Wednesday, November 26, 2014
I don't blog every day, which probably limits my audience. In particular, I don't generally blog about hyper-current events. When Obama issued his executive order on immigration last week, you can imagine that I might have had a serious problem with that - I did. But there were probably hundreds of pieces out there that felt the same way, and expressed it well. I write something only when I think I have something original to say. That explains why sometimes I will go a month without writing anything.
Today's media tsunami is about Ferguson. There is little, on either side, unexpressed. But let me add one thought to the noise.
Facts don't matter much anymore, at least to the progressive left. Perhaps they never did, but Ferguson really seals it.
I watched the Ferguson DA lay out the case (or lack of one). It was thorough, logical, and overwhelming. But the crowds outside weren't listening - they couldn't, since they weren't in front of TVs. But even if they had been, it wouldn't have mattered. Witness all the people around the country who took to the streets in the hours after. Presumably, many of them had been watching. No matter.
The real proof came yesterday, when social media lit up with outrage, and left-wing journalists goaded on the mob.
Or how about this, in an email from the Episcopal Diocese of New York:
Join Faith leaders and community members at First Corinthian's Baptist Church as we grieve with the Brown family and at justice denied in Ferguson. Join us as we also recommit to changing the system that perpetuates these injustices.
What injustices? Did they watch the DAs presentation? Did they look at the evidence that was subsequently made public? Perhaps, perhaps not. It wouldn't have mattered, because facts that disturb the narrative are facts to be ignored.
There is an anarchist element within the left that is going mainstream. It was Occupy. It was the G8 protests. It was the climate march. Now, Ferguson. They move from opportunity to opportunity, with little coherent thread other than a tearing down of America's traditions and values.
That's why you can argue all you want, you can lay down the most bulletproof argument imaginable, you won't get anywhere. They can't be reached.
Facts don't matter.
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Jonathan Gruber, Liberal Man
By now, Jonathan Gruber's comments about the stupidity of the American voter are well publicized. (Oh, wait, except for two of the three major networks that decided not to report a word of the scandal.)
But what I want to know is, who did he mean?
Every conservative in America knew the truth about all those things in Obamacare that Gruber said had to be obfuscated. Every conservative talk show host and every GOP lawmaker raised those issues and shouted them from the rooftop for months. And remember all those town hall meetings when Democrat congressmen were getting yelled at? That was conservatives doing the yelling. I remember well, since I was one (rest in peace, Congressman John Hall).
So who does that leave? Who did Gruber need to dupe?
His own people, of course. Liberals. More specifically, the media and Democrat lawmakers. Gruber, Obama & Co. knew this crowd was in their pocket, of course, but air cover was required. To secure every last Democrat vote, a rosy picture had to be painted, one that would be reliably passed on without any unpleasant questions being asked. (And certainly no one would bother to read the 2000 page bill!)
Not a single conservative supported Obamacare, and not a single Republican lawmaker voted for it. So don't call us stupid, Gruber, you incredible asshole. We got it. Your people didn't.
One more thing about this guy. I have to think, that when he was sitting on all those podia, that there was a little voice inside his head saying, Don't say those things out loud. It might be a bad idea.
But he just had to show everyone what a smartypants he was. Not only only am I responsible for this wonderful law, but I used my superior intellect to trick people into liking it.
This guy is the very embodiment of liberalism. We are really smart and know what's best for you, so, really, the ends justify any means we want to use.
At least MIT has fired this guy. Hahahahaha...just kidding.
P.S. Don't you love the fact this guy wrote a comic book allegedly explaining the law. Apparently, even the lies had to be dumbed down.
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
I had an interesting conversation with a member of the admissions staff of a major university recently. I asked, had the university ever done an analysis of how well their students do, both while at college and after? After all, the admissions department makes many assumptions about what a successful freshman class should look like - are they good assumptions? How effective a job, in other words, was the admissions staff doing?
The short answer was no, they had never looked into it. More interestingly, it was clear it had never occurred to them. One would think, in a place like a university, filled with professors whose job it is to study things, that the first thing they would study would be, well, themselves.
One would think wrong. To my knowledge, no college or university has ever analyzed the success of their own students. In fact, it's the last thing they want to know. Which brings me to one of the principle reasons why: the pervasive cult of diversity, and its misunderstood effects.
If you talk to anyone on the board of a school at any level these days, you will hear about the staggering amount of time taken up at meetings about diversity efforts, often to the exclusion of other matters. Look at the literature the schools hand out; diversity is often featured before academics. But to what end? The theory behind diversity seems logical (and noble): students with differing backgrounds and perspectives come together and learn from each other, the whole being greater than the sum of the parts.
But that's not how it goes down, not at all. The whole effort gets derailed by diversity's evil twin, multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism's key tenet holds that all cultures, other than America's, are equally valid and should be celebrated. Leaving aside the fact that this is ridiculous, that some cultures are horrific, in practice this view leads to Balkanization. If my culture is better than yours, why should I join yours? I'll keep mine, thank you, especially since you keep telling me how awful yours is.
All you have to do is walk into the dining hall at most schools to see the result: the black table, the Asian table, etc. Then there are the cultural clubs, the ethnic studies classes, and so on. What good is diversity if no one is actually talking to each other?
Diversity, to schools, is checking a bunch of ethnic boxes. The admissions office checks them, and then pats themselves on the back. A job well done. But what about what comes after? They won't look, because they know, on some level, it's not working. They are bringing the kids together but then promoting a poisonous ideology that drives them apart. The end result? Diversity likely hurts more than it helps. But, hey, we don't know exactly, because no one will study it!
I have children in two different schools, and they are an interesting contrast. One is in full throes of the diversity fetish. The result is drawn lines and a cynical student body. Last year, the student body president, a black lesbian, was removed, reluctantly, from her post for mocking white students. There is bad will all around. Many students believed that the school, in a desperate bid to have both their first female and first LGBT president, rigged the election. I seriously doubt this, but the mere fact the students think this way shows you how polarized things have become.
My other child's school is quite different. On the surface, it looks the same, a broad ethnic palette. The headmaster is black, but you won't hear the word diversity much. Instead, he speaks of "inclusion," as in, we want to include everyone in what we have here. The school has a very strong culture, and students are expected to join it, not to spend four years in some sort of parallel existence. No, they are not expected to throw their cultural identities overboard, but rather to bring them to the party. The students get in and buy in. The whole becomes greater than the parts.
It is noteworthy that this same headmaster says, "I am an American African," placing "American" - that thing that unites us - first.
Unfortunately, most schools and universities resemble the first school far more than the second. They are diverse, but highly polarized. This means that assumptions about diversity's benefits are flawed, and that is something no one wants to hear.
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
First, the Naked Dollar's report card. Our calls were:
+9 in the Senate
Actual result: +9 (assuming Cassidy wins the LA runoff, which he will)
+11 in the House
Actual result: +14 with four more too close to call (all of which would be GOP pickups)
Actual result: +3
Regarding the governorships, holy cow. No one saw that coming, and in states like Massachusetts and Maryland, no less. And no one saw the GOP picking up 14 house seats (with the potential for 18). After netting 63 four years ago, their upside was limited.
A wave, indeed.
So, how bad were the polls? Pretty bad, as it turns out. I did a quick analysis, comparing the actual results with the RCP polling average in each race. The results are as follows...
The average poll in the Senate missed the mark by 5.5 points. Out of 36 races, the polls underestimated the GOP result in 24.
The average governor poll missed by 5.4 points. Out of 36 races, the polls underestimated the GOP results in 29.
Bottom line: the pollsters missed by a lot, and they systematically underestimated GOP turnout (or overestimated Democrat).
No, I don't think they were biased. Every election usually produces a bias, but there is no consistent direction. Poll is a science, but an inexact one. Heck, the polls for the Virginia Senate race were off by 10 points. The lesson here is that they are useful, but only to an extent.
Are you kidding? There's not a chance.
When most pundits predicted he would after the 2010 thumping, the Naked Dollar said no way. The man is a committed progressive, and it's just not in his DNA. More to the point, he doesn't understand conservatives because he's never been around any. His entire life, from Hawaii to Columbia, to Harvard, to Chicago, has been spent in a series of left wing echo chambers.
Bill Clinton, by contrast, came up through Arkansas, where little could get done without compromise with Republicans. He famously pivoted after the huge GOP win in 1994, and it saved his presidency.
No such thing will happen now. I will now tell you exactly what's going to happen: Obama will say that he needs to save us from the evil GOP, that they are the problem, and then he will embark on an unprecedented series of executive actions, possibly triggering a Constitutional crisis.
What does he have to lose? He's never running for anything again, and we've already established that he doesn't give a crap about collateral damage to his own party. He will blatantly dare the GOP to do anything about it. Under McConnell's leadership, they likely won't. the wounds from the Clinton impeachment overreach have not entirely healed.
Monday, November 3, 2014
The mood of the electorate shifted decidedly towards the GOP over the last week, with the caveat that Democrats had a slight parry at the end. Overall, there was a 81-point move in the GOP's favor since October 25th. That's a big move. Since Labor Day, it's been a 248-point move, a clear sign of a shifting national mood.
Stepping back, tomorrow's election is a home run for political junkies. I mean that in a non-partisan way. There are just so many close races at every level. We all know how close many of the senate races are: currently, there are eleven seats within 5 points. Unless there is systematic polling error favoring Republicans (i.e. the turnout models that pollsters use make poor assumptions about relative GOP/Democrat turnout), it's hard to see that they won't win the Senate.
Montana, Colorado, Arkansas, West Virginia, and South Dakota are over. That's five out of a needed six pickups.
Alaska, Iowa, and Louisiana are all but in the bag. Louisiana will require a runoff. that's eight.
North Carolina and New Hampshire are jump balls. My hunch is that it's a split. That's nine.
Georgia is looking like a hold, although will possibly require a runoff as well.
Kansas is a potential loss with incumbent Pat Roberts, a creature of the DC establishment, a hair behind, but catching up fast. I was going to predict a Roberts loss until his opponent, Greg Orman, said some stupid things about Kansas icon Bob Dole two days ago. Narrow hold.
My prediction: the GOP picks up 9 seats. Sounds high, I know, but it only requires the most modest nudge from current polling.
My prediction for the House is a GOP pickup of 11 seats.
But how about those gubernatorial races? There are fourteen races within five points. Of particular interest are Wisconsin and Kansas. In Wisconsin the labor-left is having yet another go at Scott Walker, who, if he loses, will not only be out of a job but won't have a shot at the presidency, either. Walker is a slight favorite to hang on.
In Kansas, Sam Brownback pushed through some significant tax cuts to catch up with more competitive neighboring states. The left wants him punished so no other governors will be tempted. Brownback is a slight underdog.
My prediction: Democrats pick up one Governor's seat.