Assorted links

Comments

The New York Times takes scarcely any interest in the spoilation of evidence by the IRS and the arrogant response to inquiries about abuse of power therein but just has to weigh in on the burning issue of our times: too few senior corporation executives are making a public point of their sexual disorders. Our public life would be completely uninjured were the Times to be liquidated in Chapter 11.

The NYT is doing well at present financially, and Carlos Slim has plenty of money to keep the NYT going through the next downturn and beyond.

It was nuts that no American billionaire stepped up to bail out the NYT in 2008. Slim has both made his money back and has strongly influenced the conventional wisdom in America in his direction, since he profits exorbitantly off calls between illegal aliens and their families in Mexico. In the whole immigration "debate," how often has it come up in the conventional wisdom that there's something odd about a contender for richest man in the world being in Mexico? How often do are we told to consider: maybe rather than flood the United States with their unwanted people, the country of Mexico should crack down on monopolists like Slim so that the Mexican economy can grow fast enough to employ its own people?

Not too sure about that. Last I checked, newspaper ad revenue in real terms had returned to the levels of 1950, when the gross domestic product was 1/6th what it is today.

-

If The Times influences public discussion, it would have to do so through influencing the coverage of broadcast media or through re-directing the attention of its clientele. It has not been a serious newspaper for some time. (I think Camille Paglia offered that its self-concept as the 'paper of record' has not been a reality since A.M. Rosenthal retired).

Buddy, if you trust Camille Paglia to tell you anything, I'm more inclined to think _you're_ the one with the so-called "sexual disorders."

"The NYT is doing well at present financially...."

Must be because of the huge response they've gotten to their many emails offering a bargain on-line subscription. I wasn't a responder, though.

Will you ever give it a rest? In your Obama book you accused him of being obsessed with race, and yet in a typical afternoon you write more in comments on this blog about the tenuous, tangential relationship of race to all things good and evil than he will say in his entire life. "Obsessed," Your word, not mine. What a joke.

I hope WaPo readers will absorb this conventional wisdom among economists about convention centers and apply it to the proposed soccer stadium. What externality or market failure could a subsidy for this kind of facility possible be overcoming?

A stronger desire for shared reality among conservatives may be why the Tea Party gained more momentum than the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Or just being sufficiently considerate and disciplined to bathe and not trash public places.

"Shared reality" is philosophically loaded turn of phrase too. I'm fairly sure there is only one real world.

Assuming they meant to say "shared perception of reality", then conformity not an obvious win. And we can assume that conservatives in the literal sense of "wanting to keep things as they are" will prefer to conform the perceptions to the mainstream.

It's hilarious when members of a cult accuse the undifferentiated other on the other side of the wall of being hive minded. I'm sure there is some of that amongst narrow interest groups out of necessity, but no group is more beholden to a "shared reality" than the Left. Just look at the scandals in DC, Where is their Howard Baker? He does not exist as deviationism is relentlessly rooted out.

What makes this comparison even stranger is the total ignorance of how Occupy Inc was organized. It is nothing like the collection of local groups under the Tea Party umbrella. Occupy was created by a group of Canadian communists and funded by Democratic Part surrogates.

But, if you chain yourself to the Left-Right narrative and pick a side, then this is what you get.

Arts and sciences faculties are very inbred regarding their cultural attitudes. See the recent remarks of one Barkley Rosser for an example of that.

"It’s hilarious when members of a cult accuse the undifferentiated other on the other side of the wall of being hive minded."

Self-parody.

Deprives of more benign pastimes like marijuana, some people will naturally turn to more harmful alternatives such as alcohol.

Deprives of more benign pastimes like marijuana

Let go of my leg.

Which part do you think is wrong? That alcohol is more dangerous or that people would substitute marijuana?

#5 is interesting. In hindsight it seems obvious that white dwarfs would have move C than He, but I didn't know it until I read the article. I approve of calling the thing a diamond, even though it is a stretch.

For one thing I expect much of the crystaline carbon is at such high pressure that it might find some other phase than diamond (I'm no expert on these things). I also remember reading that in white dwarfs, the pressure is high enough that you get an quantum degenerate gas (of electrons or atoms?). In either case, much of that carbon is in a state much stranger than diamond.

Diamond, Shmiamond. Now if it were and emerald it'd be worth discussing.

F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote a story "The Diamond as Big as the Ritz". But even his wasn't THAT big.

People aged 25 to 64 who die have to die of something - I'm surprised it's only 1 in 10 due to alcohol. I bet a large fraction of those who see that headline read it as "1 out of every ten people die from alcohol."

Exactly, particularly when you narrow it down to that healthy age-range.

It kinda reminds me of the reports several years ago, during the height of the war, that the average military member deployed to Iraq had a lower likelihood of being killed than that of their peers back in the US. People in that age group tend to only die of certain things, car accidents and alcohol being the leading contenders.

1. The evidence suggests conservatives are smarter. They are more informed of events, tend to have backgrounds in the sciences, and tend to use more logic and reason than emotion.

2. thanks to silicon valley, California has the fast growth of any state http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/53aeab98eab8ea6e5df99e0d-839-629/map-some-parts-of-the-us-economy-are-growing-really-fast.jpg

Which is why they want to ban teaching of evolution.

Back to the drawing board for you, I suppose.

Who wishes to ban the teaching of evolution?

As opposed to the left wingers, who only want to ban modern food sources (GM crops and modern farming), ban modern energy sources, modern medicines (vaccines), ban the teaching of history (its too White and Male), ban the teaching of economics, or the teaching of any science that doesn't conform to their Gaia-centric belief system, or hell, the teaching of any subject where a student might have their ego impaled by being informed that one of their answers was "wrong". Oh, no, it is only conservatives who are occasionally wrong about science.

Gardasil bans are the provenance of wack-job Republicans. Michelle Bachmann is the right wing poster child for anti vax. The autism quackery is hardly a left wing phenomenon.

Wack job Rs put blind faith in GM food sources and fracking but gun to their heads deny anthropogenic climate change despite the overwhelming consensus of the global scientific community that it's a thing. No hypocrisy there.

Banning modern energy sources? You have your head in the sand. It's the left that is pushing alternative energy research and investment. You and your ilk drool about drilling for oil and gas. Everywhere.

Please show me one article where a school has "banned economics." You're so desperate to prove your point you'll pretty much throw anything at the wall.

The whole Gaia thing is just weird. My guess is some long-haired guitar player stole your girlfriend in high school and you just can't get over it.

Poor sod.

"Wack job Rs put blind faith in GM food sources and fracking but gun to their heads deny anthropogenic climate change despite the overwhelming consensus of the global scientific community that it’s a thing"

This is a gem. GMOs have been around for decades as a modern,scientific iteration and centuries as a farmer-based technique, while fracking has been done since at least the 1940s.

The former has resulted in zero deaths while saving millions, while fracking has been overwhelmingly safe while promising billions in new wealth. And yet you call support for them 'blind faith.'

Computer modeling of the human component in global warming has been plagued with error to the extent that even the IPCC in its latest report could come up with no explanation for the pause, and yet to you this remains an incontrovertible truth.

(It's possible your comment is a parody and I apologize for the above if so)

I wouldn't look askance at people for questioning the heretofore strange notion of anthropogenic climate change - only we have tons of research devoted to it and there is a strong consensus. I wouldn't call it an incontrovertible truth - the theory of general relativity isn't an incontrovertible truth for Christ's sake - but it's widely accepted as 'close enough for practical application.'

There has been nowhere near this amount of research spent on the long-term impact of GM food or fracking on the human species.

I don't have a problem with GM food but I don't fault people for wondering what the longer term implications are with messing around with "God-given" genes. And GM food has not been around for centuries - we're not talking about cross-pollination here.

As for fracking, we know without a shadow of a doubt that in the short term it pollutes ground water at the very least, and it may be a trigger of seismic activity.

Wow, a stream of ad homonym personal slurs. Plus, one semi-valid example of a minority candidate who was soundly defeated early in a primary precisely because she made the comment you are referring to.

Thanks for proving my point.

Following up Dani Rodrik's article about how the Poconos-based Gulen Cult took over the Turkish police and persecuted his father-in-law, here's my piece on Imam Gulen, whose followers get over a half billion dollars per year from local American taxpayers to run charter schools in our country:

http://takimag.com/article/the_shadowy_imam_of_the_poconos_steve_sailer/print#axzz35suk1uQj

This is one of the weirder things going on in the world right now, and that's saying a lot.

Looks like Rodrik's father-in-law, General Dogan, was let out of jail a few days ago:

http://www.thestar.com.my/News/World/2014/06/21/General-jailed-in-Turkeys-coup-plot-case-says-he-was-victim-of-conspiracy/

3. Is excess alcohol consumption to blame for one in ten deaths? I don't know and neither do they. But then I'm a non-puritan and not given to lying.

Is excess alcohol consumption to blame for one in ten deaths?

Late middle aged people in Britain seem to cope passably without any teeth and without much blood left in their alcohol stream, but over here it kills.

No it doesn't. In the US the medical professionals are just as shameless in lying about causes of death - and note here that it is a "contributes to". If you're aged 25 and you die after having had a glass of beer, it looks like they will claim it is alcohol related. But is it? Some percentage of road deaths would not have taken place without some level of alcohol. But a lot would have anyway. Some percentage of bar fights would not have become deadly without alcohol. But how many? Breast cancer and the like is just shameless lying.

You do not think alcohol kills? You mean it was just serendipity when grand-dad's esophagus began to hemorrhage? Coulda happened to anyone?

Breast cancer and the like is just shameless lying.

Shameless lying about what? Get it through your head. You do not survive metastatic breast cancer.

I always find it funny when reports note people dying of diabetes. You don't die of diabetes. You can die of one of the complications of diabetes -- kidney failure being a big contender. But if someone dies of any of a number of different conditions and was also diabetic, the fundraisers will add that person to the rolls because the bigger the number the better the pamphlet.

What's super fun is the nonprofits trying to raise money to allegedly fight or treat Type 1 diabetes (tiny percentage compared to Type 2) that will use the numbers for diabetes in general in their fundraising stories.

More like an approximation. To say that anything like alcohol causes cancer is a stretch. Our cells cause cancer. If all drinking stops some breast cancers would be avoided. But most aren't doing it for their health.

I'm not sure what the hubbub is about Tim Cook. I thought everyone knew he was gay.

There's a subordinate clause in one sentence in Walter Isaacson's bestseller "Steve Jobs" that makes the point, but only for people with excellent reading skills.

They do now.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2672825

NPR outed him a few weeks ago, too.

So did I. I remember people making a big deal about him being gay when he took the job, and I don't pay much attention to Apple, gay news, or celebrity gossip. It was stated as established fact.

#3. Tyler needs a new feature called "Yes, the Mormons were the correct answer."

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/152270/abandon-all-hope

(On this one, I guess you could add the temperance movement, baptists, Muslims, etc.)

It does make one wonder, if society/government wanted to allow some recreational drugs and not others, what should be the proper mix? Is the current mix (i.e., yes to alcohol and tobacco, and increasingly yes to marijuana too) optimal, assuming there needs to be a mix?

Well, I'm a wino, 64, and not dead yet [as far as I can tell]. "We need to redouble our efforts to implement scientifically proven public health approaches to reduce this tragic loss of life and the huge economic costs that result," Bauer concluded: This just completely ignores the benefits of alcohol!

Red wine both lowers cholesterol and combats endothelial
dysfunction, which is widely considered to be the initial event in atherosclerosis and is strongly implicated in the development of type 2 diabetes. An emerging body of evidence also implicates endothelial dysfunction in the etiology of Alzheimer's disease. This study is very informative:

http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/1/74.full.pdf

Right. John Browne had to step down because he was gay. It had nothing to do with his "rent-boy lover."

Much like Barney Frank had troubles merely because he was gay. It had nothing to do with the prostitution services and drugs available in his own apartment.

For God's sake, people.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

He sat his 34 year old younger than himself kept prostitute down next to the Prime Minister of England. How on earth a man with that judgment could get a job a 7/11 is beyond me.

Why are there so few Gay CEOs? Well one explanation is that they lack the self control and discipline needed to rise to the top. But that would be homophobic so we better not make that one. Another would be that there are actually very few Gay people in the world - Gay lobbyists have been inflating the numbers and you wouldn't know it from the media but Gay people are actually quite rare.

As for Bentham, my respect for the guy went down a notch. So he thought that if everyone was having wild sex we would all be happier. All evidence to the contrary. You would think someone that smart would stop to think that perhaps the restraints we had on sexual behavior are not some irrational prejudice, but serve a useful purpose? That society cannot survive without them - and British society of the time certainly couldn't? That allowing rich alpha males all the sexual license they like just means that the majority of poorer men get no sex at all? Look how well that is working out in the Middle East. Christian-based monogamy probably results in the greatest sexual pleasure for the greatest number.

perhaps the restraints we had on sexual behavior are not some irrational prejudice, but serve a useful purpose?

That would be a Chestertonian/Burkean kind of thought. Prof. Cowen would support that sort of analysis when it came to institutions like professorial tenure, but not when it came to sex, because he knows that his professional colleagues would ostracize him (as he wants Prof. Brat to be ostracized) is he expressed any sympathy for the slightest restraint on sexual liberty. Academics believe in only thing, and it isn't freedom of thought.

Why are there so few Gay CEOs?

1. Because men ensconced in homosexual networks are about 3% of the male population.

2. The share of that population who are suitable for positions as line administrators is disproportionately small.

Where do you get an estimate of the fraction of big-time CEOs who are or were gay? Without a reasonable estimate, you don't know enough to even discuss whether gay men are under- or over-represented in CEO spots.

Re #2, of course the article has to hedge by saying "major" CEOs, and thus imply that the country is more homophobic than it actually is. Nor does the article make a very convincing case that being outed has had particularly negative consequences for Browne - he was allowed to resign rather than be fired, and claims to have had "an outpouring of support."That being said, this episode is consistent with the stereotype of gay narcissism: the subtitle of Browne's book ("why coming out is good for business") and Browne's comment that "BP would have been better off if he had come out earlier" both seem to show a confusion of "good for BP" with "convenient for Browne". Furthermore, the 66 year old Browne's affair with a 23-year old male prostitute, and the claims of misuse of company funds, don't give any assurance that Browne's homosexuality was a positive, rather than a negative, for the position of CEO of BP. (and from the article's mention of Browne's new 32-year old Vietnamese lover, it sounds like the pattern is continuing.) Also left out of the NY Times article: according to Wikipedia (1) Browne is a Baron and member of the British House of Lords and (2) Browne has been blamed for cost-cutting that led to the epic Deepwater Horizon oil spill... neither of which fit well into the narrative.

But hey, if you're looking for more gay CEO role models, here's a profile of the current travails of Mike Jeffries, the CEO of super-creepy retailer Abercrombie & Fitch, complete with assertions that Jeffries' lover "wields vast influence over the retailer’s operations and strategic direction" which I'm sure ANF shareholders think is just great.

In fairness, I'm not aware of anything untoward about Tim Cook's handling of Apple, and on the other side of things American Apparel's recently deposed Dov Charney certainly has done his level best to show straight CEOs can be just as sleazy.

(Anyway, just to make this post more inflammatory, why was I not surprised to hear that Browne is Jewish? Are jews more likely to be gay? Or, are they just more likely to come out/be outed? Or is it just a mis-perception on my part, not supported by the data?)

I am actually glad to glance at this weblog posts which consists of plenty of helpful information, thanks for providing such statistics.

#6 Would these count as "infrastructure investments" of the type that Summers and others call for, or do the presumed benefits of such investment only materialize when the Federal government does it? Stated another way, how are the negative effects, mostly Bastiat's "unseen", of city infrastructure investment mitigated when the Federal government does it?

Why don't more smart gay conservative megateratera diamonds die from alcohol poisoning at conventions?

What a weird world to ask such a weird question. I'm no CEO, straight as an arrow and I don't have time for basic bare bones sex, let alone to be "open" about it, and who would care?

Does anyone pay attention to psych research anymore? Especially the garbage that pretends to explain political differences. The studies are so poorly done and the stats mangled so thoroughly rational people should have learned by now.

Cannot say generally. Some years ago I read an article by an Australian social psychologist taking apart the work of Robert Altemeyer. Since some of Altemeyer's claims are facially silly, this was unsurprising. What did indicate trouble in that nexus is that his book with the facially silly claims was published by Harvard University Press and received favorable reviews in Contemporary Psychology, at that time the book review compilation issued by the American Psychological Association. You get this sort of thing (or Michael Bellesiles winning the Bancroft Prize) because academic departments have grown badly in-bred.

Re #6, on convention centers. A couple of decades ago, in the course of doing some research on the economic development of Indianapolis between 1890 and 1920, I ran across a series of newspaper articles urging the development of a convention center for Indianapolis, to compete with Kansas City, Cincinnati, Columbus, OH, and other cities. Complete with almost exactly the same arguments being used today. Indianapolis did not build a convention center then, although it did in the 1970s, on the exact site than had been proposed in 1917...

"Whereas, liberals tend to be associated with protests and blatant acts of rebellion."

Perhaps I am all wet, but it appears that even university professors cannot form proper sentences in the English language.

hermes cheap bags Assorted links

Don't forget Reverend Paul Flowers, the Methodist minister, Labour politician and chairman of Co-Op Bank (wrecked), who went to jail after the usual whirlwind of drugs and rent-boys.

Comments for this post are closed