CORRECTION: In this post, I incorrectly attributed Megan McArdle to The Atlantic, when in fact she had moved on to Newsweek/Daily Best since September of 2012. I am sorry for any confusion this has caused.

Peter:

If the equlity of black Americans is yoru goal, this is not a very good argument to make. Remember what von Hayek said on this subject:

“To rest the case for equal treatment of national or racial minorities on the assertion that they do not differ from other men is implicitely to admit that factual inequalities would justify unequal treatment; and the proof that some differences do, in fact, exist would not be long in forthcoming. It is of the essence of the demand for equality before the law that people should be treated alike in spite of the fact that they are different.”

Retreating from public debate is a circle-the-wagons loser strategy. To triumph, you must engage the populace and win them over. You don't do that by refusing to join the conversation.

Amen, Basil.

Clearly there is deep interest in the Derbyshire affair by Ricochet members, likely  because it intersects the important topics of free speech and race relations. The Main page should reflect this.

Good for Steyn. He was persecuted in the Canadian Human Right's Court for making similarly insensitive comments about Islamic culture. 

On cue, an Uncommon Knowledge episode featuring a Peter Robinson interview of Bell Curve author Charles Murray went up today at National Review Online. Murray's A-OK but Derbyshire's a racist they can't associate with. Someone, please explain.

I think Byron's article is about right.

The boosters of unconventional warfare always say, 'you shouldn't be fighting the last war.' And yet, what are the last wars? Afghanistan and the Iraq insurgency. Neglecting conventional forces in favour of special ops is fighting the last war.

I am reminded of all the critics of the aircraft carrier who constantly admonish the US Navy for relying so much on this antiquated technology that had its heyday in WW II. And yet, every time a war comes along that requires naval support, what is the ship in most demand? the aircraft carrier.

The belief that drones are destined to replace manned aircraft is making the same mistake. Drones work well in Afghanistan and Iraq because the US is fighting a technologically backward enemy who cannot jam the drone's guidance signals. What happens if the US faces an enemy that can? In that case, the Air Force would need aircraft that have an unjammable guidance system. And what kind of aircraft would those be? Manned aircraft.

Thanks E J Hill.

I did not know this.

I am reminded of a prediction by Freidrich von Hayek in the 1960's. He looked at the comparative size of Catholic and protestant families and predicted that Catholics would soon swamp Protestants demographically. What happened? Both groups are still there, in roughly the same number. The reason? While the birthrate of post-Christian Protestants declined, the birthrate of post-Christian Catholics plummeted.

The reason demographic trends are so tricky to forecast is precisely because of they are exponential. They are so powerful that they set in motion powerful countervailing forces, and fairly quickly.

 While there is an anti-intellectual bias among the right (both here in Canada and in the US), I don't think this is a bad thing. Intellectuals are people we should be suspicious of, as even a cursory examination of the 20th century will indicate.

And I say that as somebody with a BSc in physics, and MSc in meteorology, about 2000 books in my personal library and who wrote a philosophy book in my spare time that I am now trying to flog. I work as a scientific researcher.

I nevertheless realize that while intellectuals have produced some good ideas, they have produced many bad ideas that have been enormously destructive. One of the reasons Anglo-Saxon civilization has outperformed the French and German world is that we get more of our inspiration from practical men rather than ivory tower intellectuals.

Speaking as a Michele Bachmann fan and a Mike Murphy non-fan, I have to say that even though what she said may have been factually correct, it is nevertheless politically wrong. The problem is not so much that what she said was wrong, but that it was optional.

Running for office is not the same thing as standing on a soap box. To win, you need message discipline. You must stick to your core message and stay away distracting side issues.