American thinking about tax dollars

Here’s a New York Times headline: “Higher [Health Insurance] Premiums Cited by G.O.P. Hit Just 3% of America”:

20170309-nyt-headlines-about-health-insurance-premium-increase

 

Readers who dig into the full article will learn that

  • health insurance costs are going up (in a country with essentially flat per-capita GDP)
  • therefore a larger percentage of the GDP is devoted to spending on health care
  • tax dollars are so heavily used to subsidize health insurance purchases that not too many individuals directly see the higher bills

So American society is paying more for health insurance, but the fact is being hidden from American individuals.

Circling back to the headline: “… Hit Just 3% of America”. Of course, the only way that this can be literally true, according to the linked-to article disclosing higher costs and spending, is if only 3% of Americans pay tax. I find it interesting that the editors (and maybe the readers? there is no comments link so it is tough to tell) accept this kind of reasoning about tax dollars and government spending.

Full post, including comments

Donald Trump is threatening Jews?

A Facebook friend’s post:

My 11 year old’s Jewish school was the latest to receive a threat today. Classes were evacuated. I hold Trump accountable for this rise of anti-semitism. This presidency is a complete disaster.

Note that if the threat was made locally, it is statistically unlikely to have been made by a Trump supporter due to the relative lack of Trump enthusiasts in the Boston area. Of course, statistics are not as important as feelings and therefore nobody on Facebook pointed out that the threat against the school was possibly unrelated to the Trumpenfuhrer. Suggestions to emigrate to Canada were made, in response to which a Canadian noted “No better here Jewish community centre in Toronto was evacuated today. Threatening phone call!” Trump has spread hatred over an entire continent, apparently.

Here’s a recent Costco purchase that I hope will help our family pass as Christian:

(If it doesn’t work, I vow to buy and consume another package every day until the hatred stops. No sacrifice is too great.)

Separately, I wonder if I can blame Trump for my jokes falling flat. At a dinner with some MIT grads/students the other night, the following occurred.

  • Kid from South Dakota orders sweet and sour chicken.
  • Me: Elaborate questioning of the Royal East waiter regarding what was in sweet and sour chicken, was the dish too spicy for non-Chinese, was it maybe a little too adventurous? Did they have any dishes that were more friendly to Western palates?
  • 35-year-old guy who belongs to a Conservative synagogue: “I want to be introduced to a Nice Jewish Girl”
  • Me: “So she doesn’t have to be a full-fledged Jew? Only Jew-ish?”
  • Kid who grew up in South Dakota, buffered by miles of cornfields from any Jews: laughter.
  • 35-year-old guy, totally stone-faced: “What do you mean?”

Related:

Full post, including comments

What’s happening on this Day Without Women?

Folks:

What’s happening in your neighborhood as a result of the Day Without Women strike (USA Today)?

The referenced USA Today article says “Women are encouraged to not work, whether your job is paid or unpaid. Women are being asked to avoid shopping in stores and online — except for local small businesses and women-owned companies that support A Day Without a Woman.” It seems that the most enthusiastic work-avoiders receive taxpayer-funded paychecks (examples from CNN). By showing up at a “women-owned company” and asking for services, wouldn’t striking female government workers essentially be demanding that their sisters who run small businesses work while they enjoy a day off?

What about women whose primary source of income is family court divorce or child support litigation? Are they refusing to show up for court appearances today?

What about the suggestion to wear the color red? Supposedly we are in a Russian-controlled society. The Red Scare of the 1950s has been defrosted due to the fact that Vladimir Putin couldn’t find a better politician to buy than Donald Trump. Do we no longer associate red with Russian and Soviet politics?

How about Americans who don’t identify as “women”? USA Today says “Men are being asked to help with caregiving and other domestic chores on Wednesday.” Does that mean those of us who identify as “men” are off the hook the other 364 days per year?

Speaking of gender, does this holiday/event promote transgender hostility and cisgender-normative thinking? The page on the Women’s March site says

On International Women’s Day, March 8th, women and our allies will act together for equity, justice and the human rights of women and all gender-oppressed people, through a one-day demonstration of economic solidarity.

But doesn’t the name itself suggest that there are two primary genders? Unless we are going to have at least 58 separate holidays (ABC News list of gender options), each one corresponding to a gender ID, doesn’t celebrating 1 or 2 gender IDs put them above the remaining 57 or 56? As a first step, why not argue to rename this to International Gender-Oppressed People’s Day?

The same page suggests that a person might be stuck as a “woman” while having a different gender identification:

Let’s raise our voices together again, to say that women’s rights are human rights, regardless of a woman’s race, ethnicity, religion, immigration status, sexual identity, gender expression, economic status, age or disability.

Are they saying that someone who was identified by chromosomes and doctors at birth as a “female” and who currently expresses himself as a “male” (“gender expression”) is nonetheless still a “woman”? Is that cisgender prejudice?

While the streets around Harvard Square were shut down for a protest against Donald Trump’s latest executive order regarding immigration, I did a quick survey. An Asian-American health care professional friend laughed at the idea of not showing up to work. A software engineer friend said emphatically “A strike is ridiculous. Women fought for the right to work.”

Separately, here in our household, one female member seems to have taken the injunction against working very seriously indeed.

Full post, including comments

High school civics class: Learning to think with your heart

Local high school Civics students came up with an ordinance that would ban plastic shopping bags in our town. They presented their proposal to a group of voters arguing that, while the impact would be small, it would make people think about the saving energy if they either (a) got a paper bag, or (b) were forced to remember to take a reusable bag from their cars (typically a 6,000-lb. pavement-melting SUV, but occasionally a virtuous Prius or Tesla).

A lady who seemed to be in her 60s asked them how they would address voters who pointed out that it was more energy-efficient to use disposable plastic bags than either paper bags or heavy-duty tote bags (this Atlantic article gives some background; a cotton tote bag is more energy efficient… after 327 uses (but maybe also good as a biology experiment after holding leaking containers 327 times?)).

Despite the fact that this ordinance was the centerpiece of a year-long high school class, it turned out that the teacher had not supplied any any numbers quantifying the potential energy use impact of an ordinance that was being touted as fighting “climate change.”

Related:

Full post, including comments

RepubliCare plan and real-world cardiology procedure costs in the U.S., Switzerland, and Ukraine

“House Republicans Unveil Plan to Replace Health Law” (nytimes) describes a plan for a redesigned river of tax dollars directed at America’s health care industry. Let’s call the new plan “RepubliCare”.

Is there any way to look at this other than as a proposal to subsidize an industry that is demonstrably one of America’s least efficient and least competitive?

First, let’s look at whether it is fair to characterize America’s health care system as the equivalent of a 1930s steel mill.

A local family with some European connections has a relative who needed some stent work. With no insurance, the relative was quoted $125,000 for this project here in Boston, $40,000 in Switzerland, and $10,000 in Ukraine. “It was the exact same state-of-the-art Dutch stent for all of these,” explained my source. (The procedure was ultimately done in Ukraine by a top cardiologist there.)

Based on the higher cost to get the exact same thing done, I conclude that this is not one of our competitive industries and that, in a free market, it would mostly not exist (e.g., absent a health insurer willing to pay an insane local price, a typical American who needed work quoted at $125,000 would get it done by traveling to another state or another country).

Second, what about the specifics of this plan? It seems that health care for lower-income Americans would continue to be handled by 51 separate state bureaucracies:

Medicaid recipients’ open-ended entitlement to health care would be replaced by a per-person allotment to the states.

Ordinarily letting the states, some of which are much larger than the typical country, run stuff seems like a good idea. But here, a state government would have an incentive to favor local businesses even if health care could be provided with lower cost and higher quality in a neighboring state.

The health care industry, in addition to all of their profits from monopolization and collusion (helped by barriers to entry set up by state licensing boards and insurance commissions), will get direct federal tax subsidies in the form of tax credits:

Under the House Republican plan, the income-based tax credits provided under the Affordable Care Act would be replaced with credits that would rise with age as older people generally require more health care. In a late change, the plan reduces the tax credits for individuals with annual incomes over $75,000 and married couples with incomes over $150,000.

Why not just lower taxes on people who earn less than $75,000 per year and let the health care industry compete on a level laying field for their new higher purchasing power? (If the answer is that you don’t want people running up a $1 million bill from a catastrophic problem and ultimately sticking the rest of society with the invoices, roll an automatic catastrophic insurance policy (maybe with treatment done by the lowest high-quality bidder within 500 miles) into Medicaid/Medicare.)

Readers: Is there any reason for people interested in a market economy to be excited about this proposal? To my casual eye it looks like a slightly tweaked version of the same general idea: more favoritism through tax subsidies for an industry that has gotten fat off these since World War II.

Perhaps the strong resemblance between the hated old and the celebrated new is an illustration of what Tyler Cowen is saying in The Complacent Class: The Self-Defeating Quest for the American Dream:

an ever-increasing percentage of the federal budget is on autopilot, with only about 20 percent available to be freely allocated, and that number is slated to fall to 10 percent by 2022. In 1962, about two-thirds of the federal budget had not been locked in and could be allocated freely. Today, however, it is harder to have a meaningful debate about how the money should be spent because most of the money is already spoken for, and that is a big reason why problems of polarization—which have always been present—have become harder to solve.5 This change in the nature of the federal budget, and this quest for ever more guarantees, is one of many ways in which America’s pioneer spirit has been replaced by a kind of passivity. In the meantime, politics becomes shrill and symbolic rather than about solving problems or making decisions.

For the most part, American politics does not change and most voters have to be content—or not—with the delivery of symbolic goods rather than actual useful outcomes

So there will be a debate about transgender bathroom policy, but there won’t be any about the nearly 20 percent of GDP that is flushed down the health care toilet.

Related:

 

Full post, including comments

The next book: Tyler Cowen’s sour screed

Atlantic Magazine (“Have Americans Given Up?”) has convinced me that the next book should be The Complacent Class: The Self-Defeating Quest for the American Dream by Tyler Cowen.

Readers: Maybe you all can order a copy too and then we can have a virtual book group discussion? We don’t want to be like those Middlebury students or New York Times journalists and complain about a book that we haven’t actually read!

Lending some support to the Atlantic summary of Cowen’s thesis, here are a couple of new products, one from a U.S.-founded company and one from a Korean company (exercise for the reader: guess the current gender identifications of the household members who purchased the respective items).

ajiri-tea-and-samsung-ssd

Related:

Full post, including comments

How stupid can Americans be?

My Facebook friends attribute Donald Trump’s victory in 2016 to a relatively sudden outbreak of stupidity, racism, and sexism among American voters.

We Believe the Children: A Moral Panic in the 1980s (won both “A Wall Street Journal Best Book of 2015” and “A Boston Globe Best Book of 2015”) suggests that, if we are in fact The Stupid Country (TM), this is not new.

Starting in the 1970s, for example, we convinced ourselves that multiple personalities could dwell within one physical human.

In 1973 the results of one of these experiments were published under the title Sybil: The True and Extraordinary Story of a Woman Possessed by Sixteen Separate Personalities. Written by a magazine journalist named Flora Rheta Schreiber, the book purported to tell the story of Sybil Dorsett, a shy and lonely woman who, in 1953, had “embarked on one of the most complex and most bizarre cases in the history of psychiatry.” The book reconstructed the therapeutic encounters between Sybil and her heroic, Upper East Side psychoanalyst, and it laid out the awful discoveries brought to light during Sybil’s time on the couch. “Sybil Dorsett’s” real name was Shirley Mason, and her psychoanalyst was Cornelia Wilbur. The two first encountered one another in 1945, when Mason, then a college student, went into psychotherapy with Dr. Wilbur.

Shirley Mason grew up in a Minnesota farm town where her Seventh-Day Adventist parents prohibited novel reading, story writing, and making drawings with weird colors in them—all activities that Shirley loved. Pretending was also expressly forbidden, but Shirley had imaginary friends named Vicky and Sam, though the rigid, self-lacerating piety of the church sometimes made their company difficult to enjoy. She had an intimate and confusing relationship with her mother, who sometimes alternated between bouts of nervous energy and long episodes of impenetrable depression.

When Wilbur had early success in the treatment of hysterics, she believed she had found a line of work to which she was exceptionally—even uniquely—well suited. Years later she would describe her clinical abilities as those of a “genius” and “a magician.” She also referred to herself as a maverick. In the years preceding her move into psychoanalytic practice, Wilbur consistently found herself working, sometimes recklessly, at the experimental frontiers of clinical psychiatry. She conducted a number of experiments with barbiturates, administering large doses of these powerful drugs to psychotic patients and noting the results. Wilbur was interested in shock therapy, and she also assisted on some of the first couple of hundred lobotomies performed in the United States.

Then, as now, we thought that it would be a great idea to give psychologically-troubled patients a whole cabinet full of drugs:

By this point Wilbur had also given Mason prescriptions for Demerol, Edrisal, Daprisal, and Seconal, the last of which is a highly addictive barbiturate. A week and a half later, Mason arrived at Wilbur’s office for a weekday appointment, and there seemed to be something different about her. “I’m fine,” Mason said, “but Shirley isn’t. She was so sick she couldn’t come. So I came instead.” “Tell me about yourself,” Wilbur said, and Mason replied, “I’m Peggy!” That Mason should have turned out to have Multiple Personality Disorder, of all things, was very exciting on its own—the condition was vanishingly rare in the 1950s. But within two sessions Mason had displayed four separate personalities. Wilbur had never heard of a documented case of four separate personalities. She decided to psychoanalyze all of them.

When it was finally published in 1973, Sybil included a list of the sixteen personalities that Wilbur eventually found inside Mason, complete with birth dates and personality characteristics. Victoria Antoinette Scharleau, born in 1926, was a “sophisticated, attractive blonde.” Peggy Lou Baldwin, born the same year, was an “angry pixie with a pug nose.” Mason had male personalities as well: Sid Dorsett was a carpenter and a handyman. Sybil describes Wilbur teasing out these personalities, one by one, gaining their trust, playing them off one another in search of information. It is a long and arduous process. Some of Mason’s personalities are so wary of Dr. Wilbur that she doesn’t even learn of their existence for months. The personalities know all about one another, however, and unbeknownst to the host personality—that’s Shirley—they argue and exchange information as part of a big, collaborative effort to help Mason survive the trauma that brought them into being in the first place.

Think that your fellow citizens are stupid because they were credulous enough to believe Donald Trump’s statements that regulations and high tax rates are retarding economic growth? Here’s some stuff from Sybil that Americans had no trouble believing…

At home Mason’s conservative, fundamentalist parents would bring their young daughter into the bedroom at night and force her to watch as they had sex. In the woods Hattie [the patient’s mom] would gather up neighborhood children and take them to a secluded place. “‘Now lean over and run like a horse,’ [Hattie said]. As the children squealed with delight at the prospect, Hattie would motion them to begin. Then, while the little girls, simulating the gait of horses, leaned over as they had been instructed, Hattie from her perch on the floor, revealed the real purpose of the ‘game.’ Into their vaginas went her fingers as she intoned, ‘Giddyap, giddyap.’” In 1962 Cornelia Wilbur would serve as one of the editors of an influential study of homosexuality identifying the phenomenon as an “illness,” one most frequently caused by improper mothering, and this belief is reflected in Sybil’s descriptions of Hattie’s abuse. Hattie orchestrated lesbian orgies in the forest. Hattie separated Mason’s legs with a wooden spoon, suspended the small girl from the ceiling, upside down, and then administered enemas. “‘I did it,’ Hattie would scream triumphantly when her mission was accomplished. ‘I did it.’ The scream was followed by laughter, which went on and on.” Sybil described Hattie’s motivation for these abuses as her pathological hatred of men. “‘You might as well get used to it,’ her mother, inserting one of these foreign bodies, explained to her daughter at six months or at six years. ‘That’s what men will do to you when you grow up. . . . They hurt you, and you can’t stop them.’” Wilbur obtained these stories by slowly and methodically turning Shirley Mason, who never displayed her “alter” personalities to anyone other than her analyst and her roommate, into a drug addict. When Mason had a particularly bad day, Wilbur would regularly give her up to five times the prescribed dose of Daprisal, Amytal, Demerol, or any number of other medications, and as therapy progressed, Wilbur added a powerful antipsychotic called Thorazine. At the center of this pharmaceutical regimen was Sodium Pentothal, a barbiturate so renowned for its ability to lower patients’ inhibitions that it was colloquially, though inaccurately, known as “truth serum.” Wilbur administered Pentothal injections with such frequency and in such large doses that Mason would often come out of a therapy session unable to remember anything she had said. “Under Pentothal,” she once confessed in a letter to Wilbur, “I am much more original.” As Mason’s personalities multiplied, and as the stories those personalities provided became more horrifying and more lurid, Wilbur decided a book had to be written about the case. To ensure Mason’s cooperation, Wilbur said she would cover Mason’s living expenses in exchange for her full-time devotion to therapy. Mason agreed. She spent at least fifteen hours a week in Dr. Wilbur’s office, and as a consequence of the drugs she consumed, she slept for roughly the same amount each night. As [Debbie] Nathan put it in Sybil Exposed, “she was a professional multiple personality patient.” Mason would stay on the job for more than a decade.

Did we have any incentive to be this dumb?

One explanation for Sybil’s runaway popularity is that it provided an elegant companion narrative to the growing consensus that child abusers committed their crimes not because of social conditions but because they were mentally ill. The tendency to see abusers as pathological aberrations from a healthy norm made them more interesting and less frightening: they could either be treated and then returned to nonabusive normalcy or, in cases that resisted treatment, they could be cordoned off from society for the rest of their lives without any misgivings. In any case, one would not have to get involved in a tricky conversation about what many people regarded as parents’ right to subject their children to disciplinary violence if they wanted to. By giving the victims of abuse a mental illness of their own, Sybil accomplished much the same thing, pushing attention away from the circumstances that cause abuse to happen in the first place and toward the elaborate treatments that might be administered after the fact.

The author’s explanation: As American society fell apart starting in the 1960s and none of the expensive anti-poverty programs were working, Americans wanted to believe that poverty (“social conditions”) was not an important driving factor.

It turns out that Americans who are making money by believing in something are unlikely to abandon that belief. “Sybil” actually wrote a letter to her now-famous therapist admitting that it was all made up:

By the time Shirley wrote the letter, she had no life outside of therapy, her friendship with Dr. Wilbur, meandering walks through New York, and a lesbian roommate who sometimes tried to get into bed with her. The letter was written as a four-page entry in a therapy diary that Mason maintained and allowed Dr. Wilbur to read. It began with a kind of forensic analysis of the doctor-patient relationship in which Mason found herself: At various times over the years you have told me you thought I was more than average in intelligence, or that I was clever, or that I was sensitive, imaginative, creative, original, etc. Well, I am. And, you see, I am also egotistical. . . . But I have played on it long enough now. It isn’t getting me anywhere, so this time I will be honest. . . . I have tried to tell you this before, but I couldn’t hold out very long when you showed doubts. . . . A person likes to be admired, and so I let it slide rather than to disappoint you or risk your anger if you should become convinced. I felt I couldn’t lose you again. After three paragraphs building up in this way, Mason came out with it, writing, “I do not have any multiple personalities. I don’t even have a ‘double’ to help me out. I am all of them. I have been essentially lying in my pretense of them, I know. I had not meant to lie in the beginning. I sort of fell into a pattern, found it worked, and continued to build on it.” While Mason thought it possible that there were real cases of Multiple Personality out there, she suspected that others diagnosed with the disorder could be cases “just like mine, hysterics with nothing better to do than ‘act a part’ and put off onto ‘another personality’ the things they cannot quite dare to pretend themselves, and then act as if they had forgotten in order to avoid punishment or feeling some sort of guilt or shame for the lie.”

As for the elaborate stories of abuse, Mason couldn’t say exactly where they had come from. They “just sort of rolled out from somewhere, and once I had started and found you were interested, I continued.” She said she made up all the stories about fugue states and Philadelphia, and she asked that Dr. Wilbur stop demonizing her mother, Hattie. She may have been anxious and controlling, but she hadn’t been a sadist, and she hadn’t raped Shirley with a flashlight. Though the letter had obviously been difficult for Shirley to write—she had no idea what Dr. Wilbur would make of it—the result was

Full post, including comments

New York Times posits a genetic theory of creativity

Charles Murray is a racist for citing research on the link between genetics and IQ. But when the New York Times suggests a genetic basis for creativity, that is definitely not racism! In “What Biracial People Know” we learn that “multiracial people are more open-minded and creative.”

By “race” it turns out that the New York Times mostly means “skin color.” But genetics nerds don’t divide up the world by skin tone. To the extent that they recognize “race” they look at DNA. And it turns out that “Europeans Less Genetically Diverse Than Africans”. The Telegraph summary of this research:

People of African descent are more genetically diverse than Middle Easterners, who are more diverse than Asians and Europeans.

So basically Africa should be where most of the important creative stuff happens, followed by Saudi Arabia and neighbors, with Europe, white Americans, China, and Japan in last place among significant-sized populations. Africans should also be the most “open-minded” so we would expect to see the fewest wars among ethnic or tribal groups on that continent.

Full post, including comments

Celebration of motherhood on Facebook

In response to a post on Facebook about getting a Lyme disease diagnosis for a not-quite-well child after a few trips to the doctor and being “one seriously pushy mother with the doctor’s office,” there were nearly 100 congratulatory comments. Here’s a sampling:

  • Great catch, mom!
  • Good job mom!!
  • Way to follow your gut!
  • Great Mom! Persistence works!
  • Excellent job Dr. Mom!
  • Great catch and very lucky the test cooperated.
  • Thank God for Mommy’s gut feeling
  • great mom intuition!
  • Smart mommy!
  • Poor little guy, but so lucky to have YOU for his Mama Bear!!
  • Moms know best!
  • Way to go mommy!
  • Good instincts momma. Lyme is so scary for how sneaky it is
  • Good instincts mom!
  • Mother’s intuition is always the best.
  • The mom instinct is strong!!!
  • Yay momma!
  • A mother knows!
  • A great reminder to never doubt our instincts…thank goodness!
  • Mama knows best.
  • Sorry about that ;(. Mom instinct is no joke! Great mom!

More signs of the Zeitgeist:

  • Sending healing vibes his way
  • I started using Tumeric recently. Read up on the benefits. For everyone, the benefits are incredible. (link to Turmeric for Health)
Full post, including comments

Protests against Charles Murray inadvertently prove the points he made in The Bell Curve?

I’m wondering if “Protesters Disrupt Speech by ‘Bell Curve’ Author at Vermont College” (nytimes) inadvertently proves Charles Murray correct. Here’s the summary of The Bell Curve from the best minds of American journalism circa 2017:

Hundreds of students at Middlebury College in Vermont shouted down a controversial speaker on Thursday night, disrupting a program and confronting the speaker in an encounter that turned violent and left a faculty member injured.

Laurie L. Patton, the president of the college, issued an apology on Friday to all who attended the event and to the speaker, Charles Murray, 74, whose book “The Bell Curve,” published in 1994, was an explosive treatise arguing that blacks were intellectually inferior to whites because of their genetic makeup.

I listened to an abridged version of the book about 13 years ago and noted in a posting that the book was not in fact about race. The Wikipedia page on the Charles Murray contains the following summary:

The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (1994) is a controversial bestseller that Charles Murray wrote with the Harvard professor Richard J. Herrnstein. Its central point is that intelligence is a better predictor of many factors including financial income, job performance, unwed pregnancy, and crime than one’s parents’ socio-economic status or education level. Also, the book argued that those with high intelligence (the “cognitive elite”) are becoming separated from the general population of those with average and below-average intelligence, and that this was a dangerous social trend. Murray expanded on this theme in his 2012 book Coming Apart.

Much of the controversy erupted from Chapters 13 and 14, where the authors write about the enduring differences in race and intelligence and discuss implications of that difference. While the authors were reported throughout the popular press as arguing that these IQ differences are genetic, they write in the introduction to Chapter 13 that “The debate about whether and how much genes and environment have to do with ethnic differences remains unresolved,” and “It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences.”

In other words, you have to get through 12 chapters of a 22-chapter book before coming to the two chapters that the New York Times says the book is about! (And, in any case, the Bell Curve authors were mostly citing research on the Heritability of IQ, not conducting it.) Certainly the New York Times focus on “blacks were intellectually inferior to whites” says more about the New York Times than about Charles Murray. The chapters in question could just as easily have been summarized with “whites were intellectually inferior to Asians.” Somehow the paper that styles itself the Great Friend of the Colored Races can’t resist running story after story about how Americans with darker skin do poorly in school (see New York Times to employers: Toss resumes from applicants who went to school in poor neighborhoods).

What the book is actually about seems consistent with our Age of Rage (concerning inequality). As Wikipedia notes:

those with high intelligence (the “cognitive elite”) are becoming separated from the general population of those with average and below-average intelligence, and that this was a dangerous social trend.

If you like to fret about inequality, the sidelining of less-than-brilliant workers in favor of robots, etc., why wouldn’t you love Charles Murray? I’m wondering if the incident at Middlebury College shows that America’s brightest millennials are unable to read a book before showing up to protest. Then of course we have the fact that their counterparts in Asia spent those hours studying. In my own 2004 posting I said that the silver lining of the otherwise depressing book was that old people like me might still be able to find work because “if the book is right most [future young Americans] will be dumb as bricks.”

Related:

Full post, including comments