least an objective, quantifiable starting point.

  • Festivus

    Um, Rob.

  • Fiberal

    I sympathize Rob, but I would not be inclined to handle one of those.

    Derbyshire’s podcasts are absolutely incredible.

    But I think they go down much better if you realize that Derbyshire is something of an heir of the Berty Wooster style of a long-gone British aristocracy that had to have their occasional penchant for purple-striped ties kept in check by a patently-correct butler.

    If Derbyshire doesn’t surface on his feet, the country will be the wurst for it.

  • Festivus

    So, Fiberal, you say that environmental factors are important, yet too complex to be of any meaningful value if I understand correctly.

    Are you suggesting we ignore environmental factors because there simply too complicated and messy?

    Where does that leave us? How do you suggest society deal with this? I think we can all agree there’s a problem. What would you propose as a solution?

    Do you endorse Derbyshire’s prescription of segregation? Do we put them on reservations? Build walls like the Soviets?

    Or, do you have some other solution in mind?

  • AC

    Better yet, let’s mail the tampons to the grievance mongers who spend more time on racial ambulance chasing than discouraging the criminality in their own communities.

    They’ll need them for the next time one of their precious little hooded street angels burglarizes a home or beats an elderly war vet, and comes back full of holes after the victim stands his ground.

  • Fiberal

    Oops.. that would be Bertie Wooster.

    hallucinating.

  • Fiberal

    Festivus,

    I mean to say that evaluations of complicated social issues go nowhere when trying to use environmental variables as a starting point or unit of analysis.

    If in fact genes account for 90% of the variance in IQ, why would we ignore that and look to an infinite set of environmental factors to explain IQ?

    In fact, there is much better evidence for a genetic basis for intelligence than anything else. Yet, … and you know the “rest of the story”.

    I certainly would not be an advocate for racial segregation. But I would be a strong advocate for knowing when to segregate myself or loved ones from any form or function that poses a threat.

    I am also a strong advocate for the rule of law and dealing with those that need to be segregated by segregating them.

  • Festivus

    Fiberal, if blacks were to say, have greater opportunities to start businesses, have better employment opportunities, better schools and an environment that enourages cohesive families, it wouldn’t help improve their functioning in terms of IQ (not in that order, of course)?

    90% of their capabilities in terms of IQ (and I’m curious to know your source on that number) is predestined and impervious to improvement because environmental factors account for too little of the variance and are too difficult to control for due to the complexities and large number of those factors? Do I have that right?

  • Rob Banks
  • AC

    I segregate myself away from the ghetto, regardless of whether it’s black, white, brown, or purple.

    Crime and despair breeds crime and despair, and all the while, the racial arsonists are doing nothing to confront the criminality within their own communities.

    It’s time that so-called leaders like Sharpton and Jackson began speaking out against inattentive parents who raise their children in front of the television then turn them loose to run the street with gangs and older thugs.

  • Fiberal

    Let’s be clear.

    There is huge evidence for a physical basis for intelligence:

    from geniuses to mentally retarded; idiot savants to normally-functioning; youthful epiphanies to senescence. Thomas Sowell to Barack Obama.

    You don’t write concertas at age 4 without a good genetic make-up.

    You don’t get to be Feynman or Einstein without a reasonable head on your shoulders.

    And you don’t get to be Ted Bundy without something not being right. Or Lao-Z for that matter.

    There is a genetic basis for physiology. There can be no doubt that neuronal networks play an underlying role in intelligence and that no single neuron is possible without a genetic foundation.

    And all genomes of individuals are different and the same depending on where you look.

    But when we just look at the human recipient of those neurons, we can’t see the genes. We only see ourselves bc that’s what we do. We anthropomorphize.

    Therefore that person is just like me! Glory Day!

    Regardless of any genetic component, everything gene that ever was expressed to make that individual what he is today, is gone. What comprises the individual we see is his experiences, his age, the knowing look in his eyes, the road he’s traveled (and how many roads must a man walk down?).

    So how can mere cultural differences matter? If all men are equal then they are equal in intelligence. Right?

    Anyone can write concertas at 4 if they just had the damn opportunity!! And give that man a clavicord for cryin out loud!!!

    The human characteristics that give man a special place in the world also give him a priority to our minds. So what if he goes bad? He’s still our “brother”. That’s because he’s like us. He’s more than just his genes. He’s one of us.

    So genes disappear in the mix. Regardless of what they mean and how much they constitute the man, they are not understandable. To the extent that society can understand the gene, is to the extent that a gene = a brick.

    And without genes, the proper evaluation of the individual depends on his word.

    .
    We cannot solve the problems any one individual, or group brings to a society, until we can predict what makes humans tick.

    And what makes humans tick are genes.

    Like it or lump it, that’s the way it is.

  • AC

    The Idiocracy effect crosses all color lines.

  • Festivus

    AC, that is really beside the point insofar I’m concerned, anyway.

    My parents told me to beware of a family of white people (their kids mainly) just a few doors down from my childhood home. We all have been warned by our parents to keep clear of bad influences like gangs or other juvenile delinquents regardless of race.

    The point here is the source of these IQ discrepancies and if it’s something that cannot be corrected through free market capitalistic principles that address education, job opportunities and family cohesion.

  • Fiberal

    BTW just to interpret Rob’s abstract a bit, the authors are saying that 90% of the variance in intelligence within a large group of people can be mapped by genetic markers.

  • Festivus

    Fiberal, with all due respect, I think you are dodging my question.

    I will also point out that I think, with that last post, you are moving the goal post to some extent. We are not talking about outliers at the margins. The IQ scores you’ve been talking about are averages for a population.

    I’ll repeat the question:

    90% of their capabilities in terms of IQ (and I’m curious to know your source on that number) is predestined and impervious to improvement because environmental factors account for too little of the variance and are too difficult to control for due to the complexities and large number of those factors? Do I have that right?

    The crux of the question is this: do you believe that blacks are inherently inferior due to genetics or biological factors – that, generally speaking, they cannot raise their IQ scores?

    That is a simple question calling for a direct answer.

  • Fiberal

    The point here is the source of these IQ discrepancies and if it’s something that cannot be corrected through free market capitalistic principles that address education, job opportunities and family cohesion.

    Fest,
    It would help. But it wouldn’t correct the differences. The only thing that works for genetics is gene selection.

    Marry an accountant not a gang-banger.

    The factors you mentioned, if realized, would make differences between groups inconsequential.

    If everyone is invested in paying taxes then taxes go down to a point where they really don’t matter as much.

    .
    Overall everyone benefits when people don’t get murdered walking down the street.

  • AC

    AC, that is really beside the point insofar I’m concerned, anyway.

    How is that beside the point? Earlier, we were lamenting the disintegration of the black family at the hands of government and moonbat media.

    With the nuclear family gone, and out of wedlock births off the chart, the cycle continues and perpetuates itself.

    Households with five or more biologically related children are common in the hood. They’re extremely rare in the suburbs. In the hood, you’ll have Latrell, Dashawnda, Le-a, Taniqua, Demetrius, Tyrone, Oranjello, and Lemonjello all on the same food stamp card. How many in my residence? Me.

    There may be a correlation between skin color and IQ, but correlation does not equal causation. Pigmentation is not the causative agent at work here. We have literally dozens of sociological factors staring us in the face, including everything from the welfare state to the media to the victim-industrial complex.

  • Fiberal

    Fest,

    Check out Rob’s abstract. I’ll use that as my source. That’s a reliable journal.

    .

    You expect me to answer a question like “Do you think blacks are inherently inferior due to genetics”?

    That’s an emotional question.

    But I think that the data is correct in demonstrating that blacks on the average have lower IQ scores than whites on standardized and validated tests for intelligence.

    .
    Ask me this: “Hey Fib…do you think group intelligence is immutable?”

    My answer would be this: No. All groups evolve.

  • Fiberal

    Oranjello, and Lemonjello??

    Pretty good. Pretty good.

    How about Concretia, Trasheesha and Vomeesha??

  • AC

    Ever been to the Caribbean?

    There, it is common for blacks to speak the Queen’s English, act with courtesy and respect, and generally behave as contributing members of society.

    Here, they would be denounced as “Oreos”

    Here, the streets are overflowing with baggy pantsed nogoodniks running wild and causing mayhem.

    When was the last time you heard a black islander say, “iz gon cap yo ass bitch ass honkey mofugger”

    It doesn’t happen.

    If race is the problem, then why do so many of them speak better English than white Americans from the suburbs? There is no “y’all” or “ain’t” down there.

  • Festivus

    Fiberal says: April 7, 2012 at 8:08 pm

    You expect me to answer a question like “Do you think blacks are inherently inferior due to genetics”?

    That’s an emotional question.

    It is most certainly not an emotional question. You are deflecting. It’s your thesis we’re talking about.

    The fact that you are dancing around the question (reiterating that differences in scores exist, which I’m not challenging you on) demonstrates that you are reluctant to just come out and say what you have essentially said – 90% of intelligence is determined by genetics and the 10% environmental factor cannot reasonably be expected to make a difference because it’s such a small percentage and environmental factors are too numerous and complex to control for.

    It would help (improvements in environmental factors), but wouldn’t matter much in the end.

    That is what you have essentially said, so it is not at all an emotional question. I’m just trying to make sure that I understand your argument in no uncertain terms.

    I think you’ve answered it, actually, now that I think about it. I’d like to hear a more definitive declaration, but I think you have answered it just the same.

    Is there something you’re afraid of, Fiberal? I mean, is there some reason you just can’t come out directly and say that blacks are genetically inferior and can’t possibly hope to improve their lot through any environmental factors that capitalism might provide them (as opposed to government hand-outs that I think have been very destructive and counterproductive)?

  • Festivus

    AC, I think I explained why it (your post of 7:42 PM) was beside the point in my post of 7:52 PM.

    Most people have some sense of self-preservation to the extent that they don’t seek out associations with people that will get them in trouble in any number of different ways (directly or indirectly). Like staying out of a ghetto (are there any ghettos in Orland, btw?).

    That’s not on point to this discussion. We are talking about whether or not blacks can overcome the deficiencies that have been documented in standardized aptitude testing (IQs, more specifically).

    If anything (emphasis on “if”), I’m suggesting that more positive assocations (schools, families, jobs, etc.) will improve IQ scores over the long run.

  • AC

    When was the last time a polo match resulted in a riot? When was the last time agitated shoppers looted and burned the Brooks Brothers? How often are baristas at Starbucks stabbed over an incorrect order?

    The problem is cultural.

  • Festivus

    AC, Fiberal’s thesis is that IQ is the problem and that is what I’ve attempted to address. You’re talking about effects. What Fiberal and I are talking about are causes (and potential solutions).

  • AC

    I’m comparing one extreme to the other: ghetto values to country club values. The difference in culture is striking, as are the observed effects. This cuts across all color lines.

  • Fiberal

    Fest,

    I thought I answered these questions.

    Rob’s abstract shows a 91% contribution of genes to intelligence that backs up my statement that genes account for 90% of the statistical variation accounted for by genes in intelligence,

    I think I’ve made the case that intelligence is solidly a function of genetics.

    but I said that I believed that groups can change, are not genetically immutable and evolve.

    I just don’t hold any hope for real changes in environmental factors unless there is a return to the free market, law enforcement and a destruction of the entitlement victim-industry; all of which would render racial differences in intelligence, moot.

    That is, a return to respect for the individual by a diminution of the state– to put it in Ayn Rand’s terms.

    Any reluctance I might have in making a more straight-forward assertion about racial differences in IQ and potential ameliorative solutions would come from an unwillingness to leap from a scientific field of investigation to a broad social application.

    That’s inappropriate.

    .
    I would say however that in contrast to all appearances, while I’m not a racist, I am woefully immature.

    And sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference.

  • Festivus

    AC, we’re talking about racial differences in IQ.

    Cultural differences may very well be a factor. That would be an environmental factor, as opposed to a genetic factor which is Fiberal’s point (genetics are the determining factor).

    It’s related, but not exactly on point. How is it (i.e., cultural differences) a determinative factor in terms of IQ?

  • Festivus

    I hear you loud and clear, Fiberal.

    But with only 10% of the determinative factors at play, I’m not sure that environmental factors have any chance of making a substantive difference one way or the other.

    I think that is essentially your point, is it not?

  • Festivus

    What I mean to ask of you more specifically, AC, is what percentage of cultural factors would you say are determinative in the IQ differential?

    Fiberal is saying 10% – what would you say, specifically, and what empirical evidence would you cite to support your answer?

  • Fiberal

    yes, by comparison environmental factors are not significant and would not for groups, make any difference.

    The genome is determinative.

  • Festivus

    Thanks, Fiberal, for your answer. I don’t agree with you, but I respect you for it.

  • Fiberal

    Fest,

    Here is the proper analogy.

    Take a group of individuals who are inevitably discriminated against, by everyone in all things.

    They do not hold tenure at universities. They do not make it to the top levels as executives in large corporations. Their mean salaries are less than comparative groups doing the same job.

    They divorce. They do not attract the opposite sex. They are often laughed at.

    When walking into a room with an associate of equivalent skill, the introduction goes to the associate.

    They are not leaders. They are not referred to by peers. They don’t have many friends.

    Their IQs are statistically lower. They do not make good athletes and they do not succeed in the military, politics or law enforcement. They will never be astronauts. They are not successful doctors and almost never lawyers.

    They are defensive. They are fearful and do not wear sandals. They are not comfortable in their skins. They are picked on. They are bullied. They are stared down.

    They settle for less. They are alone and lonely. Society has little to no use for them. No one comes to their aid.

    While discriminated against by society as a whole, there are no government programs for them. They have no social protections.

    They are statistical outcasts.

    And their problem is entirely genetic. Environmental changes, chance opportunities, luck, maybe extreme hard work and tough sweat, blood and absolutely no tears, determination, can help occasionally, but not by much.

    I’m not talking about women. I’m not talking about a disease.

    .
    I’m talking about short men.

    Its true. Short men are the most discriminated class of people in the world. Check out the stats on it.

    (no, I’m not a short man)
    .

    Now think about environment and how that may change their lives. It’s inconsequential for the most part isn’t it?

    That is the proper way to think about the genetic foundations for intelligence.

  • Festivus

    I’m not sure why short men would have IQ deficits outside of environmental factors.

    If they are short white men, would they not have the same statistical chance of being at the peak of the bell curve as any other white man given the fact that they have the same genome?

    The environmental factors you cite are statistically insignificant in terms of their IQ, aren’t they?

    You seem to be making an opposite argument with this example.

  • Sam Adams

    They do not make good athletes and they do not succeed in the military, politics or law enforcement.
    ____________

    Dennis Kucinich
    Doug Flutie
    J Edgar Hoover
    Virgil “Gus” Grissom
    Dmitry Medvedev
    Nicolas Sarkozy
    Silvio Berlusconi
    John McCain

    There are exceptions to every rule.

  • FrankW

    If anything shortness should result in higher IQ’s. The fact that short people can get laid (possibly resulting in procreation) indicates the innate ability to overcome physical shortcomings. Just kiddin, but it sounded good in my head.
    I am curious though if natural selection could also be a factor into the differences between races. In Asia it is common for teachers to be revered (culture) and therefore teachers would have access to prime breeding stock. Thus teachers (smart people) are hooking up with the offspring of other smart people (teachers). This lowers the chances of morons being born into the family. Just a theory. But I think this is just as much of a factor as single parenting (baby-mama syndrome).
    I am still of the opinion that this is a basic reason you see the daughters of doctors, CEOS, lawyers, and other high success types marrying (and dropping midgets) with the sons of other high success types.

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy