Manhattan Contrarian Weekend Quiz: How To Identify Racist And Sexist Remarks And Slurs

You are a decent and fair-minded person.  You strive always to treat all people fairly and with dignity.  In your heart of hearts, you know that you are not a racist, nor a sexist.  But you also know that these are highly charged times.  In spite of your pure heart and your very best efforts, you still fear that someone might unfairly accuse you of making a racist or sexist remark or slur.  You want to avoid even the slightest appearance of engaging in racism or sexism.  

And yet, it has become so complicated these days.  Accusations fly everywhere, sometimes over words that to you seemed completely innocent.  What to do?  You need some guidance!  

To help you, the Manhattan Contrarian has put together this weekend's Manhattan Contrarian Quiz.  Take the Quiz.  Study the answers.  You will then know all there is to know about what is and is not racist and sexist in today's world.

The Quiz consists of ten questions, each of which is either an actual quotation or a hypothetical fact situation.  For each question, you are to answer whether the posited fact situation or quotation does or does not demonstrate racism and/or sexism.  Answers, and explanations, below the fold.  One point for each correct answer!

Question 1:  You say, "I believe the most qualified person should get the job."  

Question 2:  Teacher "polices the language" of students in class, and insists that they do not curse.

Question 3:  "Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.  #CancelWhitePeople."  

Question 4:  You ask a new acquaintance, “Where are you from?” or “Where were you born?”

Question 5:  Teacher disciplines student for sleeping in class.

Question 6:  "I don't give a, I don't give a, I don't give a fuck.  I'm willin' to die for this shit.  I done cried for this shit, might take a life for this shit.  Put the Bible down and go eye to eye for this shit . . .  If I gotta slap a pussy-ass nigga, I'ma make it look sexy."

Question 7:  "Off a whole gram of molly, and my bitch think I'm trippin'.  Now I'm clutchin' on my forty, all I can think about is drillin'.  I hate fuck shit, slap a bitch nigga, kill a snitch nigga, rob a rich nigga."

Question 8:  "Off a whole gram of molly, and my bitch think I'm trippin'.  Now I'm clutchin' on my forty, all I can think about is drillin'.  I hate fuck shit, slap a bitch nigga, kill a snitch nigga, rob a rich nigga."

 Question 9:  "Son, when I appoint a n***er to the court, I want everyone to know he's a n***er."

Question 10:  "Look at my African-American over there!"

Read More

How Do You Tell If The Earth's Climate System "Is Warming"?

How Do You Tell If The Earth's Climate System "Is Warming"?

The earth's climate system "is warming."  True or false?  The answer is that there is no definitive answer.  And if someone tells you there is, then that person doesn't know what he or she is talking about.

A more precise answer to the question is that whether the earth's climate system "is warming" or "is cooling" entirely depends on who gets to pick the start date for the analysis.  If you are the one who gets to pick the start date, then you can make it so that the system is either warming or cooling, whichever you would like for your purpose of the moment.  

But of course, there are many people out there today with a lot invested in the proposition that the climate system "is warming."  That proposition is a key tenet of global warming alarmism.  To "prove" the point that the system "is warming," advocates use the simple trick of picking a start point to their liking, making for a presentation that appears to support their position.  Have you been fooled by this simple trick?  The advocates leave it up to you to figure out that if you picked a different start point, you could just as easily make an equally convincing presentation showing that the climate system "is cooling."  A lot of people can't figure that out, and get taken in by the scam.

Read More

What Is The Cost Of Getting To A 100% "Renewable" Electric Grid?

What Is The Cost Of Getting To A 100% "Renewable" Electric Grid?

If you are a politician in a blue area, the big thing these days is to make the pledge that you will put your state or city on the fast track to getting 100% of its electricity from the "renewables."    Here in New York, trendy progressive Cynthia Nixon (challenging Governor Cuomo in a primary for Governor) has issued the call for getting 100% of electricity from renewables by 2050.  Even trendier Congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants the same 100% from renewables without specifying a date.  Out in California, a bill advancing through the legislature calls for 100% of electricity from "renewables" by 2045.

But has anyone stopped for a moment to ask how this would work or how much it would cost?  Of course there is the Manhattan Contrarian -- for example in "How Much Do Climate Crusaders Plan To Increase Your Price Of Electricity?" in August 2016; or "How Self-Delusional Can We Be On The Cost Of Electricity From 'Renewables'?" in February 2018.  Yes, mine are basically back-of-the-envelope calculations.  Not that there's anything inherently wrong with a back-of-the-envelope calculation on this subject.  The truth is that you can get pretty good rough estimates from easily available sources of how much back-up you need to fill in for the intermittent "renewables," and you can multiply that by cost-per-kWh figures for batteries, and thus, using no more than pencil and paper, get useful estimates of impact on electricity costs.  Those impacts, by the way, are not small.  

But how about looking for a study that's a little fancier and more sophisticated, maybe from some certified academic source?

Read More

Good Riddance To Obama's CAFE Standards

On Thursday the U.S. EPA and DOT announced a new proposed rule on automobile fuel efficiency standards.  The proposed rule would halt after 2020 the ongoing increases in required "Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency," or "CAFE" standards applicable to new vehicles sold.  Previously, under a rule promulgated by the Obama administration in 2012, automobile companies were supposedly going to achieve a "corporate average" fuel efficiency of their new vehicles of 54.5 mpg by 2025.  Does anything bigger than a moped actually get 54.5 mpg?

Call me crazy, but I struggle to understand why the American people are not capable of figuring out on their own how fuel-efficient of a vehicle they should buy.  This is called "freedom."  Obviously, a less-fuel-efficient vehicle costs more per mile to operate.  People are always looking to save a buck, so then obviously wouldn't they buy the most fuel-efficient vehicles available?  It turns out that sometimes they do, but mostly they don't.  Undoubtedly, although they value fuel efficiency, they also value other things in a vehicle.  In recent years the most popular vehicles for consumers have been pickup trucks -- the Ford F series and Chevy Silverado -- which are relatively large and fuel-inefficient compared to sedans and compacts.  Car and Driver rates the Ford F-150 at 16 mpg city, and 22 mpg highway, which is nowhere near the 54.5 mpg average that the Obama administration was trying to impose on Americans.  Maybe the people value the ability to carry large amounts of "stuff" around from place to place.  Maybe they also think that larger and heavier vehicles are safer in a crash.  Are these advantages worth the extra fuel cost?  I'd say that's up to the people to determine on their own.  

Let's calculate the difference in fuel cost between a vehicle that gets an average of 20 mpg and one that gets an average of 30 mpg. . . .

Read More

Thank Heavens For The New Campaign Against Plastic Straws

Thank Heavens For The New Campaign Against Plastic Straws

Without doubt, a good classic tale of sin and redemption makes a powerful appeal to human emotions.  Do you find yourself with an overwhelming sense of guilt, and a yearning for atonement and salvation?  A very large number of humans do.  Plenty of others will listen seriously when accused of sinning.  And in this era when traditional religion is fading fast among the trendy set, the favored sin and redemption narratives tend to revolve around the environment and the "planet."  For decades, the number one such narrative has been the global warming story:  By our use of fossil fuels to power a modern industrial society and to develop great wealth, we have sinned against the planet, leading to a future of irreversible catastrophic warming!  Redemption lies in the collective commitment to give up our use of energy and our modern ways and to cede control of our lives to our environmental priests and priestesses!

Unfortunately, after a good run of several decades, this narrative has recently run into a serious problem, namely the failure of global temperatures to increase in accordance with official predictions of catastrophe and doom.  Just a couple of weeks ago, in a post titled "Why 'Climate Change' Seems To Have Faded From The News," I noted that world temperatures had declined by more than half a degree C over the past couple of years, thus giving back about half of all of the twentieth century "global warming."  The frequency of press stories banging the global warming drum has inevitably declined dramatically, with the few remaining stories relegated to trying to keep up the alarm by cherry-picking a handful of record high temperatures from somewhere around the world, while omitting any mention of corresponding record lows or the decline in the overall average.  The main piece of reporting that I criticized in that post came from the Washington Post.

So what is the New York Times to do? . . .

Read More

Some Fun With Paul Krugman Quotations

Now that Trump-era U.S. GDP growth has reached the 4.1% level according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, shouldn't we go back and review a few choice quotes from Official Manhattan Contrarian Worst Economics Writer Paul Krugman?

It's been a long time since I've done any Krugman-bashing.  And why should we waste much of our valuable time on a guy who is so overcome with anger and invective that he has become a self-parody?  The answer is, occasionally you need to compare his prognostications to the real world to see just how wrong it is possible to be.  The operative word here is "occasionally."  I promise not to do it again for a while.

But anyway, if it's been a long time since you have read anything by Krugman (and I hope it has), it may be fading into the recesses of your memory that he devoted considerable energy during the Obama presidency to excusing sluggish economic performance as having nothing to do with Obama or his policies.  Slow economic growth had nothing to do with Obama's overall hostility to successful businesses; nothing to do with expensive increases in unproductive regulations; nothing to do with the war on fossil fuel energy and coal; nothing to do with corporate tax rates that were uncompetitive in the international arena; nothing to do with dozens of phony prosecutions and shakedowns of financial institutions; nothing to do with wasteful spending and debt accumulation; nothing to do, in short, with what I described all the way back in 2013 as Obama's "War Against The Economy."   No, instead, slow economic growth was just the "new normal," a natural state of late-stage capitalism that was completely inevitable and just had to be endured -- or perhaps ameliorated a little by the preferred prescription of a blow-out round of entirely wasteful government spending.

You don't believe me that his predictions could have been so bad?  Then I'll give you a few choice quotes. . . .

Read More