I was reading a post at Asymmetrical Information employment and racism when i realized with some modification to the passage my situation could be accurately characterized. She writes:

Perhaps this is a rational employer response; on average, black men are more likely to be criminals, high school dropouts, and have other traits that make them less desireable employees, than white men. But that’s sort of a cop out, because most of those traits are easily discernible by, say, asking about high school graduation and criminal records. Compared to the social damage done by blanket decisions not to interview applicants with “black sounding” names, the cost of a few extra interviews where you unfortunately discover the applicant has a criminal record seems pretty trivial.

Moreover, even if such discrimination were useful, this is not a simple equilibrium. If you permit people to discriminate so that black men have to work twice as hard to get half as far as white men, then the rational response of black men is not necessarily to try four times as hard; it might be to give up. Perhaps you are the sort of extraordinary achiever who would cheerfully put out four times as much effort as your coworkers just to get the same rewards, but that is expecting too much of most ordinary human material.

In American society, racial problems are a toxic dynamic in which both sides accrue blame as they react to the reactions of the others. This is why both sides have to be prepared to work on them, rather than (as almost everyone currently seems to prefer), sitting back and demanding that the other guy make all the effort. Yes, black teenagers have to work harder in school. But white employers also have to focus on the individual, not the group. The evidence I’ve seen shows that this is pretty clearly not happening now.

I made some slight changes indicated by bold type.

Perhaps this is a rational department admissions response; on average, students with lower GRE scores are more likely have other traits that make them less desireable graduate students, than students with higher GRE scores. But that’s sort of a cop out, because most of those traits are easily discernible by, say, asking about research experience and desire to do research. Compared to the social damage done by blanket decisions not to interview applicants with low GRE scores, the cost of a few extra interviews where you unfortunately discover the applicant is not fit for graduate school seems pretty trivial.

Moreover, even if such discrimination were useful, this is not a simple equilibrium. If you permit people to discriminate so that students with low GRE scores have to work twice as hard to get half as far as students with high GRE scores, then the rational response of students with low GRE scores is not necessarily to try four times as hard; it might be to give up. Perhaps you are the sort of extraordinary achiever who would cheerfully put out four times as much effort as your fellow students just to get the same rewards, but that is expecting too much of most ordinary human material.

In American society, elitist problems are a toxic dynamic in which both sides accrue blame as they react to the reactions of the others. This is why both sides have to be prepared to work on them, rather than (as almost everyone currently seems to prefer), sitting back and demanding that the other guy make all the effort. Yes, low scoring GRE students have to work harder in school. But university departments also have to focus on the individual, not the group. The evidence I’ve seen shows that this is pretty clearly not happening now.

Just watched Gangs of New York for the second time. If not for that mid part of the movie in which Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz fall in love this would be one of the best movies I have ever seen. It would be a top fiver for sure.

Several things to note:

The opening sequence in which the leader of the Dead Rabbits , the Irish gang, marches through a labryinth rallying his gang for the impending melee with the nativist gang all the while an Irish half-jig-half-march plays in the background is probably the best opening to a movie I have ever seen. Offhand i can’t think of another movie that has a stronger opening. Can anyone think of other movies with strong openings for the purpose of comparison?

There is a scene when the movie is very rapidly movings towards the crescendo. In this segment of the scene we see the protagonist, antagonist, and some ancillary character all praying to their god. We get to hear them beseech their lords for assistance in the upcoming calamity. Whats interesting is how the words each character uses to speak to god vary as a function of their current position within the movie. Of particular interest is that both the protagonists and the antagonists beseech the same god in assistinance in killing the other. Its a subtle way of showing the realization that same god is invoked by sworn enemies.

In the opening scene we see the antagonist, Bill the Butcher, kill the father of the protagonist in a massive melee. These two are archenemies since they were the leaders of two opposing gangs. After the father is killed, Bill honors and shows reverence towards his fallen enemy. Bill considers the opposing leader a worthy enemy, which gives dimensionality to Bill by showing that he is capable of seeing value in others and respecting those values even when he must kill that person.

This last bit reminds me of several discussion I have had recently. I have noticed in argument or conflict some have a tendency to explain their opponent’s dissent as a function of callowness or ignorance. When one dismiss an argument in this way they imply that their opponent’s dissent is not based on a well reasoned rationale but rather on immaturity or deception. Provided their opponents were mature enough or knowledgeable enough they would agree with their position. I dislike this kind of argumentation. I’m much more willing to grant that my opponent’s position is derived from a developed rationale and thus I treat their argument on equal grounds to mine. While I will treat their argument as a function of some rational faculty if I disagree with the position I will bring to bear the full force of my intellect in showing that position to be false.

This is how I see a parallel with Bill the Butcher. This character treats the other leader as as an equal. His enemy is an equal with a dissenting opinion and he must be killed for that reason. I treat my opponents arguments as equal to mine. Nevertheless when that position dissents with mine it must eventually be proven wrong.

But then again, I always do things the hard way.

Hot Air has a video post interviewing various US soldiers currently serving in Iraq. You have to hear what the second guys says. Its laugh out loud funny.

From Cafe Hayek, is a story about the perils of equality. The story is a somewhat heavy handed in its point causing it to take on a silliness. However, its short and amusing.

Darwin writes in my previous post:

Makes sense until you’re the only atheist or jew living in a bible-belt town small enough that it can only support one elementary school. Then you’ll be greatful for national guidelines about what gets taught instead of your kids learning whatever the rest of the immediate community thinks they should learn.

One would be grateful provided their views are in keeping with the views of the national school board.

Darwin’s argument seems to be based around insuring that parents have ways to avoid sending their children to schools in which they disagree with the curriculum. One might think he is ascribing to the principle that education policy should maximize the parent’s ability to avoid sending their child to a school with a curriculum they disagree with. Current education policy allows parents to vote for school officials who will determine a curriculum which they will agree with. Thus the public system affords a way for a parent to protect against curriculum they disagree with.

However, if we are truly interested in maximizing parental control over curriculum it seems obvious that a more private system will on average afford your typical parent more control than the current public system. Will the private system grant all parents everywhere maximal control over curriculum? Absolutley not. Does the current public system grant all parents everywhere maximal control over curriculum? Absolutely not. When compared to the public system will a private system on the whole give more parents in more locations more control over the children’s curriculum? It absolutely will.

Therefore, if Darwin is genuinely interested in preventing school curriculum from being thrust upon a parent’s child he would gladly support the privatization of the education system.

Andrew Coulson in the Washington Post convincingly argues against further standardizing the education at the national level. It’s a cogent argument and you really must have a read.

It is ironic that standards advocates exhort us to improve our schools in response to competitive pressures from abroad, but then discount the ability of the same competition and consumer choice to drive improvement at home. It is the competitive pursuit of excellence spurred by market forces that drives up standards, not the other way around. The sooner we realize that, the better off our children will be.

A post over at Personal Responsibility links to an article talking about how some children in London are not being taught all of history to protect minority students from harm when learning about past historical events. To which Darwin quips:

Well, the administration clearly felt that this policy was working so well for sex education that they should try expanding it to other subjects. Makes sense.

You failed. Those against sex education in the public schools don’t oppose it as a way to avoid hurting children but because they believe it’s not the place of public schools to teach such topics.

The appropriate analogy is the story in which that student’s free speech rights were denied because his anti-homosexuality shirt could potentially psychologically harm a gay teenager. You will recall, in this American case, the majority ruling argued that minorities enjoy extra protection rights simply because their minority status makes them more vulnerable to psychological harm. Thus a Christian majority does not have the free speech right to express their anti homosexuality view since it could do extra harm to minority homosexuals. Sacrificing free speech rights to protect minority groups has recently become the stock and trade of liberals on both sides of the Atlantic. It’s such a shame since during the sixties they nobly stood for free speech to insure minorities received that right.

Darwin, it makes sense to me that you didn’t immediately see the connection between the two stories. To see the relationship would require seeing the glaring contradiction in your position. I presume you are against censoring certain parts of history class to protect minority children from psychological harm while at the same time support preventing the peaceful expression of certain views when those views could cause psychological harm for minority children. It’s unclear on what dimension you discriminate between the two types of censorship. One can’t help but think you distinguish not as a function of some lofty appeal to an ideal, like free speech, but rather you discriminate merely as a function of the political group you most closely associate yourself with. Liberals are more sympathetic to homosexuality than conservatives and therefore your inclined to protect them more so than Christians.

Personally, I naïvely embrace the lofty ideal of free speech. The minority gothic lesbian who defiantly wears the shirt that quotes Nietzsche’s bold proclamation that Christians have killed their God, enjoys just as much right as the majority wholesome Christian proudly wearing a shirt that quotes the bible’s denunciation of homosexuality. But then again, I’m old fashion. I interpret the constitutional right to free speech to mean every single citizen is free to speak.

A new contest has been anounced called the Automotive X-prize. The idea here is to get car designers to create a car that can go a 100 miles on a gallon of gasoline. The prize money is 10 milllion. What amazes me is how they are able to create this incentive without a singe dime of tax payer money.

I’m still waiting for both the international outrage and extensive coverage by the MSM of the blatant violation of Geneva Conventions by Iran. I was willing to chalk up last week’s coverage as a function of it the news still being recent but at this point I think there has been enough time.

Allegations of Geneva Convention violation by the US gets significantly more coverage than actual violation of said conventions by our avowed enemy. What sides is the MSM on?

I was listening to this satirist Evan Sayet this weekend on the Dennis Miller Show and he mentioned that the New York Times had the Abu Ghraib story as a front page story for 44 days in a row. F O R T Y - F O U R days. Hey, that scandal was huge and needed to be covered extensively, but front page for 44 days. It’s hard for me to hear this and not think that the editors at the New York Times was trying to make a point about America’s decision to go to war with Iraq or at the very least, take comfort in the fact that the US military made a huge mistake and enjoyed being able to throw it America’s face. In any event one can’t help but think the New York Time wants the US to fail when you hear about these things.

Comic posted.