Thought Control by Enforced Mendacity

One of the reasons PC is considered to be a facet of or even simply synonymous with cultural Marxism:
http://my-ear-trumpet.tumblr.com/post/45260346809/in-my-study-of-communist-societies-i-came-to-the

How to End-Run the Ripoff Machine

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323301104578255992379228564.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

 

In time, this may produce the tragic consequence of fewer communists--I mean professors--lounging away on tenure and spouting PC garbage. A few of their fellow fifth column buddies in the sprawling higher-ed bureaucracy might also find the end of the road. It may even come to pass in a generation or two that the only remaining campuses in America will be those focused on science and engineering, which require physical labs, or the truly elite schools, which can afford the outrageous expense.

En Bref

http://www.halfsigma.com/2012/10/homosexual-propaganda-campaign-working.html

Look at how young women have bought into this idea. Consent manufactured. Conformists par excellence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another Education Success--

--for black America: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/06/education/06atlanta.html I love that even the NY Times could not resist mentioning that the ringleader of this dystopian fiasco is currently on vacation in Hawaii--though, of course, the top to bottom blackness of those involved was blacked out. The Times' philosophy on race is that it is only mentioned to make whites look bad or minorities look good--otherwise it is racist to mention race. Orwell concisely termed this "doublethink"--an effective element of tyranny. And all this devolves, no doubt, from the religion of egalitarianism and the pressure on the shepherds of the lower orders to live up to it. Overmatched by nature and circumstance, they succumb to the temptation of mendacity--but, how clumsily they fashion their deceptions! Thus we have a natural hierarchy also in the art of lying and a correspondent division of labor. The socialists must tighten their discipline hereafter. Such grotesqueries are painful to all and may even undermine the brilliant, almost self-consistent line of lies dreamed up by the priests of political correctness.

Par for the Course

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/nyregion/13homes.html?_r=1&hp I wish I could say this report surprised me. But, when you put a unionized bureaucracy in charge of disabled people, most of whom have been abandoned by their families, this is exactly what I would expect to find: incompetent, unaccountable bureaucrats plus brutal, moronic employees and abused residents. And it's nice to see that the state government sat on its hands for decades to cater to the union. At least the NY Times gives the guilty organizations a fair public thwacking--credit's due--though they will never connect the dots and reveal to their readers that such a bureaucratized/unionized structure always gives rise to bad outcomes of one sort or another. Bad outcomes are what happen in the absence of transparency and accountability.

The Most Powerful Special Interest Group

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/260830/upending-our-caste-system-kevin-d-williamson?page=1

Overall, a solid article with a very important, widely misunderstood point: it is the corrupting political power of unions that is their most dangerous characteristic. Collective bargaining is, comparatively, a minor and subordinate issue--which, I suspect, only really becomes a major issue as a result of the political influence public sector unions exert.

However, I think he may misinterpret cause and effect in some areas: 

 “As the union share increases, a state tends to have a higher government debt load. . . . The correlation is likely caused by the fact that unionized government workers are powerful lobby groups that push for higher government-worker compensation and higher government spending in general.”

It may instead be that left wing states, whose electorates want high spending, end up with more unionized workers and government spending.

Excellent summary:

The problem is not the public-sector unions, but the public sector, full stop. So long as we are a democratic society, a large public sector will have the power to impose its will on the political establishment, even if the unions are dissolved or their organized political activity is repressed. One of the great strengths of the United States is that many of our most important decisions are made at the state and local level, but government at that level is especially vulnerable to capture by rent-seeking public-sector unions. The public sector has relatively less clout at the national level (though it has a great deal) because its influence is diluted in a sea of other influences. But when it comes to state government or local bond issues — two titanic problems in our public finances — the public sector and its unions dominate, and will continue to dominate unless we either severely reduce its members’ numbers or enact very strong formal barriers to their voting themselves money out of the nation’s treasuries.

I do not know what kind of "formal barriers" would be effective. The governments need to be squeezed and forced to outsource more work to private contractors--phase out of the public education system, facilitated by school vouchers, would be the single most effective step in this direction. Also, the unionization of the public sector certainly makes it more dangerous because of the power generated and strategically focused by the unions. A public sector comprising 30% of the economy may conceivably be less dangerous than one comprising 20% of the economy, if the former is non-union and the latter is unionized. I think both the absolute size and the degree of unionization play a major role in the capture of government policy by the "civil servant" class. The distinction he makes between the effects of unions on state and local governments versus that on the federal government strikes home.

The Bad Side of an Ugly Beast

Public sector unions may be the most destructive force in America today (though uncontrolled health costs and entitlements are in the running). And the political dynamic the public sector unions have created virtually ensures the problem will worsen year by year. This is a clear and reasonably comprehensive analysis: http://www.economist.com/node/17849199 The most essential problems are: 1. They possess monopoly power by controlling schools, police, firefighters, air traffic control, etc. They are in a position to blackmail society, which is what they do and one reason why they should be illegal. 2. They largely control the left wing of politics, which means many of those with whom they negotiate for higher wages and benefits are the same people whose election they engineered--they're negotiating practically with themselves. Self-dealing is generally considered an ethical breach even before actual abuse occurs, since such abuse is considered a foregone conclusion. Even most right-wing politicians cannot afford the political price of resisting the unions. This might expain GED-bearing prison guards making $100k a year and incompetent teachers never losing their jobs and police officers in some cities who collect pensions, on average, of over $100k a year after 20 years' service--the abuse goes on and on because no one is positioned to stop it. They're almost the top predator in the American economic ecosystem--and they may yet become the top predator, since they have effectively no natural enemies. Their determination to corrupt the political process (and their power to do so) is the other reason they ought to be illegal. 3. They use their power, naturally enough, to acquire more power--by financing politicians, by forcing the expansion of the unionized workforce, by telling their members whom to vote for. 4. Unions, by controlling the government, can acquire almost unlimited funds, since the government can always raise taxes and apply force to ensure they're paid. 5. People are made better off by increases in productivity. The private sector, because it is competitive, constantly increases productivity. The unionized public sector, having no competition, does not increase productivity except incidentally. Therefore, the larger the public sector is, the less overall productivity there is and the worse off society as a whole is. The bottom line is that public sector unions are powerful, growing more powerful, disadvantageous to everyone not in these unions, and face no real resistance. They're like an invasive species that destroys everything in its path because it has no natural predators. Public sector unions ought to be outlawed. This is a case in which freedom of assembly may justifiably be limited to conserve the probity of government.

Union Blackmail and Corruption

I especially like the last line of the article. Public sector unions are holding the country hostage. They ought to be outlawed. They represent an intolerable encroachment upon the integrity of a democratic system of government.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/10/unions_america

Politicized Admissions

It's interesting to see them quantify the leftist prejudice against certain elements of society--apparently being in 4-H or high school ROTC programs is a black mark against applicants to elite schools. What these schools want to enroll is eager conformists and ass-kissers (as well as the lucrative legacy students, that is, the rich whites who stupidly finance this whole charade). I remember reading elsewhere that at a typical Ivy League school fully half of admissions are justified by affirmative action, legacies, or athletic scholarships--only half made it on merit. That's quite a heavy burden of corruption and quality dilution for any school to bear. http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2010/07/how_diversity_punishes_asians.html

The Law against Owners

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Public-unions-make-a-private-sector-power-grab-92054474.html
I disagree with the op-ed. Corporate governance is currently dysfuntional in this country. This is because management has all the power under Delaware law--not the actual shareholder-owners of public corporations, but management. This is why executives receive huge pay packages that bear no relation to their performance--they pack the boards with their buddies. It's a mutual admiration society for millionaires. The owners, including pension funds, should have more power to control the companies THAT THEY OWN! This counts as yet another opportunity that the republicans have flagrantly missed to engage in useful reform that would have preempted democratic efforts. Republicans ought to keep well in mind that no matter how intensively you look backward and think backward--the world will keep moving forward.

The Fourth Rail: Public Sector Unions

This is something people need to be educated about: public sector employment, especially when it involves unions, can develop into a self-reinforcing cycle of ever larger government workforces and ever lower efficiency. But, these public sector unions are powerful special interests. And, like all special interests, they benefit from a political dynamic whereby their advocacy produces major direct benefits for themselves and inflicts a diffusem mostly concealed burden on the rest of the country. Consequently, they are always more motivated and organized than their opponents--and both their numbers and their wages keep growing. 

How Loopholes Create Monsters

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/us/politics/14cbc.html?hp

Everyone in Washington has known for years that the Black Caucus is a morally bankrupt laughingstock. The black elite is only interested in the black elite? Really? The NY Times is not only the paper of record, but the paper of revelation too! But, to be fair to the black elite, they are still sufficiently conscious of the "other" Black America to religiously support the socialist agenda of keeping the "other" Black America a ward of the state--and treating them as just such dependents and incapables as the Left-Wing elite has always assumed them to be.

Another Country

The first article is a bit long, but exceptionally well told and the basis of the follow-on pieces.

The problem with the death penalty: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=1

The morally bankrupt prosecutor attempts (rather ineffectually) to respond to the evidence against him:

http://corsicanadailysun.com/thewillinghamfiles/x46870434/-08-28-09-JACKSON-Guest-Commentary-Willingham-guilt-never-in-doubt

Response to the prosecutor's defense: 

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/09/david-grann-response-to-jackson.html

The guilty, negligent Governor (Rick Perry) engages in corrupt practices to cover up his malfeasance:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/10/david-grann-a-sudden-dismissal.html

Now, tell me, what was the underlying cause of this result? I would call it lack of accountability among the prosecutorial class and their allies. We ought to consider a murder trial in which they stand as defendants.

 

 

I support the death penalty. To justify it, though, the trial process must be clean, competent, transparent, and imbued with legal mechanisms that hold legal officers accountable for maintaining this high quality. Having achieved this level of fairness, and so reduced the odds of erroneous conviction, I am willing to accept the inevitable, yet rare, instance in which an innocent is executed. Anyone who supports the death penalty must confess that such a miscarriage of justice is an unavoidable, yet acceptable, risk.

An Old Favorite Back on His Hobbyhorse

It appears barney frank is actually trying to expand the CRA--I guess he thinks the cure for poisoning is to administer more poison. This guy is one of the lowest, most shameless scumbags in Congress. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Dems-push-expanded-Community-Reinvestment-Act-dismiss-evidence-that-CRA-contributed-to-financial-meltdown-Republicans-cite-ACORN-connection-59501737.html   And here's an analysis of Congressional failure to do due diligence on CRA efficacy: http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/09/cra-does-anybody-really-want-to-know.html   The handling of the CRA by both parties sounds conspiratorial to me, the lack of any transparency or analysis seems deliberate. Perhaps the idea is to throw trillions of dollars at the poor, especially poor minorities, in order to soften them and civilize them and thereby give them an incentive to stay out of prison. But, is it even working? Is it worth the cost? How can we tell without some analysis?

AA

This is interesting methinks. Have a gander at yer Congressmen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:G._K._Butterfield,_official_photo_portrait_color.jpg He is a self-identified black man and a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. If this guy qualifies for full-on affirmative action (blacks have the advantage of the lowest standards of admission, hiring, promotion...etc), who the hell doesn't qualify? Next time I apply for something, I'm going to "self-identify" as a black hispanic Polish American Indian gay woman who had a sex change operation to become a man. I count 7 diversity points there. A Harvard MBA might be nice (preferably graded on the black curve).

Legalizing PC

The Ginsburg dissent in Ricci v. DeStefano, most of which I read, is one of the worst Supreme Court opinions I've ever read for sheer illogicality. It's embarassing, and the problem isn't that she's stupid: there simply isn't a coherent set of arguments available to defend her preferred form of social engineering. Of course, most organizations evade this Title VII issue with more political acumen than New Haven evidenced. For example, Chicago's fire department makes its promotions by administering a test designed to achieve an 85% pass rate. They then award promotions by lottery from this pool of "qualified" firefighters. They get racial diversity, but they do not get the best leaders since they don't weed out the witless and the lazy.

I wrote a reply to a NY Times editorial on this issue (guess which side they took). They never posted it. Here it is:
 

Apparently the city leaders in New Haven and their supporters at the NY Times think that the most important criterion in selecting leaders for the fire department is "well-balanced racial diversity." Not competence, not leadership, not commitment--instead they prioritize racial politics above all these things and thereby sacrifice lives and resources in the line of duty.  In the end they're letting political corruption and political correctness corrode the city government’s efficiency at one of its most crucial junctures—where people’s lives are actually at stake.

Are the supposed benefits affirmative action contributes to social cohesion in this country worth the economic, social, and psychological costs of this transparent lie? The implicit premise underlying these policies is that certain races cannot engage in intellectual competition on an equal footing with whites and Asians--and, if this is the case, the choice faced by decision-makers is whether to lower the standards for the uncompetitive races or effectively exclude them from those positions which confer the most power upon their holders. Unfortunately, as noted in the editorial, most cities have opted for what the NYT deems “better tests”—which really means tests that are simple enough for virtually everyone to pass, allowing HR to base hiring and promotions on “other factors” than actual demonstrated competence and thereby to achieve a preconceived notion of racial balance.

The Western world, in its moral and material successes, is founded on the concept of the value of the individual as such. This much elaborated concept, with accretions of depth and meaning extending over millenia, has invested mankind with a dignity never conceived, much less attempted, by any other cultural tradition. From the Greco-Judaic source-springs, and all heirs and contributors to them, we have in our possession--in our minds and, maybe, in our souls--the grandest of all inventions: the idea of the human individual as an end in himself--no longer deemed dirt and manure for a tyrant's whimsical gardens, whether he plants by socialist or royalist or any other plan, cultivated to secure Leviathan's moral and practical predominance over the individual. And they want to sacrifice all this to some socialist fantasy? Reinvent the sort of state machine that necessarily reduces man to what is contemptible? And perfect this pulverizing machine? What? And the effort, even the mere thought, does not resolve them into puddles of self-contempt? Human bio-diversity indeed!

Corruption by Ethanol

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124389966385274413.html

This policy is the predictable result of violating a fundamental principle: government should not select the means of achieving pollution reduction; it should confine itself to determining the scope of the reduction and the maximum cost to the economy. Bush the First followed this principle in establishing the highly successful and efficient sulfur emissions-trading regime in the early nineties. They did not mandate which technologies coal plants had to implement. They simply set a price on the emissions and let the private sector figure out the best way to reduce emissions. But, these morons today are trying to micromanage environmental policy and they are failing. This is a bipartisan failure, by the way. And it is induced as much by political corruption as it is by outright stupidity. Yet, given the ever present temptations of large scale corruption and the Democratic tradition of grotesque misapprehension of free market economics, I suspect we will see more of this costly stupidity in the grand cap-and-trade program currently in the offing.

Immigration Balance Sheet

I'm beginning to see the outlines of a new American tradition: privatize profits, socialize expenses. The financial sector has become notorious for doing this on a devastating scale. But, those businesses that employee illegals are doing essentially the same thing--they benefit from cheap labor and stick the taxpayers with the costs of their employees' medical care, education, imprisonment, welfare programs, etc. These businesses are just another self-concerned special interest. And you may depend upon it, they are well represented in the political game. Until the employment laws are enforced, illegals will continue to pour in--short of this, you have no more chance of preventing their immigration than of stopping the flow of drugs--which is to say, you have no chance at all.

But, there will be no Operation Wetback redux.

Bio-boondoggle

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html?em&ex=1202706000&en=d42cfa6f14c01268&ei=5087%0A

My suspicions about the knock-on environmental effects of biofuels were always my main reason for scepticism about the government subsidies in this area.  After all, subsidies sometimes function to level the playing field, and our economy is heavily interlaced with all sorts of subsidies anyhow. But, this reminds me of the boondoggle that half-destroyed the Everglades and enriched our homegrown Cuban sugar mafia, those Faggello brothers or whatever their name is: sugar subsidies.

The Garden of Academe

http://www.economist.com/node/7945858

This article is essentially a review of the book: “The Price of Admission: How America's Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges—and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates."

The Economist opines that it "deserves to become a classic." The book reveals the shocking truth that college admissions officers rarely even attempt "fairness," as that term might be understood by most of those actually "competing" for admission to college. A vast collection of applicants have "unfair" advantages in this game: affirmative action cases, athletes (even in obscure sports), and the offspring of alumni, the rich, and college employees. The author, Daniel Golden, estimates that only 40% of the slots at elite universities are available to applicants without one of the above listed categorical advantages. The result: "Two groups of people overwhelmingly bear the burden of these policies—Asian-Americans and poor whites." I would extend that to all whites who are not in one of the favored categories.

Tellingly, at some elite schools blacks are better represented than non-Jewish whites, despite the fact that whites have much higher test scores and grades than blacks--and despite the fact that whites are better represented in all the favored categories except affirmative action. It would be very interesting indeed to see a breakdown of those who make it in on merit. My guess is the gentiles, Jews, and Asians each take a third of the 40 percent of the class admitted on merit. The Jews are in the highly fortunate, and far from accidental, position of being lumped in the "white" category despite having higher IQs than the Asians. Though they're only 3 percent of the "white" population, they typically take 30-50 percent of the slots allotted to "whites" at the Ivy League schools. Several other studies have made it clear that the overall result of the web of social and financial preferences leads to various levels of admissions standards for the four primary races in America. From most advantaged to least advantaged the list runs: Black, Hispanic, White, Asian. Of course, it's no accident but precisely the intent that this is the inverse of the actual academic performance of each group--the better the performance, the more that group is punished by exclusion and higher standards. Thus, like American government, American academia has become an institution designed to benefit the rich and the welfare cases, at the expense of the merely meritorious. They are clever enough, though, these wiley academic beguilers, to sustain a core of high merit students and capable professors to provide shade for all the coddled rich kids and race-based incapables.