

Thoughts On The President's Speech Last Night - babyshake
http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/02/ten-thoughts-on-the-presidents-speech-last-night.html

======
DavidSJ
Scariest line of the night:

 _And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It’s not just
quitting on yourself, it’s quitting on your country._

Some of us consider dropping out of high school the best decision we ever
made, and the right to do so a basic American freedom.

~~~
SystemOut
What makes that scary? Did he say he was going to jail you if you drop out of
high school? All he did was tell people to finish high school and that they
should view that part of their responsibility as Americans is to get an
education and support themselves.

Do you think he should tell people to drop out of high school?

Speeches don't target individuals, they target groups. Just because you may or
may not be an exceptional case doesn't mean the line is scary.

~~~
DavidSJ
When the head of state says that something is "not an option", that's not just
a friendly suggestion. And when he frames the issue in terms of you "letting
down your country", it makes me feel like he thinks my life belongs to the
country, as opposed to myself.

And by the way, I _did_ drop out of high school, at 15, and was threatened
with things that were fairly similar in character to jail. So I don't think
it's not credible that the penalties could very well be jail time. We live in
an era which many people seem to see as post-historical -- that is, we've
found all the answers and we know the right way for people to live their
lives, so we no longer need to protect the rights of individuals to live weird
lifestyles, since doing so just constitutes a denial of the manifestly correct
path.

------
indiejade
_2\. I read the speech in its entirety twice and did not find one mention of
immigration. The President says we owe our prosperity to our ingenuity and
tenacity. I think that's true but a lot of that ingenuity and tenacity came
from first and second generation immigrants. If we are not prepared to open up
our borders more broadly to the best and brightest and toughest in this world,
all the rest is just words_

We have a president whose father wasn't even born in the US. I think that
speaks for itself. The population of the US has doubled since 1943 or
something (source: <http://www.pbs.org/saf/1304/features/raven2.htm>). I love
diversity and am all for opening up our borders, but let's concentrate on
giving the immigrants who are already here _lawful_ employment with ethical
compensation first.

~~~
astine
Personally, I think that it makes the absence more glaring, though to be
honest, I think that the immigration situation is a little more nuanced than
AVC makes it out to be.

------
fuzzmeister
His multiple mentions of how entrepreneurs will help lead us out of the
recession and build the technologies of tomorrow were very refreshing. He gets
it.

------
cturner
American politics is not hacker news! People can get this rubbish on all the
other news democracy sites! Please leave it out of hacker news.

~~~
fuzzmeister
The intent of this analysis is to look at the elements of his speech and his
plan that relate to the economy, which I think is a very relevant topic for
the entrepreneur types around here.

------
mynameishere
I was also "limpressed". Nice coinage there.

------
kubrick
_1) "The USA will emerge stronger than before" That's a tall order. I'd settle
for we will recover... I wonder if that's a promise the President should be
making._

I took this to mean we'd be stronger in the sense that we wouldn't be so
vulnerable to economic disaster (because we won't be tempting fate by
overextending ourselves). But still, that which does not kill me makes me
stronger.

 _2) I read the speech in its entirety twice and did not find one mention of
immigration... I think that's true but a lot of that ingenuity and tenacity
came from first and second generation immigrants._

That we are all the children of immigrants is a given, isn't it? Or in many
cases, immigrants ourselves. It's such a given that I don't think it warranted
direct mention. Red herring.

 _4) Hardest working people on earth? C'mon Barack. Don't bullshit us. Go back
and read number two._

What do you know about the European work ethic? They think we're slaves to
ourselves. You could argue that many Asian countries are harder-working, but
I'd argue that they are not as innovative. Hard work + innovation = America
(at its best). (Also, remember: Barack is doing a certain amount of
cheerleading here. That's part of his job.)

 _7) A new accountability for money spent saving banks. Barack said "I intend
to hold these banks fully accountable for the assitance they receive". Good
luck with that. Money is fungible._

Maybe, but cynicism never solved a problem. Better to try and fail somewhat
than to take the previous administration's approach and let it be play money.

 _Watching Pelosi and Biden behind the President was distracting and a
reminder that as well intenioned as Obama is, he's got an impossible job._

I'll say! What was with that? You're trying to pay attention to what Obama is
saying, and Pelosi keeps playing with her hair. WTF, is this national-level
speechmaking or what?

~~~
msluyter
Regarding the "hardest working" question, this chart shows we're #3 in terms
of total hours worked, behind Japan and Australia:

[http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_hou_wor-labor-hours-
wo...](http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_hou_wor-labor-hours-worked)

That's from 2003, so it may have changed.

~~~
LogicHoleFlaw
Japan is infamous for "butt-in-chair" as a measure of productivity. The
stereotype of the middle-aged salaryman coming home late at night just to
leave again in the morning is rooted in reality.

------
thras
The immigration comment is moronic. The reason that our borders aren't wider
open to the world's "best and brightest" is 2-fold.

1) Current American immigration is saturated by the world's worst and dumbest.
Low-IQ immigrants contribute marginally to GDP and are a huge drain on social
resources. Look at the modern equivalent of white flight going on in
California and what it's doing to state budgets. Insane family reunification
policies exacerbate this. The fix: build a fence on our southern border, and
we'll have a lot more capacity to import skilled labor.

2) Europe is unfortunately reproducing at low levels (just like WASPs in
America, in case you didn't know). So our historical sources of quality
immigrants are running low. However East Asians are even higher IQ (perhaps
less creative), and there are plenty of them.

Oh, and if you are getting ready to call me a racist (I'm not), I'd like you
to state your magic means for getting even 2nd and 3rd-generation Mexican
immigrants to graduate high school. Because we might want to figure that out
before importing many more.

~~~
biohacker42
What makes you think that the Mexican problems of multi-generational poverty
and lack of education have anything to do with quality high IQ stock?

You mention Europe as _our historical sources of quality immigrants_ , correct
me if I'm wrong, but aren't Mexican's mostly of Spanish descent, just like
Americans are mostly of English/Irish/German/Italian descent? And the last
time I checked Spain is in Europe.

I don't have any magic means for getting 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants out
of poverty, but I do know that America has a unique underclass problem in the
industrialized world.

And I don't think immigration has much to do with it, there are not a lot of
immigrants in Appalachia.

Compare the social services in the US vs the rest of the industrialized world.
Outside the US, you tend to see things like cradle to grave, and those are not
magic. They are _expensive_ , but they are not _magic_.

A valid debate would be the cost vs benefits of European or Canadian style
social services vs what the US has.

Lastly, I don't think low reproductive levels are responsible for the lack of
European immigrants.

Ireland still have quite the high birth rate, and they aren't falling over to
come the the US, like they did during the famine. Their present _standard of
living_ might have something to do with that.

You don't attract masses of immigrants from places that have a standard of
living just as high as yours.

And I'm not sure what you mean by East Asians having a higher but less
creative IQ?

I suspect your prejudices are formed by the fact that East Asians can't walk
into the states, and that means they are less likely to be common laborers and
more likely to have a formal schooling background.

If the US bordered India, and Mexico was across the ocean, things would be
reversed.

~~~
chiffonade
> And I'm not sure what you mean by East Asians having a higher but less
> creative IQ?

See, when racists use "average IQ" as a weapon against blacks and mexicans,
they have to somehow justify their 2nd place to the Asians or else they will
not feel comfortable using these "studies" as proof. They just say "oh, well
they're less creative, so you know, white people are really still at the top",
and everything is right again in the world.

Did you see what they did there? They took valid objective metrics -
statistics - and disqualified the positive outcome for a selected class of
people with something totally subjective - creativity. This is classic racism.
It's a nonsense argument posited by younger people who really haven't had much
life experience, and have not met many people who aren't of their same race.

Personally I don't believe in average anything when it comes to race, it's a
totally meaningless metric that will get you absolutely nowhere when you deal
with actual people and in some cases will handicap you with preconceived
notions. I've conducted enough business with enough people in this economy to
know that. Younger or less experienced people may have not.

> but aren't Mexican's mostly of Spanish descent

Racists never blame white Europeans for anything, especially not fundamentally
flawed colonial systems like the Spaniards' that were devised by greedy people
who were bent on raping native people and lands for as much wealth as possible
in as little time as possible - actually, why should they blame them, it
worked flawlessly, didn't it?

~~~
defen
> Personally I don't believe in average anything when it comes to race, it's a
> totally meaningless metric that will get you absolutely nowhere when you
> deal with actual people and in some cases will handicap you with
> preconceived notions.

I agree that you can't use race to judge individual people, but it's
ridiculous to not "believe in average anything when it comes to race". Again,
individuals must be judged on their own merits. But if only 20% of Hispanic
students graduate college, versus 40% of white ones, you can't just
automatically assume institutional racism. All human sub-populations are not
equal. Check out this new book - <http://the10000yearexplosion.com/>

~~~
biohacker42
_All human sub-populations are not equal._

That depends on how big your sub-population is.

If your population is 1, then the difference between two populations, unless
they happen to be maternal twins, will be HUGE. Statistically speaking.

But as your population size grows the difference between populations begin to
shrink. Statistics again.

The reason for that is simple, humans are among a few species that happen to
have very little genetic diversity.

Approximately 80 thousands years ago, something (bad) happened and the
totality of humans on earth was reduced to a terrifyingly small number.

We don't know exactly how small but it could have been as little as a few
hundred individuals.

And of those only 4 or 5 (I forget) matrilineal lines survive today.

Besides humans, cheetahs are one of the other species that is similarity
genetically pure.

Not that genetic purity is a good thing, quite the opposite, it makes us
susceptible to extinction by disease.

We could be wiped out by something like a more easily transmissible HIV.

Even a single tribe of chimps has more genetic diversity then all of humanity.

And that's why looking at the genetic difference of human populations is not
very insightful.

Take one of the most famous reproductively isolated human sub-populations -
the Ashkenazi.

DNA suggested that about 40% of the current Ashkenazi population is descended
matrilineally from just four women.

As is common in cases of the founder effect:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect>

A few genes that are very rare in a population, can be common in the
population resulting from the few founders, if even just one of the founders
had the rare genes.

And the Ashkenazi appear to have a much higher incidence of genes responsible
for neural diseases but perhaps also increased intelligence.

So what happens if you pull a "Trading Places" trick, but with two babies
instead of Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd?

Nothing, remember humans sadly have a very shallow gene pool, so even an Inuit
and an Ashkenazi could have more in common genetically with each other then
the Ashkenazi with most other Ashkenazi.

And that's why talking about DNA in human populations, is like talking about
the gold plating in Monster audio cables.

The people who do, aren't very smart about the subject they're ranting about.

~~~
defen
Mitochondrial and Y-chromosomal DNA are not good ways of determining
population bottlenecks, since they are inherited exclusively from the mother
and father, respectively.

The "Two individuals from one race are more different than two random people"
myth is a pernicious one that needs to die. The short answer is that you need
to look at correlations in DNA, especially of regions under selection. Imagine
a single human's DNA as a point in 4-billion dimensional space (where each
dimension can take on the value A,C,G, or T). If you do a principal component
analysis on the DNA of large numbers of people, you will see clusters, and
these clusters correspond to geographic ancestry.

[http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v16/n12/abs/ejhg2008210a....](http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v16/n12/abs/ejhg2008210a.html)

"A major East–West gradient from Russian (Moscow) samples to Spanish samples
was identified as the first principal component (PC) of the genetic diversity.
The second PC identified a North–South gradient from Norway and Sweden to
Romania and Spain."

In picture form, from that paper in case you don't have access to Nature:
[http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/11/another-genetic-map-of-
euro...](http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/11/another-genetic-map-of-europe.php)

Now, please tell me again with a straight face that _I_ don't know what I'm
"ranting" about, and that DNA in humans is irrelevant.

~~~
biohacker42
I get paid to do PCA analysis for the biotech industry.

Except that PCA is the least I do, PCA is what you learn in a bioinformatics
101 class, there are MUCH better tools then PCA.

If two things are noticeably different you don't need PCA, it's redundant.

You use PCA, when you're plumbing a huge data set, where things are mostly
indistinguishable and you're desperate for ways to separate things out.

That's why PCA analysis is so convenient for human DNA, because we're so
similar.

Look at this image: <http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/genmapeuropeGermany.jpg>

Are you telling me that the Germans from the blue part of Dresden bordering
Munich and the Germans from the green part of Munich bordering Dresden are
super duper different?

That picture sure makes it looks like Hans living in the exurbs of Munich and
Frans from the exurbs of Dresden are two different species.

It looks that way if you don't have a fucking clue about what PCA is and how
it works and what DNA is and how it works.

And two individuals from the same race are more different then two large
groups of people from the opposite end of the earth, is not a myth.

It is a fact.

It is a statistical fact, the math doesn't care what you think and your grasp
of stats and genomics is not nearly as tight as you imagine it to be.

No one imagines DNA as 4-billion dimension space, you're full shit.

And if you start looking at what ever regions you're fantasizing about, and
apply a bunch more conditions, you can prove anything you want. That's not
science it's charlatanry.

In conclusion, you do not know what you're ranting about, so stop embarrassing
yourself in front of biotech engineers on the internet.

~~~
defen
I intentionally simplified because I didn't know you were a biotech engineer.
Also I'm impressed that you were able to divine how much I know about
statistics from my few short posts here.

So you're telling me that if I do PCA on the covariance matrix for many loci,
I'm not going to be able to correlate DNA with geographic ancestry?

How do you explain this:
<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/5602/2381>

I will grant you one point - "Within-population differences among individuals
account for 93 to 95% of genetic variation; differences among major groups
constitute only 3 to 5%." However, if you read the paper you'll find that they
were able to identify clustering along geographic lines, and could place
individuals with a discrepancy rate of 0.14%.

~~~
biohacker42
Obviously you can correlate DNA with geographic location.

But in-population differences of individuals are bigger then inter-population
group differences _because_ all the populations are so similar.

And because the differences between the populations are so small you'll only
be able to measure them, when you measure very, very, very narrow things. Like
PCA does.

For example you could measure skin color. The amount of melanin deposited in
your skin is controlled by one gene. So that's about as narrow a measure as
you can have.

But can you draw conclusions about broader characteristics in phenotype?

Nope. That's why the whole race concept has fallen out of favor, not because
it's a lefty conspiracy to avoid hurting people's feeling. It's not that, it's
science.

The same goes for IQ and societal success.

Can you correlate education levels with a phenotype or genotype?

If you could, scientists would have already done it, and they would be famous.
Parents would be screening their embryos. You could do it and be famous.

Again, it's not some lefty conspiracy, it's just not possible.

Oh we do have genes that seem to result in more scientists and engineers, the
Ashkenazi have them, but they correlate with neural disease. And the Ashkenazi
don't have a higher incidence of CEOs and politicians and musicians.

And who's on top of the societal ladder in western society? Politicians and
CEOs or us geeks?

And who has a higher reproductive success, musicians or engineers?

That's why people talking about poverty, race and IQ, are like people talking
about Monster audio cables.

Your assertions about IQ and Mexicans are not evident from the real world
genomic data. But if you're prejudiced you can try and twist the facts to
match your prejudices.

~~~
defen
I think it's pretty well established that IQ is inversely correlated with
reproductive success. It's also well known that IQ is not the only component
of financial / societal success. Things like wisdom, creativity, diligence, or
agreeableness can't be measured by an IQ test. I don't worship at the altar of
IQ. That said, the cognitive abilities that an IQ test measures are becoming
increasingly important for the types of jobs that make America competitive.
And I'd rather live in a society where the average IQ is 100, than in one
where it's 90 (relative to our current 100 blah blah blah)

Anyway, let's leave the race question off the table. Why is it that when
large-scale IQ tests are conducted on people from Mexico, and on people whose
parents are from Mexico, the average score is around 87?

~~~
biohacker42
Well it might be the weather, or the phases of the moon, or it might just be
education!

If they couldn't read their IQ score would be 0.

Obviously the IQ test questions strive to be about general problem solving,
not culturally specific factual knowledge, etc.

But it should be just as obvious that strive is all they can do. They just can
not be divorced from a while lot of stuff that's learned.

Which is why IQ test are very highly correlated with education, they are also
correlated with some natural ability, but it's impossible to tell which
contributes how much.

East Asian along with us East Europeans, come from very rigorous public
schools. I've attended public schools in Eastern Europe and Western Europe and
the US. And I have Japanese friends, I met when we were both exchange students
in a top notch US high school.

We were seniors and my Japanese friends and I were amazed how US seniors
barely had a 6th grade level of science knowledge in 12th grade.

Now do you think my Japanese fiend and I had all that knowledge because of the
systems of public education we came from, or because we were both genetically
superior to the US kids?

So it's possible that fist and second generation Mexican immigrants score
lower on IQ tests, because of genetics.

But it's much, much, much more likely it is because of a different educational
background.

Even if the second generation attended the same schools, that doesn't make up
for the educational deficit in their home.

And importing highly educated immigrants is a great way to reap the benefits
of an education you didn't pay for.

And important any kind of humans, even illiterate ones, is a good way to grow
the economy. Even the lowest of the low buy stuff, and because humanity is so
closely related, they are not bringing down the national IQ in the long term.

Or rather they shouldn't be, because if your country is a well functioning
state it should be able to educated people and reap the economic benefits from
that in the long term.

If it can't do that, immigration is not your problem, your problem is you're
barely able to come out even, and unskilled immigration is just making that
problem worse.

