Multiple Blood Children, The Hammer of Reality

One of the most interesting aspects of having multiple children shared with a single spouse is how it brings the hammer of reality down on your thinking.  The sort of thinking I'm discussing here is thinking on how all of your children are the same and how they are different.  When you only have one child, it's easy to pretend that things might be a fluke.  It's also easy to pretend nonsense like a child's gender being 'socially constructed' and not real at a gut level.

Looking at my two little ones would beat that out of me if I ever truly held it.  For instance, give the little boy a toy sword, and what does he do with it?  Why, he flourishes it with an excellent grip and proceeds to whack at the floating balloons nearby, or anything else identified by his parents as a legitimate target (he's been taught that he's not allowed to swing at anyone who isn't holding a similar weapon themselves).  Give the little girl a sword, and she too will flourish it with a remarkably effective grip for a one year old.  The difference is she uses it to get attention and to flirt with, flashing a huge grin and capturing the eyes of passers by, such as women of grandmotherly age.  She won't try to whack at anything with it, despite never having been discouraged from so doing.  One displays typical little boy behavior, and the other stereotypical little girl behavior, with no particular prodding required at all.

Another big thing one learns is that despite possessing very similar genetics and an extremely similar environment, each child really is significantly different.  All we can do in essence is determine what tables their attributes will be generated using, it is not to us to determine the exact fall of the dice.

Lasik, an example of how medicine can work with rational incentives

A little more than a week ago, a friend of mine got LASIK done on both of his eyes.  His vision was extremely wretched with quite a bit of astigmatism as well.  For the price of around $2400, and what was almost literally an overnight recovery (by the morning he was up to 20/30), he now has 20/20 vision and the possibility of improving to 20/15 or so.  Apparently better than normal vision isn't an uncommon result from LASIK.

LASIK is almost universally NOT covered by health insurance (although you CAN often pay it with pretax dollars through an HSA or the like), and it is also one of the only medical procedures where the cost has fallen dramatically over time.  The cost collapse hasn't been quite like that of computers, but it has fallen around an order of magnitude in only 10-15 years.  Perhaps in anticipation of my questioning, my friend also talked to his provider about the business model being used as well.

Apparently in many LASIK shops, the manufacturer actually owns the equipment, and is paid a fixed fee every time the machine is used.  In addition, they receive the results and feedback to help them drive software and hardware improvements.  It's almost effectively a royalty model.  Pricing is very transparent---even ADVERTISED in many cases, a clear departure from the opaque norms of medicine.  Satisfaction with the procedure also is considerably higher than the norm and innovation in this space has been very strong (the procedures used now are a lot more reliable---thank you early adopters for beta testing for me in the future).

One wonders if there's any way we can move more of medicine onto this model (transparency, declining costs to customers over time, and strong technological innovation).  Perhaps we could get areas of medicine banned from health insurance coverage?

Wrapping up the US Senate, all the rest

Here we break down everybody else.

• Congregational - 2 - Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) (2 Democrats).

Akaka F-

Klobuchar C-

• Protestant - 2 - Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire), Jim Webb (D-Virginia) (2 Democrats).

Shaheen F-

Webb F

• United Church of Christ - 2 - Max Baucus (D-Montana), Mark Kirk (R-Illinois) (1 Democrat, 1 Republican).

Baucus B

Kirk B

This is something of a surprise, I expected much worse from the United Church of Christ

• Christian Reformed Church - 1 - Scott Brown (R-Massachusetts) (1 Republican).

Brown B-

 Not that bad all things considered, probably the best we can hope for from Massachusetts honestly

• Church of Christ - 1 - John Cornyn (R-Texas) (1 Republican).

Cornyn B-

• Church of God (Anderson) - 1 - Jon Tester (D-Montana) (1 Democrat).

Tester B

Perhaps this has something to do with how a Democrat can survive as a Senator in Montana?

• Eastern Orthodox Church - 1 - Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) (1 Republican).

Snowe C+

I have to confess I thought that the Republican women, often considered RINOs were worse than this. 

• McLean Bible Church - 1 - John Thune (R-South Dakota) (1 Republican).

Thune B-

I was kind of hoping this guy would run.  He strikes me as solid and boring, just what I want in a president around this time.

• Unitarian Universalist - 1 - Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota) (1 Democrat).

Conrad D+

How is it that a Democrat survives as a Senator in North Dakota?  I suspect this guy is pretty vulnerable when his seat comes up for reelection.  His career rating is a C- though.

 Unspecified affiliation

• Michael Bennet (D-Colorado)

• Mark Udall (D-Colorado)

Both F-, go figure.  The median political values of atheists and the non-religious are probably responsible for a good deal of the animus against them.  Depending on how things shake out if things fall apart, I could pretty easily see score-settling occurring against the vocal atheist segment of the population also.

Rounding out the large blocks in the Senate with Methodists, Baptists, and Lutherans

• Methodist and United Methodist - 11 - Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico), Richard Burr (R-North Carolina), Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia), Richard Lugar (R-Indiana), Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) (7 Republicans, 4 Democrats)

Bingamann F-

Burr B-

Inouye F-

Iskason B

Lugar D

Moran A

Nelson B+

Portman (no grade but career D+)

Roberts A-

Sessions B+

Stabenow D-

2 A's 4 B's 3D's 2 F's

Largely a Democrat (bad) Republican (less bad) split.  Amusingly Inouye is F- rated---being a native Hawaiian himself you think he'd know better!  How did unrestricted immigration work out for the Hawaiians?  This group is pretty much the median of America as a whole.

• Baptist and Southern Baptist - 10 - Roy Blunt (R-Missouri), John Boozman (R-Arkansas), Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi), Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), John McCain (R-Arizona), Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas), Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) (9 Republicans, 1 Democrats).

Blunt B+

Boozmann A+

Coburn B-

Cochran C+

Graham B+

Grassley B+

McCain B+

McConnell B+

Pryor B-

Wicker B+
1 A, 8 B's and a C.  This group frankly rocks.  Even the Democrat is a B-.  While their denominational leadership in many cases is flaky, their political elites are generally faithful to the demographic interests of their coreligionists.  There is definitely a strong Scots-Irish influence here as well.

• Lutheran - 4 - Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin), Tim Johnson (D-South Dakota), Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) (3 Democrats, 1 Republican).

Brown B-

Johnson (R-Wi) (No Grade)

Johnson (D-SD) F-

Merkley D-

Another median group like the Methodists.


For reference, it should be noted that in general, Presidential Candidates are worse than Senators (Bachmann has the best rating at a B-, Romney is a C-, and everyone else is worse, sometimes a lot worse).  In turn, Representatives tend to have better grades than do Senators (only 5% of the Senate is A rated, 21% of the House is).

Mormons, Presbyterians and Episcopalians in the Senate, Oh My

• Latter Day Saint - 6 - Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Dean Heller (R-Nevada), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Harry Reid (D-Nevada), Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) (4 Republicans, 2 Democrats).

A basic search reveals that there are about 6M Mormons in the US.  This isn't terribly far from the number of Jews in the US, which would yield 2 senators with normal representation.  As it is, there are 6 Mormon Senators, so they're managing approximately a 3x overrepresentation.

Crapo B-

Hatch C+

Heller A+

Lee B

Reid F-

Udall F-

Definitely a decidedly mixed set of grades, everything from F- to A+.  Mormon republicans range from A+ to C+, Mormon democrats are uniformly F-.  But Mormons definitely have the best average thus far.  Too bad Reid wasn't knocked off in the last election in Nevada---the MSM really brought big guns to defend him against the upstart Sharon Angle.  Interestingly, Udall F- and Heller, A+ are from the same state (New Mexico).  Romney, with his C rating (sadly the 2nd best on the Republican candidates for President, only Bachmann has a better rating) is on the low end for Mormon Republicans but clearly better than Mormon Democrats.  Can't we do better than this guy?  Apparently not, he's better than Perry or Gingrich, and Paul, while not ideologically hostile to us, is opposed to the only mechanisms that would be proven to work.

• Presbyterian - 15 - Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee), John Barrasso (R-Wyoming), Thomas R. Carper (D-Delaware), Dan Coats (R-Indiana), Chris Coons (D-Delaware), Bob Corker (R-Tennessee), Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), Michael Enzi (R-Wyoming), Kay Hagan (D-North Carolina), James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia), Richard Shelby (R-Alabama), Mark Warner (D-Virginia) (10 Republicans, 5 Democrats).

Alexander B+

Barasso B-

Carper F-

Coats (No Grade but career D)

Coons F-

Corker B+

DeMint B+

Enzi B-

Hagan C-

Inhofe B+

Kyl B+

Paul (Rand)  B-

Rockefeller D+

Shelby B+

Warner F-

Another really mixed batch, 6 B+'s, which are among the best grades any presidential candidate has gotten recently, 3 B-,  a C- , 3 F- grades, a D, and a D+.

Hagan has the best grade for a Democrat here, at C-, Rockefeller the worst for a Republican at D+.  Overall this group has a considerably better immigration record than I'd expected to find for a fairly mainline denomination (9 B grades, 1 C, 2 D's and 3 Fs)

• Episcopalian - 4 - Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), Bill Nelson (D-Florida), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) (2 Democrats, 2 Republicans).

Chambliss B+

Hutchinson B+

Nelson D- (note that there is ANOTHER B. Nelson in the senate, from NE, who is also a Democrat who has a B+)

Whitehouse F-

2 B+ grades, a D-, and one F-.  This actually surprised me somewhat---I expected this group to have a much worse record considering how elite and SWPL mainline the Episcopalian denomination is on the whole.  But you've got the usual breakdown of Republicans in the B to A range and Democrats in the D to F range. 

An Inquisition Regarding the Catholic Senators

There are 24 Catholic Senators in the US Senate

• Roman Catholic - 24 - Kelly Ayotte (R-New Hampshire), Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Maria Cantwell (D-Washington), Bob Casey, Jr. (D-Pennsylvania), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Richard Durbin (D-Illinois), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), John Hoeven (R-North Dakota), Mike Johanns (R-Nebraska), John Kerry (D-Massachusetts), Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana), Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia), Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri), Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey), Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Patty Murray (D-Washington), Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Marco Rubio (R-Florida), David Vitter (R-Louisiana), Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania) (15 Democrats, 9 Republicans).

Using the same methodology (numbersusa.com, grades for 2009-present.  Where no grade is assigned I also checked if they had a career grade since Senator is usually not an entry level position.

Ayotte (No grade)
Begich F-
Cantwell F-
Casey F-
Collins C
Durbin F-
Gillibrand F-
Harken D-
Hoeven (No grade)
Johanns B
Kerry F-
Landrieu D
Leahy F-
Manchin (No grade)
McCaskill C
Menendez F-
Mikulski F-
Murkowski D+
Murray F-
Reed F-
Risch B+
Rubio B-
Vitter  A-
Toomey (No Grade, but career B-)

So here we have one A-, one B+, one B, one B-, 2 C's, one D+, one D, one D-, and  11 F- grades as well as 4 No grades
This is a pretty wretched average grade but nowhere near as bad as the average  grade for the 12 Jewish Senators.

I will admit that my affection for the Catholic church in general is greatly reduced by the stance of its elites on the immigration issue.  If the Catholic church were at least effectively neutral on this issue I'd seriously consider 'swimming the Tiber'.  The rank and file Catholic in the US has a fairly good view on the immigration issue.  Looking at the numbers, it'd also appear that Rubio might be a fairly decent vice-presidential candidate from our perspective.
http://www.cis.org/ReligionAndImmigrationPoll

Working Overtime to Manufacture Anti Semitism in the Supreme Court

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States


Presently the Supreme Court consists of 6 Catholics and 3 Jews.  That's 1/3 of the SC with less than 2% of the population.  Catholics, for their part, are overrepresented by a factor of 2 or 3.
 Kagan, Breyer, and Ginsburg are Jewish, all of the rest of the Supreme Court Justices are Catholic.

The problem for the Jewish brand is that all 3 of the Jewish justices are hostile to White interests.  It is practically a certainty that all will vote against the Arizona law when the case comes up, with the possible exception of Kagan recusing herself due to conflict of interest, since she was the Solicitor General on the case in the first place.  If a 4-4 tie didn't have the same net effect as 5-4 against (since to overturn the previous court requires a majority), I doubt very seriously whether Kagan would recuse herself despite the blatancy of her conflict of interest.   Sotomayer will also almost certainly vote against the law.  In all likelihood, the decision will hinge on the vote of Kennedy.

Now, when things fall apart and the center does not hold, just WHO do you think is going to have absorbed the blame here?  It doesn't matter who writes the majority or prevailing opinion, or who concurs in part.  What matters is the end result and whether it tars the Jewish brand further.  Breyer and Ginsburg have long been hated by many.  Kagan creates the possibility of creating decisions that inspire vitriolic hatred on the back of a majority Jewish vote (3 Jews and 2 Catholics).  Who do you think will be blamed here?  Do you think this will inspire a pogrom against Catholics?  No, they'll be swept under the rug, and the fact that 4 Catholics voted on the side of 'righteousness' will be considered instead.  There are presently several really significant issues on the Supreme Court's docket, issues that I guarantee will create lots more anti semites if they go the wrong way and might even if they go the correct way.  The fact that all 3 votes can be predicted with a great deal of certainty in advance without even so much as a law degree by a layman is also very concerning.

Ginsburg and Breyer are both pretty old (born in 1933 and 1938 respectively).  I'd suggest that when the time comes to replace them, that Jewish folks back a Jewish justice somewhere to the right of Justice Thomas for one seat and a white Protestant for the other.  Holding a block of 3 seats in the SC is an extremely dangerous lightning rod.  It's not in your interest to have the average Joe in the US think of those 3 when he thinks 'Jew'.