Über die Freiheit / de libertate

Robin Hanson discusses how you’re going to become like other old people.

I have to agree with those who are saying this might be the funniest bit from the Onion yet.

So I watched this here video from RedEye with Greg Gutfeld:

I’m struggling with what we’re supposed to be getting upset about. Can anyone elighten me why I should care about American on a bad talk show making fun of the Canadian military? Contrary to popular thought they weren’t mocking Canadian deaths.

But here’s a suggestion, let’s leave Afghanistan!

Someone explains what I’ve been saying the whole time: 

As a student and admirer of meat, nothing drives me crazier than the universal praise given grass-fed beef by various chefs and slow-food types.

Most grass-fed beef tastes worse than its corn-fed rivals. It tends to be dry, chewy, flavorless and has no more marbling than a block of tofu. [NY Times]

How is “failure to dispurse” an enforceable law?

Do we still read the Riot Act too?

…against dogs?

Heartless interpretation of this article: parents fail, need government make laws.

It’s an evil cartel.

Top-level college sports is big business, but very little of this flows to the student-athletes. Ohio State, for example, receives about $110 million in revenue each year from ticket sales, television rights, concessions, parking, logo sales, etc. — over one-fifth of what it receives in tuition revenue from its more than 50,000 students. And its basketball players are paid about $29,500 each.

In a competitive market, companies cannot exploit workers in this way for long, as rival firms will hire them away at higher salaries. In basketball, however, the NCAA cartel prevents that, dictating limits on pay (essentially college costs) and even penalizing transfers to other schools. Strict rules also prevent college athletes from signing lucrative endorsement deals or accepting gifts beyond a certain amount….

If all of that money from ticket sales and television rights isn’t going to student-athletes, where does it end up? In 2006, salaries for coaches and administrators accounted for nearly 32% of total athletic-department expenses. Many head football coaches at top universities earn five times the salary of their university president. At a time when most schools are tightening their belts with salary freezes, staff layoffs and the like, the University of Tennessee just announced it was going to start paying two assistant football coaches $650,000 or more each (the head coach makes $2 million). Jim Calhoun, head coach of the University of Connecticut men’s basketball team, recently made headlines when he launched into a tirade at a blogger who questioned his $1.6 million annual compensation. Those high salaries are financed from the talents of unpaid student-athletes. (Talk about income inequality.) So not only are the young being exploited, but the exploitation is being committed by their adult mentors….

Of course, for the students who go on to the pros, putting off their financial bonanza won’t be a big deal. But most college athletes do not make the pros. They may not even end up with the basic skills necessary to succeed in other workplaces, since only a minority of student-athletes in major sports even graduate (25% in top-ranked University of Connecticut men’s basketball, for example). Long practices and missed classes make it difficult to succeed academically. A recent study funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation shows the academic performance of athletes is lower than non-athletes even at Division III schools.

Via Mankiw.

Is Natasha Richardson going to win an Oscar now?

FUCK the Pope

With all due apologies to NWA, I have been yelling this around the house most of the day and decided to get it off my chest. [Link]

I am enjoying the torrent of outrage and vituperation over the AIG bonuses. Yes there should be outrage, but not at AIG. Like Chris Rock said about Manticore: “that tiger didn’t go crazy, that tiger went TIGER”. [Link]

Roughly one in twenty 15-year-old German males is a member of a neo-Nazi group, a higher proportion than are involved in mainstream politics, according to a study released on Tuesday. [Reuters]

Say it aint so?

In the past, most if not all North American indigenous peoples had a strong belief in individual property rights and ownership. Frederick Hodge (1910) noted that individual private ownership was “the norm” for North American tribes.Likewise, Julian Steward (1938, 253) asserted that among Native Americans communal property was limited, and Frances Densmore (1939) concluded that the Makah tribe in the Pacific Northwest had property rights similar to Europeans.’ These early twentieth-century historians and anthropologists had the advantage of actually interviewing tribal members who had lived in pre-reservation Indian society.

By the late 1940s, however, these original and firsthand sources of information had died, and false myths and historical distortions began to take dominant shape. By the mid–1960s, the tone in many college history books, history-inspired films and novels, and even speeches had completely changed (Mika 1995). A typical historical distortion, for example, is found in Baldwin and Kelley’s best-selling 1965 college textbook, The Stream of American History, where they write, “Indians had little comprehension of the value of money, the ownership of land . . . and so land sharks and grog sellers found it easy to mulct them of their property”(208). These myths were further fueled by popular books such as Jacobs’ (1972) Dispossessing the American Indian, which suggested that Native Americans felt that land (and other property) was “a gift from the gods” and as such not subject to private ownership. Gradually more and more people started to honestly believe that the indigenous people of North America had been historically communal, non-property oriented, and romantic followers of an economic system more harmonious with nature.

Read the rest here.

Possibly the worst idea ever.

I never understood why everyone jumped down John McCain’s throat for saying that “the fundamentals of our economy are strong.” It seemed like a self-evident truth.

But on Sunday, that optimistic message came from [Obama] economic adviser Christina Romer. When asked during an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” if the fundamentals of the economy were sound, she replied: “Of course they are sound.” [MyWay]

Chalk it up to pure partisanship, I guess.

See here.

Friday’s Real Time with Bill Maher included Andrew Breitbart and Michael Eric Dyson as the main panelists.

Breitbart, for the most part is a moronic Republican flack. But he’s not entirely wrong as most people seem to indicate. Though the conversation began by talking about the economy Maher segued into race by stating that “Oklahoma is out of ammo because they’re afraid that Obama and his Negro army are going to come and get you.” While racism certainly does exist, this race needn’t be the explanatory factor here. Substitute “liberal” for “negro” and you’d be more accurate. The fact that the Obama administration is planning on, or talking about reinstating the Federal Assault Weapons Ban seems to validate gun owner’s concerns.

————– 

And the person would is fanning the flames of racism? None other than the leader of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh.

Breitbart takes exception to the characterization of Limbaugh as a racist noting basically, that “there’s nothing in this country that is a worse accusation” than calling someone a racist. And he’s basically correct. Within the United States to be called a racist is very serious, especially in the Age of Obama. So his plea for Maher to explain his accusation is fully valid. The onus should not be on Limbaugh or whoever to prove their not racist. The proof should be in the affirmative.

To offer proof Dyson asserts that Limbaugh “seems to have a problem with black guys who run things” and because “he was jumping on Donovan McNabb for being a ‘black quarterback’ because he was black” and because “he’s now jumping on Obama.” Essentially, Dyson concludes that Limbaugh is “not saying ‘I hate Negros’…what he’s doing is creating an atmosphere of profound vitriol and hatred”. That’s strong stuff, from some pretty week evidence.

On the McNabb issue what Limbaugh said was: “Donovan McNabb is regressing, he’s going backwards–I’m sorry to say this-I don’t think he’s been that good from the get go. I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there was a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of the credit for the performance of the team that he really didn’t deserve.”

Now I think it’s perfectly legitimate to say Limbaugh’s analysis was flawed or even downright wrong. But to say that it’s “vitriol or hatred” is stretching it. Limbaugh was saying that McNabb wasn’t as good as the media was making him out to be. That is, they wanted a successful black quarterback so they were overselling Limbaugh did not say that McNabb was overrated because he was black. While McNabb would later gain recognition (though many still debate it), Limbaugh was parroting the feeling of many sports writers.

Another area that Rush is accused of being a racist is in his comments about Obama, Wright and Ayers. This belief can be seen in examples from the Young Turks (who, for the record, are insufferable little twats) such as “Rush Limbaugh Proves He Is Racist“. Here they argue that Limbaugh is peddling a racist conspiracy combined of Obama, Ayers et al., despite Limbaugh uttering the word or conflating them. Rather Limbaugh argues that there has been a “movement” going on for the last 30 years which was run by progressives in the black community which advocates a lot of liberal ideas. I don’t really think that’s much up for debate. The real issue here is that Limbaugh rejects these ideas. Now does he do that in a boisterous often offensive way? Yes. But not every disagreement is racist.

Other issues abound such as the “Barack the Magic Negro” parody that Limbaugh played on his show. This probably does fall into the realm of racism, though some debate does surround it. The other, more recent, issue is Limbaugh’s open hope that Obama “fails.” That issue, I would argue is a waste of time. It’s not merely a Republican belief and I don’t see what’s so bad about it. Not everyone’s a utilitarian.

Now I’m not saying that Limbaugh isn’t a racist, I’m merely agreeing that accusing someone on national television of being racist is a serious charge and the burden of proof falls on the accuser.

————– 

The problem with Michael Eric Dyson is that you can’t really debate him because he dominates the conversation. While this makes for entertaining television it doesn’t provide the best venue for discussion. In effect he talks like a preacher, which, as chance would have it, he is. He is fond of interrupting and using nonsensical academic-speak which Breitbart justifiably called him out for. Of course Dyson’s retort was that Breitbart was being anti-intellectual, but criticizing postmodernism and its horseshit subfields is a legitimate and noble pursuit.

————–  

The problem with Bill Maher is his hypocrisy. Maher is quick to criticize all forms of religion but he uncritically defends the aspects of government he likes while discounting the conservative government bullshit. Somehow, in Maher and other progressive’s minds, if only we have the right commander (Obama!!!) the government can be run so smoothly unlike that doofus Bush.

A perfect example of this is Maher’s repeated defense of the government, wherein he usually becomes indignant stating that “Yes, I do want the government to run it. They do such a good job.” Case in point was last the March 6th episode of Real Time where Maher mocked those who oppose nationalization of businesses bay saying “you want them to look like the post office?” To which Maher responded, emphatically, “Yeah!-You mean the place that takes a note in my hand in LA on Monday and gives it to my sister in New Jersey on Wednesday for 42 cents? Well let me be the first to say I would be thrilled if America’s healthcare system was anywhere near as functional as the Post Office. The truth is, recent years have made me much more weary of governments doing the opposite-of stepping aside and letting unregulated private enterprise run things it is plainly too greedy to trust….”

What Bill Maher fails to note in his cute little example is that the post office actually sucks. With private enterprise you could have your letter at your sister’s door overnight. The United States Postal Service is an archaic service that is going the way to the postal service. There is absolutely no reason to send a letter anymore when you can send an email. Likewise the cost of sending a simple letter doubled between 1985 and 2009. The price of mail has increased steadily despite increasing efficiency of transportation. Yes, Bill, that’s just how we should run healthcare. After all Sweden and Germany have both privatized their postal systems, and they’re bastions of conservatism, right?

When Bill credits all the great things government does–police, fire, roads bridges–he is largely talking about state and local government. Even limited government types have fewer objections to local government.

————–  

Also Bill tends to treat people as experts who are not really experts. For some reason yesterday’s episode featured Steven Pearlstein who Maher repeatedly refered to as an expert in economics. That man’s a fucking writer and an inconsistent one at that. Could Maher, for once, get a respectable, opinionated market-economist on the show. Steven Landsburg anyone?

————–

Lastly, Sarah Silverman is terrible guest for a show like Real Time. While I generally find her amusing, Real Time has a modicum of seriousness and she doesn’t fit.

According to scientists, our mental abilities begin to decline from the age of 27 after reaching a peak at 22. [Daily Mail]

I’m on the record with my dislike of Jon Stewart. I think he’s a little nitwit cunt who’s occasionally funny but mostly disingenuous and pompous.

Lately he’s been having a feud with Jim Cramer, for Cramer’s inability to correctly recommend stocks. I don’t particularily like Jim Cramer but his ridiculous shtick is less annoying than Stewart’s.

The scariest part of this feud is how the media establishment is furthering Stewart’s reputation as a demigod of college Leftism.

In viewing the latest element of the feud (or perhaps Cramer’s capitulation) Andrew Sullivan declared that “Stewart…is actually becoming an accidental activist.” That poor naive conservative. There is absolutely nothing ‘accidental’ about Stewart’s actions. While I find him intollerable, he is no doubt intelligent. Stewart and his writers know exactly what they’re doing. Their actions are planned and by no means transparent.

Sullivan should do himself a favor and stop buying the hype.

Wilkinson comments here.

Weird Magazine has the story of a fascinating jewel heist in Belgium.

Many market economists point out that minimum wage laws are bad because it prevents the poorest workers from finding jobs. Unions raise wages which helps to prevent lower income groups (often minorities) from being employed. I think this could be added to the case against unions.

Reason Magazine’s Damon Root explores more the more explict racism of the American Federation of Labor in the early 20th century here.

Following up from her last feature–which I would argue has to be the best article of 2008–Hanna Rosin has another feature in The Atlantic about breastfeeding. It, too, is great. I’m going to keep an eye on Rosin’s writing.

In my playground set, the urban moms in their tight jeans and oversize sunglasses size each other up using a whole range of signifiers: organic content of snacks, sleekness of stroller, ratio of tasteful wooden toys to plastic. But breast-feeding is the real ticket into the club.

If you haven’t read this yet, do it!

Don’t drunk comment.

That means you Dana.

Mike Munger on experts:

Well, Mr. “Expert,” you can blow me now. And, unlike a lot of people, I can actually PAY you to blow me, because I made 2% on my retirement fund in 2008. I’ve even made a little bit this year. Angus talked a little while ago about another guy who made more than that, but there are not many of us out there.