Steve Sailer in Taki’s Magazine from a little over a year ago:
In 2010, MIT unveiled plans to expand undergrad enrollment by six percent, which would only get it back to where it was in the 1990s.
These sorts of thing catch my attention due to the age of the Ace and Deuce. The Ivies could do wonders for this country if they would expand enrollment. It’s not just the Ivies, it’s also Rice, Stanford, Chicago and Northwestern, and on and on…
Arnold Kling on Rotisserie Baseball Leagues.
Normally I think Arnold is really smart. After that post, not so much.
That may be harsh, but talk of fantasy leagues really gives me tired head.
Bryan Caplan wants you to celebrate this nonsense: Open Borders Day is Starting, Bryan Caplan.
I’m looking forward to the follow up from Crimsonic.
All I have to say is that almost all social science papers, today anyway, have the same weaknesses:
Nearly all the research she cites has been produced by social scientists who were drawn to their trade to fight what they saw as the insidious and often violent exploitation of women in this country. They have joined like-minded social scientists to design experiments that, for reasons of convenience and expense, are forced to rely on college students, who have learned in their social science classes that the oppression of women is insidious and often violent. The experiments always yield positive results. The findings are fashioned into papers. These are published in journals that, as a guard against bias and a guarantor of methodological soundness, are reviewed by a panel of peers who went into social science to fight the insidious and often violent exploitation of women. The data are clear: The exploitation of women is insidious and often violent. It’s pretty much settled science by now.
From an Andrew Ferguson piece on the new Lean In Collection: Brave New Stereotypes | The Weekly Standard.
I find this amusing. From ThinkProgress:
Chipotle Inc. is warning investors that extreme weather events “associated with global climate change” might eventually affect the availability of some of its ingredients. If availability is limited, prices will rise — and Chipotle isn’t sure it’s willing to pay.
“Increasing weather volatility or other long-term changes in global weather patterns, including any changes associated with global climate change, could have a significant impact on the price or availability of some of our ingredients,” the popular chain, whose Sofritas vegan tofu dish recently went national, said in its annual report released last month. “In the event of cost increases with respect to one or more of our raw ingredients we may choose to temporarily suspend serving menu items, such as guacamole or one or more of our salsas, rather than paying the increased cost for the ingredients.”
You can read the article here.
Nothing about a human response to changing climate. Like say, moving the avocado trees… Because if it gets really warm, there is plenty of room for avocado trees in Kansas and Nebraska.
I don’t get it. I’m going to admit that I haven’t read all the stories in detail, but that doesn’t matter to make my point. Via Maggie’s Farm, I would like to point out this photo from Ace:
With all that pipeline out there, how do the people that want to build the Keystone XL continue to justify their project financially? I would think that after spending $X over the original marketing/regulatory approvals budget that the project would no longer make sense financially. I get that for the people opposed to this pipeline it is a fundamental religious principle (These people will worry, if the pipeline is ever built that Keystone XL energy may be commingled with their good energy in the same way Hindus and Muslims might worry about lard making its way into some of their food.) But the coldhearted, monocle wearing capitalists behind this project should eventually decide it is no longer worth it.
I’ve got to think the point of no return (financially speaking) was crossed long ago.
My trips to Whole Foods do not involve all the customers being like those described in the article linked below, but there are certainly a significant percentage of them. The more pieces of metal hanging off various parts of their face, the more likely they are going to be an angry Whole Foods shopper. From the article:
The problem with Whole Foods is their regular customers. They are, across the board, across the country, useless, ignorant, and miserable. They’re worse than miserable, they’re angry. They are quite literally the opposite of every Whole Foods employee I’ve ever encountered. Walk through any store any time of day—but especially 530pm on a weekday or Saturday afternoon during football season—and invariably you will encounter a sneering, disdainful horde of hipster Zombies and entitled 1%ers.
They stand in the middle of the aisles, blocking passage of any other cart, staring intently at the selection asking themselves that critical question: which one of these olive oils makes me seem coolest and most socially conscious, while also making the raw vegetable salad I’m preparing for the monthly condo board meeting seem most rustic and artisanal?
Read the whole thing. I was amused.
Via the Instapundit, we find this gem at The Other McCain:
Do you see what I mean about “credulous certainty”? If you begin with the assumption that the researchers have accurately measured something meaningful — West Virginia, land of opportunity! — and then start blabbering that “the researchers found” this, that and the other correlation, you’re likely to end up making all kinds of foolish arguments, as Matthew O’Brien eagerly does:
The American Dream is alive in Denmark and Finland and Sweden. And in San Jose and Salt Lake City and Pittsburgh. But it’s dead in Atlanta and Raleigh and Charlotte. And in Indianapolis and Detroit and Jacksonville. Fixing that isn’t just about redistribution. It’s about building denser cities, so the poor aren’t so segregated. About good schools that you don’t have to live in the right (and expensive) neighborhood to attend. And about ending a destructive drug war that imprisons and blights the job prospects of far too many non-violent offenders — further shrinking the pool of “marriageable” men.
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
You have no clue, O’Brien. “Building denser cities” in rural South Georgia? “Ending a destructive drug war” in Eutaw, Alabama? The American Dream “alive” in Pittsburgh but “dead” in Charlotte? You’re attempting to “solve” a problem you haven’t even begun to understand, and in the process making yourself a public nuisance.
Go read the whole thing, it’s great: Carts and Horses, Causes and Effects : The Other McCain.
In talking about the gentrification of San Francisco, Carl from Chicago closes with this point:
If you really want to look at long term opportunities I’d recommend property in Oakland. Oakland has a great location, it just needs to be terraformed via gentrification and rising property taxes until every activist and poor person is driven out, just like it is occurring today in San Francisco. Maybe this is a 20-30 year vision, but it will happen.
From: San Francisco and a Sneaky Win for the Red.
I think it is an idea worth seriously considering, but I don’t have the time or the money. But I will pass this along to the Ace and Deuce. The Deuce loves California and may be interested in exploring this idea.