Make Good Use of Your Sidebar

I may eventually put something worthwhile here. Then again, perhaps I won't.


The closing of the American collegiate mind

Anne Coulter. Charles Murray. Condoleezza Rice. All people invited to speak at universities and then the subject of rabid left-wing protests because of their points of view. Now add to that list Christine Lagarde, head of the IMF. Lefties don't like her because they don't like the way the IMF takes money from rich countries and lends it to poor countries. I guess they want rich countries to simply give the money to poor countires. Smith College had invited a successful female leader to speak at commencement, but that wasn't enough for the deranged lefties. A student petition reads, in part

By selecting Ms. Lagarde as the commencement speaker we are supporting the International Monetary Fund and thus going directly against Smith’s values to stand in unity with equality for all women, regardless of race, ethnicity or class. Although we do not wish to disregard all of Ms. Lagarde’s accomplishments as a strong female leader in the world, we also do not want to be represented by someone whose work directly contributes to many of the systems that we are taught to fight against. By having her speak at our commencement, we would be publicly supporting and acknowledging her, and thus the IMF.

These students have been taught to be closed-minded. They feel they have a right to go through life unoffended. And, rather than work within the system in a direction more in line with their views, they choose to work outside the system by shaming anyone who does not agree with their juvenile group-think.


An odd concept of murder

As others helpfully replied:
  • Louis XIV, dead from mutually-agreed-upon parting of ways of head and body
  • I guess Mary Jo Kopechne wasn't left to drown, she just inhaled too much water
  • JFK wasn't murdered. He just happened to be in the path of a fast-moving piece of lead.
  • Saddam Hussein died from rope malfunction 
  • Nicole Brown Simpson wasn't murdered. She died of blood loss.

This is what passes for the mainstream media in this county in 2014.


Justifying academic lies

Here's a new one: if you're an academic, and you really, really believe in what you're doing, and you think what you're doing is important, but you're having trouble convincing others of your results, it's okay to lie about it.

From Mark Steyn:

In a democratic age, this presents certain problems. John Hinderaker:

Various warmists have let the cat out of the bag over the years, acknowledging that they exaggerate the danger of global warming for the sake of the greater good. But for the first time, two scientists have published a peer-reviewed paper in an academic journal, advocating lying about global warming.

They're Professors Fuhai Hong of Nanyang Technological University and Xiaojian Zhao of Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, in a paper published yesterday in The American Journal of Agricultural Economics, under the title Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements:

It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare.

That's peer-review-speak for saying that "exaggerating" and "manipulating" is fine if it leads to action on "climate change". As someone currently being sued for calling Dr Mann's hockey stick "fraudulent", I find it interesting to see a "rationale" for fraud advanced in a peer-reviewed journal.

Yup, another example of Game Theory is Your Friend. We can make everyone better off, even those stupid people who refuse to accept our completely accurate wisdom, if we just lie to them.

And one wonders why I'm a climate change skeptic.


Income inequality

Cal Thomas and I both suffer from income inequality. Indeed, we are both lifelong sufferers. Even now, when I’m in my peak earning years, there are others, often far younger, making ten or more times what I earn.

Mr. President, if you’re going to do something about income inequality, may I suggest starting at the top? I don’t think it’s fair that Robinson Cano or Jennifer Lawrence makes so much more than I do.


Dems admit shutdown was their fault

Well, of course they didn't say that directly. But here's a fascinating piece that suggests the White House is open to the idea of delaying the individual mandate or not imposing fines on those who don't sign up, which amounts to the same thing:

Delay tactics - After President Obama owned up to the fact that the main Web site for enrollment is not working as it should, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked if the administration is looking for flexibility in applying the mandate. Carney indicated that a delay was not just possible, but that it may already be allowed by the law: "The law is clear that if you do not have access to affordable health insurance then you will not be asked to pay a penalty because you haven't purchased affordable health insurance." It would stand to reason that if the president claims the power to delay the fines for large employers by a year, as he already did, he could claim the power to pardon individuals.

So, wait a minute. It was the fault of REPUBLICANS - the guys who asked that the individual mandate be delayed by a year - that the government shut down, when Democrats repeatedly refused to do so, but are now claiming that the President already has the authority to waive penalties and will/is likely to do so in the face of continuing problems with the web site?

What I conclude is that the shutdown was all for nothing: Democrats forgot to tell Republicans that the former had ALREADY agreed to the demands of the latter.