Orton's Arm

Number one, you're arguing semantics. Number 2, you're arguing about something that has nothing whatsoever to do with Ramius's level of competence (or lack thereof).

Unfortunately, there were a few extremists who did what they could to stir up a lot of hate against white males. According to these people, white males were responsible for all the world's woes--environmental problems, all genocides whatsoever, etc. It sounds like you've recognized this view for what it is: venomous, ignorant hate.

Liberals are open-minded about liberalism, often even communism. I've seldom seen a liberal be open-minded about any point of view other than those.

The idea Ramius might know something is one of the more novel concepts I've seen on these boards.

The missing step 2 is to dangle said underpants in front of people's noses, and have them pay me to take that smell-fest elsewhere. "For ten bucks I'll walk away, and for $20 I'll dangle this underwear under the nose of an enemy of your choice."

You, however, have proven you know nothing.

I see you're still smug about that. It's a good thing you're able to find joy in the fact I misremembered a formula I'd been taught many years ago.

Believe me, I'm in favor of massive cuts to government spending. But I don't see how you can eliminate public funding for the education of children--not unless you're willing to accept a world in which poor children are much more likely to grow up illiterate. If government money is going to fund education anyway, it's best that parents get as much say as possible in which schools get that money. Otherwise you just have bureaucrats deciding.

You win. I messed up the formula. The example, however, is correct.

Between you and your wife, you're apparently able to earn enough money to send your kids to Catholic schools. That's a good thing, because Catholic schools are generally better than public schools. What do you tell the kids whose parents are too poor to send them to Catholic schools? Do you tell them that your kids got to go to a school which you chose because you can afford it, but that the government got to choose the school for the poor kids because their parents were poor? How about taking that education money that's going to be spent on the poor kids anyway, and letting the parents decide where it goes?

I guess in a world where someone of W's intelligence gets to be president of the U.S, someone of GG's intelligence gets to be CFO.

Would I personally like it? No. Do I think the government should be in the business of deciding which religions are legitimate, and which aren't? Again, no. If you're funding the Catholic school, you (unfortunately) have to make funding available to the Satanic school too. Then you hope parents don't choose it. But realistically, any parent who would send their kid to a Satanic school is probably teaching them Satanism at home anyway.

Everything you know about math could be written on the back of a 3' x 5' card--using an unsharpened pencil.

I didn't know all that.

Amen to that.

Neither example is wrong. You're just failing to understand a concept most entry-level economics students find quite simple.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize every peer-reviewed study ever published was automatically exempt from bias. I'm sure political forces have no influence at all on peer-reviewed journals. The researchers aren't the slightest bit concerned about where their next funding source is coming from. Even if they were, nobody who funds anything has the slightest interest in promoting massive immigration.

Since I was unsuccessful in my attempt to explain basic statistical fact to you, I don't know how I'll be when it comes to economics. But I'll give it a try. The P in the equation refers to total national productivity. If you increase L, while holding K and T constant, the P will obviously go up in an absolute sense. But the amount of P available per person will decline, because the somewhat higher level of production is being spread among a much greater number of people. Consider a factory. With 100 people, it can produce 100 units. With 200 people, it can produce 150 units. So by adding people, you're increasing the overall production level, and the wealth of the factory owner. But wages have to come down, because each individual person is now producing less than before.

You honestly don't consider yourself a liberal Democrat? Any time I've heard you express a political view, it was always left of center. Which issues (if any) do you have right wing views on?

It's amazing to me how many people didn't take the time to fully understand the regression toward the mean debate, yet still choose to cast aspersions on my math abilities. Read the Hyperstat article. Read what I wrote and what Bungee Jumper wrote about regression toward the mean. Then decide which of us is the "wanna be math dude." But your request for information is wholly reasonable, so here you go.

That's why all religious schools should be eligible to receive voucher payments, regardless of religious affiliation. I mentioned those four religions as examples, but if a Hindu school (for example) wants to receive voucher payments, that's fine with me. I don't care what on earth the religion is, or what they believe, as long as they do a good job with English, science, and math.

I wrote that the nation was as polluted, overcrowded, and poor as it ever needed to be. I don't need to measure the exact magnitude of any of these three problems to know I don't want them to get worse.

I also wrote that giving a person a single, error prone I.Q. test to determine that person's true I.Q. is like rolling a die one time to determine its true average value. Obviously the second technique involves a little more measurement error than the first.

The traffic flow issue is easy for you to ignore, considering the percentage of driver time spent in traffic jams has more than doubled since the early 1980s. The national averages you're asking for are less relevant than asking for numbers for areas that have been severely impacted by massive Third World immigration.

Because the immigrants aren't carrying big, expensive production equipment with them across the border.