Randoms of the day

iNotRacist (HT: asdf in the comments)

– Alfredwclark wants your help compiling The Laws of the Cathedral.

– Since it looks like immigration reform will pass, perhaps we should get to know Mexicans.  On the bright side, it’ll probably be awesome for you if you’re rich – so that’s cool.

Outside in: “It took over seven decades for Soviet communism to implode.”


LMFAO: “The main pushback I’ve gotten is that the article seems written with a relatively educated relatively affluent audience in mind.”


– Bruce Charlton on leftist family life.

– lzozlzlzlzlzomglzozzl

16 Responses to Randoms of the day

  1. samsonsjawbone says:

    I’m actually pretty sympathetic to the wedding present article, having just recently attended a wedding that made me think the same sort of thing. Like almost all couples except the traditionally religious, this pair had been living together for several years, and their wedding registry contained stuff like camping gear. I was angry – “I don’t mind buying you a pot set if I thought you didn’t already have one, but your wedding registry is damn well designed to set you up to have a basic household, not to spoil you with a luxury spree. My money is bloody well not for buying you camping gear. “

  2. dearieme says:

    Implosion does not happen without external pressure.

  3. redpillwifey says:

    Hehe, thanks for the linkage 🙂

  4. Handle says:

    1. Interesting discussion over at Spandrell’s concerning the whole Snowden thing.

    2. Related to Spencer’s Global Warming “Epic Fail” link, The administration just quietly released New Guidance on a 60% increase in the carbon price (estimate of social cost) to use from 2015 onwards for regulatory cost-benefit analysis.

    Now, this is funny in two ways. First, at least half of this was from a change in long term discount rates (and you’d think Bloomberg, of all places, would be able to understand the financial math of computing present values and aware of how the government is required to do it).

    And second, it so happens that just today BP released it’s annual Review of World Energy You can see that China uses more coal than the rest of the world combined and look up the CO2 emissions rate. At $38/ton and 35GT, the US alone must be accumulating $1.3 Trillion in climate-change liabilities per year according to the administration’s figure. Sure, whatever. Why not 3 or 10 Trillion? Might as well shoot for the moon when you’re playing this game.

    It just goes to show how something that seems reasonable and even pleasing to Prominent Libertarian Economists “The government should do cost-benefit analysis for all of it’s proposed regulations or project approvals” can be immediately exploited and gamed by adjusting one of the inputs to that process. “He who controls the estimate controls the future.” And who came up with that number and how? More to the point, what can anybody do about it? There’s real power without a public name or face hidden in some cubicle.

    This happens in court all the time – both “cost-benefit analysis” and “totality of the circumstances tests” just providing impenetrable cover for whatever the judge wanted to do in the first place. There’s no global warming unless you jack with the climate sensitivity factor. Every regulation is justifiable, every project ban-able, if you change the “estimated social cost” factor, or play with the discount rate and the cost incidence schedule. Anybody ever look at an “Environmental Impact Study?” Or whether the present and past population estimates of some species makes it “endangered”, or whether some local variant is a ‘distinct’ species or not.

    Those matters are in dispute. Someone controls their resolution. That person is sovereign in that context. Who are they?

  5. Foseti

    I have a query for you if you care to answer.
    Steve Sailer seems to think that thought-crime, anti-PC prosecutions are indeed higher under Obama than Bush. Does this mean that then political appointees do have some power?

    • Foseti says:

      Keep in mind that the permanent employees at Justice want to prosecute these people.

      I’d argue that instead of seeing an administration-requested increase you’re just seeing the Justice Department untethered by any temporary employees of USG. Justice builds up a backlog of cases during a republican presidency and clears em out during a democratic one.

      • Alex J. says:

        So the political appointees can apply the brakes (or the gas), but they don’t get access to the steering wheel.

      • Foseti says:

        Right. And the guys at the wheel are there forever, while the guy at the brake is there for a couple years

      • Okay great. So their power is as brakes. This also gels with Moldbug’s theory that R and D admins are totally different in how the bureaucracy relates to them.

      • Aaron says:

        I guess more Republicans getting elected translates into feedback as “you need to boil the frog more slowly”.

  6. Handle says:

    Gallup released it’s annual “Americans’ Confidence in Social Institutions” report today. here are the bottom-line numbers.

    Time for me to get back on my “more pre-reactionaries out there that you think” hypothesis horse. This is especially fascinating if you look at the trends over the last 40 years and, speculatively and cautiously of course, extrapolate them slightly into the future.

    I think one can fairly profile and label the political nature of a society based on these kinds of numbers. How far out of joint with the ruling Cathedral does this look? RedGov at the top and rising, BlueGov at the bottom and falling.

    What is the proper term that characterizes the changes in a society that has come to prize a set of institutions consisting of “The Military, The Police, Small Businessmen, and Organized Religion” while despising the set which includes “Congress, Unions, and the Press”? Even “The Supreme Court”, once DoD’s most significant competitor for popularity and legitimacy, has taken a big hit in recent years (apparently it takes the public about fifty years to catch up to reality).

    Is the F-word inapt? Too strong? Too soon? Thoughts?

    • Alrenous says:

      “apparently it takes the public about fifty years to catch up to reality”

      Sounds about right to me, though it accelerates as communication improves or becomes relatively cheaper. We can expect the public to be meaningfully reactionary in 30-40 years. Barring black swans of course.

      One main problem is that voters do not systematize their ideas. Sure, they seem to have a fairly accurate assessment of the individual elements, but who’s going to take time away from work/worrying about their kids to think about both congress and the military at the same time? Let alone think about congress, the military, and the reasons behind their relative stations, all at once.

  7. RS says:

    Paging josh, head to Sailer’s for a thread on the ‘great’ foundations — including a 1900 denuncio from a British magazine, focused on their buying the universities.

  8. K(yle) says:

    I think the BGC analysis is a bit out of tune. Children are certainly expected to honor and respect their mothers.

    Women are the client in the ‘leftist family’, not the children despite ostensibly being the dependent in the relationship. Children are a woman’s accessory and it’s immoral to restrict a woman’s choices even if you are a child, so children are expected to understand their role as an accessory to their mother.

    Society might screech over mistreated children, but society also basically doesn’t consider anything a modern ‘liberated’ woman might do to her own child as mistreatment so child abuse histrionics are irrelevant. This hypersensitivity over abused children is basically of the same variety and has the same source as the rape awareness campaign. It’s this hysterical level of concern society has for women, and concern for the well being of children is more about messing with women’s stuff (children) than it has anything to do with the actual well being of children. That’s why we really only care

    I don’t see anything in the modern/leftist family that suggests that women are expected to be responsible parents. I mean if a mother reneges on her duty to be this impartial parental bureaucrat to her child exactly how bad does she have to be to actually suffer any real repercussions from society?

    Casey Anthony suffered some temporary social opprobrium for literally murdering her own child to increase her own license. If you want to get into the “abortion is murder” business arguably this kind of arrangement where a mother can kill her child to gain license is pretty much normal under the right circumstances.

    I’m just not seeing the child as the beneficiary here. I mean children will actually be shamed, cajoled and punished at all levels by all authority figures for withholding affection from their mother (especially when doing so is justified) until they comply.

    On the other side of that same coin women aren’t to be commanded to make their children happy by doing anything that is conducive to having a family (maintaining a marriage to the children’s father, not working all day personally, not parading a bevy of irresponsible boyfriends in front of the child, et cetera, et cetera). Fostering parent-child bonds, in particular mother-child bonds are entirely about telling kids to “just deal with it” in terms of their parents atrocious lifestyles.

    • handleshaus says:

      Not really that noteworthy, It’s just Chevron again (1984 – ironically). New Deal legislation (like the Securities Exchange Act, also of 1934) is chock full loosy-goosy interpretable discretion. That’s because they were creating USG4. There was some debate for a while about whether Congress could delegate this kind of authority, what it’s bounds were, what the courts had to do, etc. The Supreme Court finally settled the question in Chevron, and there’s been no meaningful change in 30 years.

      So, in this case, Congress writes is handed a 300-page draft composed by New Deal (1934) bureaucrats which replaces the Federal Radio Commission with the new FCC and has rules that aren’t specific but say “reasonable” in important legal ways in over two dozen places. It also says amazing things like ‘may forbear if’ but that’s a different subject.

      So, we have reasonable charges, reasonable rates of compensation, reasonable fees, reasonable practices, reasonable requests, and in this case “within a reasonable time”.

      Well, what’s a “reasonable time”? The FCC wrote a rule that said “90 days”.

      But No! That’s not the real question! The question is always “Who? Whom?” – that is, “Who decides?” The FCC or Congress or the Judiciary?

      Scalia, writing for the Court, says, basically, “Congress, unless they delegate it to the FCC, which, when they write vague crap like ‘reasonable’ – they do.”

      Ok, but when there’s a dispute over whether the FCC gets to decide, who gets to decide? The Court, again, says that the FCC is the presumptive first decider of interpreting the jurisdictional authorities of its own enactment legislation. You can rebut this presumption, but you’ll get thrown out on Summary Judgment unless you’ve got an extraordinarily strong case to make that the FCC obviously violated the clear direction of the Congress. Good luck with that.

      The reason the court split in the weird way it did (not along typical political lines) in this case is because this proposition is troubling to much of the judiciary, which likes exclusive say over what statutes mean. They are more uniformly comfortable letting regulatory agencies and commissions write, interpret, and enforce their own regulations, but not Congressional legislation.

      Anyway, “who decides” is not even the real question. The real question is “Who decides who decides?” When you reach the end of higher authority, that institution is the true sovereign over the matter in the context.

      So, who is Truly Sovereign? SCOTUS. But who have they and Congress delegated much of their semi-sovereignty to, out of, mostly, ‘convenience and efficiency’? The Bureaucracy. They really had no choice, there’s no good alternative. That’s USG4.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: