Archive for Can’t Fix Stupid

Academia, Government, and Malinvestment

In the real world, preschools and day care centers are plenteous. The market is one of near-perfect competition, where rates are competitive, competitors are always coming and going, and there isn’t a lot of quality variance: most preschools fundamentally suck, and the “better” ones are often lesser evils. Preschool workers–as a group–do not make a lot of money. If they pull above $10 per hour, it’s a bonanza.

And yet, there are colleges with entire education tracks–early childhood education–designed to prepare students for jobs with such economic limitations.

Making matters worse, we have a government that encourages this. Here’s a real-life example of how this has played out. Names have been changed to protect the guilty.

Let’s say that our federal government has $1 million in grant money available for initiatives in “early childhood education”.

Let’s say we have a university: BSU. The initials “BS” can mean whatever the reader wishes.

BSU decides to compete for the grant, proposing the development of an early childhood education center–i.e. a state licensed “preschool”–that will be staffed with faculty, highly-experienced teachers, and students. This will allow students to gain work experience as they work toward teacher certification, and will allow for a high-quality competitor to traditional day care and preschool centers.

BSU receives the grant, and spends the $1 million to build the complex, hire the director, train staff, and ensure that the facilities comply with state licensing requirements. The workers are supposedly the best of the best: they have a minimum of 5 years of experience, and they are paid $12 per hour.

The center at BSU opens on April 1. Their rates average about $50 per week more than the average preschool in the area.

After a month of being open, the number of children enrolled: ZERO!

So let’s get this straight, folks: We, the taxpayers, have provided $1 million in funding to a college, so they can hire overpaid workers and staff, price their services out of the market, and encourage students to accrue a mountain of debt as they enter a profession that–after 5 years of experience–they will pull down $12 per hour if they get a really good break. Making matters worse, they have NO CHILDREN ENROLLED after being open for a month.

When you consider that this is what college education–with few exceptions (such as the STEM fields)–has devolved into, the reality becomes all the more sobering.

Priceless

from Vox Day:

Now, I realize that many doubt my thesis that most of the desirable tenets of Christian civilization will not survive in post-Christian society, but note that in Diamond, we already have a well-regarded, much-honored academic overtly advocating a return to many pagan, pre-civilized customs. But it never seems to occur to those who eagerly anticipate Western post-Christianity that those raised in a pagan society without Christian customs and strictures will not necessarily retain the civilized customs that are inculcated in the secularist or pagan raised in a Christian society.

It is easy to say, well, we’ll keep the Western strictures against widow-strangling, witch-burning, and academic-raping, we’ll just toss the ones against homosexual-marrying, public fornication, polygamy, and letting children play with loaded guns… wait a minute! The brutal reality is that a society in which most children are “allowed to make their own choices and follow their own interests” is a society where the values, and the resulting societal strictures, will eventually be decided by those semi-feral children and not their overly permissive parents.

What has long been decried by the civilized Christian West as “the cowardly act of animals” – how very raciss and judgmental – may well become the next “new normal”. No one should be so foolish as to believe that behavioral change on a societal level is either predestined or readily controlled by government bureaucracy. It is easier to destroy than create; it is easier to degrade than strengthen. The progressives who proudly proclaim that the youth of today are much more open to “gay marriage” should keep in mind that in the not-too-distant future, those formerly open-minded youths may well find themselves position of the disregarded, close-minded elderly, listening in horror as the progressives of tomorrow proudly proclaim that the youth are much more open to “sexual services on demand”.

Take away the Christian consensus that informs the Western understanding of what is “civilized”–we sure as heck didn’t get it from the Atheists–and you will have to replace it with something.

Vox did leave out an angle: those youth–proudly extolled by today’s academics for their “open-mindedness” on a variety of issues from gay “marriage” to in utero infanticideabortion–will be the same progressives who fill the death panels that will green-light the “right to die” of these academics when they become too much of a burden on society.

Former Pastor Jack Schaap Gets 12 Years in Sex Case

Didn’t hear about this until a commenter at Boundless mentioned it.

According to letters released by federal prosecutors last week as part of the government’s sentencing memorandum, Schaap wrote to the teen that his sexual relationship with her was “exactly what Christ desires for us. He wants to marry us + become eternal lovers!”

Communist Takeover of the U.S. is Underway

Say what you want about Roissy, he’s spot on here. If you support this crap, then you are out of touch with what being an American is all about.

President Obama and the Law of Unintended Consequences

In the wake of various high-profile mass shootings–the Aurora, CO theater, the Oregon Mall, Sandy Hook, and the assault on the New York firemen–President Obama has sought to impose a “meaningful ban on assault weapons”, ostensibly to keep them off the street.

If that were his true intention, he has already failed miserably. Over the past month, there has been an absolute run on semiautomatic rifles above .22LR caliber. This has only guaranteed that more of those rifles are now in civilians hands. In fact, many people who would have never considered owning a semiautomatic rifle are now proud owners of AR-15s, AK-47s, or other variants of rifles that fire those calibers. And the prices for the ammunition–especially .223 caliber–are now running at about a dollar per round.

(NOTE: I have no gripe with civilians buying said firearms; in fact, I welcome it. Will some of those folks be bad guys with malevolent intentions? Probably. Almost all, however, are seeking to protect themselves from a government that has shown to be less-than-trustworthy, or perhaps a potential breakdown of local government.)

There also seems to be a very significant number of folks–including women–seeking concealed carry licenses. Last Saturday, MrsLarijani took a concealed carry class. Every student in the class was female.

At any rate, had Obama simply kept his mouth shut and left gun rights alone, you’d have an order of magnitude fewer assault rifles on the street today.

Bumpy Ride Ahead

I’m not a Spring chicken; I’ll be 46 in less than 2 weeks. But I never thought I’d live to see the day where our White House is on the verge of launching the worst attack on American freedoms since the Wilson Administration.

I was born during the Vietnam era. While that was not a war for my generation, I probably would have found myself opposing the war while having nothing to do with the nutjobs who screamed, “Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh!” and spat on our troops. The problem was not our troops–who were fighting a war for which they did not ask–but rather the policy wonks and their Commander-in-Chief.

Still, for all of the faults of JFK, LBJ, and even Nixon, Ford, and Carter, none of them had an interest in assaulting the firearm rights of Americans in the manner that the current President seeks to do. (The Gun Control Act of 1968, travesty that it was, pales in comparison to what Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has on the table, let alone the threats of gun-control-by-executive-order by our Vice President on behalf of his boss.)

I was in 8th grade when President Reagan was shot. I remember his recovery, and watching the speech he made to the joint session of Congress in his return. He could have used his own shooting as a perch to attack “gun violence” and demand more gun control. But he didn’t: he lauded the Secret Service agents who performed valiantly; he lauded the physicians who treated him; he read some of the well-wishes from children; he empathized with the family of James Brady.

In short, Reagan kept his eye on the ball, and cooler heads prevailed. In fact, five years later, he would sign the Firearm Owner Protection Act of 1986, which–in spite of the restrictions on production of machine guns for civilian use–provided badly-needed protections for Citizens who were having their rights attacked by government at all levels. (I mean seriously: before FOPA, duck hunters were being prosecuted for simply driving through the wrong counties. And the ATF’s abuses were so bad that even the DEMOCRATS were recoiling in horror.)

My point: back then, we had a President who kept things in perspective, sought to keep government out of our business, and promoted the best of America. He didn’t do everything right, but he had a grasp of what was really important. AS a result, we were a better country in 1989 than we were in 1981. THAT is how the Cold War was won.

But Obama is literally destroying this country with his threat of gun bans. I’ve never seen things this bad across the board. Every gun store is sold out of semiautomatic rifles, something I’ve never seen in my lifetime. He is taking recent tragedies and using them to promote a fascist, totalitarian agenda that has disaster written all over it. While the left will complain, “Oh come now, government will never try to confiscate guns,” one has reason not to trust them. After all, the Department for Homeland Security has enough ammo to supply every employee of said agency with over 2,000 rounds of .223 ammunition. And we have no idea who is on the “terrorist watch list.” Moreover, we have government entities who have sought to classify everyone from NRA members to Ron Paul supporters as potential “domestic terrorists”.

Against the backdrop of a government that seeks to regulate what you put in your mouth, I’d say that is plenty good reason not to trust government.

What angers me though is not Obama: he is doing exactly what I expected he would do. Nor is it Feinstein: she is doing exactly what I expeted she would do. We all know where Obama, Bloomberg, Feinstein, Schumer, and all their lackeys stand.

No…what makes my blood boil is the inaction by Republican leaders: where the heck is House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)? Where the heck is Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)? Other than our fine Senator–Rand Paul–where are the conservative voices in elective office?

And what about the military leaders who wear the uniform and have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic? Why aren’t they pulling the President back and telling him, “Mr. President, you need to cool it with your gun agenda. Not only are you on the verge of promoting a societal breakdown from which it will take decades to recover, you are committing an act of war against the American people. For the sake of this great country, knock it off!”?

It is glaringly obvious that we no longer have two parties; what we have is a bicameral fascist system where leaders only disagree on the degree of fascism. The military leaders–with perhaps a few exceptions–are just suckups to the President, as the real leaders have been “retired”. If you expect the Joint Chiefs of Staff to advise the President to knock it off, that will happen about five minutes after Hell freezes over.

I told MrsLarijani that I never imagined that the end of our Republic could happen in my lifetime. But–as the son of an Iranian immigrant of Kurdish ancestry who knows quite well what happened in Iran in the 1970s–that is a very real possibility.

Is it a conspiracy, or is government really that stupid? There was once a time when I would have answered no on the first and yes on the second. Now, it could be yes on both.

The next four years are going to be quite bumpy.

Charlie Brown Does It Again

House Republicans (Charlie Brown) have re-elected Boehner (Lucy) as their Speaker.

He’ll be holding the football for them.

That will end really well…

Boehner, Ryan, Obama, and The Never-Ending Fiscal Cliff Charade

Conservatives had better wake up, smell the napalm, and identify the real enemy to their lives and livelihoods.

It isn’t President Obama. Sure, he is no hero to the Constitution. Sure, he cares not about personal liberties or free markets. Sure, he opposes gun rights, supports abortion (even at taxpayer expense) and gay “marriage”. But let’s be honest here: he’s not selling anyone out. In fact, Obama is promoting the very agenda he has promised from day one.

Nor is it Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is recovering from a plane crash in Iranbout with the stomach flu that resulted in a concussion. Sure, she’s a socialist liberal repackaged as a moderate. But…seriously? She is the Left’s version of Pat Buchanan, only not as skilled a wordsmith. Every time she gives a speech, she pisses off more people than she inspires. This is why she couldn’t beat a one-term Senator for the nomination of her own Party in 2008.

Nor is it Sen. Dianne Feinstein (R-CA) or her ilk. Sure, she’d ban–and confiscate–every firearm in America if she could get away with it. But–seriously–if any such gun ban gets passed, it will take far more than her to get it done.

That leads me to the very enemy of the American people: the political leaders who will sell everyone down the river, as they speak of their great accomplishments. They will piss on your back, and tell you it’s raining.

I’m talking about those who claim to be on your side. Like Rep. John “Sobbing Johnny” Boehner (R-OH). Like Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY). Like Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). These are the “conservatives” who gave us TARP. They are the “conservatives” who gave us the bailouts of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, General Motors, and Chrysler. They are the “conservatives” who gave us Medicare Part D under Bush, and lifted nary a finger when Bush expanded government beyond all recognition.

My point here is that your real enemies are not your enemies; they are your “friends”.

Sadly, there are very few friends of the Constitution in either House of Congress. Of those–such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)–few have made a forceful case for immediate, drastic spending cuts and a fundamental reduction in the size and scope of government. Even Sen. Paul has spoken in terms of balancing the budget slowly, when in fact the problems are so severe that major cuts must be made now. (Note: Rand Paul needs to make his case now. If he walks the straight and narrow, he will be the best anti-establishment chance since Reagan.)

If The Fiscal Cliff Charade–which gives us over $600 billion in taxes but only $15 billion in spending cuts–is a portrait of things to come, things are not looking good.

The President wants to take up gun control as soon as this Cliffhanger has passed.

If the GOP response here is any indicator of how they will handle the Second Amendment, I’d say we need to get ready for our “friends” to roll over on us.

The NFL, Jovan Belcher, and Domestic Violence

Let’s be honest here about the NFL: even in its glory years, it was never a monastery. We can point to fine players who were good citizens of high moral character, just as we can point to some unsavory folks. That same Dallas Cowboys team that gave us Tom Landry and Roger Staubach, also gave us Thomas “Hollywood” Henderson and Larry Bethea. Who can forget that 1972 Miami Dolphins team, which included Mercury Morris, who would do some time for drug trafficking? And don’t forget O.J. Oh…wait…he was acquitted…

At the same time, violent criminality in the NFL seems to be a greater problem today than in other eras. Henderson, and Morris were problematic, but they weren’t violent criminals. Morris and Henderson cleaned up their lives whereas Bethea, sadly, committed suicide after being implicated in two armed robberies.

While domestic violence is nothing new in the NFL, there is an undercurrent of murder that is happening in greater frequency. Before the Jovan Belcher disaster, we had Anthony Wayne Smith (charged in three murders), Glenn Sharpe, Rae Carruth, Hubert D. Thompson, Tommy Kane, Eric Naposki, and–from the old school–teammates Jim Dunaway and O.J. Simpson.

(I leave out Marvin Harrison, because he has not been indicted. But, depending on witness accounts and weapon identification, that could easily change.)

Even then, while it is not uncommon to read about NFL players getting into barfights and even domestic disputes, we don’t expect to pull up the news and read about an NFL player killing his girlfriend and then committing suicide. The last murder-suicide in the NFL involved former QB Steve McNair in 2009, and he was on the receiving end of the murder. The last NFL player to commit murder-suicide was a former NFL player: James Tyrer, who shot his wife before killing himself in 1980.

While we cannot minimize the severity of physical assault, one must flip the mother of all switches to pull a firearm, point it at a human being who is not an imminent threat, and pull the trigger. Jovan Belcher shot Kasandra Perkins 9 times before shooting himself in the head in front of his coach and General Manager as police moved in.

So yes, I’ll grant that Bill Briggs–contributing to NBC Sports–is correct in stating that the new NFL initiative to curb domestic violence among their ranks failed in the case of Kansas City linebacker Jovan Belcher. I would also submit that the problem here is not the quality of an NFL program, but rather fundamental character issues. The NFL tends to recruit thugs, and they are reaping what they are sowing.

If there is a miracle, it is that this happens as infrequently as it does among NFLers.

While every NFL owner would love it if his players were all good citizens who supported the United Way and visited orphans and hospitals regularly, NFL teams don’t draft players primarily on the basis of character. Tim Tebow is a model citizen, but he’s riding the bench right now. Most coaches would love to get the next Roger Staubach (who was squeaky clean), but they’ll settle for a Ben Roethlisberger (who came within an inch of a sexual assault charge).

Either one will get you two Super Bowl rings. And that’s all that matters if you’re an NFL coach, GM, or owner.

Until the NFL starts drafting people on account of their character–and that is not always easy to discern–I see none of that changing.

As for the latest crisis, people must be held to account for their own behavior. Murder is a character issue. As is domestic violence in general.

Can the NFL help their cause? Perhaps. Seriously, though, I doubt that anything they could have done would have headed off the Jovan Belcher disaster.

A man who is intent on committing murder will find a way to do it. Take away the firearm, he’ll use a knife. Take away the knife, he’ll use any number of household implements. This is about personal character.

And as Tolstoy illustrated so well in Anna Karenina, personal character is not so easy to ascertain.

Ya Know What They Say about Payback

As Vox Day and the Austrian-school economists will tell you until they are blue in the face: static economic models are useless. One of the biggest reasons–perhaps THE biggest reason–is that, whenever you change the law, people change their behavior.

Ayn Rand, in Atlas Shrugged, does a wonderful job explicating that dynamic through the character of John Galt, who–fed up with the burdens of collectivist society–organized a strike of the creative, innovative, producing sector of the population.

Rand’s detractors have often dismissed Atlas Shrugged as hypothetical, whereas free market economists see the wisdom behind Rand’s premise that when the law changes, people change their behavior. I would also suggest that Ayn Rand was correct: there is a tipping point beyond which the expansion of collectivism destroys productivity, as producers and entrepreneurs decide that the cost of producing outweighs the benefits.

Too much downside risk + too little upside benefit = prohibitive backside pain.

Here is an example of that, courtesy of an Instapundit commenter (HT: Vox Day)

After the election, my wife and I are going partial Galt. We’re in California, so our state income tax went up in addition to what’s sure to come out of Washington.

My wife quit her job last week. I increased my participation in a tax deferment plan offered by my employer to bring my taxable income as close to $250K as possible. We’ll be cutting back a little, but the government is going to getting a whole lot less.

My wife’s entire salary barely covered our tax bill – she was 100% slave to the government, while I was a 10% slave. Now she is 100% free, and I’ll be a ~35% slave As a couple, 17.5% of our time is slaving on the government plantation from an astounding 55% previously.

My wife is deliriously happy, our children are delighted to have mom home, the dog gets more walks, and I find not spending money rapturously satisfying.