Visas, immigrants, and adversarial politics in the USA

 

The fuss over H1B and other worker visas is ongoing, and doesn't look like being resolved anytime soon.  That's a pity for our country, because there are good arguments to be made on both sides of the issue.  Certainly, we have too many immigrants at present (and I say that as an immigrant myself!);  but at the same time, our education system is churning out a truly vast proportion of our young people who can't read, can't write, and can't handle basic numeracy.  Even worse, when the best of our youngsters get to university or college, they're wasting time (in some cases, years) on "remedial education" to fix those earlier problems, then studying a lot of courses that have nothing whatsoever to do with the specialization they've chosen.  As noted in our earlier article today:

The rot at the heart of universities in the West goes beyond expecting very little of students. It also shows up in the politicised nature of what they are asked to do. Engineering students ... complained after they were set the task of creating ‘a product for LGBTQ+ people focussed on providing education or safe spaces’. Students, not unreasonably, questioned what relevance this task had to engineering, and why it was worth 70 per cent of their module grade. Previous cohorts of engineering students apparently got to build a Mars rover.

The "woke" establishment is basically treating education as a tool to indoctrinate students in a particular political and philosophical perspective, a world view that's based almost entirely on dubious, flimsy theories that collapse in the face of the reality in which we live.

This is directly affecting the debate over work visas to the USA.  For decades I've watched the quality of graduates from US universities, both from the perspective of a businessman who had to select applicants for jobs in the information technology industry, and as a pastor looking at how such applicants were coping with life, the universe and everything.  In so many words, you could say (and I do) that US universities are failing to produce graduates who understand reality.  Everything is theoretical to them;  and if the issue of reality raises its ugly head, they prefer to try to ignore or change that reality rather than adjust their views.  It's astonishing to see, but I daresay many of my readers have encountered it, and understand what I'm talking about.

Foreign graduates seldom exhibit the same cocooned approach to reality.  Many of them have had to struggle and sacrifice to graduate, after competing against vast numbers of applicants to get into university in the first place.  They want to come to America because it offers an environment in which success brings worldly reward and upward mobility - something often conspicuous by its absence in their home countries.  If you're a good engineer in, say, Mumbai in India, or Jakarta in Indonesia, you'll earn more than those around you, to be sure;  but that income will still be circumscribed by the fact that there are a dozen graduates eager to take your place.  They have nowhere else to go, because the doors of emigration to the West are all too often closed and locked against them.  Therefore, they'll compete with you and each other, thus driving down income and upward mobility in society.  Under those circumstances, why wouldn't they strive with might and main to get a work visa to come to a society that offers them so much more?

Compare and contrast the average US tertiary education graduate, as described above, with the average Third World tertiary graduate.  Who's hungrier for success?  Who's going to work harder to achieve it?  Who's going to accept that in order to succeed, they have to start with low expectations and look to rise by proving their ability, their worth, to the satisfaction of those who pay them?  The answer to those questions reveals the impetus from corporations to keep the H1B and work visa stream flowing.  If it wasn't profitable to employers, they wouldn't support it.  They certainly don't want the administrative and financial overhead of bringing such employees over here:  it's costly, inconvenient and carries with it a bureaucratic tangle that makes compliance difficult.  Nevertheless, despite those obstacles, it's still cheaper for them than hiring local graduates who want a lot more money to produce a lot less work, and who are less driven to succeed.  That's the blunt reality of the situation.

I agree with many critics that foreign graduates are often of lower intelligence (as measured by IQ) than local graduates.  That's not nearly as important as many people think.  A worker with an IQ of 120 may be bored silly by more repetitive tasks, or try to "coast" by using his intelligence instead of working harder.  A foreign worker with the same qualification and an IQ of, say, 100, may produce more and better work than his local, "more intelligent" rival simply because he's used to working harder, with greater application, than those around him.  He's had to do so in order to get where he is.  Nobody checked his IQ score, and did more for him on the basis that "he's smart".  Instead, they checked whether he was working harder, and producing more and better results, than his competitors in the university and/or workplace.  That's how he got where he is:  and he isn't going to sit back and relax because he's now in a job, a company, an environment, that doesn't drive him as hard - not if he wants to stay there.

There are all sorts of arguments that such foreign "imports" produce a lower quality of work, or abuse the system by "gaming" it, or try to hire more like themselves in order to drive Americans out of the workplace.  All those complaints are probably true, as far as I can judge from my limited knowledge of the field.  Yet, despite all that, corporations continue to hire them.  Why would they do that if it wasn't to their advantage to do so?

That's the question none of the opponents of workplace immigration will answer.  If you locally supply the demand, that will automatically shut down most of the inflow of foreign skilled workers . . . but if you don't shut down the demand, that won't happen.  Corporations won't shut down the demand, because it's to their advantage to continue with the present system.  You won't be able to reform the system unless you first reform the conditions that gave rise to its growth - and that means tackling the US education system, just as much as business and immigration law.  Do you hear H1B opponents saying anything about that?  No, you don't.

Visa reform is only one element - and probably not the most important element - in a structural reform that will impact many areas of US society.  Unless and until we recognize that, and begin to address it, the abuse of work visas at the expense of US employees will continue.

That's the bottom line.

Peter

"The death throes of the university are upon us"

 

That's the headline of an article by Joanna Williams.  She writes from a British perspective, but precisely the same issues are visible in American tertiary education, with a trans-Atlantic flavor.

Perhaps most significantly, the financial crisis in England’s higher-education sector is coming to a head ... The thorough-going marketisation of higher education has also affected the quality of the education on offer. Many popular institutions have expanded by lowering standards. Indeed, entry requirements for international students, whose fees are uncapped, have virtually disappeared at some universities. Even the lecturers’ union has noted that the ability to speak English is being discarded in the dash for cash cows. One professor told the BBC that 70 per cent of his recent master’s students had inadequate English, making it difficult to teach anything but the basics. Now, after decades of growth, international recruitment has fallen this year, adding to the sector’s financial woes.

Universities’ response to the cash crisis reveals their deeper crisis of purpose. Up to 10,000 university jobs are reported to have been cut this year. Yet diversity, equity and inclusion teams seem to have been largely spared the axe. Instead, universities are cutting core academic disciplines ... Once, it would have been unthinkable for a university not to offer degrees in major branches of learning, such as literature or philosophy. These subjects were taught not because ‘the market’ made them ‘viable’, but because they contributed to our understanding of the word and what it means to be human. That they can now be so readily discarded speaks to an impoverished intellectual climate that universities themselves have helped to create.

. . .

The rot at the heart of universities in the West goes beyond expecting very little of students. It also shows up in the politicised nature of what they are asked to do. Engineering students at King’s College London complained after they were set the task of creating ‘a product for LGBTQ+ people focussed on providing education or safe spaces’. Students, not unreasonably, questioned what relevance this task had to engineering, and why it was worth 70 per cent of their module grade. Previous cohorts of engineering students apparently got to build a Mars rover.

Another insight into the politicised nature of higher education came when the thesis topic of an unfortunate PhD student at Cambridge went viral on social media. Ally Louks’s research into ‘Olfactory Ethics’ – essentially, linking descriptions of bad smells to prejudice and oppression – prompted a ferocious backlash. But, as one shrewd observer noted, on many undergraduate courses ‘the study of structural oppression in its various forms is the degree, and primary texts and historical context and linguistic and subject knowledge become “nice-to-haves”’.

There's more at the link.

I suppose a large part of the problem can be ascribed to defining the purpose of higher education.  It used to be the case that education was at the service of society, teaching us where we came from and giving us the aspiration - and the tools - to progress further.  Now, it's become yet another tool of indoctrination, discarding (even vilifying) the past when it's no longer politically correct, and trying to actually change the course of society by making us feel guilty about the way we live and the attitudes we hold.  The message of "woke" is, at its heart, a message of hatred for the human condition that exists, and a drive to remake that condition into something entirely foreign to human nature.

There's also the question of whether education is to equip us to work in our society, or to live in our society, or to impose different models (e.g. business, or technology, or world view) on our society.  Education is no longer seen as valuable for its own sake, but as a tool to help us accomplish things.  This is in stark contrast to earlier generations, who saw education - serious, challenging education, not frivolous, valueless courses - as something to create a well-rounded person.  My parents encouraged me to get a generalist Bachelor of Arts degree as my first tertiary qualification for precisely that reason.  After that, they assured me, I could "specialize" in whatever took my fancy.  I followed their advice, and I've never regretted it.  After my B.A. (English, History and Philosophy) I did a post-graduate diploma, and then a Masters degree, in Management;  and, after the good Lord changed my career calling, I studied Theology and related subjects.  My generalist education and business experience, plus some military background, all came in very useful as a pastor and chaplain, and I think made me more approachable to my parishioners.

As part of this conundrum, I think the concept of a residential University education has come to be little more than a self-indulgent, hedonistic existence.  Every one of my four University qualifications was earned through part-time and distance education, because I couldn't afford to attend full-time and live in a residence with other students.  Frankly, I think that's proved to have been an asset.  I had to learn right from the start that I was responsible for my own expenses, my own needs.  If I didn't do what had to be done, nobody else was going to do it for me!  I wish more tertiary students today could learn that lesson the hard way.  I suspect it would make them better human beings, cutting through self-indulgence and forcing them to confront reality.

Finally, I find myself wishing that more of our leaders, in politics, business and academia, had enjoyed a generalist education, to broaden their horizons before they'd climbed the ladder of success.  Too many of our leaders have a blinkered approach to their work.  They see it from one perspective only, through a single set of lenses, ignoring the fact that there are many other aspects to which they're giving no weight at all.  It's a bit like the "Fair Witness" approach described by the late, great Robert A. Heinlein in his novel "Stranger in a Strange Land".  We need more "Fair Witnesses" in our midst, IMHO, but also more "Fair Leaders" who can be similarly accurate in their assessments.

Oh, well.  My university days are far behind me, so perhaps I'm no longer qualified to judge contemporary institutions.  Is there a post-graduate qualification in Curmudgeonhood?

Peter

I did not know that...

 

I was intrigued to read that moose are preyed upon by killer whales in northern climes.

In coastal areas in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, moose face terror on another level — possibly getting devoured by killer whales.

“The possibility for killer whales to kills moose is rare, but it does happen, and it’s been documented,” Alaska Department of Fish and Game spokesman Riley Woodford told Cowboy State Daily.

Killer whales, or orcas, are extremely intelligent and at the top of the marine food chain.

They live and hunt in groups called pods, which are much like wolf packs. In areas with coastal moose populations, orca pods will take advantage of moose swimming in deep water across coves or between islands.

. . .

... recent research suggests that at least in some areas, orcas gobble moose more often than previously thought, Forbes Magazine reported this year.

Moose apparently crave the sodium in aquatic vegetation, and they’re willing to swim to get to it, according to researchers.

It’s when moose are crossing big water, like Alaska’s coves, that they might be at risk of being hunted down by killer whales, Woodford said.

There's more at the link.

I mentioned to my wife - who lived for years in Alaska, as regular readers will know - that I was surprised to hear that.  I'd never have thought of moose as prey for sharks or orcas.  She told me that moose can actually walk for short distances underwater, across the bottom of ponds, streams, rivers and inlets - they don't just move through water by swimming.  Apparently some divers have been known to come across moose casually walking past them underwater, to their considerable surprise!  She says that when moose move through shallow coastal waters (for example, from the coast to an island, or island to island), it's relatively easy for killer whales to get to them.  It doesn't happen regularly, but often enough that it's a known thing.  You can read more about it here.

That must be a heck of a sight . . . half to three-quarters of a ton of moose against several tons of killer whale.  I imagine that while swimming, the whale has most of the advantages;  but if the moose is in shallower water and can stand on the bottom, dig in its feet and kick, it might inflict some pretty nasty injuries on a whale, too.  If a full-grown moose can injure a brown bear severely enough to cripple it, it might do something similar to an orca.

Peter

Compare and contrast. What do you think?

 

Friend, author and blogger Michael Z. Williamson recently posted this comparative image on social media.

I can instantly see what he's driving at.  Frankly, I prefer no tattoos at all on people, but I've seen many examples, on men and women, that are relatively tastefully designed, well executed, and attractive.  On the other hand, I've seen too many where the person wearing them has obviously given no thought at all to an overall design.  They've simply added a bit here, a bit there, obviously executed by a person with little or no talent.  They look a mess - and they make the person wearing them look like a mess, too, in personality as much as skin art.  (That's particularly the case with prison tats.  Some of them . . . hoo, boy!)

I guess I have to agree with Mike.  Tats like that resemble nothing so much as graffiti, disfiguring scars on buildings (and on people) that lower the tone of the entire neighborhood (or person).  To me, they're flashing red warning lights that any involvement with that person, no matter how innocuous it may seem, is unlikely to bear good fruit.

What do you think, readers?  Are such tattoos worth anything - an expression of personhood, of individuality, of a "free spirit" - or are they just so much graffiti, demonstrating an approach to life and the person themselves that's depressingly low and dispirited, showing a lack of value and values?  I'll be interested to hear your views.

Peter

Given the H1B visa brouhaha...

 

... here's how many workers have experienced it, courtesy of Stephan Pastis.  Click the image to be taken to a larger view at the "Pearls Before Swine" Web page.

There's an awful lot of hot air being wasted on the subject right now.  For a reasonably well-balanced and well-informed article, see John Wilder's comments.

Peter

Memes that made me laugh 242

 

Gathered from around the Internet over the past week.  Click any image for a larger view.

Sunday morning music

 

For the interregnum between Christmas and New Year, I thought we could all use a reminder of what might happen to unwanted Christmas gifts.

Just sayin' . . .

Peter

More coordinated brainwashing from mainstream media

 

A recent message on X (formerly Twitter) has revealed yet another example of news organizations broadcasting precisely the same message, word-for-word, about their news coverage, while attacking so-called "independent" news reporting.  You'll find the short video clip here - recommended viewing.

We tend to treat this sort of thing as amusing, yet another "same old, same old" revelation of how corporate media parrot the same line;  but we forget how insidious it is.  The same message is being broadcast in almost every city across the nation.  I'm grateful that so many Americans resist being brainwashed by such stunts, but there are many who simply aren't aware of - or don't care about - this ongoing, organized, pre-programmed brainwashing.  The mainstream media, in general, are simply not trustworthy when it comes to the sharing of news items with the general public.  They decide what they want to say, and how they want to say it - and with only six corporations owning something like 90% of US media, those media are subject to more or less strict corporate control over what they say, and how they say it.  Few, if any of them are completely independent, able to say what they like about anything without making sure that it fits the guidelines issued to them by their owners.

We're going to have to keep this firmly in mind in the new year, as President Trump takes office.  Even now, there are attempts to prevent him from doing that, as this op-ed in The Hill earlier this week makes clear:  "Congress has the power to block Trump from taking office, but lawmakers must act now".  That was clearly a premeditated, malice-aforethought strike directed at our new President.  If you think that those op-ed authors came up with the idea for that article entirely on their own, and that The Hill decided to publish it with no input at all from opposition politicians, regulators and bureaucrats . . . all I can say is that I have a bridge in Brooklyn, NYC I'd like to sell you.  Cash only, please, and in small bills.  (On the other hand, of course, there are right-wing outlets that cheer President Trump's comments about "taking back" the Panama Canal or wanting to buy Greenland.  Such opinionated gushing is bad no matter who does it, and on what side of politics they stand.)

Just keep in mind that in the new year, we're going to have to be more vigilant than ever to prevent ourselves from being misled and propagandized, and to discern the truth about what's happening all around us.  With such massive resources being devoted to swaying our opinions, that won't be easy.

Peter

It's hard to argue with that!

 

In a comment on yesterday's blog post about getting the economic fundamentals right, an anonymous reader provided the link to this comedy clip from the late John Pinette.  In the light of all those Christmas leftovers, he may have a point!

I'm sure many of us will be enjoying our gluten-ous leftovers for a few days yet.

Peter

Before you worry about investments, take care of the basics!

 

I've been reading Jared Dillian's latest weekly investment and finance newsletter.  (It's free to subscribe:  if you aren't reading it yet, and are interested in financial and investment matters, I suggest you do.  He has interesting things to say.)  This edition is titled "The Importance of Diversification" (for investors, of course).  Here are a few excerpts.

I am not a fearmonger. But these days, telling people that they should diversify sounds like fearmongering. You know what? Stocks might not go up forever. Maybe stocks will go down. Maybe something else will go up.

Index funds are sold on the premise that if you buy an S&P 500 index fund, you are diversified because you have 500 stocks. Do you really think you are diversified if you have 500 stocks? 

. . .

... leverage in the financial markets increases volatility and exposes us all to wild swings and crashes. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle, but if I could go back in time and somehow stop stock index futures from being listed, I would. 

You might remember that the Crash of 1987 was blamed on program trading an index arbitrage. Index arbitrage is net delta neutral—that was not the cause. Program trading is just trading baskets of stock all at once. It was the futures that did it, in the hall with the candlestick.

. . .

Most of the time, this all works, and things are stable. But how fragile everything is, and people put their life savings in this stuff? I worked in equity derivatives for a decade. 80% of USDA chicken inspectors no longer eat chicken.

. . .

You should try to make your investments as slow and boring as possible so you never have to look at the balance in your brokerage account. Maybe once a year. But when seven crazy tech stocks make up 35% of the index, you kind of have to look at it every day. It is no longer slow boring.

There's more at the link.

What Mr. Dillian is saying is, of course, very applicable to investing in general, and to those with the financial resources to invest in such things.  However, for most of us, it's a non-issue, because we don't have enough money left (after paying our routine expenses) to invest at that level.

Nevertheless, many of us get all sorts of offers for lower-level investments, from precious metals (gold and silver coins, etc.) to insurance policies to retirement annuities.  Most of them contain hidden traps and pitfalls that make using them hazardous to our wealth, to put it mildly!  To note just one example, several companies advertise gold IRA's (Individual Retirement Accounts), buying gold from them and storing it in their vault.  One was recently in the news after it was found that the fees it charged, and its markup on the gold purchases, were exorbitant, greatly reducing the return on any investment through them.  One financial forum notes:

Setting up a gold IRA sounds simple enough, but companies that offer this service often charge multiple layers of fees. Here’s a breakdown of some of the most common charges you might encounter:

1. Account Setup Fees: Establishing a gold IRA requires a specific type of account with a custodian. This initial setup fee can range from $50 to several hundred dollars, depending on the company.

2. Annual Maintenance Fees: Unlike traditional IRAs, which may have minimal annual fees, gold IRAs typically come with an annual maintenance fee to cover account management and reporting.

3. Storage Fees: Gold IRAs require physical storage in an IRS-approved depository, which means a recurring storage fee. These fees vary, but they often range from $100 to $300 per year, depending on the amount of gold held and the depository chosen.

4. Transaction Fees: Companies may also charge transaction fees when buying or selling precious metals for your IRA, which can be a percentage of the transaction or a flat fee. Since gold is a long-term investment, these fees may not be immediately felt but can add up over time.

5. Markup on Precious Metals: Companies often add a markup to the price of gold or silver sold to customers. This markup can vary and might be disguised in the form of a “spread,” making it difficult to assess the true cost of your investment.

These fees combined can significantly cut into any returns that you might make on gold.

I'm not an investment advisor, but I've been studying the field for many years, thanks to my business education (I hold a Masters degree in management) and experience (I was a director of two smaller companies before being ordained as a pastor).  The subject interests me, even though I don't have enough money to actively invest in anything much.

As a pastor, I often had to speak with parishioners who found themselves in financial trouble, sometimes through bad decisions (investment and otherwise), other times because they simply didn't have enough money to cover their routine needs.  It taught me a lot about how badly our schools, colleges and universities prepare students to face the realities of life.  Parents no longer seem to take the time to teach their kids about these things, either.  I don't understand that at all.  From an early age, my parents gave each of us kids a (very small) weekly allowance.  If we wanted to buy something that was important to us, we had to find ways to earn the money to pay for it.  Some of that came from faithfully doing our household chores - and if we didn't do them, we didn't get our chore money!  More came from vacation employment (I started out cleaning the cages in a local pet shop in my early teens, which taught me a lot about cleanliness as well as about earning and spending!)  In most cases, we had to find at least half the money for anything important to us.  If we did, often our parents would contribute the rest:  but we had to show willing, and be responsible.  That taught us a lot, right there.

What I've said to people for years (decades!) is that they do the following, in order, as best they can.

1. Eliminate short-term debt (credit cards, charge accounts, etc.).  If you use a credit card, pay off its balance every month, rather than use revolving credit (which usually carries an exorbitant interest rate, too).

2. Put aside an emergency reserve, so that you can pay for any sudden, unexpected needs that arise (e.g. fixing a broken-down car, a medical expense, a sudden trip to see a family member, being laid off without warning, etc.).  I usually suggest trying to save up a minimum of three months' worth of expenditure;  many authorities recommend six months' worth.  One has to do this slowly, over time, of course;  but perseverance pays.

3. Establish a reserve of critical needs (food, water, household necessities, etc.) sufficient to last for a reasonably foreseeable period, in the event of an emergency.  FEMA, the CDC and others recommend at least a 72-hour reserve, with some extending that to two weeks.  I'd recommend a minimum of 30 days, and longer if you can afford it.  If the power went out tomorrow and stayed out, remember that almost everything on which we rely - electricity generation, fuel pumps, factories, offices, etc. - would shut down with it.  Could you survive where you are, with what you have on hand, for two to three weeks if that happened, until the power was restored?  That's a question far too few people ask themselves, and even fewer take steps to prepare for it.

4. When you've done ALL OF THE ABOVE, then, and only then, is it safe to think about longer-term investments and financial provision.  If a bill has to be paid, you generally can't use a gold or silver coin to do so:  and if an emergency arrives, you can't eat an IRA certificate!  (What's more, if the power's out, nobody's likely to be able to advance you a loan against your IRA or another investment, either.)

Concepts such as diversification, leverage, arbitrage, etc. are all very well in their sphere, but they don't have much to do with getting the basic foundations of our life into order.  There's an old English proverb that says "Look after the pennies, and the pounds will look after themselves".  That applies very practically to getting our financial lives in order:  if we look after the basics, the more advanced elements will have a solid foundation on which to build (and we'll be able to afford them!).

Peter

It's always the little things...

 

Strategy Page points out that one of the critical underpinnings of the entire Russian economy - much less its war effort - is at the point of catastrophic failure.  Yes, Strategy Page tends to be anti-Russian, and as such its objectivity is questionable, but from personal experience (Africa wins again!!!) I can testify that this particular problem rears its head anywhere there's societal entropy.

Russia’s ability to continue the Ukraine war is being compromised due to catastrophic mismanagement of its railway system. This emerging situation is so dire that cutoffs of service to vast areas, starting with Siberia east of Irkutsk to the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk, to save the rest of Russia next year may happen next year. Russian railways account for about 43 percent of all transportation in Russia, and most of its east-west transport. The present rate of loss of rail cars and engines to worn-out axle bearings is so bad that that the Russian economy may come to a standstill and collapse in 1-2 years. One of the key issues here is rail transport of coal, which is declining fast but essential for electric power production.

Running trains with worn-out axle bearings causes them to derail and damage tracks such that movement of trains with effective bearings is not possible until the wrecks are cleared and the rail beds are repaired. Such accidents have recently become significant problems.

The degree of this problem is clouded because the Russian army has taken scores of thousands, perhaps more than a hundred thousand, rail cars out of service for use as storage of their cargos. It takes time and manpower to both unload them for local storage and then reload them for local transport. It’s faster and takes less manpower to unload the rail cars once, directly from the rail cars onto trucks for local delivery. Plus the Ukrainians keep blowing up the unloaded cargo sites ... It is difficult to distinguish rail cars deadlined for worn-out bearings from those with adequate bearings which the Russian army has deadlined as storage for their cargos. Plus there is probably some to considerable overlap between the two.

There's more at the link.

Yes, something as small and as simple as wheel bearings can derail an entire economy.  The fact that many of those who maintain and service rail cars have been mobilized and sent to the Ukrainian front in uniform makes it even worse.  During World Wars I and II, Britain found it had to de-mobilize critical workers and return them to the factories, because without their skills its economy could not adequately support the war effort.  I guess Russia is re-learning that lesson now.

I'd be interested to know how much the problem has been made worse by Russian staff, angry at mobilization hanging over their heads, who've sabotaged rail cars.  It's relatively easy to destroy a bearing:  just inject something abrasive (metal particles are good, but even ground stone will do in a pinch), along with the grease, to the lubrication nipple on the shaft or wheel bearing.  Britain taught Resistance fighters to do this during World War II, and it worked very well.  One wonders whether Russian workers (with, perhaps, Ukrainian encouragement) may not be using the same tactic.

Peter

A happy, holy and blessed Christmas to you all

 

As we enter upon this Christmas feast, we remember Him who is the reason for the season.  May His grace be with you all, and bless you in the year ahead.

To acknowledge this holy night, here's the Taverner Consort performing "Methinks I see a heavenly host" by the early American composer William Billings, published in his collection "The Suffolk Harmony" in 1786.  Because the words aren't always clear, I've provided the lyrics below the embedded video.

Methinks I see an Heav'nly Host

of Angels on the Wing;

Methinks I hear their cheerful Notes,

So merrily they sing.

Let all your Fears be banish'd Hence,

Glad tidings I proclaim,

For there's a Savior born today,

And Jesus is His Name.

Lay down your Crooks, and quit your Flocks,
To Bethlehem repair;
And let your wand’ring Steps be squar’d
By yonder shining Star.

Seek not in Courts or Palaces,
Nor Royal Curtains draw;
But search the Stable, see your God
Extended on the Straw.

Then learn from hence, ye rural Swains,
The Meekness of your God,
Who left the boundless Realms of Joy,
To Ransom you with Blood.

The Master of the Inn refus’d
A more commodius Place;
Ungenerous Soul of savage Mould,
And destitute of Grace.

Exult ye Oxen, low for Joy,
Ye Tenants of the Stall,
Pay your Obeisance; on your Knees
Unanimously fall.

The Royal Guest you entertain
Is not of common Birth,
But second to the Great I Am;
The God of Heav’n and Earth.

Then suddenly a Heav’nly Host
Around the Shepherds throng,
Exulting in the threefold God
And thus address their Song.

To God the Father, Christ the Son,
And Holy Ghost ador’d;
The First and Last, the Last and First,
Eternal Praise afford.

Peter

Courtesy of Bustednuckles...

 

... we find what may be the funniest Christmas music I've heard this year.  Click the image below, and enjoy!

Peter

The perils of water-damaged electric vehicles

 

Courtesy of Zendo Deb at 357 Magnum blog, we find that the explosion and fire in the Port of Miami on November 29th was caused by previously water-damaged electric vehicles.  This sub-5-minute video report contains all the essential details.  Recommended viewing;  and once you've watched it, I'll have a few more things to say about it.

First, kudos to the investigator for taking the time and trouble to track down all of the vehicles involved, including the damage they suffered during hurricane-induced floods earlier this year.

Next, consider his comments about how easy it is to modify damage documentation into salvage documentation - even a clean title.  I don't know how many vehicles have come out of hurricane-damaged areas into parts of the USA where they could be re-registered without any indication that they'd been flooded, but I'm willing to bet it's more than a few.  From my own experience during and after Hurricane Katrina, including discussions with law enforcement personnel, I'd say every such storm sees several thousand such vehicles sold to unknowing buyers in other states.  In the case of electric vehicles, the danger of fire or explosion is exponentially greater than for fossil-fuel-powered examples.  What if the vehicle that exploded had reached its destination, and been re-registered and sold, and had a mother with small children in it when it finally cooked off?  That doesn't bear thinking about . . .

I think we all need to keep this firmly in mind when dealing with used or pre-owned electric or hybrid vehicles.  The risk from flooding or battery damage is so great as to warrant extreme care in checking it out before committing to buying it.

Thanks, once again, to Zendo Deb for publishing that video.  It's a very important lesson to all of us.

Peter

One of the most important interviews of the year

 

Last week Tucker Carlson interviewed Jeffrey Sachs on his TV channel.  Mr. Sachs has worked as an economist, educator and international adviser for many years.  His "insider" knowledge of US government and international organizations may be unparalleled.

In this interview, he and Mr. Carlson cover such subjects as:

0:00 The Regime Change in Syria
8:48 What Is Greater Israel?
21:45 Were Americans Involved in the Overthrowing of Assad?
34:26 War With China by 2027
40:22 Biden’s Attempt to Sabotage Trump
46:10 The Attempted Coup of South Korea 
51:20 Jeffrey Sachs' Warning to Trump of Potential Nuclear War
55:18 Will We See the Declassification of the 9/11 Documents?
1:07:11 Will Trump Pardon Snowden and Assange?
1:16:43 The Most Important Appointment of Trump’s Cabinet
1:26:29 Biden’s Attempt to Kill Putin
1:35:58 Can Trump Bring Peace?
1:45:44 Is War With Iran Inevitable?
1:51:21 Why Corporate Media Hates Jeffrey Sachs

I found his exposition of how the US "Deep State" foments, encourages and causes wars in and between other countries to be particularly valuable.  Most of us aren't aware that many of the conflicts we see around us in the world today are directly attributable to US politics and covert action.  Yet another reason to hope that President Trump can cut back the "Deep State" to controllable proportions.

Here's the interview.  It may be long, but it's definitely worth your time to listen and ponder.

You'll never see that sort of in-depth analysis and commentary on mainstream TV these days.  Heartfelt thanks to Mr. Carlson for bringing it to us.

Peter

Memes that made me laugh 241

 

Gathered from around the Internet over the past week.  Click any image for a larger view.

Sunday morning music

 

Ralph Vaughan Williams wrote two pieces for Christmas, one rather short, the other (at the end of his life) much longer and more complex.  I thought you might like to be introduced to both of them at this season of joy.

The first piece, his Fantasia on Christmas Carols, is short and uncomplicated.  Let's listen to it before proceeding further.

The Telegraph offers this summation of Vaughan Williams' Christmas music (article may be paywalled).

The Christmas carol perhaps exemplifies the power of music to conjure time and landscape better than anything else. These songs evoke darkness and chill, the full harshness of the British winter. Most of the tunes date from a time before electric light and central heating, when households crowded round open fires (if they could afford the fuel) and contemplated a festive season that for many was a rare escape from privation and soullessness.

I have never thought this was captured better than in the opening bars of Ralph Vaughan Williams’s Fantasia on Christmas Carols, perhaps the only piece of music a civilised human being needs at this time of year. So many Christmas carols, mainly for ease of singing by those not used to the activity, are little more than dreary dirges ... Vaughan Williams, by contrast, cleverly chose three beautiful tunes, of varying moods, for his Fantasia, with perhaps two of them unfamiliar to his audience. He also slipped in short references to and quotations from other carols. The melodic quality of the finished work is not least why it is so loved and often heard in this season, and at 12 or 13 minutes long, there is no danger of anyone’s becoming bored.

Vaughan Williams wrote the work in 1912, and it was first performed at the Three Choirs Festival of that year at Hereford, perhaps somewhat inappropriately in early September. It has a solo part for baritone, and although he has plenty of opportunity to display his talents, it packs its punch using an orchestra and chorus. Vaughan Williams had for the previous nine years been collecting folk tunes from the countryside, sensing (quite correctly) that the tradition of their being passed down from one generation to the next was dying out because of industrialisation and mechanisation, and the movement of younger men from agricultural work to the factories and mills of nearby cities. The three main tunes he collected for his work were all from the southern counties.

The work opens with that mournful evocation of the bleakness of winter, using the carol The Truth Sent from Above, which begins with the baritone’s singing accompanied by low strings and, eventually, a wordless chorus. The words evoke Christian charity, and the antiquity of the Christmas message, but the folk tune pronounces an intense, unmistakeable and indefinable Englishness, a sense the composer would elaborate 20 years later in his essay “National Music”. After this the mood is lifted by the far more festive Come All You Worthy Gentlemen, an ancestor of the more familiar carol God Rest You Merry, Gentlemen. In this part of the work, Christmas has overcome its bleak, dark, cold context and become about “tidings of comfort and joy”, and hope. 

Then the baritone solo returns with the even more joyous On Christmas Night, the tune that will have been most familiar to those who heard the work for the first time more than a century ago. The composer’s careful writing for the chorus, notably for the trebles and altos, again elevates the mood, as does his orchestration of this third old English tune, which he develops into a soaring climax, complete with bells and chimes. The Fantasia may have begun in darkness, but it ends in light, happiness and serenity, and looking forward to “a happy new year”: as the ideal Christmas should.

Half a lifetime later, in 1953-54, Vaughan Williams drew on his experience to write a much longer, and more innovative, festive work, Hodie, which he called a “Christmas Cantata”. It has (as do several works of his later period) occasional quotations of some of his other works, and especially in its opening sequence is strongly reminiscent of his Five Tudor Portraits of 1936. His most recent symphony, Sinfonia Antartica, is evoked; but also some of the purely devotional music in the work seems to echo the style of his friend, pupil and dedicatee, Herbert Howells. 

Hodie is much less often performed in the popular repertoire, which is a pity.  It contains a great deal of musical richness in its own right.  It contains 16 individual pieces, all of which can be heard on YouTube in this 1965 performance by the London Symphony Orchestra, conducted by Sir David Willcocks.  Choirs are the Bach Choir of London and the Choir of Guildford Cathedral.  Here's the Prologue, "Nowell! Nowell!"

The remaining pieces in the cantata may be heard at this playlist, either letting them play in order or selecting the ones you want to hear from the sidebar.  Inspiring and recommended listening.

It remains only for me to wish all of my friends and readers a happy, holy and blessed Christmas.  May we never lose sight of the reason for the season, and not allow that to be washed away in a wave of commercialism and secularism.

Peter

I think he's got it

 

Comedian Don McMillan "cracks the code" for every Hallmark channel Christmas movie ever.

Unfortunately, he restricted it to movies made for and shown on the Hallmark channel.  I don't think "Die Hard" would fit into his matrix!

Peter

The infuriating thing about yesterday's failed Continuing Resolution...

 

... to fund the US Government is that very few of the politicians concerned are actually focused on what the country needs.  They're too busy pushing for their pet "porkulus" projects (at taxpayer expense), trying to score political points off each other, and exchanging snide remarks.  This applies to both sides - Republican and Democrat - and to congressional representatives of every sex, age and aptitude.  There are not enough honorable men and women among their number, who are truly trying to put the nation ahead of their own and their political party's interests.

The rest of us "common people" - those whom they allegedly "represent" - don't feature much in their discussions at all.  We no longer count, now that our votes have been counted.  We're the background noise to the political uproar in the House.

I accept that some of those voting against the Continuing Resolution are doing so out of principle, refusing to extend uncontrolled spending and increase the deficit yet again.  I support their position on this.  Unfortunately, fixing the current mess requires flexibility, probably including an increase in the deficit limit.  They will argue that this just continues the abuses of the past, and is therefore unacceptable.  Others counter-argue that bringing the country to a grinding halt, fiscally speaking, will merely make it impossible to fix the current mess at all.  I guess it's the irresistible force meeting the immovable object.  Something's got to give.  If everyone stands on principle, it won't - and therefore the entire country will suffer.  Politicians have made this mess, so politicians have to fix it, even if they don't want to.  If standing on principle won't do that, then some other way must be found, even if it's only a short-term solution.

I tend to agree that, rather than have a "porkulus" Continuing Resolution loaded down with political earmarks and wasteful expenditure, let's shut down the government altogether.  I know that means inconvenience at least for many government workers, and possibly actual financial hardship for some (including myself).  Nevertheless, Congress has wasted so much time and so much money that it's got to be reined in.  On the other hand, let's not have a Continuing Resolution that handcuffs the government in doing what it has to do, day in, day out.  That would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I do have one modest proposal.  It'll never be passed, but I think it should be.  As part of a continuing resolution, let's include a provision that every single member of Congress and the Senate must, within a reasonable time limit (say, 180 days?), provide a full, auditable list of every financial transaction above, say, $1,000 they've made since their election to those offices, and show where all their income has originated.  To name just one example, how did Nancy Pelosi and her husband, Paul, amass a personal net worth of some $240 million during her years in office?  I daresay there are many other politicians, on both sides of the aisle, whose income and net worth are enough to raise more than just eyebrows.  Correlating that information on personal wealth with how a politician has voted might open more than a few cans of large, succulent and very corrupt worms . . .

Let it be said in his defense that President Trump has not taken even a penny in remuneration from the government so far.  During his first term, he donated his salary every quarter to various charities.  At present, as he prepares to assume office for the second time, he's paying for his own transition costs from monies raised for that purpose, and from his own pocket.  He's not costing the taxpayer a dime.  Good for him.

Meanwhile, we'll watch today's ongoing shenanigans in the House with the contempt most of the participants deserve.

Peter

EDITED TO ADD:  This video on X (endorsed by Elon Musk) is an outstanding overview of the current situation.  Highly recommended viewing.

Will AI devalue university degrees?

 

One observer argues that artificial intelligence, if permitted and used in university education, will indeed devalue the product of that education.

Why would any firm or institution that produces a very valuable currency of its own then want to debase it?

I’m talking about education, where the currency is the academic credentials it produces. The sector has begun to clip its own coinage, by allowing artificial intelligence (AI) into classrooms.

Just last week, the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) boasted how it would introduce AI-generated course material. In a press release, a professor of Comparative Literature called Zrinka Stahuljak said that: “Normally, I would spend lectures contextualising the material and using visuals to demonstrate the content, but now all of that is in the textbook we generated.”

That’s nice. Then again, with course modules called things like “Ternary Positionality: Relationality, Decoloniality and Interpretations”, one suspects she may have been getting a robot to generate her course material for some time. She may even be one herself. Who knows?

Using large language models (LLMs) to create or assess work comes with a couple of serious problems. The AI introduces factual errors, or “hallucinations”. Any accurate material that comes out of AI isn’t very good, either: it’s typically a bland and generic mash-up that has earned the name “slop”.

But that’s not the real problem, which is much more profound. Once students use ChatGPT to write their essays, they can disengage from their subject and bluff their way through.

It’s cheating, pure and simple. And if teachers become reliant on using AI to mark their students’ essays, as they are being urged to, they can disengage from their jobs too.

It reduces teachers and students to mindless zombies pushing buttons in their sleep. This scenario may seem far fetched, but it’s already happening. Speed marking and essay writing services abound.

Now think what happens when a student goes to cash in their expensively acquired credential with an employer. A survey for Currys last week found that the majority of students (63pc) believe that AI has improved their job prospects.

They may be in for a shock. If they’ve graduated from a college known to be using AI, the employer has no idea if the student is diligent, or a cynical and lazy cheat. So graduates will find out the hard way what credential clipping means.

. . .

Eventually many further education credentials will be worthless.

There's more at the link (which may be paywalled).

I'm not so sure that AI is primarily to blame for the devaluation in university qualifications.  Much of the blame, IMHO, lies in the teaching of worthless, academically useless courses that cannot possibly benefit students in any career field.  (Classic, if over-used example:  underwater basket-weaving.)  When students are forced to study subjects that they know have little (if any) relationship to the world in which they live, and in which they will be expected to work and produce results if they're to earn a living, they become demotivated.  Demotivated students (those with any sense, that is) won't work hard to produce good academic results in pseudo-academic fields.  Q.E.D.

When I was a manager, I tried to hire people with work experience and part-time education whenever possible, rather than those straight out of university.  A programmer with three or four years' practical experience plus a part-time business degree would be productive almost immediately.  One with a four-year degree and no business experience would take six months to a year to become productive, because they had so much to learn.  That was decades ago, of course . . . if I had to hire people today, I'd actively motivate against any candidate with only a degree, because I'd expect at least half of what they'd learned in university to be "woke" hogwash.  They'll take a year or two to get it out of their systems and become capable of learning, let alone deliver work of an acceptable and commercially viable standard.

I'm glad I don't have kids wanting to go to university these days.  I'd rather pay for them to take an apprenticeship in a hands-on skill, where they'd learn useful things and earn a worthwhile salary from day one of their employment.

Peter

Canadian medical care may be hazardous to your health

 

Get the picture:

• A Canadian woman waits six years (!!!) for knee replacements.
• The first knee replacement, on her right leg, takes place last October.
• A post-surgery infection sends her from one hospital to another, temporarily, for surgical removal of infected tissue.
• While at the second hospital, her bed at the first hospital is reassigned, so she can't go back there to have the wound closed.
• It takes eight days before she can get back to her primary hospital, by which time her knee has deteriorated so much that she has to settle for amputation of her right leg.
• Now she has to recover from all this before deciding whether to let Canadian health care operate on her left leg.

You can read the full horror story here.

Reading that, I couldn't help thinking what a travesty of justice (not to mention health care) her case has become.  None of this was her fault.  The delays, the mis-steps, the infections . . . all were the result of the Canadian health care system.  I don't see how she can possibly trust them to operate on her other leg, not after this experience!  What's the betting they'll offer her euthanasia under their M.A.I.D. program, rather than further surgery?

What would you do if she was one of your loved ones, dear readers?  I'm pretty sure your reactions would be similar to mine - and they would not bode well for the health and future prospects of the bureaucrats and medical malpractice maniacs who've put her through all this.

Peter

So much for modern medicine!

 

It seems I was misled by a therapist with an over-developed sense of humor.  Yesterday's stent extraction didn't involve electromagnetism at all:  rather, it was the old-fashioned approach of inserting what looked like a metallic earthworm up the urethra.  The "earthworm" then opened up to reveal a "grabber", which (guided by the urologist) seized hold of the bottom end of the stent and pulled it out.  Liberal use of local anesthetic helped dull the momentary (and very weird) sensation of being turned inside out, but it's still not something I recommend - to put it mildly!

Be that as it may, the stent is out, and I now have to re-learn how to use my internal plumbing, so to speak.  After several weeks of its normal function being completely bypassed by a metal tube, it doesn't work very well.  I have to try to resist the normal pressure of the bladder to get rid of its contents, strengthening the muscles involved until I can once again control the flow rather than go with it willy-nilly (you should pardon the expression).  Since this is the fourth kidney procedure I've endured this year, I'm not unfamiliar with the sensation, although I wish I wasn't!

In a month or so I'll have to undergo another CT scan, plus a comparative test to see whether the right kidney (the one affected by hydronephrosis) is functioning better in comparison to the left.  If the improvement is sufficient to warrant it, there may be another procedure to sort out potential blockages in the ureter.  However, if the right kidney does not "bounce back" to full function, the question will become whether it should be removed entirely, or left to provide what service it can.  My priority will be to reduce future kidney procedures to a minimum, which may or may not coincide with what the urologist wants to achieve!  Uppity kidneys are no fun at all.

Meanwhile, following the application of medicated cleanser, local anesthetic and sundry other substances, both our cats are more interested than usual in my nether regions.  They seem to think that post-procedure, they might produce cat treats, if only they can make sufficient contact with the bits concerned.  No amount of persuasion appears sufficient to convince them otherwise.  I'm considering the use of cat repellent to mark my "territory" and keep them at a safe distance, but I'm given to understand that my lady wife will have something (several somethings!) to say about that if I try.  I'll do my best to ignore other helpful and doubtless well-intended suggestions from friends who are also cat lovers (an expression for which, under the circumstances, I'm developing a somewhat jaundiced distaste).

(By the way, I can now confirm from personal experience the truth of Pam Brown's assertion that "Cats can work out mathematically the exact place to sit that will cause most inconvenience".  It will undoubtedly involve the tenderest, most pressure-sensitive portion of one's anatomy - and they won't sit still once they're on it, either!  Talk about a penalty claws . . .)

Blogging will be light for the rest of today while I try to get back to what passes for "normal" around here, while avoiding the ministrations of over-enthusiastic four-footed friends.

Peter

Another treatment day

 

Regular readers will recall that a month or so back, I underwent yet another surgical procedure for my kidney problems.  It's time to take out the stent and check on progress, so this morning I'm off to DFW to let the doctors and nurses do their thing.

I'm not sure what they propose to do to get the stent out.  I'm used to cords being tied to the darn thing, so it can be pulled out, slowly and (preferably) gently.  (It's not fun!)  However, this time there were no cords in sight.  Apparently this is a new variety of stent that's supposed to be pulled out "electromagnetically".  It seems the nice nurse (or doctor) waves a magnet in the general vicinity of one's nether regions, which somehow magically lines up the stent with the necessary tubes and pulls it out of the body.  I'm a little leery of having anything waved around there, let alone electromagnetism, but I'm assured it's the latest and greatest thing.  Watch this space for details!

If all looks good, I'll be scheduled for another CT scan early in the New Year.  If that shows clear, all well and good:  if not, further procedures will be necessary.  After all this time, and four procedures in the space of a year, I might just tell them to take out the darn kidney and be done with it.  This wears you down, I'm here to tell you!

Anyway, I'll be grateful, as usual, for prayers for traveling safety, there and back, and for guidance for the nice medical team.  I'm not sure how one prays for electromagnetic efficacy, particularly in that region of the body:  but if you can figure that one out, let us know in Comments!

Peter

Shrinking the government?

 

The CATO Institute has produced a detailed study of how the proposed Department of Government Efficiency, or D.O.G.E., could go about its work.

DOGE shouldn’t limit itself to making the delivery of existing government services more efficient. Supplying more destructive government programs at a lower cost is nonsensical and counterproductive. Delivering more muscular DEI initiatives or more efficiently targeted transfer payments via near-insolvent entitlement programs, for instance, would counter DOGE’s intent. In President-elect Trump’s words, DOGE’s goals are to “dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies.” DOGE should view itself as an entrepreneurial pressure agent for eradicating all existing government-created inefficiencies across the American economy and society. This means a much smaller government.

Congress and the president must ultimately shrink the economy- and society-wide inefficiencies identified by DOGE. That outcome can be aided by DOGE bringing entrepreneurial, intellectual, and political energy to bear on popularizing this mission in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget, other public servants, policymakers, and think tanks that want DOGE to succeed. In that spirit of cooperation, the Cato Institute’s submission of policy reform ideas to the DOGE is grounded in clear principles designed to enhance the liberties and prosperity of Americans:

Constitutionally limited government: The federal government should only undertake constitutionally enumerated actions. Limiting government to these core functions will focus its attention and, more importantly, enable individuals, families, businesses, and state and local governments to provide solutions to economic and social problems.

Reduced regulation: The existing rules and regulations overseen by the administrative state hold back economic growth with few benefits. The number of regulations and their burden should be reduced as much as possible. To make that deregulation stick, we need to reform the processes that make the ongoing growth of the regulatory state possible. New and emerging technologies should be permitted to develop and thrive, and existing price, entry, social, labor, medical, antitrust, environmental, and other controls should be eliminated or significantly revised.

A smaller and more effective bureaucracy: American taxpayers, and their dollars, deserve respect. That means eliminating unnecessary duplication of bureaucracy, installing cutting-edge technologies to reduce overhead, creating a truly meritocratic and accountable civil service, and preventing the growth of unnecessary government.

Executive orders: The federal government is increasingly characterized by a strong president wielding powers through executive orders and other directives that are occasionally overseen by the judiciary. This trend in American governance is lamentable, in general, but it also means the president has enormous power to roll back expensive and destructive rules, regulations, and orders issued by earlier presidents that are contrary to the efficient functioning of the economy, the protection of individual rights, and, in many cases, the limited, proper functions of the government itself.

Reduce government spending to make government solvent and reduce economic distortions: Averting a fiscal crisis will require significant reductions to government spending, especially runaway entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. Additionally, reducing spending in most instances will increase economic efficiency because most government programs distort economic activity.

Tax efficiency: The federal government should raise revenue to fund its legitimate functions as economically efficiently as possible. That means a simple tax code with broad base taxes, low rates, and no special interest deductions, which would provide good incentives for work, saving, and investment.

There's much more at the link.  The full report is lengthy, but worth your time.

I'm not sure how successful DOGE will be:  after all, career bureaucrats are used to "managing" politicians, and are past masters at holding onto real power while allowing politicians to pretend they're holding pretend reins.  As the British TV series "Yes, Minister" put it:

I agree that the only way to rein in the "Deep State" is to make it a lot shallower - and that means slashing the bureaucracy.  Will DOGE succeed?  We'll have to wait and see.

Peter

Memes that made me laugh 240

 

Gathered from around the Internet over the past week.  Click any image for a larger view.