The civil war is over. The uncivil war has begun.
A little more than a decade ago, after coming to grips with suspicions and newfound revelations that the Democratic Party had betrayed Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, middle class Americans, I became angry and then I became a blogger. My earlier posts reflect the outrage that I felt by the betrayal of Democratic leaders, in particular, […]
A Japanese native who teaches Japanese to foreigners in Japan has three questions for black people.
1:50 number one why are you so obsessed with the past?
04:54 number [two] why do you avoid facing the fact okay there are a lot of information on the internet I know I shouldn’t believe everything but here’s just a fact you like II do not the crime rate of black people is definitely higher than other races let me show you the data from FBI yes from FBI
08:33 number three why do you threaten someone who disagrees with you
(Pulled from the autogenerated transcript. This feature on YouTube does an amazing job. This fellow has an accent you can cut with a knife, and the transcriber makes very few mistakes.) (It can’t punctuate, though.)
(Or does it default to integer?)*
Jordan Peterson has some comments here.
From the autogenerated transcript:
1:11 one of the things I have to tell you
01:13 about it IQ research is that if you
01:15 don’t buy IQ research you might as well
01:19 throw away all the rest of psychology
01:21 and the reason for that is that the
01:24 psychologists first of all who developed
01:26 intelligence testing were among the
01:28 early psychologists who instantiated the
01:30 statistical techniques that all
01:32 psychologists use to verify and test all
01:35 of their hypotheses so you end up
01:37 throwing the baby out with the bathwater
01:39 and the IQ people have defined
01:42 intelligence in a more stringent
01:44 stringent and accurate way than we’ve
01:47 been able to define almost any other
01:50 psychological construct and so if you
01:52 toss out the one that’s most well
01:54 defined then you’re kind of stuck with
01:55 the problem of what are you going to do
01:57 with all the ones that you have left
01:58 over that are nowhere near as
02:00 or as well measured or as or as or or
02:04 whose predictive validity is much less
02:07 and has been demonstrated with much less
02:09 vigor and clarity
00:01 so IQ is reliable invalid [and valid – ed] it’s more
00:05 reliable and valid than any other
00:06 psychometric test ever designed by
00:09 social scientists the IQ claims are more
00:11 psychometrically rigorous than any other
00:13 phenomena phenomenon that’s been
00:16 discovered by social scientists
Also of interest:
08:32 should tell you how to make an IQ test
08:33 is actually really easy and you need to
08:36 know this to actually understand what IQ
08:38 is so imagine that you generated a set
08:42 of 10,000 questions okay about anything
08:45 it could be math problems they could be
08:47 general knowledge they could be
08:49 vocabulary they could be multiple choice
08:50 it really doesn’t matter what they’re
08:52 about as long as they require abstract
08:53 to solve so they’d be formulated
08:56 linguistically but mathematically would
08:58 also apply and then you have those
09:01 10,000 questions now you take a random
09:03 set of a hundred of those questions and
09:05 you give them to a thousand people and
09:08 all you do is sum up the answers right
09:10 from so some people are gonna get most
09:12 of them right and some some of them are
09:13 going to get most of them wrong you just
09:14 rank order the people in terms of their
09:16 score correct that for age and you have
09:19 IQ that’s all there is to it and what
09:22 you’ll find is that no matter which
09:24 random set of a hundred questions you
09:26 take the people at the top of one random
09:28 set will be at the top of all the others
09:30 with very very very high consistency so
09:34 one thing you need to know is that if
09:36 any social science claims whatsoever are
09:39 correct then the IQ claims are correct
09:44 because the IQ claims are more
09:46 psychometrically rigorous than any other
09:48 phenomena phenomenon that’s been
09:51 discovered by social scientists
* Fortran reference
In 1938 the US government passed the Fair Labor Standards Act mandating a forty hour work week, establishing a minimum wage, and prohibiting child labor. Because of legislation like this, government is often credited for making the American work environment safer and more fair. Yet, as Antony Davies and James Harrigan demonstrate with historical data, market forces were already making things easier on the American worker long before the FLSA.
Learn More: https://fee.org/articles/child_labor_…
Data: http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp… See page 170 for average weekly work hours. See page 134 for child labor rates.
By the way, try the autogenerated transcript function. It works surprisingly well.
From Just Facts Daily, we get:
Illegal Immigrants Are Far More Likely to Commit Serious Crimes Than the U.S. Public
… the Associated Press published a “fact check“ claiming that illegal immigrants are more law-abiding than the general public. Various media outlets, such as the New York Times, Yahoo!, and a number of NBC affiliates published this article. The Washington Post ran a similar story, and other media outlets and so-called fact checkers have made similar claims in the past.
The truth, however, is that comprehensive, straightforward facts from primary sources—namely the Obama administration Census Bureau and Department of Justice—prove that illegal immigrants are far more likely to commit serious crimes than the U.S. population. Studies that claim otherwise typically suffer from fallacies condemned by academic publications about how to accurately analyze data.
The Most Concrete Facts
Data on illegal immigration and crime is often clouded, precisely because these are unlawful activities where perpetrators seek to hide their actions. Also, governments sometimes fail to record or release information that could be or has been obtained. The Obama administration, in particular, refused to release the names of convicted immigrant sex offenders and hid other details about crimes committed by immigrants.
Nonetheless, a combination of three material facts sheds enough light on this issue to draw some firm conclusions.
First, U.S. Census data from 2011 to 2015 shows that noncitizens are 7% more likely than the U.S. population to be incarcerated in adult correctional facilities. This alone debunks the common media narrative, but it only scratches the surface of serious criminality by illegal immigrants.
Second, Department of Justice data reveals that in the decade ending in 2015, the U.S. deported at least 1.5 million noncitizens who were convicted of committing crimes in the U.S. (Table 41). This amounts to 10 times the number of noncitizens in U.S. adult correctional facilities during 2015.
Third, Department of Justice data shows that convicts released from prison have an average of 3.9 prior convictions, not including convictions that led to their imprisonment (Table 5). This means that people in prison are often repeat offenders—but as shown by the previous fact, masses of convicted criminals have been deported, making it hard for them to reoffend and end up in a U.S. prison.
In other words, even after deporting 10 times more noncitizens convicted of crimes than are in U.S. prisons and jails, they are still 7% more likely to be incarcerated than the general public. This indicates a level of criminality that is multiplicatively higher than the U.S. population.
Furthermore, roughly half of noncitizens are in the U.S. legally, and legal immigrants rarely commit crimes. This is because U.S. immigration laws are designed to keep criminals out. Thus, the vast majority of incarcerated noncitizens are doubtlessly illegal immigrants. If legal immigrants were removed from the equation, the incarceration rate of illegal immigrants would probably be about twice as high as for all noncitizens.
On the other hand, there is uncertainty about the exact number of noncitizens in the U.S., and Census figures are almost surely low. Hence, the incarceration rate of illegal immigrants is likely not twice as high as the U.S. population. Nevertheless, this is only the tip of the iceberg, because the U.S. continually deports massive numbers of illegal immigrant convicts.
Worth a listen or two. There’s also a transcript.
LARRY P. ARNN: Yeah. Well, so the report– I’ve been reading the report this morning. And of course, it’s a federal government document, and so it’s a massive blather. And I might even just read you one paragraph so that you can see how hard it is to– because it doesn’t want to say anything clear, right?
So I will say one thing clear. The FBI puts itself forward as a symbol of neutrality, that these are professionals, and that they’re law enforcement people, and that they’re neutral. And there’s no thinking in the making of the Constitution of the United States that any large class of people would ever be regarded that way, because people have interests. Indeed, the heart of the Constitution, of the arrangements according to James Madison, is that it aligns the interest of the man with the duty of the place. In that man, ambition is used to offset ambition.
So the point is, there are these smoking guns. There are at least four of them, four different people whose guns are smoking, caught smoking, where they are obviously partisans in the politics of the day. And they’re on the left. And the worst of them even says that we are going to stop Donald Trump becoming president of the United States.
Now, the point there is that that means that this force, too, requires to be controlled. It can’t just be unfettered. And then I’ll go on to to say whether it is or not in my opinion. But remember also that this is really tough, because in the middle of a presidential campaign, they’re going– and since presidential campaigns last about two years in their most public active phase, and since these investigations take months, any investigation of a presidential campaign is going to run up against an election. And they’re very sensitive to that in the FBI, very sensitive about their own– what– their reputation.
And the FBI report, this inspector general’s report, is sensitive that way too. So on the second page of the executive summary, I’ll just read– if it’s OK with you– I’ll just read a few sentences. “There were clearly tensions and disagreements in a number of important areas between Midyear”– that’s the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s servers– “agents and prosecutors. We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions we reviewed.”
So “directly affected.” That’s an interesting phrase.
HUGH HEWITT: Would you make a note? Because I want to come back to that, because it’s contradicted eight pages later. But go ahead.
LARRY P. ARNN: That’s right. Now, next– and what I’m showing you is this summary at the beginning, it just shows. So now, the next paragraph right after “directly affected” sentence, begins “nonetheless.” That’s a conjunction, right?
HUGH HEWITT: Yes.
LARRY P. ARNN: What that means is whatever’s going to come after that is some kind of a disagreement with the previous sentence.
HUGH HEWITT: Yes.
LARRY P. ARNN: “Nonetheless, these messages cast a cloud over the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation.” Now the next sentence, another conjunction. “But”–
“Our review did not find evidence to connect the political views.” So you see, I like to call this square dancing language.
HUGH HEWITT: Yes. And may I give you the better one?
LARRY P. ARNN: Yeah, go ahead.
HUGH HEWITT: OK, this is on the Roman numeral page IX, the first full paragraph. “In assessing the decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related” investigation– which is the server– “discovered on the Weiner laptop, we were particularly concerned about text messages sent by Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions they made were impacted by bias or improper consideration. Most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation, and the implication in some of these text messages, particularly Strzok’s August 8 text message (‘we’ll stop’ candidate Trump from being elected), was that Strzok might be willing to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. Under these circumstances, we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over the following up” of the server– the Midyear-related investigation lead– “discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias.”
In other words, Dr. Arnn, they said it’s free from bias. But then they just said, we don’t have confidence that it was free from bias. It is Orwellian.
From Powerline: She should have asked them to bake a cake
But yesterday’s peak outrage is one you probably already know about: the manager of a Red Hen restaurant kicked Sarah Sanders and her family out of her establishment last night. Sanders tweeted about it:
Last night I was told by the owner of Red Hen in Lexington, VA to leave because I work for @POTUS and I politely left. Her actions say far more about her than about me. I always do my best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully and will continue to do so
And the manager boasted of her intolerably rude (and economically irrational) treatment of Sanders’ family on social media.
Remember when Republican restaurant owners wouldn’t let Obama administration employees eat in their restaurants? No, I don’t recall that either. I only have two observations about the Red Hen outrage: 1) We don’t have Red Hen restaurants in our part of the country, or I would boycott them. 2) I hope Republicans are taking notes. One of these days, we will have a Democratic administration. And when that happens, every single outrage that the Democrats have perpetrated beginning in January 2017 should be visited upon them.
Well, fine. We have New Rules.
Harassment policies for science fiction conventions are all the rage. Many big name authors and others are threatening to boycott conventions that don’t have policies regarding harassment. Here’s how I propose modifying these policies, given The New Rules:
Harassment Policy for SyfyCon
1: The Convention’s response to any reports of harassment will be contingent on whether the committee head believes harassment is deserved. If the committee head believes the alleged victim is unworthy, then she’s on her own.