Darned Tricky Numbers

Sometimes people wonder what kind of people want to write for the lefty bed-wetting press. Why would such a talented person want to "give" so much of themselves, taking a low salary just so they can speak truth to power? Those guys must be VERY good people....

Or perhaps they are just another idiot who got some fraudulent "______ Studies" major. And so they never learned how to calculate percentages or hold a real job. Now they blame the system for how much their little lefty lives suck.

An example:

Survey: Illegal Corporate Campaign Contributions Up 400%

By Alex Seitz-Wald on Jan 12, 2012 at 6:41 pm

In 2009, just 1 percent of respondents to National Business Ethics Survey — a large industry study funded by major corporations like Walmart — said they had witnessed illegal corporate political donations. This year, that number quadrupled to 4 percent. Management-level employees at large, publicly traded companies were most likely to see the illegal activity, with seven percent of senior managers saying they had witnessed it.

If this guy had not majored in International Relations (at Brown, no less, the home of "Studies Studies"), he would know that this is:

(4-1)/1= 3

3 n.e. 4

But of course the actual numbers don't matter. It's the truthiness of the scare tactic that's important.

A complicating factor is that the Dems got FAR more corporate money than the Repubs in 2008. The problem for the left is not that corporations can give money. The problem is that corporations can give money to Republicans. THAT cannot be allowed.

Nod to Chateau

State = Violence

I'm always surprised, and a little amazed, when my lefty bed-wetter friends say that there is no violence inherent in the state. People pay their taxes because they WANT to, don't you know. They keep quiet out of respect, not fear. In your mind, friends, that may be true.

In Portland, some cops just straight up pepper sprayed a girl in the face. (if this picture is real; can never know, of course).

(photo credit), click for a more burning image.

This video happened to be taken at about the same time. You can see some people trying to help the girl, on the right side of the view, as she screams and vomits.


The state IS violence. The state does not USE violence, it IS violence. Sure, maybe you think this girl had it coming. Or perhaps, to paraphrase Burke, you fall out with the abuses. The THING! The thing ITSELF is the abuses.

Thomas Hobbes had it right, and nothing has changed. It is not wisdom but authority that makes a political "law." Authority is power, backed by violence. And the reason the state exists is to be able to wield overwhelming, irresistible power, enough to "overawe" even the thought of resistance.

Now, mind you, I don't fault the police. This is dangerous work, the kids are breaking the law, and the kids are screaming vile things at the cops. The point is that all you lefties want a police state. How do you like it now?

Satire? One hopes

Why would D. Kos give space to this.... writer? Check this out.

Money quote: "While Communists are certainly responsible for more deaths and misery than the Nazis could ever dream of, at least their intentions were good, so I'll give them a pass." Well. Well, well, well.

Hot Dogs: As Dangerous As Cigarettes?

Here we are told that hot dogs are as dangerous as cigarettes.

Well, maybe, if you have a two pack a day hot dog habit...

Here's my question: There are two different information campaigns going on here. One is the campaign to put pictures and warning labels on cigarettes....and now hot dogs.

And there is a campaign to ensure women who are going to have abortions have to see the ultrasound of their fetus. Other people are trying to display photos of aborted fetuses.

The question: why is that all the bed wetters who want to force us to see cigarette- damaged lungs fiercely oppose the idea of displaying abortion-damaged fetuses?

I'm a libertarian; I think people can get their own info. But you lefties, who think everyone (except you) is an idiot....why no on the fetus thing? Why aren't you consistent?

(nod to the Blonde)

Food Deserts

An interesting map, and an interesting concept: The USDA lets you view "food deserts," or "low income neighborhoods with high concentrations of people who are far from a grocery store."
Link to map

Usually the complaint from you lefty bed-wetters is that corporations are too greedy. But the cool thing about this case is that you must believe corps are not greedy enough. Right?

Because the premise of this whole idea of food deserts is that it is perfectly possible to open a grocery store, and make money, in these neighborhoods.

The only reason that no one does open those potentially profitable grocery stores is... racism! Those greedy corporations won't open grocery stores. I admit it's heartbreaking to hear problems like those described in this video. But listen to the diagnosis: racism. Racism, racism, racism, from greedy groceries.

Logic fail! Greed is the enemy of racism, folks. In fact, greed is the enemy of all discrimination. Branch Rickey, who famously "broke the color line" in beisbol by hiring Jackie Robinson... was an even more famous skinflint and miser. My man Branch was no social crusader. BR signed JR because blacks could be paid less, for much higher performance, in that era of the color line.

And in fact for at least a decade after that, the average stats were higher, and the average pay was lower, for black baseball players.** GREED!You better recognize, folks.

Of course, I may be wrong. The grocery companies may be leaving money on the table here, in those "food deserts." And it is easy to prove me wrong, friends. All you arrogant, condescending lefty public sector nannies have to do is leave your protected job and go out and start a grocery store. According to your own world view, you'll be making big profits, AND helping the community. Of course, if you feel bad about the profits, you can always donate the $$ to Pres. Obama's campaign fund....

(Nod to Kevin Lewis for the link...)

**CITATIONS ON DISCRIMINATION IN BASEBALL:

Pascal, Anthony H. and Leonard A. Rapping (1972) "The Economics of Racial Discrimination in Organized Baseball", in RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN ECONOMIC LIFE

Scully, Gerald. (1974) "Discrimination: The Case of Baseball," in GOVERNMENT AND THE SPORTS BUSINESS

Why Are Liberals So Condescending? Part Deux

Nice article; thanks to a commenter.

Excerpt:

The denunciation of Palin took place 45 years after William F. Buckley, Jr., wrote: "I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University." From Richard Nixon's invoking the "silent majority" to Palin's campaigning as a devout, plain-spoken hockey mom, conservatives have claimed that they share the common sense of the common man. Liberals—from Adlai Stevenson to Barack Obama to innumerable writers, artists, and academics—have often been willing foils in this drama, unable to stop themselves from disparaging the very people whose votes are indispensable to the liberal cause. The elephant-in-the-room irony is that the liberal cause is supposed to be about improving the prospects and economic security of ordinary Americans, whose beliefs and intelligence liberals so often enjoy deriding.

Why Are Liberals So Condescending?

KPC friend, and my own good friend, Gerard Alexander had a piece in the WaPo that was good a year ago, and even better now. Worth reading. Excerpt:

It's an odd time for liberals to feel smug. But even with Democratic fortunes on the wane, leading liberals insist that they have almost nothing to learn from conservatives. Many Democrats describe their troubles simply as a PR challenge, a combination of conservative misinformation -- as when Obama charges that critics of health-care reform are peddling fake fears of a "Bolshevik plot" -- and the country's failure to grasp great liberal accomplishments. "We were so busy just getting stuff done . . . that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are," the president told ABC's George Stephanopoulos in a recent interview. The benighted public is either uncomprehending or deliberately misinformed (by conservatives).

This condescension is part of a liberal tradition that for generations has impoverished American debates over the economy, society and the functions of government -- and threatens to do so again today, when dialogue would be more valuable than ever.

ATSRTWT

The "Ignore the Constitution" Meme Grows

Donnie B picks up on the growing lefty-bedwetter meme about the inconvenient Constitution. A nice letter. (Nod to Angry Alex for pointing to this)

But the argument actually intrigues me, even on its own merits. Suppose you go with the EJ Dionne / Ezra Klein "Stop bringin' up old stuff!" view of the Constitution. That means it holds no essential truths, and has no moral force. I disagree, but suppose, for the sake of argument.

It is still a contract. A contract that would never have been signed unless the signatories thought that the contract represented a commitment. You don't have to believe that a contract is perfect to argue that it is binding. Here is what Mr. Dionne says:

"...as Gordon Wood, the widely admired historian of the Revolutionary era has noted, we "can recognize the extraordinary character of the Founding Fathers while also knowing that those 18th-century political leaders were not outside history. . . . They were as enmeshed in historical circumstances as we are, they had no special divine insight into politics, and their thinking was certainly not free of passion, ignorance, and foolishness."

An examination of the Constitution that views it as something other than the books of Genesis or Leviticus would be good for the country."

Mr. Dionne appears to use the following argument as if it made sense:

A. The Constitution is not scripture, but rather is a set of "shrewd political compromises."
B. Therefore, people on the left can simply ignore or distort provisions that they don't like.

I am willing to concede A, at least for the sake of argument. (Yes, my Burkean / Hayekian intuition warns me against changing things we don't understand, but let's go with this). But why oh why would B follow from A? The Constitution is a contract; you are bound by a signed and established contract unless you can elicit consent to change or ignore its provisions.

The Dionne / Klein argument is a non sequitur, revealing the appalling depth of the arrogance of the LBW ruling class. We have to pass the bill so we can all find out what is in it.

A Lagniappe: One can certainly argue that there IS no social contract, and the Constitution is NOT binding, because no one now living signed it. So those in the "Sovereign" or "Voluntaryist" movements can say they are NOT parties to the social contract. But that is not acceptable to Mr. Dionne, either. He wants a binding social contract, one that constrains all citizens to obey, but places no constraints on government. They are just making this up as they go along.