Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

It’s not both parties

October 1, 2014

Comment to a post on Volokh:

(3) “Previous presidents who engaged in wrongdoing have had members of their own political party who were willing to stand up and say so.  But with Washington politics more polarized than they have ever been since the Civil War—in part because, unlike for most of American history, the Democrats and Republicans have clearly divided into liberal and conservative factions—one cannot count on partisans for one side to criticize their own.”

Wrong.  The problem is that Democrats are conscienceless power-hungry, and utterly amoral.  They are the party of government, the party of power, and nothing else matters to them.

See all those “year of the women” Democrat Senators, who were so offended by Clarance Thomas, and who immediately fell in line to support Clinton.  This isn’t a “both parties” problem, it’s a Democrat Party problem.

Republicans created Porkbusters to fight Bush Administration big government spending, because Republicans and Republican voters actually have principles.

Where’s the anti-war movement with all of Obama’s acts?  Nowhere, because Democrats and the left have no principles, they simply have a lust for power.

Typos are racist, when you’re an idiot

April 18, 2014

Via Ann Althouse, I came across a whining racists screed at “Above the Law” pointing to some really crappy political “research” claiming that law partners find more typos when they know the author of a paper is “African America”.  This article is complete crap.  Here’s why:

  1. There are no “p values” anywhere in the article.  If you haven’t even bothered to figure out how likely your results were to come about by chance, you have nothing meaningful to say.
  2. “Of the 41 edits and/or comments on formatting, 11 were for “Caucasian” Thomas Meyer’s memo in comparison to 29 for “African American” Thomas Meyer’s memo.”  11 + 29 = 40, not 41.  I’m supposed to trust an article from people who can’t do basic math?
  3. “There was no significant correlation between a partner’s race/ethnicity and the differentiated patterns of errors found between the two memos. There was also no significant correlation between a partner’s gender and the differentiated patterns of errors found between the two memos. We did find that female partners generally found more errors and wrote longer narratives than the male partners.”
  4. We undertook this study with the hypothesis that unconscious confirmation bias in a supervising lawyer’s assessment of legal writing would result in a more negative rating if that writing was submitted by an African American lawyer in comparison to the same submission by a Caucasian lawyer. In order to create a study where we could control for enough variables to truly see the impact of confirmation bias, we did not study the potential variances that can be caused due to the intersection of race/ethnicity, gender, generational differences and other such salient identities

Each of those sentences in #3 requires a p value, none is given.  Were there more female partners reviewing the “African American” than the “white”?  Not discussed.  That would in and of itself have a significant effect on the scores.

But the most damning part is #4.  They established a hypothesis, and then refused to examine the data in any way that might invalidate their hypothesis.  They had very small sample sizes, and did not provide any p values to give their results meaning.

 

The only thing this study actually proves is that anyone who believes it is a credulous fool.

Mozilla’s evil hypocrisy

April 5, 2014

Mozilla posted the following stupidity:

“Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness.”

Bullshit.  If you valued diversity and inclusiveness, you would value having people there who disagreed with you.  You know, people like Brendan Eich.  But you don’t value diversity, you are jackbooted thugs intent on forcing your views on everyone else.

By firing Brendan Eich for thought crimes, you have established that Mozilla is run by intolerant, hateful, bigots.  I will remember that.

 

Comment on Ezra Klein’s Wonkblog BS

October 10, 2013

You are amazingly partisan and dishonest.

1: “The second reason is that the non-gerrymandered Senate remains less polarized than the House — at the moment, for instance, they’re easily passing legislation to reopen the government.”

False.  The House has passed 20 bills to fund part or all of the government, almost all of them on a bipartisan basis.  The Senate has approved of 2 of them, and is holding up the rest.  The “hostage takers” are in the Senate, on your side.

http://www.speaker.gov/senatemustact

2: “Though both parties have moved toward  their respective poles, Republicans have moved much further right than Democrats have moved left.”
How many Democrats in the Senate opposed ObamaCare?  0.  How many of them had constituents who supported ObamaCare?
It’s votes that count.  And when the vote is on the line, it’s the left that owns the Democrat Party.

3: “Because for most of American history senators used the filibuster extremely judiciously. That’s all changed in recent years. The Senate had to spend more time breaking filibusters in 2009 and 2010 than in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s combined.”
Gosh, WHEN did that change?  When did a minority decide that they didn’t care about the election results, they wanted their way, and that’s all that mattered?  Would that be in 2003, when the Democrats lost their majority?

Comment on the Zimmerman case

July 17, 2013

“He bears some moral responsibility for Martin’s death for reasons William Saletan has enumerated”

The only problem being that the “reasons William Saletan has enumerated” were complete crap. GZ was attacked by Martin near GZ’s car. If Martin had wanted to go home, he would have gone home, and NOTHING would have happened.

One person, and one person only, cares the complete moral responsibility for what happened: Treyvon Martin.  There is absolutely nothing morally wrong with being suspicious of someone who’s acting suspiciously, EVEN if the person who is acting suspiciously happens to be a teenaged black male.

Punching someone, tackling him to the ground, and then beating on him because he hurt your feelings?  Completely and totally unjustified.  Get over it, and yourself.

I was out walking last night, and my path was about to intersect the path of a mid 20s female.  She stopped walking at reached into her backpack for something.  I gave her a nod and a smile, and bent my path a bit so there was a couple more feet of clearance between us.

Would I ever be a threat to her?  No.  Was I insulted that she was worried about it?  No.  Treyvon Martin is dead because he illegitimately chose to get bent out of shape.  That’s his problem, not George Zimmerman’s.

The, IIRC, last defense witness to testify was a woman whose house had been broken in to when she was at home with her ~7 month old infant.  911 told her to grab whatever weapon she could, and retreat to the safest place she could find.  She grabbed a screw driver, and went to her bedroom with her baby.  The robber jiggled her door handle before stealing things and going away.  George Zimmerman and his wife, as friendly neighbors, tried to help her.

GZ eventually helped catch the black teenage male who lived in the complex, and who was the robber, caught with stolen goods from multiple houses in his home.  Will left that out, since it detracts from his preferred narrative.

Treyvon Martin was a thief, caught with stolen jewelry in his possession.  He was on drugs the night he attacked GZ.  According to GZ, TM came to his attention because TM was acting like he was casing a house for later robbery, just like the previous teenage criminal GZ helped catch.  If you’re rich enough so that you can live in a place where the cops come quickly, and the criminals stay away, good for you.

But for you to look down your nose at George Zimmerman, a man who wasn’t as well off as you, and who was therefore putting his time and effort into trying to make his neighborhood a better and safer place to live, is contemptible.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Feeding the base

June 5, 2012

We talk about politicians serving up “raw meat” for the base, but I don’t think that term properly applies for modern Democrats.  So I offer a new one:

Serving up organic tofu for the base.

Fighting the War Against Photography

May 10, 2011

North Dakota teen arrested simply for filming a uniformed police officer in public?

As they say at Say Anything, we don’t have the full details.  But until the Police Dept is willing to give them, they should be considered guilty until proven innocent.

Power carries the burden of proof

Why can’t “liberals” do basic stats?

May 28, 2009

The idiots at “Think Progress’ have the following ignorant post up:

As Press Secretary Robert Gibbs explained to Garrett, it is Chrysler — not the federal government — that is in charge of selecting which dealerships will be closed. Further, as Nate Silver explained in a post that was published just hours after the Examiner’s initial report yesterday, “There is just one problem with this theory. Nobody has bothered to look up data for the control group: the list of dealerships which aren’t being closed.”

Silver explained, “It turns out that all car dealers are, in fact, overwhelmingly more likely to donate to Republicans than to Democrats — not just those who are having their doors closed.” In all, Silver found that “88 percent of the contributions from car dealers went to Republican candidates and just 12 percent to Democratic candidates,” while, the list of Chrysler dealerships being closed “gave 92 percent of their money to Republicans — not really a significant difference.”

As I write this there are 258 comments over there. Not one of the references the hypergeometric probability distribution, which indicates that not one of their commenters knows what he or she is talking about. Short version: you have a urn full of black and white balls. You take a number of balls out, and don’t put them back in before taking other balls out. If you know the number of balls of each color in the urn, then you can calculate the probability that, by random chance, you will draw out ‘x’ white balls in ‘n’ draws from the urn.

There are 3000 Chrysler dealerships. 750 got told they’re getting closed. Using Nate Silver’s numbers, there are 2640 “Republican” dealerships, and 360 “non-Republican” ones. Of those dealerships, 690 R and 60 non-R dealerships were closed.

Using R, we can calculate the probability that, by random chance, 60 or fewer non-R dealerships would be closed out of 750

phyper (60, 360, 2640, 750)

Unfortunately for Nate, and for the TP big talkers, the result is 3.671535e-05. Or 9 in 250,000.

So yes, that is a significant difference.

Some of the posters over at Nate’s are claiming 3500 dealerships. Keeping all percentages the same, we get

phyper (70, 420, 3080, 875)

That takes the chance down to 8.738693e-06.  Less than 9 in 1,000,000.  IOW, fail.

Libertarians and Democrats

April 17, 2009

Nick Gillespie has a lovely post about good old BO, and hte people who voted for him, over at Reason. He wins the Cheap Shot of the Day Award with this aside

And btw, the one non-negotiable in a pet or a mistress for the Duke of Chappaquidick is swimmability; who says we can’t learn from our past mistakes?

But he also made a solid point here

Question to the folks, including some of the libertarian persuasion (you fools!), who were bullish on Obama back when the alternative was John McCain, the Terri Schiavo of presidential candidates: When are you going to admit that Barry O stinks on ice? That for all his high-flying and studiously empty rhetoric he’s got the biggest presidential vision deficit since George H.W. Bush puked on a Japanese prime minister (finally, revenge for that long run of Little League World Series losses in the ’70s!). If you’re the president of the United States and you’re talking about goddamn traffic jams and you’re proposing high-speed rail as anything other than an unapologetic boondoggle that will a) never get built and b) never get built to the gee-whiz specs it’s supposed and c) be ridden by fewer people than commuted by zeppelin last year, you’ve got real problems, bub. And by extension, so do we all.

He gets the usual commenters saying “where were all these Republicans complaining about TARP, and big spending, when Bush was President?” They’re not serious (defending BO’s spending because it was wrong that Bush spend half as much won’t get you very far, unless you’re a died in the wool Democrat willing to “justify” the spending on the grounds that “Republican Special Interests got to feed at the trough, and now it’s our turn”), but I have a serious response for them anyway:

You go, Nick.

I supported TARP, because I thought we were in a liquidity crisis, and thought that it would make things better.

I was wrong.

I oppose TARP II, etc. because “insanity is doing the same thing over again, and expecting different results.” I would have opposed it if McCain were elected, and I most certainly opposed it when Barack “any spending is stimulative, so we don’t have to worry about ‘waste'” Obama proposed it. That’s not “hypocrisy”, that’s “not being a mouth breathing idiot”.

Did I spend a lot of time complaining about Bush’s spending over the last 8 years? No. Did I support his domestic spending? Hell no.

But taking Democrats seriously when they complain about Republicans “spending too much” would be like taking Madonna seriously if she had complained that Britney Spears was too promiscuous.

No matter how bad the Republicans were, they were never going to be as bad as the Democrats. As BO, Pelosi, and Reid have spend the last three months conclusively proving. You want lower spending? Register as a Republican, and vote in the Republican Primary for the best “small government” candidate you can find.

Because “more Democrats” = “more Spending”. And “more Democrats” = “bigger, more intrusive, government.”

The Democrats are the party of the group over the individual. And they are the party that worships at the temple of big government. You may find Republican candidates that you just can’t support. Fine. But there’s no such thing as a Democrat candidate worth a libertarian’s vote.

Because a vote for any Democrat in the House is a vote for Pelosi, and Waxman, and Ringle, and all their ideological ilk. A vote for any Democrat in the Senate is a vote for Reid, Schumer, and Kennedy, and all their ideological ilk.

The Republicans have their problems <cough>Specter</cough>. The Democrats are nothing but problems. You want to vote for a Democrat? Fine, go right ahead. But don’t ever claim to be libertarian after supporting a Democrat. Because the two simply don’t go together.

The Nixon Obama Administration continues

March 7, 2009

Not only do they have an enemies lies, but they’re probably using the IRS to attack their opponents.