Crime & Federalism

I've eaten hundreds of rotisserie chickens over the years. None are as delicious as the chicken made in my crock pot. (Thanks to commenter Justin T. for the idea.) 

It was the moistest chicken I've ever had. The meat was so tender that the chicken split in half when I went to lift the chicken from the crock pot. The bones were tender enough for me to chew through. The marrow was delicious.

It's also the easiest item I've ever made in the crock pot. It's also a much better value than buying a pre-cooked chicken. (Also, a crock pot chicken is not heated in plastics. Heating plastic releases xenoestrogens, which cause cancer and lower testosterone.) Usually my dog and I eat an entire store-bought chicken together in the kitchen. The five pound chicken was too much for us to finish. 

Here's all you need:

• Chicken;
• Seasoning.

Directions:

• Remove gizzards from rear of chicken;
• Season the insides of the chicken liberally;
• Season the outside of the chicken;
• Since I don't eat the skin (too fatty), be sure to get seasoning under the skin;
• Throw in crock pot on low for 6-8 hours. 

Here are some pictures. 

...is that they (we?) think everyone else is a narcissist. The problem isn't me. It's everyone else. Consider this example:

Imagine you enter a building and get on an elevator bound for the tenth floor. And someone else gets in and presses the button for the second floor. You begin a process of silent rage, cursing them for adding an additional stop to your elevator trip, just one short flight of stairs above where they got on.

I'll admit that the feeling of annoyance passes through me. I'll also admit that this is a wrong feeling. It's a public elevator, and thus everyone has the same rights to use it as I have. If someone wants to use the elevator to go up one flight, what's it to me? By what moral authority do I judge him or her?

Plus, the elevator stop will add only 30 seconds to my trip. Thus, there's no logical explanation for the annoyance. Rather, the explanation is simple: If I am on an elevator, then the elevator belongs to me. Because I am special. Get off of my elevator!

These are sick feelings that arise from the subconscious, and they are feelings a person should fight. Instead, Samuel Arbesman (and presumably Tyler Cowen, who linked to the piece) want to humiliate the guy:

But what if there were a way to eliminate this problem, or at least reduce it? One solution that I have often yearned for is the use of public shame. Imagine you get on at the first floor and press the button for the second floor. The elevator responds with a recorded message: “You have pressed the button for a floor that is only one flight away. Please press the button again to confirm that you cannot use the stairs.”

That would actually add time to my trip. Because if the guy is too embarassed to remain on the elevator (after listening to the shaming message) the elevator's door will now re-open. Even if someone else doesn't hop on the elevator, the door will have to go through the same opening-and-closing function that it'd have done on the second floor. 

People will go to great lengths to embarass you for not recognizing how special they are. Those same folks will claim that every other guy is the problem, and if other people would just stop being such assholes, this would be an awesome world.

Terrorism isn't something that can always be prevented, and thus the answer to terrorism is often, "Do nothing." Yet doing nothing requires restraint and wisdom. As we live in the United States, we'd be lucky to have either. As we live in the United States, we get neither.

And so when I saw old woman in a wheelchair, I smirked to myself: "No doubt she'll be selected for additional screening." After going through the line, I turned around to see that TSA had both a better and a worse sense of humor.

I saw three TSA screeners surrond the old woman. Perhaps they wanted to inspect her wheel chair? Seems silly, after all, to suspect grandma of terrorism. Yet most modern activities are frivolous and wasteful. 

But it got weird. 

They agents started spreading her legs.

Grandma was in a wheelchair because she was paralyzed. She couldn't move her own legs. Thus, a plump TSA official moved the woman's legs.

I'd like to write about the injustice of it all, but the scene was too weird for outrage. 

What's amazing is how friendly the TSA officials were. They kindly manipulated her legs apart. They delicately moved her legs back to a more modest position. There is no sarcasm in those sentences. (And that last sentence is not some sort of reverse-sarcasm.) The TSA officials were really polite.

They saw nothing wrong with what they were doing. They merrily and unreflectively spread grandma's legs as if they were a child expectantly getting prepared for school. It was a civil rights violation with a smile.

Tyrannical acts are rarely carried out by the evil. Cloak someone in authority, as the Milgram experiment showed, and people will harm others - even when it goes against their own values. And ss case studies of Nazi war criminals showed, it's "ordinary men" who do most of the dirty work. People are malleable, even well into adulthood. It seems TSA has done an excellent job training its employees.

When adults smile while spreading an old woman's legs, tyranny cannot be far away.

"First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature?" - Hannibal Lecter

What is the nature of college? Once you answer that question, these findings are unsurprising:

Nearly half of the nation's undergraduates show almost no gains in learning in their first two years of college ....

After two years in college, 45% of students showed no significant gains in learning; after four years, 36% showed little change. 

Why do colleges exist? What is their point?

Colleges exist to provide professors with six-figure incomes for doing very little work. Law schools exist for the same reason. If the essence of college is professor enrichment, then student learning is irrelevant.

As a taxpayer, however, these findings should disturb us. Did you know that you subsidize the Man and Woman of Leisure model of college professorship?

First, your taxpayer dollars directly fund these institutions. State universities are supported by state residents - i.e., you. Thus, wealth is being distributed from your pocket to the lazy professor's.

Second, even "private" universities engage in taxpayer theft. When a CEO's do-nothing kid lacks the grades to get into Harvard, the CEO makes a $5 million donation to Harvard. This donation is tax-deductible. Thus, instead of paying taxes on that $5 million, the CEO takes a tax write-off. Many taxpayers are cheated so that a bratty kid can attend Harvard. Don't you feel warm and fuzzy?

Third, almost all student loans are taxpayer guaranteed. You have co-signed trillions of dollars of student loans. Here is how the scam works.  

Sallie Mae makes a college kid a loan. The kid takes his money to buy beer, and never shows up for class. His professors don't care, and give him a "B," anyway.

If the kid repays the loan, Sallie Mae keeps the profit. If the kid defaults on his loan, then the taxpayer reimburses Sallie Mae for its losses. Check out this graphic. (Click on the image to enlarge it.)

When politicians say that we cannot cut education, consider what you're funding. You're not funding learning. You're funding the party lifestyle of spoiled kids, and the leisure lifestyle of spoiled adults.

People who want to learn at college will find a way to attend. I almost certainly grew up poorer than you, and yet somehow I found a way to attend college without relying on any student loans. Yeah, I worked crazy hours, and didn't have much time for partying. Yet isn't hard work supposed to be the point of college? 

This performance was in 1992 - long before the rest of the world had caught up:

On 3 October 1992, O'Connor appeared on Saturday Night Live as a musical guest. She sang an a cappella version of Bob Marley's "War", which she intended as a protest over the sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church, by changing the lyric "racism" to "child abuse."[16] She then presented a photo of Pope John Paul II to the camera while singing the word "evil", after which she tore the photo into pieces, said "Fight the real enemy," and threw the pieces towards the camera.[17]

Incidentally, the same Pope who covered up child rape is going to be made a Saint.

Pork chops are an excellent source of protein, and are almost as lean as chicken. Here is an easy recipe with pics of the final product:

When Bob Ambrogi reported that Akin Gump apologized for some moronic comments a partner made on his personal blog, I figured Akin Gump was being uptight. Then I read Paul Mirengoff's post. What an idiot. Here's what he wrote:

As for the "ugly," I'm afraid I must cite the opening "prayer" by Native American Carlos Gonzales. It was apparently was some sort of Yaqui Indian tribal thing, with lots of references to "the creator"

What was ugly about the prayer? I guess he doesn't like the way brown people - with their primitive, tribal, tongue-clicking dialects - speak.

Anyway, Akin Gump represents a lot of Injuns, whose tempers flare hotter than fire water. They no doubt called Akin Gump in outrage. Good. I hope Akin Gump loses business. Employing morons should have some costs.

By the way, here is Paul Mirengoff's apology:

In a post last night, I criticized the use of a Yaqui prayer as the invocation to the memorial service in Tucson. In doing so, I failed to give the prayer the respect it deserves. Although I did not intend this as a slight to the religion or to the Yaqui tribe, it can clearly be interpreted as one.

If I called Paul Mirengoff's wife ugly, how would that not be taken as an insult? I am down for insulting people. But let's not be punk bitches about it. Man-up and admit what you're doing rather than be a passive-aggressive cunt.

If fact, this entire post is an insult. If you, Paul Mirengoff, honestly do not understand why calling someone's religious invocation "ugly" is insulting, then your professional judgment is suspect. You are a total dipshit moron whom I would never trust to handle a parking ticket for me.

Anyhow, here's hoping Mirengoff gets all the negative publicity he deserves.

And if Mirengoff wants to make it right, here's what he should write:

I, like a lot of people, am part of an in-group. Because of this, I instinctively repel against views and customs that are different from mine. My post was a visceral and irrational response to an unfamiliar prayer. I am sorry that I insulted the Yaqui. I was wrong.

Moreover, my knee-jerk reaction towards their religion revealed something about myself. I'm neither as cultured nor tolerant as I consider myself to be.

Again, I am sorry. Please tell me how to make this right.

He won't say anything like that, because he's not sorry. Well, he is sorry that the people who pay him a lot of money are angry at him. Yet that's not the sort of sorry he should be.

Michael Wallerstein, an out-of-work lawyer with over $250,000 in debt, was profiled by the New York Times. (Hat tip.) He, like many other lawyers, has no job prospects. Since student loan debt is non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, Wallerstein will have that debt forver.

He regrets attending law school, you must think. He doesn't, though his reasoning may surprise you.

He really enjoys the intellectul aspect of the law. He enjoys standing up for people, since one can fight against injustices as a lawyer. Money isn't everything, and debt slavery is a poison pill - but one worth swallowing for the greater cause. Socrates took hemlock, and Wallerstein will take his debt.

Nah, I'm just fucking with you.

MR. WALLERSTEIN, for his part, is not complaining. Once you throw in the intangibles of having a J.D., he says, he is one of law schools’ satisfied customers.

“It’s a prestige thing,” he says. “I’m an attorney. All of my friends see me as a person they look up to. They understand I’m in a lot of debt, but I’ve done something they feel they could never do and the respect and admiration is important.”

Let's run some math. Assuming his student loans are at 7.5%, this fellow needs to come up with $18,750 a year just to service the interest. His monthly nut is over $1,500 - and that gets him nothing. Yeah, that's right: He could pay $18,750 every year for the rest of his life while never touching the principal of the loan. (!)

But at least he got a ribbon for attending! It feels good that people admire a fake image. And make no mistake, his image is fake:

His secret [to avoid the reality of his debt slavery] is to pretty much ignore all the calls and letters that he receives every day from the dozen or so creditors now hounding him for cash.

“And I don’t open the e-mail alerts with my credit score,” he adds. “I can’t look at my credit score any more.”

The perception is that he's a successful lawyer. This perception boosts his self-esteem. The reality is that he is a failure. Graduating law school, after all, is not hard. If law school were difficult, there wouldn't be over 1.5 million lawyers in the United States.

Yet the boost to his self-esteem makes it all seem worthwhile. Do you now see why self-esteem has a dark side?

Narcissism is commonly thought of as charming and manipulative conduct. When people hear, "narccisist," they think, "evil." Yet those conceptions are flaw. A narcissist lacks a sense of self.

There is no capital-I in narcissist. There is only you. Without a you to validate a narcissist, he doesn't exist. 

Thus, one can begin understanding the self-esteem society. A person seeking esteem requires your constant validation. Although gruffians like Scott Greenfield find this annoying, it's also sad. Most people are so pathetic and lacking substance that they need him to validate them. 

Consider this:

Ohio State University scientists found that college students valued boosts to their self-esteem more than any other pleasant activity they were asked about, including sex, favorite foods, drinking alcohol, seeing a best friend or receiving a paycheck.

“It is somewhat surprising how this desire to feel worthy and valuable trumps almost any other pleasant activity you can imagine,” said Brad Bushman, Ph.D., lead author of the research.

Imagine going through life life a leaf blowing in the wind. When other people praise you, you blow one way. When someone criticizes you, you blow another. That is sad. Yet it's also useful.

If I have the power to control your emotions through self-esteem, I have the power to sell you products. If only you were more beautiful, people would love you. Buy L'Oreal.

If you do not exist as your own self, then you will join a political party. Both Democrats and Republicans have conspired against you, and yet you are a predictable vote for Democrats and Republicans. You vote because you must belong.

The researchers are only starting to understand the problems of self-esteem:

“American society seems to believe that self-esteem is the cure all for every social ill, from bad grades to teen pregnancies to violence,” he said. “But there has been no evidence that boosting self-esteem actually helps with these problems. We may be too focused on increasing self-esteem.”

Boosting self-esteem is actually harmful to American society. Self-esteem is an emotion. As such, it can exist independent of tangible accomplishment.

If I participate in a tournament, I get a self-esteem boost. Someone gives me a huge trophy for showing up. I feel good.

Yet the fact is that I failed. While there is nobility in competition, since most people are too cowardly to even take a shot, there is no accomplishment in failure. No one who competes is a loser, but not everyone who competes is a winner. 

When a person produces inferior work, the focus should not be on the person's feelings about the work. The focus should instead be on the work.

When you elevate feelings over production, people produce less and feel more. And so you get a society of useless people - or the modern U.S.A.