"Can You Find the 'Savage' Sequester Cuts?"

Dan Mitchell savages the inane media hype about the sequester and provides this graphic:



(Via Instapundit.)

"The worst-case scenario for us is the sequester hits and nothing bad really happens. And Republicans say: See, that wasn’t so bad."

Says a Democratic lobbyist, causing Instapundit to say: "So I guess we can expect the Administration to make it as bad as it can."

That's about the size of it. That's why I haven't been blogging the pre-sequester hysteria. It's less amusing than the Mayan apocalypse.

"Maybe I’ve been spoiled, but I feel like if this happened at Harvard Law School, a guy like Charles Nesson would be all over the opportunity..."

"... to just hop in, teach from the hip, and turn this upheaval into a Con Law experience like no other. Doesn’t Columbia Law have one professor like that? Doesn’t Columbia have any professors who want to teach just because interacting with young people and shaping minds about constitutional theory is kind of fun?"

Doesn’t Columbia even have any professors who at least want to send the message that lawprofs teach because interacting with young people and shaping minds about constitutional theory is kind of fun?

It's also interesting that at Columbia, a law professor is missing classes because she's going through a divorce. Back in the 1980s, when my first marriage broke up, it happened to coincide with a research grant that gave me a full semester off to write. I've always believed it would have been much better to have had classes to give some structure to those days.

Meanwhile, Instapundit links to Steven Bainbridge who talks about Columbia's solution of lumping 200 students together in one big class. What's the big deal if the teacher is lecturing, which, per Bainbridge, is a good idea anyway.

I suspect the students would have a few questions like: Why am I paying so much tuition if all I'm getting is something I could be watching on the Internet? And why are you paid so much money to lecture in person in front of people who could just as well be watching video of whoever is the very best lawprof lecturer on this subject?

"Wait, I thought people had a 'right to die'..."

"... so why is preventing suicide a reason for gun control? Oh, who am I kidding — at the NYT, anything is a good reason for gun control."

Since most of the gun deaths are suicides, you'd have to throw away your best statistics if you didn't count suicides. But then they never stop to wonder how many of those suicides were people who felt an uncontrollable murderous urge. What if Adam Lanza had only shot himself? We'd never know what horrible plan he'd left unfulfilled.

How many calories in a pint of blood?

I see Instapundit is encouraging people to give blood. He mentions that "the blood folks are always calling me saying they’re desperately short of blood, I wonder if the standards are too strict." The blood folks. Not everyone is purely altruistic! How many calories in a pint of blood? "Can I donate blood to lose weight?"

"Perhaps blood donation could be promoted as one way to lose a bit of unwanted weight. Taking into account the composition and energy in each component . . . I estimated that one unit of blood reflects about 600 cal of food intake. Hence, a single donation can off-set either 2 hamburgers, 3 donuts, or 5 granola bars. Awareness of these statistics might increase the appeal of blood donation, particularly among healthy adults who are concerned about obesity."

"High-school freshman suspended for having a picture of a gun."

"Thoughtcrime! But wait, there’s more..."

But wait! What if it was a picture of President Obama with gun?



See, now that would really confuse the teachers.

Instapundit reviews Al Gore's new book.

The book is "The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change." Yeesh. What a title. Drivers. But he couldn't just call it "The Future." That would be dumb. And people love lists. Lists make it seem possible to read a whole book.

So Six Drivers. Sounds almost sexy. Six ≈ sex, and driver seems like a way to refer to one's chakra in old songs like "Me and My Chauffeur Blues."

That's all I have to say because I haven't read the book. It just came out today yesterday. Instapundit got to drive into the future, and having read "The Future," can give a substantive account. So go read his review. It's mixed.

"As of today, Barack Obama’s presidency is half over. If that’s not enough to cheer you up..."

"... try heading over to the Insta-Wife’s new site, Helen’s Page, where you can commiserate or whatever with others who feel the same way."

Okay, here's Helen's Page/For Liberty-Minded People, which seems to be more social media than blog:

A lot of people I talked to after the election were feeling isolated. So I made a place for them to meet each other and hopefully, feel less alone and more connected to like-minded people whether for business or just to share ideas. 

Libertarians who are feeling isolated and alone? Doesn't that come with the libertarian territory? They need a "place" where they will feel more connected?

Instead of saying the place is for libertarians, Helen is saying it's "liberty-minded people." People is a collectivist word. Why not for liberty-minded individuals? Because they're so lonely! They need people. They're people who need people. They were letting their grown-up pride, hide all the need inside, acting more like children than children.

Libertarians are very special people. They're the most liberty-minded people in the world.

"Men try harder, because they know that women want men who earn more."

"Women don’t because they know that men have different priorities, and because they want to quit the rat-race at some point and have kids, making their tolerance for high debt levels rationally lower."

Says Glenn Reynolds, reacting to this Inside the Law School Scam post about how law school — with its high tuition and iffy job market — is a worse deal for women than for men.

This is getting strangely close to the argument that used to be made for discriminating against women in law school admissions (or for excluding them altogether): Since women are less likely to fully use their legal education, we shouldn't give what could be a man's seat to a woman. Women were suspected of going to law school for ulterior reasons, such as to find a good husband or — crazy ladies! — because they are interested in the topic... intellectually.

Why are gun-death statistics inflated with gun-suicide numbers?

"I thought we had a right to die...."

Obviously, one reason is: to get bigger numbers. But I think the people that lump gun deaths together believe (or want others to believe) that guns are really dangerous. When it comes to suicide, there are 2 ways to think about the deadly effectiveness of guns: 1. For those who really want to kill themselves, guns are a sensible choice, or 2. The scary deadliness of a gun tempts weak/impulsive persons to go ahead and do something that wouldn't happen otherwise.

You can easily see that those 2 ways to think represent the mindsets that lead to libertarian or authoritarian answers to all sorts of questions. #1 would allow the individual to make his own decisions and to take care of himself, and #2 thinks the individual — call her Julia — needs to be helped and protected (even from herself).

Sorry to go all gender-y, but I'm interested in talking about suicide and attitudes about guns in the context of gender difference, because 4x as many men as women commit suicide and 56% of male suicides use firearms compared to only 30% of female suicides. Those statistics are skewed by the fact that guns are an effective method. It might be that the gender disproportion is because men choose the method that leaves fewer survivors of attempts at suicide. I note that 40% of female suicides use "poisoning" (presumably, that includes drug overdosing). What's the proportion of females attempting suicide by poisoning to females succeeding in killing themselves with poison?

If you have a fantasy of rescuing those who are in the process of committing suicide, you might think taking guns away will give you a better shot.

ADDED: It occurred to me, after the Sandy Hook murders, that blaming guns is a secular substitute for blaming the devil. People find it too challenging to figure out why a human being would do this terrible thing and they latch on to the idea that the gun made it happen. Suicide presents a similar challenge, and one way to fathom it is to say: It was the gun. Isn't it like saying the devil made him do it? The gun/the devil is a great go-to answer, freeing you from wracking your brain about the workings of the human mind.

"If there were equal justice under the law, what would be the point of being a Very Important Person?"

Asks Glenn Reynolds after quoting me on David Gregory and equal justice under the law.

I'm working on my song parody:

David Gregory had a high-capacity ammunition magazine
He held it and twirled it 'round his diamond ring finger
At a "Meet the Press" studio society gath’rin’
And the cops weren't called in but the bloggers demanded
That David Gregory should be booked for possession
Take the rag away from your face
Now ain’t the time for your tears....

I've parodied that song before (back when William Zantzinger died).

This isn't parody — this is straight from the original "Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll":

In the courtroom of honor, the judge pounded his gavel
To show that all’s equal and that the courts are on the level
And that the strings in the books ain’t pulled and persuaded
And that even the nobles get properly handled
Once that the cops have chased after and caught ’em
And that the ladder of law has no top and no bottom

In David Gregory's case, the cops never even considered chasing him. There will be no judge pounding the gavel, because there will be no prosecution. Bob Dylan was outraged that Zantzinger — Zanzinger, to spell it the Dylan way — got a light sentence. At least he went to trial. And he was convicted.

Here, the "noble" David Gregory got special handling, the strings in the books were pulled and persuaded, and the ladder of law obviously has a top.

I'm not saying I want Gregory prosecuted. I only want people to see how unfair it is to have a law that seems ridiculous to enforce against him, when that law is used against others. And Gregory richly deserves to be slapped around on the blogs, because he's making the argument — that's why he was waving that thing around — that there ought to be more invasive gun laws. He wants the government to reach more deeply into the ordinary lives of private citizens, and he's entirely reckless about what these laws would really mean to ordinary people, and it's a recklessness that thrives in the mind of someone who easily and instinctively believed — correctly! — that the law did not apply to him.

And even the nobles get properly handled....

"SYMPATHY FOR THE NICE GUYS OF OKCUPID."

That all-caps at Instapundit comes across as a comic misspelling of "Occupied," but the nice guys in question are at OKCupid. I'm not sure which purportedly "nice guys" deserve more sympathy, if any.

Here's the underlying linked-to article by Rachel Hills in The Atlantic. It's a critique of the critique of guys who cite their niceness as a reason why they can't get girlfriends.

"More intelligence and fewer offspring?"

"Perhaps Idiocracy was stating a more general rule...."

But another thing...

When it comes to humans, for example, though our brains are only 2% of our bodies, they take up a whopping 20% of our energy requirements. 

If that's really true, it could be the key to why one person can eat heartily and never gain weight while the next person, eating the same thing, gets fat. Maybe it's a big brain/small brain distinction. Also, is it possible that instead of going to the gym or getting on a bicycle when we hope to lose weight, what we really should be doing is studying calculus or reading philosophy?

ADDED: Idiocracy primer:

"The Elvis Problem: Defining Religion Under The First Amendment."

Instapundit weighs in on the Kwanzaa question I brought up yesterday.

And I want to drag something I wrote in my own comments section up to the front page. The Madison School District portrays Kwanzaa as something that belongs in government-run schools because it's a "culturally relevant practice," but:

Religion is a "culturally relevant practice."

It just doesn't belong in public schools.

And:

I mean practicing it doesn't belong in public schools.

It's fine and even desirable to teach children about the various religious traditions. It's part of history and social studies, and it should be taught competently and with a fact-based approach, not infused with promptings to feel inspired and devoted.

I think this is such a solid point that the definition of religion — for these school-based Establishment Clause cases — should be built around the idea that the compulsory attendance coerced in the name of education should not be exploited to capture the part of the child's mind that turns to God when the child is religious. All human beings have this aspect of their minds, whether they are religious or not, and the state's power does not belong there. When we see devotional exercises in public schools we should be revolted.

Background note: In the most relevant Supreme Court case (which is in a somewhat different context), the Court spoke of religion as "a sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those [religions] admittedly qualifying for the exemption." (The context was conscientious objection from the military draft.) The value of the Court's definition was that it avoided making distinctions and favored equal treatment under the laws.

In discussing what makes a job the "least stressful"...

... consider that, in this context, the opposite of stress is control.

Is that true? For some, I would think, too much control would lead to stress. Let's say much was expected of you. You were supposed to be brilliant, high-achieving, and productive. But it was your responsibility to define your tasks, to figure out how to accomplish them, to set your own standards about what constitutes excellence, and to put time — any time, whenever you want, night or day, weekdays or weekends — into doing what you've decided is appropriate to do.

There is some reason to think that people feel best when they are in the psychological state called "flow," which is defined as having 8 components:

First, the experience usually occurs when we confront tasks we have a chance of completing. Second, we must be able to concentrate on what we are doing. Third and fourth, the concentration is usually possible because the task undertaken has clear goals and immediate feedback. Fifth, one acts with a deep but effortless involvement that removes from awareness the worries and frustrations of everyday life. Sixth, enjoyable experiences allow people to exercise a sense of control over their actions. Seventh, concern for the self disappears, yet paradoxically the sense of self emerges stronger after the flow experience is over. Finally, the sense of the duration of time is altered; hours pass by in minutes, and minutes can stretch out to seem like hours. The combination of all these elements causes a sense of deep enjoyment that is so rewarding people feel that expending a great deal of energy is worthwhile simply to be able to feel it.

Can you get there within the "least stressful" job, university professor? Of course. But you'd better be good at defining realistic tasks that will look accomplished when they are accomplished. You'd better be able to get into the zone where you feel a sense of effortless expertise.

Mihaly Csikszentmihaly's book "Flow" identifies surgery and rock climbing as 2 activities that produce flow for the people who have the appropriate expertise. There, the tasks are specific, and the feedback about whether you are doing them right is clear. Compare a scholarly book project, which might take years, where you might wonder whether what you are writing is too dull or too controversial or unsupported by the data you're trying to use or who knows what your colleagues — your rivals? — will say about it at some unknown point in the future if you ever get this damned thing done?

"Putting kids together and sorting by age also created that dysfunctional creature, the 'teenager.'"

"Once, teen-agers weren’t so much a demographic as adults-in-training."

They worked, did farm chores, watched children and generally functioned in the real world. They got status and recognition for doing these things well, and they got shame and disapproval for doing them badly.

But once they were segregated by age in public schools, teens looked to their peers for status and recognition instead of to society at large.

"Intimidation: NY Newspaper Publishes Names, Addresses of Gun Permit Holders."

"I guess nobody could object to people putting the newspaper staff’s addresses on the Web now, right?, says Instapundit, and as I click to get the URL for a link to the post, I see an update has gone up, adding what I was planning to say, which is that the newspaper has unwittingly hurt everyone who isn't listed, because burglars and home invaders can see which houses don't have guns... permitted guns anyway.

People who don't keep guns are free-riding on the gun owners, benefiting from the uncertainty that plagues burglars who know there's some risk that the person inside has a gun. Are gun owners happy to provide that aura of protection to the whole community, or would they prefer publicity that identifies the unprotected? Ironic that the anti-gun owners — seemingly scrambling for safety — are tossing aside the free protection.

Why don't they understand the value of the guns their neighbors own? Somehow it's easier to ideate about a gun owner going crazy. For some reason, they like thinking about gun owners as potential crazies. There are the dangers you love to obsess about, and the dangers you willfully ignore. But why? What rivets your attention to one problem and not to another?

"Malignant cells have not completely forgotten how to be healthy; they just need the right cues to guide them back to a healthy growth pattern."

Which is why squeezing breasts might stop cancer.

Via Instapundit who says, "They haven’t done human trials yet, but I say: Why take chances?" I take it he's recommending mammograms.

Prof. Jacobson is refraining from tokenism.

1. "I would never be so insulting as to accuse the NY Times of tokenism."

2. "I would never be so insulting as to accuse the U. Penn Political Science Department of tokenism."

3. [To be continued?]

"Gallup: More Americans Favor School Officials Having Guns Than Weapon Ban."

"See, states like Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia, which are looking at arming teachers, are just in touch with America. Why is Barack Obama so out of touch with America?"