116 may be too generous

From Obama’s recent speech to the Chamber of Commerce:

“Auto executives predicted that having to install seatbelts would bring the downfall of their industry. It didn’t happen. The President of the American Bar Association denounced child labor laws as “a communistic effort to nationalize children.” That’s a quote. None of these things came to pass.”

Apparently the moron failed to recall that General Motors filed for bankruptcy on June 1, 2009. Chrysler filed for bankruptcy on April 30, 2009. American birth rates are well below replacement rates when immigrant births aren’t counted, and the federal government explicitly claims a right to children that supercedes the parental claim in many areas, including health and education. One can reasonably argue about whether or not these events can truly be said to have been caused by the specific government policy, but to base an argument on the events not having happened takes a special combination of ignorance and unfounded arrogance.

UPDATE – It takes a real rocket scientist to attempt lying about something one did in public more than 24 times in the last two years.

“President Obama’s assertion on Sunday that he “didn’t raise taxes once” is “blatantly false,” a taxpayer watchdog group says. Obama made the claim in his pre-Super Bowl interview with Fox News host Bill O’Reilly. According to Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), President Obama has signed into law at least two dozen tax increases.”

The logic of collegiate cheating

I find it interesting that no one ever seems to address the main reason that so many students feel no shame about cheating, cyber or otherwise, is that they know that a college education isn’t about education, it’s merely purchasing an employment ticket:

In a study of 1222 undergraduates, Selwyn[1] examined differences in cybercheating levels between a variety of majors and student types. Overall results? 61.9% of students cybercheat.

And why shouldn’t they? If you’re not attending college to learn anything and if your professors are more interested in indoctrinating you than educating you, it stands to reason that you should act to ensure that you graduate with the best grades and the least amount of effort.

If anyone is going to be held accountable for cheating, it should be the university administrators and professoriats. They are the ones who are fraudulently selling promises of employability, after all. My only regret about college, besides a) not dropping out after my sophmore year to sell sound boards, and b)not playing soccer instead of concentrating on track, is that I didn’t cheat at all. I managed a decent GPA while combining an absolute minimum of effort – by which I mean not even showing up to campus until the third week in the semester – with never cheating on anything. But with a little selective cheating, I could have easily nailed down a 4.0 and graduated with honors. C’est la vie.

180 seconds

That’s all the time you have, gentlemen. So, figuring out how to make the optimal impression in that time is the only place your efforts should be concentrated if you are seeking to meet women:

They say you should never judge a book by its cover. But when it comes to the opposite sex, it seems that’s exactly what women do. It takes a woman just three minutes to make up her mind about whether she likes a man or not, a study has revealed.

The average female spends the time sizing up looks, physique and dress-sense as well as taking in scent, accent and eloquence of a potential suitor. Women also quickly judge how he interacts with her friends and whether he is successful or ambitious. It also emerged most women believe 180 seconds is long enough to gauge whether or not he is Mr Right, or Mr Wrong.

The study also found women rarely change their mind about a man after their initial reaction – and believe they are ‘always right’ in their assumptions and judgments.

It would appear that women become emotionally invested in their decisions about whether a man is attractive or not, which means that in most cases, a man will have no need to worry about keeping up whatever false front he projects in order to win the 180-second window.

How you apply this is up to you. I suspect overly outrageous exaggeration will backfire, unless utilized with irony. The important thing to keep in mind that if an attribute isn’t going to come across in less than 180 seconds, it may as well not exist. The second thing to conclude from this is that if you haven’t lit a spark in those first three minutes, the marginal return on your time investment will drop off a cliff. This means a man should never give any woman more than five minutes of his time unless she provides him with a definite indication of interest.

It is perhaps useful to keep in mind that women are usually less interested in those who openly express interest in them.

“Women who believed the men liked them a lot were more attracted to the men than women who thought the men liked them only an average amount. However, the women who found the men most attractive were the ones who weren’t sure whether those men were into them or not.”

Neocons aren’t conservatives

Glenn Beck belatedly notices:

Fox News’s Glenn Beck lashed out at Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol on his radio show this morning, accusing Kristol of betraying conservatism and missing the significance of what Beck sees as an alliance between Islamism and socialism.

“I don’t even know if you understand what conservatives are anymore, Billy,” Beck said in his extended, sarcastic attack on Kristol. “People like Bill Kristol, I don’t think they stand for anything any more. All they stand for is power. They’ll do anything to keep their little fiefdom together, and they’ll do anything to keep the Republican power entrenched.”

The pragmatic set will always sell out their professed principles. This should never come as a surprise, after all, their lack of attachment to principle is precisely why they describe themselves as pragmatists in the first place. It’s not as if Bill Kristol has changed because people like him never stand for anything but power. And they’ll be screeching like banshees about the need for American military intervention once the Caliphate that they claim doesn’t exist begins to turn its attention towards Jerusalem again.

Where Beck is wrong is to think that beginning by confronting the ur-caliphate in the Middle East is the right strategy. The strategically correct place to begin is removing its footholds in the West.