Wednesday, September 28, 2016

- Debate Takeaways

Without getting into the whole ugly mess, one thing stood out as especially alarming: In order to keep jobs from leaving the country and to bring tax revenue back to the US, Hillary will appoint a special prosecutor.
As more of her Stalinistic plan unfolds before us, the grim reality is that all Americans (are racist) but an expanding army of prosecutors will be deployed to govern the actions of American Corporations and small businesses.
Here is the NPR "Fact Check" link that goes through the debate word  for word.
It is quite annoying, but we have entered an age of opinion journalism where every utterance whether serious or in jest must e subjected to a fact check by one or more of the chain-dogs of the political establishment.
I believe Trump was rattled, but the shrew helped illustrate his points: she is self-absorbed monster with a vision for America that treats hard-working and successful Americans as inconvenient obstacles.
I do believe that for the first time in electoral history, the second debate will mean something. I hope that Trump completely unloads on her and summons the spirit of the late Rodney Dangerfield to destroy her once and for all.

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

- A Night In Couples Therapy

First, there was no way Hillary Clinton’s scandal plagued presidential campaign was going to finish off Donald Trump last night. The best she could hope for was to reinvigorate herself a bit. Trump on the other hand, had the opportunity to end the race it there but didn’t. In that regard, I think it has to be viewed as a missed opportunity for Trump, and therefore a ‘win’ for Hillary.

It was her venue, and her format. It’s the thing that she does best and until last night, he had never done at all. She had a moderator willing to put a little thumb on the scales, and a sympathetic blue state crowd. Trump was doing this for the very first time. I think both campaigns will come away from it competitive, but it will cost Trump some momentum.

More than anything it was like couples therapy. “Shut up and listen to your husband” is something couples therapists have said… never. It’s an industry run by women that embraces the post-feminist worldview, and is designed to do nothing but explain to men in something resembling rational terms, what they’re doing wrong. It’s a frame adjustment that starts and ends on the women’s point of view. Lester Holt was a less bias woman than he could have been, but he was still very much a chick, like all men in the mainstream media. He had to give it a bit of Candy Crowley just as insurance. But I don’t think it made much difference.

Trump’s biggest opponent last night was Trump. He was all of the worst of who he is, and none of the best. He let Hillary bait him into being defensive about his accomplishments which was a huge mistake when the time could have been spent talking about her emails, which were more or less ignored. When she said everyone suffers from implicit bias he should have interrupted and said “are you saying everyone is a racist?”

All missed opportunities.

With all that said, I don’t think he’ll make those mistakes again. I think the next Trump will keep a tighter control of his frame, and do much better at controlling the direction of the conversation. What’s more, I think Hillary knows how lucky she got. She gave it her best and did well, but she didn’t have to contend with her worst fears. There was that single moment when the emails were mentioned and she took on that rictus grin of a woman caught red handed, but it only lasted a moment. It could have been a whole night like that but Trump couldn’t close it.

He was FAR too defensive about his business and his wealth. That was by far his biggest mistake. His entire pitch for his tax returns should have been “Right now I’m a private citizen with a responsibility to my company and it’s employees. Since that’s so, I will heed my lawyers advice on this and wait till the audit is over, unless Hillary releases her emails in which case I’ll go against my lawyers advice and release them right away.” That’s it. All the defensiveness and apologizing just makes it look like Hillary is onto something.

And it’s also worth mentioning what last night was not. The traditional way the aftermath of a debate goes is that the Republican is compelled to provide specifics, and the subsequent few days are spent with the media using all that rope to strangle him. They spin, spin, spin, spin, spin until he’s too tangled to continue to fight. This is why they want Trump’s tax returns. They want to pour over it to make him look bad. He’s smart to not release it. Even his vagueness about his policies would be a strong position if he were just a bit more strategic about it and less flailing.

That dynamic didn’t occur with Trump last night, bot the positive and the negative. The press has no new ‘gotcha’ line to hang him with. In that respect the debate against the media went pretty well for him because it denied Hillary a great number of her foot soldiers, who all still don’t know what to do with Trump.

But if he wants to finish her, he’ll need to be better next time. He needs to stop hearing her, stop responding, and start leading the conversation. It should never be about him, only her. He should quit worrying about promoting himself and instead, act as our advocate to expose her. The press never will, and if he does, it will increase the level of public confidence in him. It will make him look honest – something we never think a politician is. And I think that’s the thing that will help undecided forgive his ‘big picture’ view.

Trump was obviously running on all instinct, with only a minimum of prep. That’s fine, and now that he understands what to expect and has the tapes to go over, he’ll do better next time. Hillary is good at making her case in couples therapy, and will easily persuade the sympathetic moderator. Trump needs to remember that this isn’t the conversation he should care about. It isn’t about him, it’s about her. He should see it as him and the American people against Hillary and the press. That's actually the argument, and if he can have that conversation with the folks at home, he can very much still pull this out.

Last night I heard no fat lady. And that means it’s still anyone’s ball game.

PS – For those of you in the know, I sent an email to friend of the blog VV last night to mention how much Trump's performance reminded me of our common friend Jose. If you know him, I think you’ll know precisely what that means.

Sunday, September 25, 2016

- The Desperation of Equalists

I’ve got to confess, I’m a little concerned. I’m not very good at gauging public opinion, because I don’t feel like I have very much in common with the average man on the street. Whatever my actual abilities, I was raised by a perfectionist to be a perfectionist, so I end up holding myself to an unachievably high standard. And although I’ve accomplished a fair amount in my life I tend to emotionally overinvest in my failures, and then continue to persevere only through force of will and determination.

I’ve come to understand that this is a common attitude among ‘type A’ overachievers. But since most people are not ‘type A’ overachievers, I’ve never felt like much of a ‘regular guy’. I’ve been told that I don’t come off as one either, by both friends and adversaries, so there's some objective verification such as it is. And that leaves me a bit short in understanding how the average guy actually thinks because his attitude is a foreign one to me. I just can’t directly identify.

This is the main reason I’ve spent so much time studying decision making. I have a pretty robust and scalable model for it now I think, and in the markets, I’m pretty confident I understand things. But that tiny sliver of behavior is pretty much where my expertise ends. When it comes to political decision making, it’s always been a bit of a mystery to me. Which brings me to Skittles-gate.

Not having a twitter account, I hadn’t heard of the issue until I finally got around to this weeks radio Derb. But to me, Don Jr.’s Skittles metaphor seems perfectly appropriate and beyond reasonable reproach. It has none the less received a great deal of completely unreasonable reproach. And to call the criticisms of it thoughtless is to be completely unfair to all future thoughtlessness.

As far as I can tell the lefts major problem with the analogy is that it’s actually a pretty good one, and describes the problem of widespread Muslim immigration pretty well. If a bag of skittles has three poison candies, who would grab a handful? But the scarier thing is that the style of the complaints about it speak volumes about who the left is and where there mindset is.

There really isn’t any other way to see this - these are desperate, panicked, deeply irrational people. They aren’t thinking, or reasoning at all, in any way. They aren’t even pretending to. If I were in some public venue and heard any one of these responses first hand, I’d be filled with a desire to check their body language carefully, turn my chair toward them so I could keep them in view, and check the safety on my CCW.

I’m not kidding, if twitter is any indication the left is really ready to blow. The dike of leftist equalism is squirting water all over the place in huge gushing streams and there aren’t nearly enough fingers to go around, so the horses are beginning to panic. And panicked horses can do enormous damage.

I remember the end of the Carter years pretty clearly, which is the last time this sort of thing happened, and the way I recall, it wasn’t like this. The way I remember it, it was more like the air going out of the leftist balloon. But this is a substantial number of people who seem to be ready for a complete nervous breakdown. Even cowards like liberals can be violent and dangerous if you get enough of them together – just look at the behavior of the scum in Charlotte. And twitter seems designed to bring them together.

For me it’s hard to identify personally with that. I’m a winner in the genetic lottery (in a couple of ways at least) so I like the idea of things being unequal because it means that I’ll be more likely to have the chance to outshine others. But for those people who know deep down that they are losers in the genetic lottery and they are faced with the fact that they may have to acknowledge that lack after decades of denial – man… they’re really terrified.

This is a paradigm I’ve written about before. Imagine being one of those 1 standard deviation below the mean black men and learning beyond any doubt, that your IQ is 15 points lower than average. In the modern world, how can your ego cope with that? The answer is that you will probably come to rely on the aspects of who you are that give you an advantage – your size, your strength, and your aggressive nature. Right now, Charlotte is full of guys like that staring down policemen.

Well this is what I imagine is motivating all leftists where politics is concerned. They can be rhetorically persuasive in spite of their failings in other obvious areas. But when that dynamic fails to provide the results you’re looking for, what do you do then? I don’t know. But if Twitter is any guide I can very easily imagine that for some significant portion of them, cell phones, pressure cookers and fertilizer may involved.

Equalism is a delusion. A fantasy generated by those unable to win in the ‘natural order’ where individuals are allowed to have an advantage over other individuals. And when this house of cards comes tumbling down, and it looks to me like it’s about to whether Trump wins the election or not, I think there are going to be casualties.

Which brings me to this post by Vox Day. Vox is a clever cerebral sort, who is unfazed by people accusing him of ‘hate-think’, which naturally makes me a fan. Here he cites some advice on surviving a riot, which I think is very well founded. The core of the advice is to be somewhere else, but failing that there is some thinking here which I find worth your time.

The best advice in my opinion is that ‘distance is your friend’. My only real exception to it is that I think these guys underestimate the affect on mob psyche of the sound of gunfire. If it comes to it, and you are forced to defend yourself, you aren’t going to need to shoot everyone. Most will decide that they aren’t as brave as they thought the second they hear the first report. If they can tell where it’s coming from that will be the moment they’ll decide to be somewhere else. And that will be your opportunity to clear out.

It’s right after a market crash that everyone is obsessed with market crashes, and it’s right after a riot that people are worried about riots, so I don’t want to overestimate the risk. But the Twitter-sphere has provided me with a window into the minds of a whole bunch of people who are so wildly irrational that I don’t believe they can cope with the failure of equalism.

But equalism is a fiction that is only preserved by ignoring evidence. And since the Alt-Right is changing the Overton window, it is GOING TO fail. When it finally does, if twitter is any indication, the people who depend on it aren’t going to take it well.

Saturday, September 24, 2016

- The NY Times Demands Blood!

The NYTimes has a video up recorded by Keith L. Scott’s wife, in which she claims, (and the NYTimes implies) that Scott was unarmed. The video does not make this clear since the shooting itself occurs outside the frame. But the police have a gun in their possession with his prints on it recovered from the scene. He has a history of violence, and multiple arrests. I’m unpersuaded by the Times video, but no doubt many people who need the lie of Scott’s innocence preserved will be.

For me, this offer’s a thin excuse to talk about something I’ve referred to (though not in print yet to me recollection) as ‘the black woman’ problem.

Most American black women are from west African populations, and to my eye, they aren’t very attractive. They are squat, very heavy, and typically less intelligent than white or Asian women. Individuals will prefer a wide range of appearances and I bear those who find west African women attractive, absolutely no ill will. But the standards of beauty are, for lack of a better word, pretty standard. The objectivity of a beauty standard has been studied at some length, and reported at many of the red-pill sites. I’d recommend searching for “beauty standard” Chateau Heartiste if you’re interested in specifics.

But taking that as a given, this leaves American black women in a bit of a pickle. Their standard body and facial features are a long way from what science indicates is objectively beautiful. Add to that a typically dim mind prone to emotional outbursts, and the poor risk management skills that go with it, and you have a recipe for the girl that very few men, if any at all, will want.

This is not an excuse to ungraciously call black women ugly. It doesn’t matter to me what someone I’m not dating looks like. But it matters a very great deal to the women themselves.

Ask women what is important in life and you get a very different answer than when you ask the same question of men. While men will often talk about careers, and wealth, a Ferrari or to surf Mavericks (or whatever) virtually all women will say that a ‘meaningful relationship with a man’ is VERY high on their list. Their huge biological investment in childbearing pushes them toward mating in the same way that men’s testosterone pushes us toward sex. It’s innate, irrational, overpowering, and driven by the part of the female mind that lends itself to rationalization.

Men are the pursuers, and women are pursued, so their half of the mating equation is to find a way to persuade as many men to pursue them as possible. This is typically done by being as physically attractive as they can. If you take exception to that statement, this is the wrong place to argue the point (I refer you again to the Heartiste). The point I’m interested in here is, what happens to a woman’s psyche, when almost no one wants to pursue her?

If you prowl around the red-pill sites, you’ll see a frequent reference to the “Rationalization Hamster”. This is a paraphrase of sorts, but I think of this as referring to the way that women, rather than lying directly to others like men do, find it easier to lie to themselves and convince themselves that the lie is the truth. And it’s my experience that the less attractive a woman is, the more outrageous the lies she tells herself become. One recent example you may have caught wind of in popular media was when Lena Dunham showed up at a fashion show recently, dressed as a man, and honestly believed that the attractive sports star sitting next to her, who could have virtually any beautiful young girl he wants, should have been attracted to her instead.

This is ridiculous on it’s (her) face. But if you’re someone who looks like Lena Dunham, you rely on these lies to preserve your fragile ego. And when it doesn’t happen the way you expect, you don’t look in the mirror as you should, you look to change society and redefine the things that men find attractive. But the very process of entertaining that kind of solution reinforces the thought processes that requires it. The more you do it, the more you require it. Before long, you are, in an objective sense, honestly believing something which to others seems ridiculous.

A great many black women are no more attractive than Lena Dunham, and many are even less so. So as a group, they have come to rely on their ‘rationalization hamster’ to a much greater degree than other groups of women who have a higher average physical appeal, and therefore garner more male interest. They cope with this difficult fact by constantly lying to themselves about how they look, and the nature of the problem. They get accustomed to the process. They rely on it for what they honestly believe is the truth. It isn’t the objective truth. But it’s as much of the truth as they’re able to handle, which in many cases is almost none.

Culturally this has become a cliché. “My baby wasn’t no thug, he was a nice boy with a good heart! It’s that raciss cop who done wrong!” What I believe you’re hearing at a time like that is a woman convincing herself of a falsehood, in a way that she’s probably well practiced at. No one can really fault a mother who has broken no law, for mourning the loss of her child, however clear the evidence that he may have been guilty. But just because his mother believes it doesn’t mean the rest of us should.

In this case, what I believe we’re seeing is Scott’s wife convincing herself that Scott was unarmed. She cannot face the fact that he was, so she doesn’t. The NYTimes, eager to show white men as the villain, repeats as much of this lie as they can without making themselves an out and out laughingstock. They are not interested in the truth. They are interested in shattering the power structure. They want to inflame blacks in the hope that they can then be turned toward supporting Hillary Clinton, who desperately needs their votes.

That kind of thinking may seem, petty and shallow – as if I don’t give the Times enough credit. Surely they would never be so craven as to openly lie about a man’s death and create a riot and potentially an out and out race war, just to support something as transient as a political goal in a single election. But if you’ve been following along, you can see that they view the rise of Trump as a challenge to their core principles. They are in full on, Gulf Of Tonkin, Blue Dress, definition of “IS” freak out mode. The core lies of their entire belief system are being challenged now everywhere they look, and more evidence pours in every day. Their tools for cowing the right, accusations of racist and misogynist, are falling on tens of millions of deaf ears. So they are going to shout as loud as they have to as a last ditch effort to make them work. And if that means a few riots or even an all out race war have to happen, well it’s all for what they think is a good cause.

They’ll say “We’re just keeping the question open” Or “We want all the facts”. But that’s nonsense. They aren’t idiots. They know the potential consequences of their actions. But when measured against the recent threat to their leftist worldview – a worldview that each and every one of them is deeply, personally, invested in, they just don’t care. Journalistic ethics? Utter BS. This is just a demand for blood.


The first video analysis is rolling in. I have no idea if this sight has an agenda or not. (I've never heard of it before.) But it claims to show the gun in the video.

Friday, September 23, 2016

- No Coughing Breaks

With the announcement of 'no coughing breaks' as part of the debate rules for Monday, we are wandering into the domain of expertise for long time friend of the blog - chess.

Hillary is in a dark place here. She cannot afford a coughing fit like she has been prone to, and she cannot afford to be doped enough to avoid one by any drug I know about. There is codeine of course which is a common cough suppressant, but it will leave her glassy eyed and unfocused. There may be some other anti-spasmodic I'm unaware of, but I think they mostly come with side effects that may have a negative impact on her performance as well.

The go to solution for the Democrats has always been to rely on a compliant and willing press to only show the narrative the Democrat candidate wants, but the rules prohibit that in this case.

So chess - what do you think? What drug(s) will they get her hopped up on and what are the side effects to watch out for? Is this a medical problem that has a solution with a minimum of cognitive side effects? Or is she just going to have to go red faced and choke back the fit when it comes? And how much fun would it be to pump her full of Ketamine by mistake and see how it goes?

If you can throw something in the comments, I'll yank it and post it up here with the question?

%%%%%%%%%%% CHESS RESPONDS %%%%%%%%%%%

If she was honest about her health I could give you an idea. Besides boarded in anesthesiology I am also boarded in internal medicine.I know there was talk about a potential goiter and people said that was why she was wearing high neck collars etc. I would say that is more indicative of having a thyroidectomy. I would swear that she has a scar on her neck. A really good surgeon will find a crease in the skin of a woman's neck and then make the incision there so it can be somewhat hidden in the crease. So you wear turtlenecks for a few months until a lot of the redness is gone then you have a makeup specialists hide that scar when you are out in public.

All of this could explain the cough if one of her recurrent laryngeal nerves was injured during surgery.It is rare but can happen. It can paralyze one of her cords in any position. You can try to make it better with another surgery but she was in the midst of her primaries and I am sure didn't want to raise attention... She could have had a goiter that injured her nerves or a thyroid cancer that injured it. All the above sort of leaves her screwed.

A book a few years ago mentioned she might have a bad heart and/or valves. Some congestive heart failure from bad muscle or valve could cause severe coughing fits. In that instance the forward pump isnt working well and the blood backs up into your lungs and literally makes your lungs "soggy"which stretches a receptor and thus coughing fits. That kind of coughing would be even worse when she is laying flat at night or during day when she is really fatigued.

My money is thyroid nerve injury. Supposedly she uses desiccated thyroid which means her original physician must have been Socrates.She probably has to order that from some voodoo shop in Haiti or the Congo.

If she wins the election I think you will hear of some procedure being necessary either with some teflon injected into a chord or maybe a heart valve work. If its a a valve I think there would be an uproar.. In the real world if its heart her personal doc should be arrested. I think if she wins, anything after her hand on the bible oath is icing on the cake.

And finally ....Watch her and bottled water. See if she turns away from camera to take a drink and what might really be spitting secretions she cant swallow into the bottle. They can try to dry her out with a drug called atropine which leaves her mouth really dry but tolerable for a few hrs. Thats the path I would take. It doesn't affect mental function. Sorry. All this should be public knowledge. Tom . Besides all of this she has at least 3-4 other things that are good to have ie blood clots etc.Every time she flies puts her at risk even on coumadin ie rat poison. 5% of people per year will have a bad bleeding experience on coumadin,. Nasty drug.

The last thing I would also toss in is that witha injured vocal cord you cant move it. When we swallow something and some of it hits the cords they slam shut to protect your airway. Every now and then the cords will spasm for a few seconds which makes you a little nervous until they open up. If her cord is injured she cant protect her airway and so some food etc can get into your lungs and cause an ASPIRATION PNEUMONIA. Voila!!!

Her camp did a very good job of centering the focus on her pneumonia and not the potential cause. of that pneumonia.

- Trump-O-Phobia

This is a blurb about one of my pet peeves. The psychoanalysis industry is in my opinion, a total and utter sham. It is a baseless, useless excuse for wasting money. A great steaming pile of dog sh!t thrust in the face of America as a replacement for rational thinking. There are no lessons provided, no tools, no fixes. The only thing anyone ever learns from it is that they need a lot more therapy. No one ever seems to recover from it.

(When I said this across the kitchen table this morning to the lovely young girl I’m involved with, she instantly blurted over her coffee cup “Unless they’re in prison. If they’re in prison they can be instantly ‘cured’ and are now ready for release.” … The force is strong with this one I think.)

That’s why I think this piece from Slate is so much fun. Apparently Trump is causing a mini-boom in the psychoanalysis industry in all liberal areas:

With the presidential race staggering into its final stretch, the once inconceivable prospect of a Trump victory is becoming, if not likely, then definitely possible. (As of this writing, FiveThirtyEight gives Trump a 42.4 percent chance of prevailing, though that might change by the time you read this.) As that reality sets in, a hallucinatory sense of slow-motion doom is descending on many liberals. (Though not only on liberals.) Victims of Trump-induced anxiety describe nightmares, insomnia, digestive problems, and headaches. Therapists find themselves helping their patients through a process that feels less like an election than a national nervous breakdown.

To this I say … “GOOD!” For too long we’ve been wrapped up in the self indulgent, self-reinforcing neurosis of liberalism. We’ve pretended that we can remake the shape of the universe to fit the twisted view of dissatisfied middle aged housewife’s who can’t cope with their own angst. They are told a pretty lie by feminism, and when it turns out to be not true, rather than accept that fact and cope with it, they try to change every other aspect of society until it’s somehow made true. But there is always another persistent fact that won't conform to political persuasion - always one more uncomfortable human truth that won't go away. And it's this persistence that talk therapy uses to skim its graft from a weak minded and unsuspecting public.

That mental process – the process of self delusion, is never a healthy one. And it can’t be turned into something healthy by ‘raising awareness’ or spending money on scam artists. If you’re gay, you are not normal, you are different. You need to be strong enough to cope with that ‘difference’ in the face of a society that see’s you that way. If you’re a 35 year old single woman who can’t seem to find the right man, it’s you, not all the “him’s”. And you need to start being more modest in your self assessment, and if you’re American, probably lose some weight. If you’re dissatisfied suburban housewife, maybe it isn’t society’s problem it’s yours. And you need to start to value the correct things.

Liberal America needs to wake up, smell the coffee, and realize that their problems won’t ever go away if they can’t summon the strength to face them. And they are not caused by Trumps rise in the polls.

Trump is not a monster, he’s a man. An imperfect man to be sure, but no more so than the President who has made monthly race riots the unofficial policy of his justice department. The world will not end if he's elected, only your delusion of moral superiority will. And maybe that's the fact you really can't face.

%%%%%%%%%%%%UPDATE%%%%%%%%%%%% From Steve Sailor's invaluable blog over at UNZ, I was led to this admittedly very wonky post by Andrew Gelman about the crisis in the Social Sciences, and the lack of replicability in the field. Technically Economics is a social science (though the way I and some of the hedge fund guys who are modeling to produce profit is more science and less social) so the problems associated with data analysis and skewed research is something I know quite a bit about. I'll grant you, many of the specific complaints escape me, but the causes of the problem to me are well known.

The adage that 'you can make the data say anything' is true as far as it goes. But it's only true if you want it to be. In the hedge fund world the goal is to generate a profit so there is little room for error. But that doesn't stop anyone. I've interviewed dozens of people with obvious flaws in their research. Some were just inexperienced and didn't see their own errors, but others did see them. And I have to believe that those people all thought they could 'fix it later' after they got the very coveted job of "Portfolio Manager". Some people were not very smart, or just wrong (which is no sin). Others were liars who were trying to fool me and the rest of the financial industry into believing what they wanted us to in order to achieve their own goals.

As an outsider, it seems to me that there should be very few 'surprises' in social science. We all live in society after all, and deal with others every single day. We know what people are like and what drives their decisions. If there are any true surprises, it should involve small issues, and they should expose small truths. But small surprises don't come from agenda based research. Big, huge, massive surprises come from it that contradict huge portions of the accepted truth - unless of course you already buy into the agenda driving the research in the first place. Then the results that come from agenda focused research aren't surprising at all. On the contrary, they are only the most reaffirming results of what you believed you already knew.

The point of the wonkish piece, is to illuminate the weaknesses of theoretical social psychology, but those issues are part of the foundation of talk therapy. People performing talk therapy for a living aren't going to question work which is largely incorrect while in the process of monetizing it. To them, with their income on the line, there is really no reason to believe anything other than the deeply dubious claims of an industry which has completely lost it's way. And the two biggest cracks in this foundation come from Feminism, and race based studies. The idea that men are equal to women in all ways and that one race and culture is equal to another race and culture, are both obviously untrue. You can't have good science which is based on bad science. It will only lead to greater and greater error, that requires bigger and bigger lies to preserve.

In that light, something like the riots in Charlotte or the entire 'Black Lies Matter" movement were all inevitable.

- A Word On Stop And Frisk

There is an element of Black America, a small element I grant you, that cannot see any motivation for anything other than racism. Common speculation is that they feel this way because of their own devoted hatred of white people, and this is occasionally supported by their own statements. Those are the people who are trashing all they can in Charlotte, and chasing white people through parking garages.

I’m told that every black man has at least one story of injustice. A good friend of mine nearly missed his graduation from Stanford Business school after being arrested in an airport on what he claims were totally fabricated drug charges. He’s my friend, so I believe him, even if I think there might have been a bit more to the story.

Cops, black cops, white cops, green cops, are people like the rest of us. They aren’t exceptionally intelligent, or by the standard I was raised, exceptionally brave. Some of them are lazy, some are genuinely stupid, some are brilliant, and some are industrious. But they all labor under the same incentives, the same risks and the same constraints.

Young black men commit a widely outsized percentage of the violent crime in America, and are somewhat less intelligent as a group than the national average. Cops know this. Stupid, violent people tend to operate more freely outside the law. They do more drugs. They are involved in more non violent conflict.

This is why stop and frisk (or as Rudy Giuliani called it yesterday “Stop – Question – And Frisk”) is such a fantastic idea. It puts a bureaucratic structure around that first meeting between cops and our most violent dangerous citizens. It provides a peaceful honest way for the cops to get to the truth of what is going on without unnecessary risk or force.

As a percentage, It’s my belief that there are more lawless violent young black men in our inner cities than there are cops who break the law. But the difference between them is that the cops will follow rules if provided. We have control over them. So Stop and Frisk should be correctly thought of as something we do FOR black America, not TO black America.

The numbers are beyond debate. When stop and frisk was used as part of an overall policing policy of the Giuliani and Bloomberg administrations, murders in New York dropped 84%. That isn’t hurting the black community it’s helping them. And Racism is a poor motivator, for helping black America.