Tuesday assorted links


#6 was good. Put crudely, there are industrious people and there are creative people, and they don't like each other, but they need each other. Carry on.

Agreed, nice to see moderation correctly venerated.

I would rather say that extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.

And I would say that extremism is by definition a vice.

And I say, Aristotle to the contrary, it is not. Sometimes one needs to break some eggs to make an omelet.

Yes. Stalin and Goldwater provide indispensable correctives to hoary old Aristotle.

It is not that simple. Mr. Goldwater thought he was quoting Cicero because Anti-Communist, Catholic writer Taylor Caldwell and staunch Goldwater's supporter, who wrote a romance about Cicero's political carreer, told him so. And Stalin did not invent the sentence about eggs and omelets, either. Lazar Kaganovich, Stalin's right-hand man and the highest-placed Jewish Bolshevik to survive the Purges, spoke about omelets and eggs, but the sentence goes back to the Royalist resistence to the French Revolution and to the British colonial administration crushing tribal resistence in Afghanistan. So it is much more a Winston Churchill and Henri du Vergier rhing than Stalinist per si.

Harry Jaffa (a genuine Straussian) knew his Aristotle and Cicero better than most (http://www.claremont.org/crb/article/extremism-and-moderation/). The line was inspired by Cicero's defense of the Roman republic against its overthrow by Catilina: “I must remind you, lords, senators, that extreme patriotism in defense of freedom is no crime, and let me respectfully remind you that pusillanimity in the pursuit of justice is not virtue in a Roman.” That's a sentiment that the Trump resisters are misappropriating now.

I confess I do not recall Cicero's sentence. Anyway, as I said, Goldwater (knowingly or not that it was an alteration of the original) intended to quote Cicero and Stalin probably did not say the eggs and omelet thing as much as he shared the idea. In both cases, other people are to blame.

and the NYT commentators said "this is all fine but sometimes one side is right, period (and that side is the left)".

That is correct, I saw it too, but I'm still glad the Times ran the piece.

I firmly believe that the right divides into two, an atavistic disreputable right and a bigger, modern Reagan right. Or even Nixonian right. This moderate centre right is the sensible bedrock of American political values, and it was born and sustained by the excesses of the 60s left. As the left got crazier, Trumpism was the perhaps inevitable reaction.

"As the left got crazier, Trumpism was the perhaps inevitable reaction."

Trump is just the tip of the iceberg. If the left doesn't get its act together (yeah, right) we could see something far more sinister.

The right is always slow to adopt the methods of the left, but when it does....

I don't see it as sinister, just a bit sad that it's necessary. 95% of the political violence has been from the left (even a sizable part of that has been left on left). If the right gets down to their level watch out. Guess who owns most of the guns.

People should just mind their own business more.

Hitler, Mao, and Stalin approve. You're toppling Confederate statues, calling everyone that doesn't buy the bullshit Nazis, and erasing from the "public record" James T. (can't win elections so shoot them) Hodgkinson's failed attempt at the assassin's veto.

I'd argue that as the right got crazier Trump or the like was an inevitable result.

Blaming your own insanity on the actions of the other side is a weak excuse.

Why, any feller with a lick o' sense could tell you that those damn Hatfields done started it.

Consarnit, that ol' polecat Ran'l McCoy is a lyin' hornswaggler! Them McCoys are what started all the fuss!

The way I remember it, incredibly moderate things, yes like Romneycare led to the right setting their hair on fire for a decade, then Trump.

Entirely reasonable end of life counseling became Death Panels, and then Trump.

Dozens to stupid and crazy self-injuries because Trump.

They had to, because the Right was bankrupt, with no same answers, so turn all the stupid and crazy to 11, and Trump.

Funny, I don't remember any reaction at all to romneycare from the Right

Cute. But obviously the right wing think tank plan became light your hair on fire socialism.

Forgive the typos above, but I feel strongly a bankrupt party capped itself with Trump.

Blaming the Democrats because they didn't ride in like the cavalry and save the day? Classic. Take some responsibility.

Yes, I'm sure you feel VERY strongly that you are righteous and those who disagree with you are bankrupt morons.

Yep, the type of diversity one does not hear enough about. The brain has two sides and we need them both even if within a single person one is dominant.

But what is moderation? To me true liberalism (libertarianism ) is moderation because it allows as much difference as possible. One person can choose to use heroin and another to be a teetotaler and neither has to pay for the others mistakes. If you want to fight in Afghanistan you can go and join the side you want and give your money. If you think socialism is the way to go you can start or join a commune.

"But what is moderation? To me true liberalism (libertarianism ) is moderation because it allows as much difference as possible."

Right, and the Libertarian Party even has a diverse view of taxation running all the way from "zero taxes" to "approaching zero taxes."

Is that the platform LP candidates run on?

#1: The only solution to racism is more racism and the only solution to sexism is more sexism. Once we are deliberately and consistently picking lesser qualified NAMs (Asians are not diverse) and women over better qualified whites, Asians and men, all sexism and racism will disappear slowly over hundreds of years. There will be no resentment to this and we certainly will not have KKK neo-nazis marching all over the country and electing Donald Trump. The ideas of fairness, race or sex-blind hiring, and meritocracy are quaint and absurd.

And by the way, you are absolutely correct that anyone who is not an academic economist is not contributing to their potential. We should institute an academic economist draft, in which stay-at-home moms are forced to become academic economists in the interest of inspiring future generations and rooting out sexism in academia, while privileged white men and Asians are kicked out based on their (disgusting) race and gender.

Fortunately, this will not happen. The Nazi left will be crushed as the original Nazis were in 1945.

6. This is Brooks's second column on moderation/moderates in a week. I am a cradle Episcopalean, so it resonates with me. I suppose Cowen might equate moderation with complacency, but it's not the same. I place a high priority on order and stability, conservative priorities, likely to be realized through moderation. To be clear, moderation requires one to respect others' points of view, to address different points of view through reason rather than confrontation. Moderation also requires clarity and transparency rather than deception.

It has more to do with the virtues of classical liberalism I think than anything religious like your Episcopalian upbringing. I think.

"I suppose Cowen might equate moderation with complacency, but it’s not the same."

Well said. But you are pretty quick to put the boots into Trump on a weekly basis. I deplore him but it's ridiculous how deranged people are about a thrice married former Democrat loudmouth big city real estate developer who really isn't a second fuhrer.

He's not even close to a Nazi, but he's a disaster as the leader of this country. It's not derangement to point that out. Trump is different. He's simply not supposed to be in charge of this (once?) great nation, and he only is because his opponent was such a mess herself.

As a moderate, I'm not losing any sleep over it though, the system is robust and he's not doing too much damage. But he sets the tone, and the tone sucks.

I'm with you, but do you realize how sensible you are? Trump winning is like Jerry Springer being the host of a popular TV show: it doesn't matter much. That's not how half the electorate sees it now. They can't accept that he won, most likely with zero Kremlin help. And they can barely countenance that HRC was a bad candidate. You are correct though, our institutions can survive a Trump.

Mind you, Trump is deranged too. The other day he tweeted: "out great country will soon come together as one!" He's a sap, not a fuhrer.

The hard leftist paeans to order and stability (when they hold the whip hand natch) requires a far subtler mind than you possess.

Everyone is a reactionary when they have the megaphone.

6. "Like most of you, I dislike the word moderate. It is too milquetoast."

I laughed when I read this because David Brooks is the first person I think of when I hear "milquetoast" or "moderate." But it's actually a decent column (and I almost never like anything David Brooks writes). His description of "moderate" is much more conservative than "conservative" Obama-pants-crease-kissing Brooks.

4. I tried to figure out the criteria but it was confusing and I didn't want to devote time to it. In any case, most of the top rankings are consistent with what one would expect (similar to U.S. News rankings), but some are surprising. As for GMU economics department, I'm not surprised by the high ranking as GMU has distinguished itself from other schools by adhering to a particular school of thought (or ideology). The same can be said of the law school, which approaches law in much the same way as the economics department approaches economics.

The law rankings struck me as so bizarre (NYU above Yale? Florida State above Stanford?) that I looked at the methodology. It seems to reward larger schools by looking at absolute numbers of publications, awards won by faculty, etc. (The criteria also contain some egregious misspellings...). Worse than useless.

They also list Iowa State University at 51-75 and that university has no law school or law program! It does make one wonder....

Made in China quality.

Indeed. Florida State ranked above Stanford? The only area where that may be correct is Football.

#2 - how in the world is this unfair, not to mention "deeply" unfair given that alumni fund these places and the quality of the legacy admits is just as high as others?

One can simultaneously for a number of schools have:

1) Some people voluntarily attend a school slightly below where they could have gone because their parents really push them towards the alma mater
2) Other legacies get in without being qualified and would never have been admitted without being legacies

The existence of a large number of matriculants in group 1 (who didn't need an advantage at all) does not mean that those in group 2 aren't getting an advantage.

For schools like Harvard where it's nearly impossible to score above the target range based on SAT scores, you might easily have a situation where a legacy plus perfect scores is admitted the vast majority of the time, but anyone (white or Asian) not a legacy is only very occasionally admitted. Indeed, the fact that the scores top out allows the school to assign greater weight to legacies while pretending that everyone is equally qualified.

Well, the alumni preference isn't based on how much money you give. If you give $1m but are not an alum, your kid doesn't get the legacy preference (other preference is another issue), but if you're an alum who has donated nothing, your kid gets it. I think most people don't think schools should base admissions decisions on the applicant's family's donations - but maybe you disagree.

It's also different for public universities - where taxpayers are giving large amounts to these schools, so why should they favor one student based on their parents names? It puts children whose parents never went to college at a slight disadvantage - for what purpose? And as I mention in another comment, there's a constitutionality argument based on a titles of nobility, as well as one based on 14th amendment.

What Stuart says is not true. The top colleges (and presumably the lesser ones) are for sale. A seven figure amount will get your child into HYP. A high six figure amount will purchase admission to a lesser Ivy. Children of an alumnus who gives nothing will receive only a very mild preference.

As it happens, the number of people who have that kind of money and choose to spend it that way is very small. And I don't consider it good way to spend money, because I have seen the children of several New York tycoons, who paid the necessary amount, flunk out.

I didn't say money can't buy admissions into colleges - I said you don't get the legacy preference (a formal part of a university's application evaluation) if your parents aren't alum. I wrote ("other preference is another issue)" referring to the issue of huge donations from a non-alum - which is an informal part of their evaluation.

Legacy preference is tiny, compared to DO (development office) preference, with which it is often conflated. For example, the daughter of a friend and fellow Eli got into Dartmouth and Duke, but not Yale. So the legacy preference can't raise you from Dartmouth to Yale. In contrast, there were both URMs and DO cases who ranked well below my friend's daughter (and mine) who did get into HYP.

@y81 - I was only talking about legacy preference (the subject included in TC's original post)....yet you said "What Stuart says is not true" and mention an entirely new issue (development office preference) - one that I wasn't addressing. You're welcome to talk about that issue, but I don't see how what I said was not true, especially since I wasn't raising the issue you're focused on.

Stuart: if we agree that (i) the legacy preference is tiny, and that (ii) significant financial contributions (beyond the reach of most people) can buy admission to the top universities, then you are not wrong.

Suppose that you have ten people who apply for one spot in a firm. All are about equally qualified as far as schooling, work history, ect. So you give the job to your nephew. How is that not unfair?

That's how, I would think, legacy admissions works. Harvard accepts just 5 or so percent of its class, so it will have lots of people will very high test scores. Affirmative action, I'll point out, does not work this way, as Blacks and Hispanics average test scores far below Whites, with the result that admitted Blacks and Hispanics will trail Whites by a significant amount.

How is that not unfair?

I place it nowhere on the fair/unfair scale, if he's one of the equally qualified ones.

1: Makes you wonder how many of those women gave birth, compared to the men in the same cohort, doesn't it?

Having babies disqualifies one from receiving tenure? How is that?

Red alert!

#1: So despite being given institutional privileges and unfair advantages, females still underperform men with low ability and work ethic. Men, despite being institutionally vilified and discriminated against still manage to achieve higher success rates with unusually high aptitude, hard work ethic, passion for their work, and plucky spirit.

4. Georgetown and GW law schools also significantly higher than you normally find them. Don't know if the bias is for DC area law schools or just for big law schools.

#1 I have a dream that some day people will tear down statues of those who supported affirmative action.

This is already happening, at least figuratively. People who began affirmative action (for goyim, cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota) at Ivy Leagues in the twenties and thirty (overt or covert depending of where) are now vilified for that. But their policies have expanded. Tearing down statues is not enough.

#6. Libertarians are the sane moderates in today's political environment.
Government can't solve all our problems, it can only set the rules? there's no one-size fits all solution? No shit. Glad you're finally catching up.

If you define "moderate" as being the truly middle position, as measured by public opinion, libertarians are definitely not moderate, they are at the far right in terms of economics and the far left in terms of immigration.

If you define moderate as "the position I think is right as opposed to all these obviously wrong positions," which is how 90% of people use it, then, sure, libertarians will see themselves as moderates.

I define moderate as in "not consumed with some sort of collective insanity". If you go out there and talk politics with Democrats and Republicans, they both seem like they live in alternate realities with their own alternate facts and alternate histories and utterly insane conspiracy theories about the other side. Strangely enough libertarians are the only ones whose tribal affiliations with the left or right aren't strong enough to have completely detached themselves from reality. Libertarians actually (mostly) manage to not live in either of the alternate universes constructed by the left/right wing media spheres. At least libertarians consume enough of both sides media to have synthesized it into something resembling reality and haven't completely gotten sucked into one side's universe or the other. (With the exception of the alt-right aligned libertarians, who basically are really just Republicans in disguise).

What's wrong with the alt-right aligned libertarians?

They're morons who don't understand libertarianism or they wouldn't be alt-right.

The libertarian purity test is quite selective. Sure, one cannot ace it if one adopts the alt-right's stance on immigration, but one can still score pretty high.

Alt right and libertarianism are only linked in philosophy as so far as they have similar opponents, otherwise they are completely opposite. Maybe you are confusing libertarian support for free speech with support for alt right speakers?

"Moderate" as the exact center point between two perverted and semi-arbitrary positions: the Republican Party Platform and the Democrat Party Platform, then maybe.

But if you view it in the content of the infinite number of extreme position unbound by a system of corrupt political definitions, which is closer to how Brooks appears to understands it, then ir is a far more useful - and I believe accurate - term.

It is not a synonym for the position of the median or average voter

6. Libertarians are the sane moderates in today’s political environment.

So sane you advocate open borders and free trade in meth. And abolishing the military. And for a maraschino on top, Hazel adds apologia pro vita Rachel Dolezal.

I don't believe any of those things are on the LP platform. Maybe the meth

I believe he was trying to recount Hazel's version of it.

There is an interesting (and I think persuasive) constitutional argument against legacy admissions in public universities based on the Constitution's prohibit on titles of nobility. Many state constitutions also have provisions that ban governments from granting hereditary privileges to citizens.


Unfortunately, I think it's very difficult to get standing and show damages in order to challenge these policies. I'm happy MIT and other schools who have chosen to do the right thing and eliminate legacy preference, which was originally established to discriminate against Jewish immigrant families and other targeted groups (see Richard Kahlenberg's 2010 book on the topic.) And I believe from those examples there is no evidence they saw a subsequent decline in alumni donation or involvement.

It is persuasive only for public universities. The problem would remain for the private institutions.

@Joel, yes.....that's why I expressly said it was persuasive in regards to legacy admissions 'in public universities'.

Although there is no constitutional mandate for a private institution to have any particular admissions policy, if adherence to a uniform admissions policy were a requirement for an institution's endowment to receive preferential tax treatment, there would be few non-participants.

There is an interesting (and I think persuasive) constitutional argument against legacy admissions in public universities based on the Constitution’s prohibit on titles of nobility.

Put the bong down.

"I would stress this is a) revenue-maximizing, b) still deeply unfair, c) still pragmatically a good thing"

Maybe if the schools were doing anything good with their extra revenue, you'd have a point.

Is investing a good thing?

#6...Excellent...Meaning I agree with it.

1) "Compared to their male colleagues, women assistant professors would bear a greater share of responsibilities for starting and raising young families during a fast-closing window parallel for both tenure and biological clocks"

Imagine that.

"In addition, university administrators often seek diversity in committee composition (Porter, 2007). As a result, females from disciplines where women are scarce (such as economics) are burdened with excess service duties, which would further hinder their productivity and in turn advancement prospects"

Is this irony? I think it might be irony.

(Reforming tenure is not enough?

What's the required result, exactly? Parity between men and women in outcomes?

Well, are we gonna abolish reproduction? Hold women to lower standards of output to let them start families and get promoted the same as if they weren't taking time to do that? Reduce diversity of committees? Because I don't see how we address those two hypotheses in any other way.

[Mentoring, maybe - though I do not hold it as obvious that same-gender mentoring is axiomatically superior or required.]

To quote from the linked Kevin: "So affirmative action in grad school recruiting, in hiring, even in promotion / retention is needed if we are going to even semi-rapidly increase race and gender diversity in economics." ... well, this is true, in its own terms, as stated.

And he also has to live with the non-AA hires suspecting they got held back "to increase diversity", and the AA hires suspecting even more strongly that they didn't get advanced on their pure merits.

This is obviously not going to be corrosive to academics or collegiality, right?

No. No. No.

The "problem" is better than this solution. Stop. Just stop.)

I think someone made a pretty good point that the Google campus has a huge fitness center but no child care. Many large corporations have some sort of on-site child care. Having such a thing makes it vastly easier for women to work longer hours and therefore improves the productivity and performance of female employees. This isn't holding women to lower standards, it's providing facilities suited to the particular needs of women.

Not just the needs of women, don't men want their kids to get good childcare if their wives work?

Heh. Is this even a male/female issue or more of a "the childless culture that is the Bay Area" issue?

Since we're actually talking about academia, no.

I thought most universities did have child care centers, but I don't recall if they were open to tenured faculty or only students with financial need.

1. You brought Google into this.

2. It wasn't a yes/no question.

3. So now you're saying your previous comment is irrelevant to the discussion at hand?

Deep breath, Hazel.

Are you retarded?
I brought up Google as an example of ways that lack of child care facilities has a negative effect on female employees.
Are you incapable of understanding that a large corporate campus and an academic campus , might , you know, have some relevant similarities in terms of work environments and how they impact women employees?

Hazel, you need to learn to slink away after getting slaughtered instead of digging in and looking worse.

Yeah, plus you can visit your kids or get there quickly in an emergency. It's a service.

Nothing says progress like turning out emotionally damaged and lower iq children that result from increased childcare utilization. I have chickens and ducks that care more for their offspring than these parents. If the kida are just going to be accessories to your vanity, get a dog and call it quits.

Oh boy is this a stupid comment. Yeah, plummeting birthrates among high earning households is terrific. The lower IQ kids come from lower IQ parents, not the high achieving dual income couples. Idiocracy cometh.

Complete nonsequitars. I can provide multiple studies on how early childhood day care harms outcomes, both in behavioral indications/adhd and future test scores. Meanwhile you are going on about heredity iq which is totally besides the point. That's not the comparison.

Meanwhile, I would love to see evidence that increased childhood care utilization or government subsidies for such care are even vaguely related to increases in birthrate. As far as I can tell, the countries with the highest utilization have the lowest birthrates. You cannot bribe people into having children, Japan and Italy have tried that.

Garbage. Daycares expose kids to a variety of different experiences, including a wider selection of toys than they have at home, and especially lots of other children, many of whom are older and are already talking and reading. There's no way that lots of contact with different toys and kids isn't going to benefit them developmentally.

You cannot bribe people into having children,

Agreed. Raising a family is an intrinsic part of most cultures, but in modern societies identity, telos, and "self-actualization" is based on career, vanity, and consumption.

You cannot bribe people into having children, Japan and Italy have tried that.

France and Britain have adequate fertility. So does Ireland. There's room for improvement, of course.


Please do provide the studies! I want to read them, thanks.


The French fertility boom is among the non ethnically French, correct? Could it be that they have imported their culture?

I can provide multiple studies on how early childhood day care harms outcomes, both in behavioral indications/adhd and future test scores.

Please do.

Me too waiting on those studies, I guess I must have missed them while we were having the nature vs nurture debates, sounds like the science is all settled.

#2: "But the vast majority also fit or exceed the academic profile of colleges to which they are admitted." I wonder what that means. How would one phrase it in English?

I'm sorry, dearieme, but your senility might have just entered its terminal phase. Farewell.

1. The most effective tool against sexism requires good men to stand up for women when they notice bad behavior. How might this change America's economic landscape? Would we make better, more inclusive policy decisions?

3. The theme of today's blog should be "We have done wrong. Now what can we do to fix it?"

6. Moderates are sick and tired of the squabbling about left and right. Labels, purity tests, backlashes, straw men, ad hominem. All of it needs to go. Otherwise, you are your worst enemy.

1. There is no such thing as 'sexism'. It's just a rhetorical thrust with no fixed content.

2. There's an ample population of white knights who will 'stand up for women' even when they make themselves stupid doing so. They're constrained in this behavior to a degree by the operational measures of competence some workplaces maintain.

3. That from which we might actually benefit is a general realization that there are costs and benefits to the various courses of actions we take. Men who work in female dominated environments are expected to put up with ladies' chickens***. We might just expect women who work in male-dominated environments to navigate those environments and not see banal disappointments, irritations, discomforts, and frictions as a social problem for which we need to call in the lawyers (or create more make-work for HR apparatchiiki).

Art, your world is so out of touch with the actual one. No racism, no sexism, Trump is swell, etc. You're not credible, sir.


ok f o's, just a little jingle . . .

the accomanying description is just false . . .


This is wishful thinking, with Brooks doing his usual above it all self righteousness.

Some moderate positions please.
North Korea. Ignore it, buy them off, nuke them, or squeeze the Chinese to get them to deal with it?
Health care? Nationalize it having 1/6 of the US economy administered by a cabinet secretary, with the detail of people's lives decided by politician horsetrading? Market delivery, pricing?

There are real issues with winners and losers.

The 'moderate' position always seems to resemble antifa without the urine throwing. A continued growth of the state, bureaucracy and intrusive surveillance and control.






Can you tell us what some of those links are?

I don't think may intelligent people just follow blind links from anonymous people and generally view link dumping as spam.

But then again, maybe they are all very useful, but no-one is looking at them!

How about getting rid of tenure? It's just protectionism.

hudson river valley, late summer, storms going on -- music and quiet commensurate


naturalist school, pitter patter, thunder & boom -- god's country

boobie boo boo, boo boo, boo bah boo

if it wasn't the ticks, it was something else getting us, circa, 2017. we blurped out, lil bits&bytes messages, for legacy, if for nothing else


these girls sing? . . . , everybody else can go f u




a big checks in, lil' poopie f's, no worry, a teaching moment, out herein, late summer, stormy rains

boo boo . . ., boop boop boo boo, booby

I take back my earlier comment. You appear to be nuts and I am now sure that all the people not following your links are better off for it

planet earth, late august 2017, circa ceasar, aye, a paradise

when you take writing classes, from, lil pup to, phd, you know, every once in awhile, you can chirp up, while the seasonal storms are chirping up -- and if it be, that's the last time you hear from any of us, let it be known, that we got down, with the beat sometimes.

we was just out here, werever we was, and everything was the best.

we try to learn how to write, because, every once in awhile, we try to communicate that shit



m going2 listen2 a song

dear lil', p p s, f o, la's

come see about me . . .

I had Kiesling way back when at William and Mary. She was fantastic...congratulations!


big, good looking, and happy bro's . . .


just waking up, this afternoon, lil, f o, bobody s heads -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6s9M-52fRGU

all ever was https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3necB6CZHsk

m playing a song because enjoy a song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtBbyglq37E


Supposing the bar isn't lowered "too far" I have no problem with legacy admits, so long as they pay "sticker price" and so long as the university uses the legacy admission to gouge mom and dad for additional contributions. It's really no different than lowering standards for any other student who can "pay full price". For each wealthy student you admit who will pay $60k/year you can afford to charge some other *less wealthy* student $10k/year or $0/year. The ability to offer steep discounts to less wealthy students may allow you to "over-recruit" in terms of "ability", thereby compensating for the slightly-lower-ability students you admitted to subsidize the others.

Comments for this post are closed