Sunday assorted links


CNN has a headline that might have been written by regular commenter Barkley Rosser. "Study: CTE In 99% of Dead NFL Players". One might believe from such a claim that either all deceased NFL players were examined (quite unlikely) or a proper random sampling of deceased NFL players were examined. But no, CNN contradicts itself right away with "CTE,was found in 99% of deceased NFL players' brains that were donated to scientific research".

I have a feeling that if you tested for aptitude in statistics at the major media outlets in America the results would be very depressing. I also suspect Fox News would do worse than MSNBC, CNN, etc and the left would celebrate the results with "At least our journalists aren't as dumb as the ones at Fox News!"

I clicked 'submit' seconds before I thought of a great idea. Run a CTE study of deceased NFL players who were either kickers or punters. Then let CNN run the headline "Study: CTE In 1% of Dead NFL Players"

It's a large sample of a small population. If you assumed that every other dead NFL player in that cohort was CTE-free so the sample had maximal bias, it would still show NFL players have CTE far above the general population rate.

Sanjay Gupta, on the video, did make the point that there was a big selection bias. Hat's off to him.

Gupta has an MD from Michigan. The CNN writers probably have a BA from a small liberal arts school without a Statistics department.

Statistics aptitude has nothing to do with it. The journalists job is to generate clickbate and they succeeded. Whether or not they understand their own lies is not relevant to the job they are paid to do.

djw: Not possible. The media is nothing like the evil greedy banks that profit off their customers - at least that is the narrative the media feeds us.....

I don't doubt that football players have CTE at a higher rate than the general population. That is not what the headline says. I would bet the ranch that of all dead former football players, less than 99% have CTE. Again, if facts have a liberal bias why do liberals lie?

I get your point (clear selection bias in the sample) and I'll always line up behind the notion that the media including most journalists and especially headline writers is innumerate, but this seems like an incredibly small nit to pick.

#5c So that's it: the Pretorian Guard is rebelling against the mad Emperor. There's great chaos under the heavens.

#5 “With practical hypersonic aeroplanes, a two-hour flight to anywhere in the world will be possible”
So what? "I’ll put a girdle round about the Earth
In forty minutes".

While China plots to destroy America with hypersonic weapons, America supports its regime. Maybe if Brazilians had murdered innocent Americam toung men, we would be praised too.

Brazil salutes Zimbabwe's new revolutionary government.

3. I suppose it does. Like the painting, the value is in the fact that people think they have value. And lest you say the same thing about dollars, try paying your taxes, mortgage, or student loan debt in anything other than dollars.

The Telegraph's art critic had a fine rant explaining why he thinks it's not a Leonardo da Vinci, and why he views him as not much of a painter anyway. It amused us because we'd earlier looked at a big photo of the masterpiece and agreed that we didn't think it was our idea of a masterpiece. My own feeling is that the right hand is done so well that maybe a Master did that; the rest looks like a 'prentice effort, and a dull one at that. None of which matters in the slightest of course: it's a trading picture, not a looking-at picture.

try paying your taxes in anything other than dollars.

Actually they won't take dollars(as in bills)even tho they are "legal tender for all debts public and private."

They noted it might be like gambling. Some people have so much money, anything less than 450 million bucks doesn't "hurt." It won't provide the rush.

And that painting...not so great. But who am I to judge.

1. "Mr. Zhang’s dating coach, Zhang Mindong, said he was once like the men he teaches. A self-professed loser, or “diaosi,” Zhang Mindong said he suffered a painful breakup in 2012. He turned to the internet to find solutions and discovered the term “pick-up artist.”

Zhang Mindong started his school in the eastern city of Jinan in 2014, which he now runs with Cui Yihao, 25, and Fan Long, 29. Their services range from $45 for an online course to about $3,000 for one-on-one coaching. Similar schools have opened in several Chinese cities in recent years."

So I guess the scam of PUA* is spreading. PUAs typify the old saying, "those who can't do, teach."

* I realize #notAllPUAs but it is like 95% of them.

I think PUAs are super silly but at the same time like they say in basketball you can't teach height so I can see why short people might at least give the tactics a try. A short person trying to get girls without some kind of hook is hopeless.

Yeah short men never have kids.

That’s why the average height in the US is 7 feet tall.

Back to r/incel with you!

You’re muddying up an Econ blog.

"That’s why the average height in the US is 7 feet tall."

Non-sequitur alert!

"You’re muddying up an Econ blog."

And yet Tyler linked a piece about dating in China, it's almost as if the blog isn't exclusively dedicated to economics.

Won’t someone rid me of this meddlesome liberal arts major 105 IQ retard?

I used hyperbole, that is a fair criticism. Yes, due to literal reversion to the mean statistics, even women who will only bear children with men over 6.5 feet may have children who are only 6 ft. Of course that is still over the average.

Sexual relationships are the most easily predicted/modeled by economics. So, I get it. You’re an idiot. You can’t do math. You’re really emotional about patriarchical oppression in your school. You’re an emotionally stunted incel from reddit.

You think you’re smart, but you’re not. Stop posting. Women want things in men. You can become that thing or destroy yourself. That’s literally your problem for being not the product that women want to buy.

Capitalism is great! Women get full choice! With contemporary sexual mores women literally get to choose morality.

I am not that Anonymous (you can tell because I never use, let alone misuse, the "non-sequitur" attack), but man. He rang your bell.

Another clue is that I never follow sex related links at MR, nor participate in the reliably dreadful discussion which ensues.

I initially thought you were a PCTard, now I guess you're a PUATard. It's a non-sequitur, like suggesting that because all women don't look like supermodels, men don't care about looks. Historically women have settled for short men just as men settled for plain-looking women, I'm sure it's also relevant that consuming a lot of calories to grow yourself to 6'5 isn't a good strategy during a famine. In any case what qualities in men are or aren't important to women is not a subject that interests me very much, I'm just annoyed when PUAs sh*t up the HBDSphere squawking about how "alpha" they are while hiding behind a screen name and providing no proof.

"You think you’re smart, but you’re not. Stop posting. Women want things in men. You can become that thing or destroy yourself."

There's a third option: not giving a shit. It's funny how PUAs think they are "rebels," when in reality they are claiming to do exactly what society and their "mediocre liberal arts education" tells them to do. I'm not saying they SHOULDN'T try to do it, they have an understandable biological urge to do so, but the only way they are rebelling is that they are sometimes rude to the women they (claim to be) sleeping with.

And I don't, by the way, believe any of it. Most men lie about their sexual conquests and the internet allows them to costlessly LARP. I'm not going to throw out my skepticism just because I agree with their politics.

"You think you’re smart, but you’re not. Stop posting. Women want things in men. You can become that thing or destroy yourself. That’s literally your problem for being not the product that women want to buy."

That's one side of the coin. You're ignoring the other side: male sexuality. Women may choose, but the context of those choices, and the available choices themselves, are determined by men and their sexuality. Male sexuality consists of the use of force and violence. Some men could go out tomorrow and destroy the "product" that women want to "buy".

"Male sexuality consists of the use of force and violence."

Ahn, OK, then.

3. It's speculative fever on top of speculative fever. I can't say the expectation of rising asset prices makes it easier to stomach. I'd prefer investments made the old-fashioned way, based on the rate of return, rather what a bigger fool will pay later. I know, I'm old-fashioned. The rate of return, depressed for decades, can't compete with speculative fever. Besides, everyone knows the Fed will bail out the speculators if asset prices, God forbid, collapse. Won't the Fed bail out the speculators? Capitalism today is not your grandfather's capitalism.

6. I suppose the moral of the story when it comes to Kenneth Starr is that he is good at harassing sex predators on the other team but not very good when the predators are on his team. O, We see the Varsity, Varsity, Varsity; As she towers o'er the hill over there, And our hearts are filled with joy, SMU, SMU Alma mater, We'll be true forever. Hail to the red and the blue We're the Mustangs from SMU Give a cheer, show your might Get the victory in sight for our battle cry will be FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! Spirits the best in the land And right to the end we'll stand For the M-U-S-T-A-N-G-S FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! GO! Chant Go, Go, Go Mustangs Go, Go, Go Mustangs Go Red! Go Blue! Go Mustangs, S-M-U! 5-4-3-2, Give a cheer for SMU M-U-S-T-A-N-G-S Go, 'Stangs, Go!

#6 Please reread. The moral is that Clinton was a pretty scummy dude personally, but good professionally. Kinda the opposite of Obama.

Nowhere does it say that Obama was unprofessional. That's just a racist bank shot from your fevered mind.

Isn't the implicit message of Douthat's piece that when it comes to serious wrongdoing (of the sort that Clinton, Trump, Franken, and Moore have engaged) that you need to listen to the other side to get a clear eyed view of just how seriously the politicians of your side have transgressed? I highly doubt that Douthat didn't intend that piece to be read as a criticism of Republicans and Trump.

3. If Bitcoin is becoming a defensive store of value, like gold, platinum, etc, isn't this exactly what we would see?

I've spent a lot of time explaining to colleagues that the killer app for crypto-currencies is that they become a store of value with the properties of being portable, stable, secure, readily exchangeable, and not under any government control (really attractive). That is not to say there are not speculators on the loose, but that there is a solid underlying economic rationale for Bitcoin which goes far, far, beyond its mere transactional utility.

There are a LOT of precious metals in the world with limited industrial use whose price is mostly made up of defensive store of value. That suggests there is plenty of room for another.

Disclaimer: I hold no cryptocurrency myself.

6. "We’re not going to stop doing what we think is right, but we’re going to try to work out some accommodation with you on religious liberty so you can feel at home here and practice your faith."

Brooks is pathetic. He's actually saying, "It's going to be done the way we want it, figure out a way to live with it." He's operating according to the popular neo-Puritan manual. Predestination. Once a sin, as defined by us, is committed, the sinner is forever doomed to some corner of hell, regardless of what's occurred since the sin, since the sin itself is simply evidence of damnation. The Christian tenets of forgiveness and redemption aren't applicable in this version of Puritanism. The sinner must be shunned.

Actually, it's enjoyable watching the problems afflicting those most deserving of problems, Americans with law school degrees, the priests of the huge, parasitical secular papacy.

Brooks is lying by omission -- bakers get punished by gov't because they don't want to bake a cake to celebrate a sin-filled coupling, which SCOTUS has declared is equal to marriage.

The purpose of gay marriage is to make illegal the practice of Christianity. That's a pretty clear attack, and very present.

The Dem snowflakes being indoctrinated in colleges today are looking for past attacks on some group they now identify with to claim present injustice. That may be a similar siege mentality, but where are gays or other Dems getting punished by the gov't for peacefully practicing their beliefs? Nowhere in America. No mobs of blackshirts stopping Dem or Socialist speakers on any campus; no Dems getting fired by Google for writing an internal letter questioning the assumption that Women and Men are essentially identical when it comes to coding.

The Reps are being attacked, including by gun wielding wanna-be murderers, for being Reps (like at practicing baseball, or mowing a lawn). The Dems are, not yet, being attacked. Pro-life, pro-Christian, pro-capitalist believing folk ARE, rightfully, in a siege mentality. That won't stop until the Dem & Dem press attacks, stop.

The purpose of gay marriage is to make Christianity illegal?

Dude, you’re off your meds.

Posts like this make me think we need to tighten up gun control laws.

People be crazy.

Dude, you’re off your meds.

No, he just understands his social world better than you do. There was no purpose to it but to reallocate recognition to the homosexual population and provide grounds for legal harassment of private parties who would not go along with the legal profession's virtue signalling scam.

The goal is not to make the practice of Christianity (and Islam, and othres) illegal, but to co-opt their institutions to support the State. But I wouldn't get too emotional, it's nothing new.

Chill out, Christians in the US are just spin-offs of older beliefs from Europe. They're part of Christianity but not Christianity itself.

Re: bakers get punished by gov’t because they don’t want to bake a cake to celebrate a sin-filled coupling

Get back to me when people start asserting a positive right not to engage in commerce with divorced-and-remarried people, or mixed-religion couples or the like.

Hmmm, the TLS books of the year.

It seems incontrovertible that one cannot browse through a series of mini reviews and recommendations without seeing a version of this sentence: “ ... reminding the anglophone world of what it owes to Islam.”

5(2) is fiction.

6a seems like a fair assessment. I don't feel any siege mentally this morning, but it seems a fair motivation for "Christian" support of Trump AND the safe space nonsense.

Too many are off fighting "final battles" rather than planting crops, mending roofs.

6b makes me happy I never voted for Bill Clinton. In the first round I thought George H.W. Bush was underrated. In the second I did actually make a decision tipped by Bill's immorality.

Of course the whole thing is tinged now by not just old Clinton stories, but new Bush ones.

I like the observation that elections are not courts. They, the courts, are responsible for determining what is criminal. We, as citizens, just have the responsibility to decide who should lead us.

I think there was a time when our expectations were too extreme, a sort of zero tolerance, as when having one off the books housekeeper (no W2) was enough to end political aspirations. Recently we have become too lax.

Is a return to zero tolerance necessary? It is not ideal in my opinion, but perhaps it is necessary.

#5 How many drones can it even carry?

Hypersonic flight becomes useless the moment any nuclear armed power says, If we ever see something coming at us that fast, we're going to assume it's nuclear armed and respond accordingly.

So what will you do about it? Try to intercept it with a missile? Not so easy, considering the top speeds of the missile systems we have are generally way lower than this guy...

Precisely because they cannot reasonably be intercepted, it needs to be clear to all parties concerned that launching a vehicle of this nature in the direction of a nuclear power could provoke a nuclear exchange.

Near the end of the Cold War, ballistic weapons capable of suborbital maneuvers (such that the launch parameters did not imply the target) were one of the lines of weapons development banned in the arms limitation treaties. The same rationale should foreclose hypersonic glide weapons capable of maneuvering: if there's uncertainty over where it lands, potential targets might assume the worst.

Re: hypersonic flight:

6a somehow Brooks missed the US foundational myth: people wishing to create a new society according to their religious ideals.

Since the US is so vast, people have kept moving to the frontier since 1620 looking for Utopia. It's about time that people learn to live with others instead of behaving like 16 yr old complaining about oppressive parents......errrr government.

Evidently the US wasn't so vast that the 17th century searchers for Utopia were able to find a place to establish it without the necessity of killing the existing inhabitants and taking their land.

Disease, not muskets, did most of the killing.

But demographics and de facto settlement was more important. European farmers massively outbred Amerindian hunter-gatherers. The actual killings barely changed the final population ratio from 20:1 to 21:1.

There is this, after all:

Interestingly enough, the post-civil war freed blacks saw fit to join the Union forces in driving the native Americans off their land in the west. Per wikipedia: "Sources disagree on how the nickname "Buffalo Soldiers" began. According to the Buffalo Soldiers National Museum, the name originated with the Cheyenne warriors in the winter of 1877, the actual Cheyenne translation being "Wild Buffalo." However, writer Walter Hill documented the account of Colonel Benjamin Grierson, who founded the 10th Cavalry regiment, recalling an 1871 campaign against Comanches. Hill attributed the origin of the name to the Comanche due to Grierson's assertions. The Apache used the same term ("We called them 'buffalo soldiers,' because they had curly, kinky hair ... like bisons") a claim supported by other sources.[3][4] Some sources assert that the nickname was given out of respect for the fierce fighting ability of the 10th Cavalry.[5] Still other sources point to a combination of both legends.[6] The term Buffalo Soldiers became a generic term for all black soldiers. It is now used for U.S. Army units that trace their direct lineage back to the 9th and 10th Cavalry units, whose service earned them an honored place in U.S. history. There is also a theory that they were called Buffalo Soldiers because the U.S. military created special regiments specifically used to exterminate herds of buffalo. The U.S. military, as part of their campaign in enacting genocidal strategies against American Indians throughout the plains of continent, removed buffalo in order to cut off American Indian food supply and force them into reservations/concentration camps."

East of the Mississippi and south of Canada the Native Americans were farmers, not hunter-gatherers.

Douthat: "[Democrats] had an opportunity, with Al Gore waiting in the wings, to show a predator the door and establish some moral common ground for a polarizing country."

That may be true of the Lewinski case specificially, but not of the entire littany of Clinton scandals. Most of the scandals emerged before the 1996 re-election. Recall Dole's, "Where's the outrage?" line. By that time, Dems had convinced themselves that every scandal allegation was the creation of a vast right-wing conspiracy (even if Hillary Clinton didn't utter that precise phrase publicly until 1998). Dems didn't want to jeopardize Clinton's re-election chances in 1996, so when deciding to apply the "Can I believe this?" vs. "Must I believe this?" standard, they decided to apply a Roy Moore supporter level "Must I believe this?" standard. They couldn't really flip right after the election without exposing their pre-election posture as purely partisan. This was especially true for Democratic-leaning media that didn't want to confirm Republican charges of media political biases.

Now, 20 years later, when Dems can safely throw the Clintons under the bus without jeopardizing the party, they are starting to do so. Even now, their so-called "re-examinations" are not really of the form, "Yes, our own political biases were the reason we defended Bill Clinton, and those of us in the media and academia should guard against such biases going forward." Instead, we get, "Gee, now that we are becoming more enlightened about sexual misconduct, we now see that we did not take male privilege seriously enough 20 years ago." What should have been a mea culpa turns into a self-affirmation, "We are even more right about the deep-seated role of privilege in our society than we thought." Actually, even by the 1980s, sexual relationships between a superior and subordinate were considered inappropriate, regardless of whether it was consensual. The superior's "position of power" exposed him back then, and exposes him now, to charges of sexual harassment. Attitudes about sexual harassment haven't changed recently. It has always been considered wrong since at least the 80s. What's changed is that the Dems political fortunes are no longer tied to the Clintons. The mainstream media's attitudes regarding their own political biases in their reporting, however, do not seem to be changing very much.

Other factors:

The economy was great.

Divided government was producing good (center to right) compromise (and the last budget surplus). He destroyed Welfare!

Even people right of center might have voted for Clinton to keep the good times going.

Times have changed. Now the Clintons are nothing but political baggage for all kinds of reasons. Whoever is running in 2020, wants them quiet, and maybe contained to a non-prime time convention speech.

they decided to apply a Roy Moore supporter level “Must I believe this?” standard.

Roy Moore supporters recognize a cheesy agitprop campaign orchestrated by the Washington Post even in you don't.

Re 6, the best examination of the Clinton impeachment is Richard Posner's An Affair of State (which Douthat oddly doesn't cite). Posner makes it clear that the attack on Starr as a righting kook and prude was baseless and a cynical attempt by Hill and her cronies to undermine Starr and his investigation. One of the facts which I had forgotten is that Clinton's assignations with Lewinsky in the oval office went on for close to two years -- it was a pattern of behavior that Clinton loyalists hid, not a single indiscretion. Though as Posner also makes clear Lewinsky was the predator with Bill often trying to avoid her and then trying to ship her off to Revlon when her lack of discretion started to raise eyebrows.

There may have been no predators. Bill may have been a horndog, and Monica may have been infatuated.

The problem with Douthat's rather forceful piece is that it argues from more certainty than any of us have.

Maybe Clarence Thomas saw some dust on a coke can and asked 'what is that' and his later accuser assumed he was making a pubic hair joke. Who knows?

Maybe Clinton was charmed by the charismatic young pepper pot (as they called her back in the day), and assumed his wife, who probably did not specifically discuss adultery with him, liked him enough to be fine with him taking a little fleeting pleasure where he could, and maybe he was stunned and taken aback when he realized that he was insufficiently beloved to avoid the consequences of an office romance gone bad. Dazed and confused is not a defense in most courts of law, of course. Who knows?

I do not think there is any doubt that the young Lewinsky really liked Clinton, poor sad young woman that she was. Douthat, and Starr, and Posner, and Brooks, simply are not (with the possible exception of Douthat) the sort of people I would expect to understand human nature - in the specific form of two people like the rich tall middle-aged man Clinton and the star-struck young beauty who later became famous, Monica Lewinsky - sufficiently well to have something definitively insightful to say (well, Starr might be, like Douthat, another exception if he had only quoted the Bible - particularly the Book of Proverbs - more often. Of course he couldn't do that, as a federal special prosecutor). Well, Posner probably understood very well what people think they are talking about when they talk about sex, when he wrote that book, but that is different. And Brooks is interesting frequently, so maybe his take was better than I would expect.

Douthat, and Starr, and Posner, and Brooks, simply are not (with the possible exception of Douthat) the sort of people I would expect to understand human nature –

OK, your expectations are foolish.

You are wrong, and you are probably not even the real Art Deco.

That being said, I would love to hear a defense for the proposition that Posner, of all people, understands the interactions between a powerful man and a beautiful woman. As for Starr, I explained that he could have shown that he understood human nature if he had been brave enough to rely on the Book of Proverbs, as he should have done (but did not do), being a person who publicly declares his Christianity. Finally, I know lots of people who remind me of Brooks. You cannot convince me that people like that really understand human nature. Unless you are clever enough to convince people that Salieri, not Mozart, was the real genius.

Go ahead, impress us all, fake Art Deco, or impress us all, real Art Deco.

Get all the help you want, and take all the time you want, fake Art Deco. Let me help you out to start: Posner does not respond to queries from strangers, I think , but lots of his former law clerks would be glad to pass along your request for help in your attempt to praise and explain his understanding (his correct understanding, if I read you right) of the relations between sinful man and sinful woman. Brooks responds to anonymous tweets, and probably would welcome an anonymous e-mail from a supporter. Starr, as a Christian, probably always responds to those who ask him questions about his faith. Douthat was the guy I thought might get it right, so he would probably be on my side.

please please respond my young friend fake art deco this reminds me of the days of my youth when i wondered, from one day to the next, what Calvin would say to Hobbes, or what Hobbes would say to Calvin, on some subject or other, the next day. Good times! Well if you don't respond, let me say i never expected much from the fake art decos of the world. So there's that.

or don't respond, fake or real art deco.

fake art deco: God loves us all. even - actually, especially, at this moment in time - you. Whatever anyone tells you, remember that. Because it is true, and the truth is powerful and important.

real art deco: seriously, after thousands of comments on this website in defense of that which is true, you decide it is a good idea to insult someone who said what I said, correctly, about poor old secular loser Posner and the foolish Trollopean Brooks and about Starr, who decided not to cite to the Bible when he should have? Just say you are sorry. It doesn't matter to me but it will make you feel better.

Or better yet, do your best and tell me why I am wrong.

Posner is what he is. He loves his family and does not love, or take much interest in, specific people outside his family. Everybody who knows him knows that about him. I would love to be wrong about that, but I don't think I am. Brooks is what he is. A really smart midwit, and an admirable midwit, but, (and if you had read any of his books) a self-confessed midwit. (and people who confess to being midwits, by definition, have confessed to not caring about other people who are not midwits. And, given normal levels of energy, there is nothing worse than not caring about other people. Again, I would like to be wrong, but I probably am not). Starr is interesting. Me and him used to worship at the same church, back in the day. The preaching was very good, the music was almost celestial. He is a Christian, like me. But I guarantee this - he has never once claimed to truly understand people. I guarantee that he has never made such an outlandish claim. And if he has made such a claim, he would have been wrong. He did not cite to Proverbs when he should have. You know that. Disagree with me if you want, but the world is what it is. He did not cite to Proverbs when he should have. Not a sermon, just a thought. I would love to read s decent rebuttal to what I have said. What a world this would be if the Posners and the Starrs and the Brooks were, actually, people who understood and cared about other people in a profound and convincing way!

That is not this world. If it is, and I am wrong, please let me know why. The very choirs of heaven will rejoice at what you have to say.

Well, I tried. All of us should, more often, read and reflect on the verses of the Bible which are most instructive to us, while remembering, and while hoping to be helpful to, those of us who may, one day, be in need of our advice or our prayers. Feel free to have the last word, fake or real Art Deco: I will not read it. Remember to care, and say not to your brother, "'Raca"'. (Matthew, chapter five, verse twenty-two.) Every verse of the Bible, my poor angry friend, including that one, was written for our good and for our instruction. I too have said things I should not have said: God forgives, and loves us all.

“Though as Posner also makes clear Lewinsky was the predator with Bill often trying to avoid her and then trying to ship her off to Revlon when her lack of discretion started to raise eyebrows.”

What eyebrows! But yeah, a touch of Revlon never hurts.

rem acu tetigisti, Thor, as Jeeves used to say.

6a: Who knew that at The End of History everybody would be rocking some dipshit sandwich-board or another?

6b: Bill Clinton was pretty good at the job of President.

"6b: Bill Clinton was pretty good at the job of President."

Agreed that was his redeeming attribute. Reagan was pretty good at the job too. Unfortunately we live in an age when the number of people who recognize the truth of both those statements is fairly low.

The problem is not the siege "mentality." The problem is the siege!

The leaders of North Korea and Iran knows that at the first opportunity we will bomb their countries into the ground and their families will be sodomized to death like Qaddafi in Libya.
Conservatives in the west don't face quite as imminent a doom, but the left is on track to demographically replace us and the clock is winding down.

There's also one conspicuous absence from Brook's list: the Jews. If any group can be said to suffer from a persecutory delusion, it's Brook's co-ethnics convinced we are living in 1930s Germany.

libs throwing clinton under the bus is pure power politics, that douthat is just now doing so suggests he too is a cosmopolitan lib, not an actual conservative. he wouldn't have a position at the paper of record otherwise.

as one would expect you'll find 0 libs acknowledging that the republicans were correct in their moral stance on clinton, rather the impeachment was but a cynical power play to get dems out of power. take a look at the nyt comments and gauge for yourself. it just happens to be that the moral depravity of clinton wasnt revealed until hollywood's was uncovered as well. read well enough between the lines and you'll find that feminists want what women have always wanted, they've understandably realized that their supposed masters aren't masculine enough to give it to them. expect womens lib to turn into a conversion to islam in the next 10 years.

2. I don't know much about the daily lives of academic economists--they don't make that much money anyway, so who cares--but in law and finance, time demands come from clients, and the only way to structure the job around those demands is to throw the extra work on to other people. If you think the single women in our office are willing to give up their weekends to help out their sisters with children, think again.

Comments for this post are closed