Archive for February, 2008

Mathematical Conservatism Buckley Neocons Traditionalism Survival Immigration

February 28, 2008

William F. Buckley’s passing brings out many statements that he is the father of modern conservatism. Is that true? In what sense is it true? Was Buckley really conservative? All his life or just at times?

The survival probability to some date T of something alive at t can be written p(t,T). The value of p(t,T) can be at most 1. For a human life it falls to zero as T increases.

We can look at survival probabilities of many things.

1. People.
2. Civilization
3. Genes
4. Races
5. Political organizations
6. Ideas
7. Universities
8. Corporations
9. Religions
10. Ideologies

We can stop at 10. Conservatism is presumably about increasing the survival probability of something or other. We can write conservatism as an optimization problem.

Max p(t,T)

subject to constraints.

What might the constraints be?

1. Current income.
2. Current utility.
3. Current consumption.
4. Sentimentality.

Lets compare this to Egalitariansim

Min Sum (x_i – xbar)^2

where the sum is over individuals i, and x_i is some measure like consumption, utility, fertility, etc.

For liberals these seems to include the probability of being in the West. I.e. each person on the earth has an equal chance to be in Western lands. This is the death of exclusion.

One version of liberalism is that any thing you hear about, make the outcomes equal. This doesn’t really distinguish or weight or discriminate between objectives, i.e. different x’s. If x is a variable, the outcome has to be equal. This is mindless sentimentality.

The objective functions of conservatism, maximize the survival probability and liberalism, maximize equality are radically different. The outcome from pursuing one or the other as a goal is also radically different. Survival probabilities will be lower under liberalism since that is not the objective function, and maximizing equality will impose a cost on survival probability.

Who are the thinkers who are pushing the program of maximizing survival probability in one way or another? The immigration restrictionists are. Some examples are Lawrence Auster, Vanishing American, Roy Beck, Peter Brimelow, Pat Buchanan, Steve Sailer, Vdare in general, Jared Taylor, etc.

Many who are part of liberalism are really careerists. This includes the Clintons who are maximizing their own wealth. John Edwards is another example, a man who has chosen Wall Street and VC’s in a sell-out of the children of the mill who found computer programming jobs. Neocons are on the side of mindless equality. They are against immigration restriction. This means they are against maximizing survival probability as a goal, which means they are not conservative.

Mathematical Conservatism can be defined as a conservatism anchored in the mathematics of optimizing the survival probability of key variables subject to constraints. Those key variables include civilization, genes, and gene combinations. That means stopping immigration which is against all those things.

Mathematical Conservatism is closely related to traditionalism as Lawrence Auster and others advocate. However, by using the language of constrained optimization it can bring to bear the considerable machinery of operations research, mathematical probability, and economics developed in the 20th century.

Just as Law and Economics as a movement has transformed many arguments about law into calculation, so can Mathematical Conservatism. Simply restating traditional conservatism in the form of constrained optimization is sufficient to eliminate much of the nonsense that comes out of neocon think tanks.

The optimal immigration for the purpose of maximizing the survival probability of the West as a civilization and as genes is zero. This is, assuming that zero is the constraint. If we can go below zero, then the optimal is negative. This is the level the third world has now, and which Europe had in the 16 to 19th centuries, the centuries of the rise of European civilization.

Anyone offended by William F. Buckley may apologize

February 27, 2008

This is an opportunity for all those offended by William F. Buckley to apologize.   Also those offended by Bill Cunningham, James Watson, Jimmy the Greek, …

William F. Buckley Showed A Few Can Make a Difference

February 27, 2008

Each of us can make a difference.  That is what William F. Buckley’s life showed.  Even in the midst of the triumph of leftism, conservatives can be true to themselves and the truth.  Others may call us bigots, but we can keep telling the truth.

Liberalism has harmed the country.

1. Men’s median wages are the same as in 1973.
2. Women’s median wages are what men’s were in 1960.
3. Labor force participation rates of black and white men were 80 percent in 1965 and are 67 and 74 percent now.
4. Schools, inundated from the 3rd world, are failing.
5. Prisons are full.

547000 hits nytimes.com for “Hillary Rodham Clinton”.

February 27, 2008

“Hillary Rodham Clinton” site:nytimes.com

Results 1 – 100 of about 547,000 from nytimes.com for “Hillary Rodham Clinton”.

Facts are stubborn things. Looks like those attacking Cunningham have 547,000 things to explain.

“Barack Hussein Obama”

Results 1100 of about 346,000 for “Barack Hussein Obama”

Results 1100 of about 1,850,000 for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

“Barack Hussein Obama” site:nytimes.com

Results 1100 of about 768 from nytimes.com for “Barack Hussein Obama”

“Hillary Rodham Clinton” site:cnn.com

Results 1100 of about 31,600 from cnn.com for “Hillary Rodham Clinton”.

The Bill Cunningham John McCain controversy is about liberals, i.e. John McCain, inventing an offense that was never there. This was an invent the offense to attack Bill Cunningham job.

Attacks on Bill Cunningham for saying Barack Hussein Obama are wrong

February 26, 2008

3000 people died on 9-11 because the MSM and politicians couldn’t say to stop Muslim immigration after the WTC 1993 attacks and the killing of Rabbi Kahane. The security person said they could tell Atta was a terrorist but didn’t stop him because it would be racist. Bush had ordered no profiling of Muslims or Arabs before 9-11 (Steve Sailer had the story on 9-11). We are dying for PC. PC kills.

“We still live, and will continue to live, with the consequences of our own blindness”

We sure do.

From a special preview in Commentary of Andrew C. McCarthy’s forthcoming book, Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad, about the jihadist cell that bombed the World Trade Center 15 years ago today and related matters:

Would a successful interdiction of Kahane’s murderer, or swift and thorough investigation of Abdel Rahman’s circle in its aftermath, have prevented the monstrous deeds of subsequent years? That is of course unknowable. But an aggressive effort by United States authorities would have indicated a seriousness of purpose toward the threat of Islamic terrorism that itself might have changed the story of our times for the better. We still live, and will continue to live, with the consequences of our own blindness.

Robert Spencer is right.

Andrew McCarthy says how the killers of Kahane and those who attacked the WTC in 1993 were already telling the FBI to go away for being racist. 3000 people died on 9-11 because of that line. John McCain needs to wake up.

Barack Hussein Obama is fair speech and is within bounds. So is going after his record on the Tony Rezko loan. Since when have loans been off the books in political campaigns? Keating 5 John McCain says no loan talk. Yeah. We are fools to let these guys kill us, which is what happened on 9-11. McCain was responsible for not stopping immigration after the WTC 1993 attack. We are being killed by this PC.

John McCain and George Bush have taken ownership of the deaths of 9-11 by their PC comments. Because their words and ideas are what allowed 9-11 to happen, not Bill Cunningham saying Barack Hussein Obama. Also the evidence is that Obama was born to a Muslim father, was registered as a Muslim in school, and in his own book said he want to mosque as a child for prayers. Daniel Pipes documents that Obama was a Muslims as a child here. Steve Sailer and others are documenting the truth about Barack Obama’s record.

Real John McCain: My Supporters are Bigots

February 26, 2008

The real hate finally came out, John McCain, in effect, called his supporter Bill Cunningham a bigot.  This was for using the H word, Hussein.  Cunningham called Barack, Barack Hussein Obama.  Oh my.  He did it 3 times. There can’t be any doubt.

Although McCain didn’t use the bigot word, its clear from his past that is what he really feels. At a gut level, John McCain considers whites to be bigots. McCain was told that by his North Vietnamese captors and at some level he has come to see it as true.

Obama Invents Obama Numbers Wages Rise Prices Fall

February 26, 2008

(Spoof) Obama has invented new numbers, the Obama Numbers, ONs. Just turn yourself on to the Obama Numbers. The way they work:

1. If its good, the Obama Number goes up. Your wages rise.
2. If its bad, the Obama Number goes down. You pay less.

Obama Numbers are friendly to all. So as your wages rise, your employer pays less for your work. Profits rise. Prices fall. Obama Numbers are a mystical fusion from Africa and America.

Obama Numbers are a miracle.  They fulfill the leftist communism taught to him in his youth by his mentor and leftist parents.  Obama Numbers heal.

Children understand Obama Numbers. All children get A’s. All children learn Obama Math. To be released: Obama Letters.

To learn the Obama Numbers you just come to Obama. You stand up and shout, Obama. Scream. Let your racism go and you will understand the Obama Numbers.

Obama Loves You. You Love Obama. This is all you know on earth and all you need to know. Obama made the Obama Numbers because he loves you.

Invade Iran Surround Pakistan Denuke Muslim World

February 26, 2008

Any other course of action won’t work. We have to invade Iran to find their entire program and eliminate it. We have to surround Pakistan and blockade it to give up its nukes. That means linking our ground forces in Afghanistan to our ships in the Indian Ocean. That requires us to occupy Iran.

We will need to draft at least 2 million men to do this with overwhelming force. We could invade Iran with the army in Iraq at a pinch, but our purposes would be better served to have a draft army at least on the way.

If Iran agrees to let us use Eastern Iran for our troops and to give up its nuclear program under our inspection then we don’t have to fight it. To get that we have to have a draft of 2 million men and be ready to invade. We can’t simply wait. Waiting is how Russia and China got nukes. Waiting is how North Korea got to where it is. Waiting is suicide for us. We can’t allow a Muslim nuclear world. That is inconsistent with our survival.

What is happening with Musharraf shows we can’t let Pakistan keep nukes. They have sold them under Bush’s nose. We have no plan in Washington. We have people who just hope the Muslims will be like us.

A discussion from a liberal point of view of the options is here:

Don Siegelman The Night 60 Minutes Went Out in Alabama

February 25, 2008

CBS 60 Minutes expose of the politicization of DOJ USAO in Alabama in multiple prosecutions in Alabama.

“The Prosecution Of Governor Siegelman
Scott Pelley Reports On The Case Against Alabama’s Former Governor, Don Siegelman”

CBS 60 Minutes

There are many comments at the CBS page below.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/21/60minutes/main3859830_page4.shtml

The prosecution was handled by the office of U.S. Attorney Leura Canary, whose husband Bill Canary had run the campaign of Siegelman’s opponent, Gov. Riley.

..

Canary allegedly said, “My girls” can take care of Siegelman. Simpson says she asked “Who are your girls?”

“And he says, ‘Oh, my wife, Leura. You know, she’s the Middle District United States Attorney.’ And he said, ‘And then Alice Martin. She is the Northern District Attorney, and I’ve helped with her campaign,’” Simpson says.

In this new investigation, prosecutors zeroed in on that vivid story told by Siegelman’s aide, Nick Bailey, who said he saw the governor with a check in his hand after meeting Richard Scrushy. Trouble was, Bailey was wrong about the check, and Siegelman’s lawyer says prosecutors knew it.

“They got a copy of the check. And the check was cut days after that meeting. There was no way possible for Siegelman to have walked out of that meeting with a check in his hand,” Jones explains.

Bailey told 60 Minutes that before the Siegelman trial, he spoke to prosecutors more than 70 times, and he admitted that during those conversations he had trouble remembering details. He told 60 Minutes the prosecutors were so frustrated, they made him write his proposed testimony over and over to get his story straight.

If Bailey’s telling the truth, his notes, by law, should have been turned over to the defense. But Siegelman’s lawyers tell 60 Minutes they never saw any such notes and never had a chance to show the jury just how much Bailey’s story had changed.

No one at the Justice Department would be interviewed for this story, but they did send a statement which read, in part, “This case was brought by career prosecutors … based upon the law and the evidence alone. After considering that evidence … a jury of Mr. Siegelman’s peers found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

This is why jurors should be

1. Instructed they are the judge of the law as well as the facts.
3. Be allowed to use the internet or anything else.
4. Be allowed to submit questions to witnesses during the trial or during deliberations.
5. Get the transcript in the jury room. Jurors should not be subject to read backs in the court room. We need to use cognitive psychology about learning. You need the transcript to learn.
6. Jurors, witnesses, judges, prosecutors, and lawyers would all have to take cognitive psychology tests that show fallibility of judgement. These would be part of the record, including those of the judge and the jurors and the prosecutors and investigators and witnesses, etc.
7. Lawyers who ask are you sure would have to retake the test. Also make this part of law school, taking these tests and repeat at the bar exam. These results would be posted, including first time results. Same for judges and prosecutors when appointed or candidates for office.

The basis of keeping evidence from juries is that the judge and prosecutor can be relied on in almost all cases to be fair. Once that is no longer the case, there is no basis to withhold evidence from the jury or keep them from reading what is available on-line. When the judges and prosecutors can’t be relied on to almost always be fair, then the idea that they can be trusted to decide what the jury can see or know is discredited.

We also need to reform almost every part of the legal process. This includes the following.

1. Sentencing guidelines are too harsh for non-violent crime. Go back to the days of basically going into parole immediately for most non-violent offenders.
2. The use of plea bargaining to testify against others. This has been corrupted.
3. We need more transparency in the actions of prosecutors.
4. Choose lawyers at random to review cases, from outside government and to interview witnesses, etc. This report would go to the judge and jury. It would evaluate the work of the prosecutors and investigators in the case. It would be made public.

The basis of harsh sentencing guidelines is that prosecutors and judges can be relied on to be fair in almost every case. The basis of plea bargaining to get testimony cross cases or within a case is that prosecutors and judges can be relied upon. This is shown to be violated in this case. Its also shown in other Bush DOJ cases.

The case of Professor Thomas C. Butler in Texas is another case. The case of the two border agents is another case. The main witness was engaging in crime during the case. The case of the bacteria in art prosecution in New York State is another case. These are all Bush DOJ cases. Dr. Robert Ferrell and Steven Kurtz:

http://www.caedefensefund.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Kurtz

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/bio/factsheets/thomasbutler.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_C._Butler

CBS Blackout in Alabama during this segment only:

http://www.whnt.com/Global/story.asp?S=7918345

Larisa Alexandrovna:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/parts-of-60-minutes-bro_b_88218.html

http://www.atlargely.com/2008/02/siegelman-discu.html

Alternative title (suggested by LA’s piece)

Don Siegelman: Prisoner in Putin’s, no, in Bush Gonzales Rove’s America.

It was another case of prosecution based on a deal with a bad witness who would say anything. But it was also pushed by a corrupt DOJ at the USAO level and at DOJ HQ level.

This was part of the Alberto Gonzales DOJ. The case was after Gonzales became Attorney General in 2005. The BG DOJ was one of the most corrupt in history. This is the Bush Gonzales corruption of America.

We need to reform oversight of DOJ. We should have a rotating committee of elected state Attorney Generals review the actions of DOJ on a regular basis. This is part of federalism. They should get security clearances. They should supervise when it comes to investigating the president, attorney general, or appointees of the president. The same would apply to Congress or the judiciary. We can’t have politicized DOJ’s that can choose to investigate judges or members of Congress this way.

During Bush Clinton Bush, the 3 branches of government became politicized in handling misconduct. This really was a building consequence of Watergate. The result is that others see this and taken advantage of it. Russia and other countries have seen how to gain benefits from this. The case of US v. Harvard, Shleifer and Hay and the possible withholding of evidence and information by DOJ HQ under Clinton and Bush is another one that should be investigated. Here though, its not the USAO Mass that did wrong (at least at the assistant USAO level), its the DOJ HQ and others in DC.  The US Attorney during that case left and became a lecturer at Harvard Law School while the case was still pending.  He was supposed to lecture, at least in part, on ethics for government lawyers. During Bush there were many cases that created fear in many people so as to interfere with justice.

==

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/07/hbc-90000603

Harper’s has received this press release from Dana Jill Simpson concerning recent developments in the Siegelman case, reproduced in full below:

Truth is marching on. I will not allow Middle District U.S. Attorneys Laura Canary or Louis Franklin to deter me from testifying before Congress.

Initially, I was shocked to read the false and gross distortions issued in a press release by Middle District U.S. Attorneys Laura Canary and her assistant Louis Franklin regarding my role in the controversy surrounding the Don Siegelman/Richard Scrushy prosecution.

It is my understanding that it is a violation of the ethical rules governing prosecutorial conduct to issue this type of press release when a case is still pending in the courts.

==

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/06/hbc-90000351

Justice in Alabama
DEPARTMENT No Comment
BY Scott Horton
PUBLISHED June 24, 2007
==

Siegelman v. McCain:

http://brilliantatbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-is-don-siegelman-different-from.html

Go Ralph Nader: We have unemployed software people

February 24, 2008

“We have got many unemployed software people here. Regarding manual labor, the Wall Street Journal editors are for near open-borders policy in large part because they want a cheap wage policy. Bringing in cheap labor to the United States reduces wages here immigration increases the supply of U.S. labor, reduces wages and makes jobs more scarce especially for people at the bottom of the labor market ”

was at

Go Ralph go. Tell the Truth on Wall Street. Ralph Nader will announce his intentions on Meet the Press with Tim Russert.

==See similar quote from Ralph at:

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_06_21/cover.html

RN: I don’t believe in giving visas to software people from the Third World when we have got all kinds of unemployed software people here.

Let’s get down to the manual labor. This is the reason the Wall Street Journal is for an open-borders policy: they want a cheap-wage policy. There are two ways to deal with that. One is to raise the minimum wage to the purchasing-power level of 1968—\$8 an hour—and then, in another year, raise it to \$10 an hour because the economy since 1968 has doubled in production per capita.

==