Still bailing

It’s going to be fascinating to learn how long the great game of Let’s Pretend can continue:

Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, easing investor concern that interest rates may rise earlier than previously forecast, said the world’s biggest economy will need Fed stimulus for “some time.”

Yellen said today the Fed hasn’t done enough to combat unemployment even after holding interest rates near zero for more than five years and pumping up its balance sheet to $4.23 trillion with bond purchases.

“This extraordinary commitment is still needed and will be for some time, and I believe that view is widely shared by my fellow policy makers,” Yellen said at a community development conference in Chicago. “The scars from the Great Recession remain, and reaching our goals will take time.”

The amusing thing is that if you take the GDP numbers seriously, the Great Recession was actually a very minor one. Of course, it’s all fiction at this point, and poorly written fiction at that.

Remember, the Fed always talks about the general economy, but all it actually cares about is keeping the giant banks from collapsing.


Dumbing down tech

An old school programmer points out the way in which even programmers are being taught to be glorified power users rather than actual computer engineers:

If I may be so brash, it has been my humble experience that there are two things traditionally taught in universities as a part of a computer science curriculum which many people just never really fully comprehend: pointers and recursion.

You used to start out in college with a course in data structures, with linked lists and hash tables and whatnot, with extensive use of pointers. Those courses were often used as weedout courses: they were so hard that anyone that couldn’t handle the mental challenge of a CS degree would give up, which was a good thing, because if you thought pointers are hard, wait until you try to prove things about fixed point theory.

All the kids who did great in high school writing pong games in BASIC for their Apple II would get to college, take CompSci 101, a data structures course, and when they hit the pointers business their brains would just totally explode, and the next thing you knew, they were majoring in Political Science because law school seemed like a better idea. I’ve seen all kinds of figures for drop-out rates in CS and they’re usually between 40% and 70%. The universities tend to see this as a waste; I think it’s just a necessary culling of the people who aren’t going to be happy or successful in programming careers.

The other hard course for many young CS students was the course where you learned functional programming, including recursive programming. MIT set the bar very high for these courses, creating a required course (6.001) and a textbook (Abelson & Sussman’s Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs) which were used at dozens or even hundreds of top CS schools as the de facto introduction to computer science. (You can, and should, watch an older version of the lectures online.)

The difficulty of these courses is astonishing. In the first lecture you’ve learned pretty much all of Scheme, and you’re already being introduced to a fixed-point function that takes another function as its input. When I struggled through such a course, CSE121 at Penn, I watched as many if not most of the students just didn’t make it. The material was too hard. I wrote a long sob email to the professor saying It Just Wasn’t Fair. Somebody at Penn must have listened to me (or one of the other complainers), because that course is now taught in Java.

I wish they hadn’t listened.

The real reason the courses are being dumbed down, of course, is so that women can pass them. But they’re not only being dumbed down, they are being prettied-up and sparkle-ponied in an attempt to make the girls feel as if they’re actually able to do something meaningful. This isn’t the case, of course, but the programs are being designed in such a way that the young women won’t figure out that they’ve been sold a very expensive course in self-esteem until after they graduate and realize they can’t actually do any real programming.

This isn’t good for anyone, not for the girls who should be majoring in something else, the girls who could handle the traditional programming curriculum, or the young men who would be better off teaching themselves to program instead of paying tens of thousands of dollars to not learn the more rigorous aspects of the discipline.

I started out as a CompSci Engineering major myself. In the first semester, I realized that I didn’t enjoy the level of detail required to succeed and immediately switched to Economics. I am very, very glad that my university didn’t make the course more to my liking, as I now know that I would not have made for a good programmer, much less a great one. This isn’t a case of old school guys rhapsodizing about the good old days either, the situation is materially detrimental to practically everyone concerned except the universities and the banks profiting from the student loan system.

As an employer, I’ve seen that the 100% Java schools have started churning out quite a few CS graduates who are simply not smart enough to work as programmers on anything more sophisticated than Yet Another Java Accounting Application, although they did manage to squeak through the newly-dumbed-down coursework. These students would never survive 6.001 at MIT, or CS 323 at Yale, and frankly, that is one reason why, as an employer, a CS degree from MIT or Yale carries more weight than a CS degree from Duke, which recently went All-Java, or U. Penn, which replaced Scheme and ML with Java in trying to teach the class that nearly killed me and my friends, CSE121. Not that I don’t want to hire smart kids from Duke and Penn — I do — it’s just a lot harder for me to figure out who they are.

Universities should be making the entry STEM courses harder, not easier, but as it stands, both their financial and their PR incentives run in precisely the opposite direction.


Not on your side

Kevin Williamson appears to think that a pragmatic appeal to the lesser evil is going to work again after six years of the Obama adminstration:

Republicans
now have the opportunity to effectively bring the Obama
administration’s legislative program to an early end this November by
eliminating the Democrats’ majority in the Senate, which would also give
them a much stronger hand in keeping the worst of his appointees out of
office, safely quarantined in whatever dank recesses of academia
currently housing them. And while one should never underestimate the
Republicans’ ability to blunder their way into missing a political
opportunity or the fickleness of our bread-and-circuses electorate,
there is a very good chance that that will happen. (Knock wood, salt
over the shoulder — pick your own prophylactic.) But conservatives all
too often seem to have failed to learn the lesson of the heavy losses we
have suffered during the Obama years: The differences among us are
minor compared with the differences between us and them, which are
fundamental.

Conservatives had an opportunity to put
the Obama administration not to an effective end but a literal one in
2012, but we blew it. Mitt Romney improved on John McCain’s vote total
(barely), fared better in every battleground state save Ohio, and even
won independents. The election in the end was decided by 334,000 votes
in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and New Hampshire. Even with Barack Obama’s
edge among newly registered minority voters and an unusually high
turnout among overwhelmingly Democratic black voters, only 57.5 percent
of eligible voters actually showed up. That left a lot of room for
conservatives to make a difference. But we did not take the opportunity.

The
three most important words in politics are: “Compared with what?” And I
am more than a little sympathetic to conservatives’ complaints about
the failures of elected Republicans in Washington, who consistently
disappoint us even when they are in the majority. I am also sympathetic
to the view that our situation may have deteriorated to the point that
even a unified Republican government under the leadership of principled
conservatives may not be enough to turn things around. And though I
reject the notion that Mitt Romney wasn’t good enough for true-believing
conservatives, let’s say, arguendo, that that was the case. Unless you
are ready to give up entirely on the notion of advancing conservative
principles through the ballot box, you might consider looking at things
this way: Even if you do not think that it matters much whether
Republicans win, it matters a great deal that Democrats lose.

No,
no, and no again. A thousand times no.  Mitt Romney wasn’t good enough.
John McCain would have actually been worse than Obama. Failing a little
more slowly, destroying the country a little less spectacularly, is not
and will never be a solution. It cannot be a solution.

At
this point, the die is cast. There is no one in American politics, now
that Ron Paul is retired, who is even potentially interested in the
policies that need to be implemented to salvage what is observably a
failing empire. There is not a single candidate in either party who will
even attempt to fix the financial system, deport the millions of
invaders, and end the foreign wars.

It is better to be
openly attacked by confirmed enemies than repeatedly betrayed by false
friends. The Republicans have proven that they are no friends to
freedom, small government, or traditional America and it is a
fundamental error for anyone who values freedom or small government or
traditional America to support them.

Mr. Williamson says: “I am coming around to the view that I’d rather be disappointed by
Republicans who periodically fail live up to their principles than have
my country pillaged and hobbled by Democrats who consistently live up to
theirs.”

That’s a false choice. Mr. Williamson should
know better. The Republicans don’t “periodically fail to live up to
their principles”. They predictably, and reliably, fail to live up to
their pretended principles.


White liberal racism

It’s fascinating to see how white liberals the way in which make a habit of denying the undeniable whenever it contradicts their narrative. From the woman who calls herself “Pox Vay” on Twitter:

You’re not a person of color. You’re a white guy who shares genes with people of color. But you don’t share the life experience.

It’s hard to argue with this. After all, there are so few People of Color who are NCAA Division One 100-meter sprinters, right? Or study economics in Tokyo, neh?

She’s not the only one. Carrie Cuinn, a white racist who is one of SFWA’s extremist pinkshirts, specifically rejected my inclusion on her list of Hispanic science fiction writers, never mind the fact that I am probably one of the best-selling Hispanic science fiction writers after Larry Correia and Sarah Hoyt. Interestingly enough, neither of them were on her list either, although I suspect their omission was more out of ignorance than white liberal racism.

Surely this woman is a reliable expert on who is, and who is not, Hispanic….

This is a longtime pattern with the Left. I remember a feminist professor at my university openly declaring “Margaret Thatcher is not a woman” due to her ideology. The Left not only arrogates to itself the right to disqualify anyone as it sees fit, but observably believes that its narrative supersedes science, sex, and human genetics.


Christians: No to Noah

We have this on the authority of no less than Mr. John C. Wright:

I saw the movie NOAH just now. What a load of horse manure. In days to come, time permitting, I will pen a more thorough review, but for now, let me just say: Christian men, save your money. Go see GOD’S NOT DEAD. Tell Hollywood we don’t like movies about Biblical figures that mock the source material.

I have to admit that it never even occurred to me to go see it, but it’s always nice to receive confirmation that one’s assumptions were correct. Wright adds in the comments:

This movie particularly offends me, because back when I was an atheist, I could and did, write stories so convincingly Christian that I fooled at least one editor and two reviewers into thinking I was one. It is a talent all artists have. It is called make believe. No director of this stature lacks this talent. The atheist flavor in the film was not inserted by accident nor oversight, it was deliberate.


The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again

In light of John C. Wright’s Unified Field Theory of Madness, perhaps we need an addendum to explain the Contrapuntal Certainty of Left-Wing Social Policies:

From Grand Theft Auto V to Saints Row 2 and Fight Night, many games let players choose between characters of different races. However, researchers have found that when white people play as black characters in video games classified as violent, the players were more threatening, offensive and racist in real life. Scientists described the findings as ‘disturbing’ because it is the first time the race of a computer alter ego, or avatar, has been linked to this change in behaviour.

There may be a third certainty beyond death and taxes, and that is the tendency of every left-wing social policy to deliver consequences that are the EXACT OPPOSITE of those expected and predicted. We have seen tax hikes that raise less money, we have seen a War on Poverty that increased the number of the poor, we have seen how multiculturalism increases social divisiveness, and now we are seeing that the proposed solution to supposed racism in video games actually increases racism in real life.

This should have interesting ramifications for the women who are incessantly crying for more female protagonists in video games in order to encourage more female involvement; at this point, one wouldn’t be surprised if that ended up leading to the development of online prostitution through video gaming networks.


A belated awakening

It would appear that the Ukrainian nationalists who led the US/EU supported charge against the democratically elected government are beginning to wake up to the fact that they were used as cannon fodder by the globalists:

Fears are growing of a neo-fascist uprising in Ukraine as ousted president Viktor Yanukovych called for referendums in every region to determine how pro-Russian the country actually is. Hundreds of members of the ultra-nationalist Right Sector movement stormed the parliament (Rada) building in Kiev last night, smashing windows and breaking down doors.

The riot erupted just hours before Russia’s foreign ministry today warned that ethnic minorities in Ukraine are ‘living in fear’ of the expanding power of the far-right across the divided nation.

Right Sector activists are angry over the killing of their leader, Oleksandr Muzychko, better known as Sashko Bily, who died in a shoot-out with police in a cafe in Rivne, in western Ukraine, on Monday.

Based on the term “neo-fascist” that is being applied to them now, what do you want to bet that Right Sector’s assault on the unelected government will be portrayed rather differently than their previous assault on the duly elected one in the Western media?


A failure of leadership

This is what happens when you buy into the tolerance trap and permit the lavender mafia entrance into your organization:

Employees and volunteers at Mozilla – the organisation which promotes open source software such as its Firefox browser – have called for new chief executive Brendan Eich to stand down because of his donations to political campaigns to ban gay marriage.

This week Mozilla named Brendan Eich as its new chief executive, following the resignation of Gary Kovacs which was announced in April last year. Eich was previously Mozilla’s chief technology officer and has a long history with the group dating back to before its formation from Netscape, having worked on the Navigator browser in the 90s and creating JavaScript in a marathon, ten-day programming session in 1995.

The controversy stems from a $1,000 donation he made in 2008 to support California’s Proposition 8, which opposed gay marriage. The donation was listed in a public database with Mozilla appearing next to Eich’s name as his employer. It caused controversy in the technology industry when it was uncovered in 2012.

Eich posted on his own blog to “express my sorrow at having caused pain” and promised an “active commitment to equality” at Mozilla. “I am committed to ensuring that Mozilla is, and will remain, a place that includes and supports everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, age, race, ethnicity, economic status, or religion,” he wrote.

But employees were unconvinced. Chris McAvoy, who leads Mozilla’s Open Badges project, took to Twitter last night to call for the new chief executive to stand down and said that he had been “disapointed” by his promotion. 

Eich is in over his head and clearly has no idea what he is dealing with here. He committed a major blunder with that statement; it’s rather like watching a gamma male shot down by a woman respond by supplicating even harder.

What he should have done is fired everyone who called upon him to resign and announced that anyone who would permit their political ideology to interfere with their work at Mozilla or Mozilla’s internal affairs would be fired. That would have brought the matter to a speedy close and prevented similar outbreaks of political insubordination. Instead, he poured gasoline on the fire by showing that he is vulnerable to ideological pressure.

When confronted by a pressure group, one should never apologize and never back down. Confront every challenger outside the organization and crush every challenger inside it. People respect strength and confidence in a leader, even when they disagree with him, because at least he shows that he is decisive and is capable of providing direction. Ironically, in his inept response to the attacks on him, Eich has shown that he is unfit for leadership because he is fundamentally a follower.

What he should have said is: “Like everyone else at Mozilla, I am free to donate to any political organization or cause I choose. It is no one’s business here to tell me to whom I can and cannot donate my money, in the past or in the future. I have donated another $10,000 to [some anti-homogamy outfit], fired Mr. McAvoy for cause, and I will fire any other Mozilla employee or volunteer who publicly demands that this organization to cater to his personal political or ideological beliefs instead of pursuing our corporate objectives.”


The consequence of multiculturalism

Roissy points out more scholastic support for the hypothesis that Diversity + Proximity = WAR:

Community psychologists are interested in creating contexts that promote both respect for diversity and sense of community. However, recent theoretical and empirical work has uncovered a community-diversity dialectic wherein the contextual conditions that foster respect for diversity run in opposition to those that foster sense of community. More specifically, within neighborhoods, residential integration provides opportunities for intergroup contact that are necessary to promote respect for diversity but may prevent the formation of dense interpersonal networks that are necessary to promote sense of community.

Using agent-based modeling to simulate neighborhoods and neighborhood social network formation, we explore whether the community-diversity dialectic emerges from two principle of relationship formation: homophily and proximity. The model suggests that when people form relationships with similar and nearby others, the contexts that offer opportunities to develop a respect for diversity are different from the contexts that foster a sense of community. Based on these results, we conclude with a discussion of whether it is possible to create neighborhoods that simultaneously foster respect for diversity and sense of community.

Multiculturalism isn’t merely a failure, it is, like the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty, a leftist program that is delivering precisely the opposite of what it purported to deliver. Instead of racial peace, it has created racial hate. Instead of an end to nationalism, it is delivering intranational ethnic strife.

The Croats don’t fight the Vietnamese, they fight the Serbs. The North Koreans don’t threaten the Ibo, they threaten the South Koreans. And mass inter-ethnic migration has only ensured that the 21st century wars will be even more savage and less limited than those of the 20th century.


No more hate crimes

One hopes that this means an end to the absurd propagandistic concept of “hate crimes” will soon be in sight. The FBI removes both the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center from its web site.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which has labeled several Washington, D.C.-based family organizations as “hate groups” for favoring traditional marriage, has been dumped as a “resource” on the FBI’s Hate Crime Web page, a significant rejection of the influential legal group.

The Web page scrubbing, which also included eliminating the Anti-Defamation League, was not announced and came in the last month after 15 family groups pressed Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director James Comey to stop endorsing a group — SPLC — that inspired a recent case of domestic terrorism at the Family Research Council.

“We commend the FBI for removing website links to the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that not only dispenses erroneous data but has been linked to domestic terrorism in federal court. We hope this means the FBI leadership will avoid any kind of partnership with the SPLC,” Tony Perkins, FRC President, told Secrets.

“The Southern Poverty Law Center’s mission to push anti-Christian propaganda is inconsistent with the mission of both the military and the FBI, which is to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States,” he added….

Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, told Secrets, “We are shocked, surprised and disappointed that this would be done without any consultation with groups such as ours who have been working closely with the Federal Bureau of Investigation on issues of hate crime. We look forward to having further conversations with them on this issue.”

It’s like the Holocaust and the Spanish Inquisition all over again! The fact is that these parasitical charlatans have made a literal fortune by preying on white guilt and fears of race hatred while advocating the very multicultural policies that lead directly to widespread ethnic violence.

In a just world, both Foxman and Dees would be prosecuted for their anti-Constitutional, anti-American, and societally destructive actions.