The Shotgun Blog
« A kingdom of judges | Main | Is That Supposed to be a Compliment? »
Monday, October 08, 2007
Come on: how could I not post this?
Mark Steyn writes:
"This is a brilliant piece. Kathy Shaidle should turn it into a book."
I demure demurely (or is that demurely demure?) here.
Posted by Kathy Shaidle on October 8, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54ef3e6968833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Come on: how could I not post this?:
Comments
And I repeat ...
Kathy ... Congrats. Having Mark Stein read and compliment is you like having Tiger Woods ask you for a golf lesson. Keep up the great work.
Posted by: John | 2007-10-08 10:35:50 PM
"Those we and these lefty Christians call "poor" are "poor" because they've made a series of stupid choices; spend all their (actually, my) money on lottery tickets, beer, tattoos and manicures; are suffering from undiagnosed but easily treated mental illnesses; had too many kids too young; smoked behind the gym while I spent recess in the library, etc etc etc."
The question is why did they make a series of stupid choices?
"A number of recent studies point to contraceptive practices as the key to understanding dysgenics today. People with low IQ's, whether married or unmarried, are less likely to use any form of birth control. Among women using the same birth control methods, those with low IQ's have much higher failure rates. After an unwanted pregnancy has occurred, low IQ couples are less likely to obtain abortions. Thus each factor selects against intelligence. One minor contribution to dysgenics is the fact that high IQ women often end up not having as many children as they would have liked to have had. By the time a baby is "convenient," it may be too late. [The theme for the movie "Idiocracy"] However, the major reason for the decline in our genetic potential for intelligence is greater birth control failure on the part of low IQ women. In the United States, women of all IQ levels report that they would like, on average, about 2.3 children. But low IQ women frequently have more children, often far more children, than they would ideally like to have. If all women had exactly the number of children they desired, there would be no dysgenics, and we would at least break even in our genetic potential for intelligence (Van Court, 1983).
The loss of a 5-8 IQ points may not be a tragedy for an individual, but when applied to a population, it has profound consequences. As readers of The Bell Curve may remember, small shifts in the average of a bell-shaped distribution produce large effects on the tails--in this case, the retarded and the gifted. For example, a decrease in the average IQ of just under 5 points doubles the number of retardates (IQ less than 70), and cuts in half the number of gifted (IQ over 130). Furthermore, Herrnstein and Murray found that when they moved the average IQ down statistically by just 3 points, from 100 to 97, all social problems were exacerbated: the number of women chronically dependent on welfare increased by 7%; illegitimacy increased by 8%; men interviewed in jail increased by 12%; and the number of permanent high school dropouts increased by nearly 15%."
Posted by: DJ | 2007-10-08 11:39:38 PM
Congratulations Kathy. I remember Mark first complimenting Kate some years ago; you've both done great work.
In a spirit of helpfulness, I believe the verb you're using is, "demur."
Posted by: greenmamba | 2007-10-09 6:44:37 AM
Well said, Kathy! I've always been ticked off at how people dare call themselves poor in Canada. They obviously haven't seen real poverty!
Posted by: Markalta | 2007-10-09 8:26:37 AM
Marklata ~
And the poorer people are, the more they weigh!
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-09 8:59:24 AM
I keep reading where people state that many people living on the streets have mental health problems.
If I lived on the streets I would probably have mental health problems too.
I suggest those people on the streets decided to do something about it. Like get washed up, get a job and get a place to live. There are already more than enough agencies around to accommodate them.
Yes it can be that simple ... they have to decide because no one can decide for them .. as is all things in life .... we are the authors of our own successes or our own horrors.
Enough of the bleeding hearts. Most of us have guilt fatigue and don't care anymore. We all have bigger fish to fry in today's world. Namely our own survival with our failed health care system, bad retirement opportunities now that life-long jobs are vanishing, portable pension plans are continually ignored as an option, over taxation, the very real Islamic Jihad and the upcoming financial burdens of the not very real problems of climate change etc.
Then there is the keeping of our kids off drugs and in collectivist training camps called the educational system, the ever increasing cost of housing and energy ... Concerns over aging parents ....
Yeah, with all that and much more, those who decided to drink, take drugs and live on the streets are not high on my list of priorities.
It seem that there were far fewer poor people in need before the welfare state came along.
Simply put, being poor in Canada is now a career option. The pay is low, but here is virtually no work required.
Posted by: John | 2007-10-09 9:20:43 AM
John ~
And we must not forget how much spare-changin' they do that goes unreported. I saw a 60 Minutes report 20 years ago (I haven't viewed them since) where a New York City panhandler was taking in $300 a day! No taxes on that income either!
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-09 9:31:53 AM
"900,000 Torontonians" rely on the food banks.
And here I am spending $30 bucks a week at No Frills, like a sucker.
What do you call 900,000 food bank-using Torontonians at the bottom of Lake Ontario?
A good start.
Posted by: JP | 2007-10-09 2:38:01 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.