Thursday assorted links

1. Robin Hanson wants to publish tax returns.

2. How to charm Trump, Japanese style?

3. University rejects call to fire Camille Paglia.

4. Jennifer Doleac, first episode of Probable Causation podcast: “Episode 1 is now available! talks about the intergenerational effects of Head Start on criminal behavior.”

5. Paul Krugman markets in everything, this one seems to be for real.

6. SMBC comic version of Stubborn Attachments.

7. *Big Business* podcast with Jonah Goldberg.



As we speak, 1,200 ninnies have signed this petition. Since the 'University of the Arts' (formerly Philadelphia College of Performing Arts) has only 1,800 students, I would hope they're getting those signatures from the outside.

The roach / provost at Middlebury just cancelled a lecture by a Polish philosopher in deference to these types. Academe is shot through with people who are damaged goods, and more than a few are in gatekeeper positions.

Looking out I saw a great path, a way forward, arrayed like a clump of mirrors, alight in the stretched stench of patience, a bit slumped and shouldered and laborious and untoward, an unforeseen bandwidth that finally penetrated my circumstance.

And they’ll come for you too, enjoyable as you are, little faux Nabokov.

for the record, nabokov himself was usually faux nabokov. The best 10 percent of a good writers lifelong output is really good the worst 10 percent of a good writers lifelong output is usually horrible,

so few of us are what we are - even Shakespeare confounds the willing theater season package subscriber by pretending to be more exercised by the thought of jealousy and intellectual short fallings than he really was ...
he did not care all that much about Othello and Iago, Macbeth and his ugly wife, Rosalind and her boring beaux ---- he did care about some things. If you like good language and that is why you read Shakespeare you might miss the fact that the really did not care about much in this world ---- he liked to be entertained, he liked to win in competitions of wit, and he did not want anyone trying to make his wife hanker after them.
Just like so many of us ......
There is no world championship for being able to talk the most like a Shakespeare character who never lived and was never portrayed ---- and anyone who would even think for a moment that such a competition could be entered into would be instantly disqualified, as someone who had too little respect for their own gifts --- but if there were such a competition, and if there were some way to get it going without being overwhelmed by the ambitious among us ------

there, my friends, you might see what is a real and unforeseen bandwidth.

in the 70s I knew how to code. Gave it up.
in the 80s I worked minimum wage on a dictionary. Gave it up.

In 2027 I won a little prize - a little blue ribbon - for almost successfully teaching my platinum checked AI bot to talk like Shakespeare might have talked if he had been born in Utica in 1990. (almost, I said - I am humble and accurate, and almost is not such a prideful word, in this context).

Just kidding about that prediction. Real art is personal ---- cor ad cor loquitur ---- and is just an echo of what is really going on in this world ----- the participation of human beings in the sub-creation of aspects of a world that was created long before any of us were born.
May you have a blessed Easter, and may you remember that it is ok to feel near unlimited joy at Christmas ----- who does not like it when a baby is born to parents who are good people? ---- but even on Easter morning, remember that however happy you may personally be when you are resurrected to live a life of eternal happiness, it was only 2 or 3 days ago that someone who cared very much about you experienced a very bad day.
I don't know about you but I can't be super happy, no matter how good the news I hear is, if I hear the news just a couple days after a dear friend has died. Even if the dear friend is the person with the happy news.
As always, if I say anything that does not make sense, my excuse is that I have memorized Proverbs 8 and I consider my goal to be a commentary thereon ..... which can be confusing, I get that. Sorry!!!

to be fair I can't imagine being loved by a woman and worrying that she will fall in love with someone else ...

God has been good to me that way

cor ad cor loquitur

that such a competition. well in "abstract expressionism" the artist speaks in totality, sometimes tectonic, but usually geometric. Geometry is after all a wholistic science in a way that algebra cannot be. agonism has no professorial coercion, no matter how much the reverend in Cormac mcarthy's blood meridian thinks the bloodlust of manifest destiny is the same the change of bloodlust inside one. there is great nuance in insolvency, such that i'm happy trading my actual memories for memories from the movies.

yes but how many artists know this: God created geometry and algebra as shining truth of creation and artists were created by God to help creation go further - all those skaters on those old nearly infinitely distant and sad but happy and comfortable Netherlandish paintings of skaters on winter ice, even poor Rembrandt, friendless and unloved, but who know how to draw a better portrait than any one had known how to draw before - how fucking sad must that have been, to be literally friendless and have so much talent at furthering creation? by painting portraits, of all things that a friendless person would be good at????

One in three? (the geometry of triangles still has undiscovered proofs and attributes that talented housewives continue to discover ....)

One in a thousand, one in a million? (sorry for the blatant reference to algebra and exponential numbers)

the answer is this ----- God created each of us to be brave and kind if you are brave and kind the memories You create will make eternity itself Humble.....

well also you need to follow the Ten Commandments, and not to be the sort of person who takes advantage of other people. The rest of it takes care of itself.

and for this I gave up coding in the 1970s, and all that being good at coding would have offered

if you don't like to reread the point was that someone once painted Rembrandt in a crowd, skating on old Netherlandish ice;

and that there is no worse fate than deciding not to try any more to understand braveness and kindness and the 10! commandments!

On purpose, I misspelled " knew" (as in "Rembrandt knew how to draw a better portrait")
for "know" : (as in "skaters on winter ice know how to draw a better portrait").

Some day I will get the trick of this writing thing.
I am sure that the "Know" for "Knew" substitution did not work, at all, until this explanation.
Even though I really liked the thought of every single one of those skaters being better portrait painters than any one who had lived before them.


"1) Camille Paglia should be removed from UArts faculty and replaced by a queer person of color."


Unintentional self-parody is my favorite.

She is already queer or, as I prefer, gay. She has a color, the same as mine: white. And, apparently unlike most professors, she is highly intelligent. Self-parody indeed.

2. Of course, it isn't even pretense that there is anything deeper going on. That means the GOP has a real 2020 problem. If your defense is "he's an idiot, what do you expect?" why would anyone want more? Of him or the party he rode in on.

Presumably because whomever the Democrats will offer as an alternative will come attached with disastrous policies.

Of course, in the end it will only come down to random economic fluctuations.

That is certainly the definition of partisan answer, that any Democrat is worse than this demonstrated failure.

But elections are not decided by partisans.

Survey says ..

Poll: Majority of Americans say they will "definitely not" vote for Trump's reelection

A majority didn't even vote from him last time. It matters if that majority lives in the right places and goes to the booth, and if they don't, it doesn't.

lol, "winning?"

Democrats are definitely underestimating Trump's chances in 2020. In 2012 the Republicans were completely convinced Obama had no shot. Feels like that is happening again, now to the other side. Most of the contenders for the Democrat nomination probably lose to Trump if the economy is still humming.

I think people are resting entirely too much on the "economic rule."

Like that's the only one there is.

There are other rules too: the taller candidate wins, the deeper voiced candidate wins, the incumbent has an advantage, the electoral college favors the Republicans, the more charismatic candidate wins, etc.

Most of the 'rules' favor Trump right now. All I'm saying is don't be Karl Rove in 2012.

I nice list with "best candidate" carefully omitted.

That's what makes today funny.

Everything is apology when you look inside the claim.

Why should this man be president?

He's taller!

So, I guess Trump was the 'best candidate' in 2016? Do you really think presidential elections are rational contests of competing policy prescriptions?

Look, obviously I don't care what you think, but you are being very naive. Trump has an excellent chance of re-election, and if the Democrats nominate one of the many stiffs running, he probably wins.

I rang the panic bell right up through the election of 2016 precisely because I did understand who Trump was.

I certainly got feedback during that time that some understood, but did not care. Still, they were not the whole Trump vote. It is important to remember that some people did buy the genius businessman, who was a great negotiator, who would drain the swamp.

How exactly do you make that case now, for those voters? If your only argument now is "you knew I was a snake," I think you lose.

Some of you might vote for a snake with eyes open, but not enough.

This comment is hilarious in its solipsism.

You're probably right. Trump has no chance.

How exactly do you make that case now, for those voters?

Well, his approval rate for over a year has been steady freddie in the low 40's. If you think a big chunk of Trump voters regret having voted for him and are ready to defect, I think you have to explain why his approval ratings aren't lower, particularly among Republicans.

"Why should this man be president?"

Because he won.

Sorry you are so butt hurt about it.

Have you tried counseling? Sometimes all you need is an empathetic ear.

Remember want your hero's (Hillary) rapist husband said, "it's the economy, stupid!"

It's the economy, stupid!

I think the words "demonstrated failure" don't mean what you think.

Because Anonymous and all are so heavily brainwashed (products of public school indoctrination and the higher education apocalypse) they cannot see the party is led by insane people.

Just think how much this could do to rebuild your self-respect:

Non Sequitur

I’m so old I can remember when you liberal lunatics [redundant] told us we must accept the results of the Mueller investigation.

Rats have higher self-respect. They know when to abandon a sinking ship.

The highlights are dribbling out, and I would say they support my long-standing positions.

"The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion." Part I, page 9

You must have a short memory then.

Your long-standing position was that Trump took part in a conspiracy with the Russian government, and was essentially a Russian intelligence asset a la The Manchurian Candidate.

It’s a long way from there to purchasing Facebook ads and presumably releasing emails to WikiLeaks.

That's complete b.s.

I mean it is Sarah Sanders level fabrication.

A thought experiment: Since Republicans seem now systematically softer on Russia than Democrats, it's likely that even if you get a less Trumpish figure in charge of future Rep campaigns, their campaign will still be backed by cyber ops from the Kremlin.

Now, if, say, Bill Weld ends up getting backed by the Kremlin troll farm against some Democrat, will you call him "Putin's guy", even if there's no collusion between his campaign and Russia? Will you make the same claims about "deep shared interests"?

If not, it's hard to see those claims as anything more than mere confirmation bias (you've decided that's the case to discredit a politician you don't like, and then you're doubling down on it even if evidence of collusion is absent).

Boy, you really don't understand what just happened.

If Bill Weld gets offered illegal assistance (and foreign aid to campaigns is illegal in the US), I'd expect him to do what all previous R and D candidates did.

Contact the FBI.

"... and foreign aid to campaigns is illegal in the US..."

That should have eliminated the Billary campaigns, but then again ... tribalism.

So your claim is now that the money was Russian?

Because that's a new claim as far as I know; the usual claims are that the Russians released information (wiki leaks) and used online astroturf to drum up support for Trump, not that they openly funded his campaign. There is a silence over anyone going after the guy under campaign finance laws, and was even when the "collusion" thing was in play. That doesn't seem like anyone else shares the idea that campaign finance rules were breached.

Well, one assumes everyone accepts this, as a demonstrated baseline based on the best information available to Mueller (and a conclusion also shared and confirmed by Barr) - 'Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.'

Yep, our president is the guy that Putin worked to help put into office - congratulations all round, right?

Indeed. "Putin has won."

Well we knew we had an adversary in Putin; Mitt Romney tried to bring this up before he was mocked and shut down by Obama. And certainly Trump is not against having adversarial relationships, lol, but I think he came to power asking: “well, why do we have an adversarial relationship with Putin, and is it in our national interest?”

Mitt thought Russia was a conventional threat, and wanted more warships.

Invading Crimea was conventional even if they didn't wear proper uniforms.

The not wearing uniform part, the pretense of these were non-state actors, seems pretty asymmetrical to me.

I love watching you thrash about! Lol! Please don't stop!

Always Google first.

And use "hybrid war" or "ambiguous wrs" as well.

It would do no such thing. Every Republican candidate since 1960 has been literally-Hitler and Weld would fare no better with the Left against Harris, Sanders or Biden. It is long past time for the Republicans to practice actual politics rather than pontificating impotently about ideology. Trump is a proven winner against the entire bureaucratic, academic and media Establishments.

Weld also apparently worries that Bill Barr got out his white-out and his Smith-Corona and frantically typed in a "no" before "evidence of collusion with Russia" in the Mueller report. I deduce from this that Weld is a goofball who has no idea how the world works.

Weld was once U.S. Attorney in Boston and later chief of the Criminal Division of the DoJ. He knows how this particular world works. Assume he's lying his tuchus off.


Regarding Weld, as someone once said, "well he would say that, wouldn't he". Weld has to win in Massachusetts, so he would say that, wouldn't he?

You're both brainwashed. The right now thinks that because Trump won an election by the skin of his teeth, and says a lot of things that offend leftists (along with the majority of normal people), that he's some sort glorious right-wing hero. Because pissing people off = victory!
The left now believes that socialism is cool and that Bernie Sanders can win the election and provide everyone with free college, even as Venzeuela collapses into a post-apocalyptic nightmare.

Seriously, both groups live in a bizarro land alternate reality. In reality Trump is an incompetent asshole and Republican voters deserve a chance to vote for someone else.

But that won't happen because tribal loyalty will not allow it to. Because partisan loyalty forces Republicans to brainwash themselves into believing that Trump is a great President and concoct idiotic conspiracy theories to explain away all the retarded shit he's said and done. And because winning is everything, and they're afraid to bet on anyone else at this point. And then in the general election, someone will whip up the hysteria about the Democrats (who will undoubtably nominate an awful candidate), and get all the Republicans to vote for him again, because they have to. And it worked last time, so why shouldn't it work again?

As long as people are so committed to their political tribe that they will vote for it out of fear, or just to get revenge on, the other side, then neigther party has to actually nominate a half decent candidate, and all the election will be decided by whatever random economic fluctuations make each side's partisans slightly more hysterical than average in a given year.

This is the saddest and truest thing

It was a common fear, immediately after Trump's victory, that the left would go "as crazy."

We won't really know that until the first primaries. To my eye the moderates are still strong.

Sure they are.

Name one. I’d love to agree with you. The Dems are heading off the cliff, unless maybe that Minnesota pol or Mayor Pete pulls enough voters.

A Harris-led Harris/Warren ticket would be

1) smart

2) sane

3) relatively mainstream

4) and nicely opposite-Trump

But obviously I am an anybody but Trump voter. I might choose Romney over Sanders, if it came to that. Some matchup between younger, saner, smarter Rs and Ds would be preferred.

Ooooooo! I hope we get Harris/Pocahontas!!!! Lol!

(It is kind of a thing that Democratic moderates call themselves "capitalists.")

The moderates lost control of the party years ago. It's Sanders and the Hate Whitey Brigade in the driver's seat now, boy-o.

Surely this says more about who you are than you know.

Is that he knows stuff and you don't

"Hate Whitey Brigade?"

The definition of "bizarro alternate reality land" would be actually more like a) believing that a candidate with libertarian policies could win, b) believing that a candidate with libertarian policies should win, and that c) everyone wants a candidate with libertarian policies, "false consciousness" just makes them believe that they don't!

I am under no illusion that Americans secretly want to vote for a libertarian.
My biggest delusion, circa 2016, was thinking that in a year where both major party candidates with incompetent assholes, that a libertarian could crack 5% of the vote.
Sadly, it turned out that even many self-identified "libertarians" would rather vote for Trump than a libertarian, because Hillary. Which just proves my last paragraph above. It works EVERY TIME. All they have to do is whip up the partisan fear of the Democrat or the Republican, and everyone falls into line, and votes for the major party candidate on their "side". Every goddamn time. Even when people hate the guy they are voting for, they still do it.

Don't fall in the trap that "because I can imagine a Democrat as bad as Trump, it has already happened."

That's fear and imagination based politics.

I'm not voting for a Democrat just because Trump is worse either.

Say what?

You don't see voting for the least bad electable(!) candidate as your duty? That's the mistake that got us here.

And for what it's worth I think it is pure egotism, voting for your feels rather than the national welfare. Step outside yourself, and up, to enlightened self-interest.

You and Hazel deserve each other 💓 - desperate and delusional.

It's been 3 years of fun! To think, after Nov. 2008 I thought it was all over. There is still much Obamadamage to fix, but we are heading in the right direction.

The judiciarry will be a joy to behold for decades!

And you think you are butt-hurt now? Just wait!

Engaging with her on her duty to vote for the least worst candidate after she has begun this comment thread on the premise that this is exactly what people should not do, without so much as acknowledging her argument in her original premise, is certainly a good way to show off your political instincts, anonymous.

Why shouldn't they? People who were never slaves are already dreaming up reparations from people who never owned slaves on the rationale that white people are oppressive by virtue of existing.

You're bringing a toy knife to a gun fight and here I thought libertarians were gun owners. Apparently they're just effete ideologues with no intention of living in reality.

Trump is no right-wing hero, would that he were, but why would I vote for someone who thinks I have too much economic and political clout and wants to take it away from me? And by the same token, why would I vote for anyone whose only response to the Left is to weep and moan about principled principletarianism?

"Of course, in the end it will only come down to random economic fluctuations."

Yes, as always when an incumbent is involved.

Election held in 1993, Clinton loses because the 1990 recession recovery already well under way.

Seriously, the best thing Republicans and conservatives could do for themselves at this moment would be the pile into the Bill Weld camp right now.

As a bonus, it also puts country first.

You’re free to write his name in, as you have always been.

The amazing thing is that you are too partisan to see that I'm trying to help.

Is it really that much of a cult of personality at this point?

Are Republicans at once convinced that they can offer no one better, and that even considering it as a betrayal?

I’m too partisan ?

I’m not even a Republican. Or a Trump voter.

Try again.

Then why on Earth would you take to the pages of the internet to be Anti Bill Weld?

Why would you want Republicans to support Trump over Weld?

Please provide an example of me taking “to the pages of the internet to be Anti Bill Weld?”

As I’ve said, if you’d like to write his name in you are free to do so.

You seem to have issues with reading comprehension.

So if we decode this, you are kind of like Trump. You react emotionally. You see me say something good about Weld, and you just have to push back, because that's what you feel.

Maybe step up next time and think about civic responsibility and the best course for the nation.

I haven’t pushed back in any way whatsoever.

This is the third time I’ve reminded you, you are free to write in Bill Weld’s name on your ballot if he is your preferred candidate.

I do, however, doubt that you will cast a vote for him come the election.

Like write-in is all any of us can or should ever do ..

I will ask you directly, would Bill Weld be a better president for the United States than Donald Trump?

I'll answer. No! He would not be a better president than Trump.

Actually, Trump is a pretty good president, much better than Obama.

He starts out strong ""Confidence in our leaders and in our institutions is at the heart of our democracy. That confidence has been shaken. "

But it's the FBI, CIA, DOJ ect that have shaken our confidence. He says he trusts Mueller, but doesn't like his report. Weld's all over the place, his rhetoric has no unifying theme except the 'he doesn't like Trump ' whine.

Buddy, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, that you just need 72 hours, to process this 24 hours of new information.

Only a liberal Republican dodo bird circa 1970s would support Bill Weld for president.

The Republicans had a lot of better candidates in 2016, and they rejected them all, some for pretty stupid reasons. "Low energy."

You don't have to like Weld, but find someone.

Show that you are an actual political party, and not reduced to a cult of (losing) personality.

I will vote in the Republican primary for the best candidate who is not Donald Trump. At the moment that is Bill Weld, but if somebody better like Mitt Romney shows up, I will vote for him instead. And there are a lot of people like me who want moderately conservative Republican governance but also demand decency, honesty, dignity, and intelligence from the leader of the free world.

The yahoos in your party will overwhelmingly nominate Trump and quite possibly get him re-elected.

Here is an insight you can take to the bank:

You know all that "no collusion!" shouting Trump did? It was not targeted at progressives. It was aimed at the base. It was all so that when this moment came, the base would be committed, and see no other way than to stick with Trump.

Don't be that base. Read the Mueller Report. Even with redactions, it's enough. Trump is Putin's fool, and once is enough.

Yes, let's vote for Bernie so that he can go commiserate with Putin that the demise of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster.

So give me someone better than Bernie on the Republican side.

Brains and honesty both plusses.

Reagan couldn't defeat Ford. Kennedy couldn't defeat Carter. You're displaying your usual cluelessness if you think that any other Republican can defeat Trump.

Not with that attitude they won't.

Jeez, just read Trump's tweets just this morning. The poor dumb guy still doesn't understand what just happened, and still can't put together a rational plan for his own welfare.

He says the problem was just that the Mueller investigation was "angry democrats." Still.

Here's a poser for you; what has Russia got out of the years since 2016 so far? Their trajectory of power looked better under Obama.

For example, a dissenting opinion counter yours (Russia have achieved goals via getting Trump in) -

'Anonymous donations are a tiny fraction of charity overall, and protecting rich folks from being bothered by charity requests seems a pretty small consideration.'

Strange how there is no mention of how useful secrecy can be for donors, such as in the case of renaming a public law school, without informing the taxpayers (or the university itself, for that matter) who was behind the money.

Almost as if anonymity in such a case has nothing to do with individuals associated with the Federalist Society from 'being bothered by charity requests.'

But one assumes that Prof. Cowen is intimately familiar with other reasons to keep donations anonymous. As noted in connection with the renaming - 'In August 2017, in response to records requests, the administrator of the mystery money was revealed to be a company called BH Fund, a “501(c)(4) Virginia nonstock corporation.” Allison Pienta, the alumna of the law school who filed for the documents, discovered that BH Fund’s president is Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, a highly political organization of conservative lawyers that has dozens of university chapters and tries to impact federal judge selection. BH Fund’s secretary and treasurer is Jonathan Bunch, vice president and director of external relations at the Federalist Society. Leo and his society represent the anonymous donor and make sure the law school is adhering to that donor’s wishes. .... In the newly released emails between Federalist Society leaders, the dean of the law school and other top officials plot out additional ways to use the donation, communicating about a “five-year plan” for the law school and candidates for new professorships, potential students and judicial clerk positions.

The documents make it clear that, through their roles at BH Fund, top Federalist Society officials are intimately involved in the inner workings of the Antonin Scalia Law School, an arrangement that appears to contradict how the agreement was presented to faculty in 2016. The arrangement also appears to contradict what George Mason University President Ángel Cabrera told the university community on Friday evening after other donor agreements involving the Charles Koch Foundation and the Mercatus Center, an on-campus, free-market think tank, were made public.'

As this is a public choice economics associated web site, it should come as no surprise that the secrecy was also used to allow public officials to present inaccurate information while furthering the goals of the anonymous donors.

I hope there are good psychiatrists in Deutcheland. Go see one.

“A highly political organization of conservative lawyers that has dozens of university chapters and tries to impact federal judge selection.” Exactly what is the crime here? Conservative? Chapters on campuses? Tries to impact federal judge selection? What is wrong with any of these damning phrases? Do the Kochs infect the world with conservative Ebola? This obsession with Cowen and the Mercatus center is unhealthy.

3. The good guys can win. Hang in there.

#2 I guess fascist birds flock together. So that is why Americans fought and died in Iwo Jima, Saipan and Luzon. I am happy Mr. Truman is dead and can't see it.

The "Cuck" guy's comments are funnier and more intelligent.

Is there intelligent life on the Left? We have no evidence for it.

"Beam me up, Scotty."

I am not leftist. I support President Captain Bolsonaro, who opposes the Left. His son, Mr. Eduardo Bolsonaro has been invited by Mr. Bannon to be a part of his anti-Establishment Movement. However, Brazil opposes Japanese Fascism. Brazilian soldiers fought against the Axis to free the world from Totalitarism, the same Totalitarism Americans support in Japan and Red China. I repeat it, I am happy Mr. Truman can not see Americans mingling with fascists.

My 16 month-old granddaughter gets a kick out of this 'conversation,' which rises in volume.




Where? "Brazilian soldiers fought against the Axis to free the world from Totalitarism (sic) , . . ." Although, you guys couldn't have done worse than Chileans against the Brits in the Falkland Islands.

It was the Argentinians who fought the Brits in the Falklands. Brazil crushed the Paraguayan invader in the 1860s and helped liberating Italy from the Nazist invader in the 1940s.

1. I am not sure Robin Hanson weighed crime versus crime. While this might improve tax compliance, certainly it would help criminals find their marks.

Whether we are talking cybercrime or home invasion, full transparency would take a lot of uncertainty out of it.

Doesn't seem like a big margin of gain over, like, them just looking on your linkedin or at your big house? Other than perhaps it helps you identity the people dealing in cash. Maybe it would make would be Robin Hoods target tax evaders a bit more though.

That's at least testable though - if that's an issue, you'd see it in the Nordics however, while if it doesn't happen, that objection can be safely dispensed with.

They pick the houses on the street with a recent refurb, or with new cars.

That is obviously more work and more time intensive than scanning a database.

Seems like they're gonna need to do recon anyway to see if there are any goods they can thieve, so I'm not seeing the time saving by looking up an income on a database.

I seem to remember that criminals are already paying for lots of database lists.

A list of names, addresses, and incomes is a lot more direct than stolen credit card data.

"The research shows that personal information is valuable to identity thieves, and if they can get access to it, they will use it."

To extent your issue exists in reality, there's a mitigating step - -

"The fact that anonymous searches are no longer permitted discourages criminals from searching for wealthy people to target.

And yet, the restrictions introduced in 2014 have not stopped whistleblowers reporting things they find suspicious.

"We like people to do searches which could help us in investigating tax evasion and the amount of tips that we get has not gone down," he says."

No doubt there's some tradeoff, it just doesn't seem as much of an advantage as I believe you think it is (or would like to argue it is, even if you don't believe it).

File under "Notes From the Education Apocalypse."

Plus, you guys are all talk. If you don't think the government gets enough money, send in some more.

April 15, the day millions of Americans evolve into novelists.

The proposal will not resolve the largest form of tax evasion (federal, state and local) - the cash economy. Most illegal invaders, and the felons that employ them, are paid in unreported cash.

Note to academics: the IRS checks the arithmetic/numbers on almost all returns and uses "speed-of-light" IT to identify outliers - say nonstandard ratio of AGI to due taxes or total itemized deductions to AGI.

But, but, but [sputter] character assassinations (See the lies on Justice Kavanaugh) of all disagreeing political appointees/nominees haven't worked.

It's another means to quell political opponents.

Clintons and Obama already used the CIA, DoJ, FBI, IRS, etc. as political weaponry.

The Russia collusion coup attempt didn't work. Orange Man bad!

Rats are smarter. They know when to desert a sinking ship.

One could imagine a public tax system where everyone is given a public ID, privately. Then politicians or anyone else could choose to share their ID. You could even do something fancy with expiring keys.

We could have a much more public tax database without the ability to reverse lookup anyone.

That sounds better indeed.

3. See? It's possible to just say no, and move on. Student activists are not in control of professors' livelihoods. Administrators simply need to grow some balls (or ovaries, or something).

+1 Same just happened with the whiners about Kavanaugh teaching.

That presupposes that administrators as a group are not among the idiots who like the idea of censoring "offensive" speakers. As impossible as it may see, administrators are further to the left than professors:

1. There are penumbras and there are penumbras, but the right to keep one's income private is a penumbra I support. Men of a certain age (that would include me) are often asked if we (the first person in my case) have the wealth to support the highly ambitious woman asking the question in the lifestyle to which she would very much like to become accustomed. The lies to which I have become accustomed lay bare the character of the (this) man. Will the lie or the truth set one free (for the evening anyway) or on the path of financial ruin and humiliation? Are little white lies by little old men really lies? Facing moral questions like this in old age builds character. And the possibility of a memory. Are we really going to deny men of a certain age the freedom to tell the lie that is appropriate in the circumstances?

On the internet, nobody knows you're a snake.

Unless you tell them over and over.

Number 3 get the prize for anti-tautology:

"Biology has been programmatically excluded from women's studies and gender studies programs for almost 50 years now"

"Biology ...excluded ..." Sanity too!

1. Robin Hanson wants to publish tax returns.

No comment on publishing tax returns, but I can find a simpler economic model than his.

My simple model says we do not wait in long lines. I think it is the simplest micro/macro economic model out there.

Robin Hanson should release all his tax returns, including his children’s (if any) and spouse’s (if any) names and social security numbers. If he does so, we’ll be able to observe whether (1) he or any of his family members benefits or (2) there is a net economic benefit to the world. It’s so damn easy to sit at a computer and make stuff up.

2. On Trump and the Northeast Asians, I do wonder how much developed Northeast Asian countries look at Trump in contrast to Bush and see a relatively "normal" leader. ("Normal" in his goals despite his obvious idiocies).

The guy moves US conservatism back to an agenda dominated by America First, military non-interventionism, and strong and tough stances on migration, international trade and national security.

All fairly mainstream within the policy set that Northeast Asian countries would pursue, and they're not particularly keen on free trade over protecting Japanese/South Korean/Taiwanese workers, etc.

Compare that to the dog's dinner of the Bush Era Conservatism: Free Trade+Jesus+Tax Evasion+Family Values+Neocon Interventionism. A heady brew of guns, religion, tax dodging, amoral familism ("a self-interested, family centric society which sacrificed the public good for the sake of nepotism and the immediate family"), selling your industries out to highest buyer and invading random countries for fairly ridiculous utopian reasons. It's so normalized that it's easy to miss how fairly freakish it is from a world perspective, even from a European perspective, let alone the perspective of developed East Asian nations.

And Trump's probably normal by their standards compared the open borders, massive welfare state, third world communist supporting, Russophobic goals that US liberals would try to institute.

For all that Americans see Trump as an odd and scary aberration, in many ways his policy orientation is more, well, normal for most of the world compared to what passed for US conservatism under Bush and still passes for US liberalism.

Indeed, Asia is a real eye opener. You realize that the assumptions your society are built on aren't the only ones, and that successful and at times even better societies can be built on different principles.

It doesn't have to be just North Korea, Trump's mentality would work very well if he was a sheikh in Saudi Arabia. The problem is that the USA and the rest of the Anglosphere is nothing like either of those countries and prefers a less authoritarian-minded government.

What a dumb response. "North Korea".

So sue me, I liked Bush and can't stand Trump. Bush hired just about every decent center right-leaning economist and stood for compassionate conservatism, something I can relate to and approve of. I don't care how this plays in Northeast Asia, which has a poor record of self-governance until recently.

Oh, if you're an upper middle class business conservative, and willing to ignore all the Christian Conservativism, and the Neocon adventurism, and the liberties eroding War On Terror, and the growing deficit, and the subprime mortgages, and its weakness on illegal immigration (Obama was probably tougher!).... Then maybe Dubya is your guy because he seems affable ("A guy I could have a beer with") and blandly kind to immigrants and is giving you what you want financially (those were fat, prosperous years for upper middle class professionals).

But from the perspective of how Northeast Asian countries are run, this is all a lot more bizarre and reckless, compared to the more familiar behavior of the Trumpian Nationalist Conservative resurgence. With its watchful eye on a rising China that it is willing to countenance confronting, and its at least notional concern for its working class, and its nominal preference to actually take measures towards preventing illegal immigration.

If they look at Dubya they'd also see a guy who is clearly dumber and lazier than Trump, though less crude and temperamental (but then they sort of expect Americans to be brash, impulsive and crude, don't they?).

I'd add (although it's not the point) that if Japan and South Korea are described as having a "poor record" of self governance, then that definition also certainly includes most of Europe too. It's hard to see how Japan has a poorer record of "self governance" than Germany or South Korea than Italy or Spain.

3. University of the Arts? How did she end up there (she joined a predecessor, the Philadelphia College of the Performing Arts, in 1984). From the link: "Paglia is a target because of her statements criticizing some women who bring charges of sexual assault, and because of her comments about transgender people." As to the latter, isn't Paglia transgender? As for the former, Paglia has said she doesn't identify as a woman, so, well, of course she wouldn't be sympathetic to the Me Too feminist movement. But again, why is she on the faculty at the University of the Arts? Did Cowen ask that question when he interviewed her and I don't remember?

1. She's on the faculty for the same reason anyone's on a faculty. She applied for an open position, was hired, and later granted tenure.

2. She's female and never sought to pretend otherwise. She's also bisexual. She has never married.

3. She's employed to teach humanities courses, which the students take to fulfill distribution credits.

4. Cowen didn't have to ask her these questions because there is no mystery to solve.

#3 Right Wing / Intellectual Dark Web Hoax / Ecosystem petition? Isn't that the same vehicle that once generated millions of signatures to bring Brian the dog back from death on Family Guy?

Here's how the racket works:
1. You're a tired intellectual, troll the extreme left, collect views on YouTube and $$$ from Patreon.
2. Get someone on the extreme left to do something.
3. Generate 'crises', go to #1.

Meanwhile in the real world the actual college shrugs and says they aren't firing someone over a petition that could have just as easily been signed by bots rather than people.

I think this is less a 'filter bubble' than a reality bubble. There are people who think social media is a tool for action in the real world and a larger number of people who think social media is the real world and collecting followers, likes, retweets etc. represents an actual score rather than being a substitute for a score.

I thought it went like this:

1. Be a radical teenage feminist lesbian in the early 1960s.
2. Get a serious education so you know a lot of stuff.
3. Write groundbreaking works on human sexuality.
4. Teach what you've learned for 30 years.
5. Get attacked as a right-wing stooge by morons.

Perfect - nothing more need be added.

Dr. Paglia is not at fault when jack-wagons circulate stupid petitions and sign them. (She isn't at fault when other jack-wagons attempt to bill her for this because said jack-wagons are dishonest by default).

ATTENTION: I will complain until there's no more nonsense on social media. Furthermore, I will also complain until there's no more nasty things written in bathroom stalls. This is a good use of time.

To be fair according to the article she dismissed the petition as a publicity stunt. I'm sure Jordon Peterson would have used it to collect another $100K. Hermain Cain would have probably used it to collect email accounts to peddle erection pills.

I agree. I love Camille Paglia, but she's still has her position, as near as I can tell. There's no story here. On the other hand, there's a petition going around campus, I hear, demanding changes in the Coop salad policy. Now that's news.

lol, modern "left" playbook:
1) Encounter anything, anything at all, that doesn't conform to a radical social justice movement goal
2) Claim it lacks "intellectual rigour", whatever easy pass given to random BLM / radfem / postcolonialist etc. propaganda on their intellectual bonafides.
3) Repeat until discredited.
4) Dismiss any evidence of SJW / "activist" conformity as "right wing propaganda" no matter how prevalent and how many peopel experience as reality, while "white supremacists" are constantly hyped, no matter how limited the numbers, or how much any given group fails to conform to basic tenets of that description, and how rarely ever encountered are people who wish to be part of such a movement.

Paglia far predates the IDW, Twitter or Patreon. There is no way to say that she's emerged due to some kind of attempt to raise money. You're showing your own foolishness by making this assumption.

Paglia emerged in the 90s and has *always* been famous for attacking any and every orthodoxy. She's survived decades of attempts to get her removed (often from the religious right, in fact). Arguably, this is probably the *real* reason she's being defended--she's been attacked so much that everyone is just used to defending her.

Seriously, your local women's study major has certainly read her, if only to find reasons to reflexively reject her every though and suck up to the superior faculty.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying. I'm not saying Paglia set up the petition as a type of publicity stunt to manufacture a call to action by her fans (although I don't doubt for a second some of the PC crises we see are in fact just that). I think the petition was as real as it could be. And a petition is about as real as something written on a bathroom stall. The spinning of the petition is what I think is more interesting to look at here, and I'm not saying Paglia was spinning it.

3. Sadly Paglia's eccentric speech detracts from her written ideas, which have been and continue to be valuable commentary on contemporary culture. The aberrant sex brigades need to be kept on the margins, Someone that claims to be a female must possess ovaries rather than a female self-image.

Forgotten in all this silliness are the small number of people with genuine physically indefinite sexual characteristics, the hermaphrodites. Who is standing up for them?

#4...It was very good.

Hey TC, did you ask Goldberg about his bleeding edge weekly 'zine' he's making?

I heard it's going to be focusing on being anti-Trump, pro-Neocon, and pro-Israel! All under-served segments of the market.

Who's stagnating now!!

He's also being a contrarian by publishing in print while showing samples of each week via a geocities website .

According to the 9th ed. of Carson and Butcher's Abnormal Psychology textbook, college students sometimes have been known to engage in a practice called "reality testing". I suspect that a fair amount of the nutty things some of them do can be diagnosed as "reality testing", of course, enhanced by media's need to have something ludicrous to attract readers with. I do not mean to suggest that reality testing is abnormal, but rather on the contrary that what sometimes seems abnormal is not abnormal.
Or maybe, like Sarte's anti-hero in Nausea, they do wacky things to prove that they are free. Doing common-sense, high-probability productive things wouldn't prove that as effectively as stabbing your hand with a sharp blade or demanding a queer professor of color, or demanding to build a wall, drain the swamp, or open the borders.
Of course it's also true that some people are just crazy, according to Carson and Butcher.

Comments for this post are closed