Friday, September 22, 2017

- From the "No Shit" File

By far, one of the funniest movies ever made, and certainly the single most politically incorrect movie ever made, was Mel Brooks's classic Blazing Saddles. Parts of it are seriously overcooked, but I still laugh like hell every time I see it.

In another one of those weird personal twists, my mother sat next to he and his wife Anne Bancroft at a Broadway play about 15 years ago, and being the kind of woman she is, started a conversation with them. She said that they were as sweet and friendly as could be - normal people - in her words. And they chatted pleasantly for 15 minutes or so.

I've always like Mel, (and I'm a huge Gene Wilder fan) but I'm also particularly fond of any celebrity who is nice and friendly to my mother, so ... there you go. Someone finally got around to asking Mel what he thought the circumstance might be for a movie like Blazing Saddles in this environment where political correctness is the new state religion. His answer was obvious.

This isn't relevant really, but I'll take any excuse to post it:

Thursday, September 21, 2017

- Jimmy Kimmel and Single Payer- Deconstructed

Ben Shapiro takes the Jimmy Kimmel ACA Rant and tears it to shreds.
If you have been having a hard time understanding the ACA and its alternatives, Shapiro does an admirable job. This video should be required viewing for all proponents of Single-Payer, or Medicare for All.
Take-aways:
"Medicare for All" would result in everyone having a worthless insurance policy that fewer and fewer doctors accept. Unless the Federal government forces doctors to accept coverage... well that's a whole 'nother issue...
Jimmy Kimmel took his kid to a "Charity Hospital". A charity hospital that will treat any kid for any treatable ailment.
Just because you have a sick-kid, you are not automatically a healthcare expert.
Pre-existing conditions are not covered by the Affordable Care Act.

- The Big Question

The Z man is usually on point, particularly so with this piece. But it leaves a big question hanging out there. And it's one for which, after all my commiseration with realistic dissidents, I've never heard a good answer.

The first question when you learn something new, is always the same with guys like me. "What do we do about it?" What do we do about a black underclass that, for all but the outliers, looks very much like it is destined to remain a permanent underclass no matter what we do?

In the modern world, IQ is inseparable from financial success. There are idiot actors who manage to get rich by being nice to look at for a living, but they don't usually stay that way. For most of us, the trick to getting wealthy is to make a whole bunch of very smart choices and not too many stupid ones. So in that environment, what do you do about a portion of your population who lack the genetics necessary to be able to be engineers, architects, and entrepreneurs? They can drive the truck perfectly well, but will never be able to run the trucking company?

My broad answer comes down to behavior. Unpopular as this view is, I have never believed the true measure of a man is his wealth. I've met horrible reprehensible people who were very successful, and I've met men of considerable nobility who never made a dime. Although I've strived for wealth all my life, I've never admired the former men and have very much admired a few of the latter. But I'll be the first to confess that it's a very hard sell.

So what do we do about it? Forget all the resentment that will come from the official acknowledgement that blacks are not as intelligent on average as whites and asians. Forget your fear of riots and all the anger and hostility. Even if we can simply pass a law that is embraced whole cloth from the moment it's conceived, what in the world do we do with this hard fact?

It always leaves me feeling a little forlorn. If the situation were reversed, and the facts of biological evidence said that to be Irish was the cause of a low IQ, I'd go down to the courthouse tomorrow, and change my name to Goldstien, or LeClerc, or some other variant that let me pass as a member of some other group. But that's not a realistic option for blacks.

So where do we go with this? I think it's the biggest question of our age.

The answer I suspect will be that we won't accept reality 'officially' until there is something we can do about it. When Crispr can at least make your kids smarter if not you, then we'll all embrace the facts, and look forward to a new generation of intelligent, peaceful black Americans with less aggression and better impulse control. Until then though we have few choices but to sweep up the broken glass, throw a few more dollars at the failing schools, and learn to live with the bodies stacking up in all the poor neighborhoods.

What other choice is there? I truly and honestly wish I could think of one.

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

- A "Watergate" Level Scandal

Caught wind of this over at Ace. I think there is a fair amount of speculation here by Daniel Greenfield (who in my experience is a pretty reliable source on things like this) but it's still just speculation. But it paints an extraordinary picture which if true, could be truly earth shattering politically:

Once Obama and his allies launched their domestic surveillance operation, they crossed the Rubicon. And there was no way back. They had to destroy President Trump or risk going to jail.

The more crimes they committed by spying on the opposition, the more urgently they needed to bring down Trump. The consequences of each crime that they had committed spurred them on to commit worse crimes to save themselves from going to jail. It’s the same old story when it comes to criminals.

Each act of illegal surveillance became more blatant. And when illegal surveillance couldn’t stop Trump’s victory, they had to double down on the illegal surveillance for a coup.

The more Obama spied on Trump, the more he had to keep doing it. This time it was bound to pay off.

Obama and his allies had violated the norms so often for their policy goals that they couldn’t afford to be replaced by anyone but one of their own. The more Obama relied on the imperial presidency of executive orders, the less he could afford to be replaced by anyone who would undo them. The more his staffers lied and broke the law on everything from the government shutdown to the Iran nuke sellout, the more desperately they needed to pull out all the stops to keep Trump out of office. And the more they did it, the more they couldn’t afford not to do it. Abuse of power locks you into the loop familiar to all dictators. You can’t stop riding the tiger. Once you start, you can’t afford to stop.

Even if they caught Obama on live video bludgeoning Ivanka to death, the result of bringing him up on charges will be open race warfare. And I'm not talking some second rate LA Riot style outbreak where they torch all the korean grocers in south Chicago, or shoot up a few suburban St. Louis neighborhoods out the back windows of their cars. I mean wholesale, wide open violence that it will take combat troops and tanks to suppress.

But if he's actually guilty and they don't bring him up on charges, Richard Spencer is more likely to win the Republican Nomination in 2020 than Donald Trump, and if the facts look damning enough Spencer might give him a run for his money anyway. With Jeff Sessions running Justice I don't think that's much of a worry. I don't think he'd hesitate to have someone from the FBI slap the cuffs on Barry.

But the press will be way off far beyond insane level panic at that point. Can you imagine the NYTimes headline when someone from the Justice department makes Barak Obama, first of his name, do the perp walk? I know what you're thinking. But you need to think a couple moves ahead here. Yes, many on the right will smile a bit inside when they see it, but just think a bit about what will be right around the corner behind him.

Apocalypse is always the least likely scenario. And much blood and treasure has gone into keeping the black community's problems as local as can be managed. I think some deal will be struck and some fall guys named well before it gets to that. But if it really goes all the way, and the evidence is inescapable, I'm shudder to think of the consequences.

Hopefully the left isn't so completely incompetent that they can't keep Barry out of it. And I say that for all of our sakes.

- What 'Really' Happened

In my opinion, Trump has a natural appeal to conservative blacks. They're out there you know. They're just quiet about it just like most conservative whites. They get up every day, they do their jobs, they take care of their families, and they break no laws. Many of them attend church every week, which is still a thing in large portions of the black community, especially in the south where church attendance is higher on average anyway.

I think Trump's message of enforcing immigration law is an important one, especially for lower income blacks who have borne the brunt of the burden for the Democratic party's wholesale importation of latinos as a new American underclass. The way that blacks have been treated in general by the Democratic party is abominable, and if someone tried to treat me like an overgrown child, and erected social programs that shattered families in my community, and lobbied hard to see 900 anglo-norman Irish babies aborted every single day, I'd probably be furious at them just like I think most blacks should be.

There were lots of good, perfectly legitimate reasons for a black Americans to vote for Trump, and I don't want to take away from that.

But let's be honest. The real reason that Trump did better among blacks than Mitt Romney did, was that Hillary Clinton, was not Obama. If Trump had run against Obama, he'd have done abysmally among black voters. And the fact that blacks hate Hillary (at least) as much as the rest of us, is certainly a big contributor to the reason Donald J. Trump is now President.

I don't fault black voters for this. If I were black I'd have voted for Obama too, purely on the issue of race. It's a big deal, and it was a big deal for America to elect its first black President. And the fact that I don't approve of how he managed the country takes nothing away from that. I'd have preferred it be Tom Sowell, but all things considered it was still an historic event.

But I believe it was Hillary who gave the black vote to Trump to the degree he obtained it, by being an almost cartoonish example of Feminist insider entitlement, obvious corruption, and possessing a visible contempt for the common people.

- Imagine That...

From Hotair:

They’re not canceling the apocalypse but a group of mainstream climate scientists published a study Monday stating that the earth’s climate situation may not be quite as desperate as they previously thought.

At the moment, it's hard for me to remember why you aren't supposed to say "I told you so", when in fact you did. Must be a flaw in my character.

- No Agenda TV: Forged In Fire

I pick up TV shows usually after the first season. I started watching Forged in Fire because... who doesn't like to see how knives and edged weapons are made? The history element is minimal as is the "forced reality" element. It's a game show and the game tests the skill of experienced bladesmiths from around the world (mostly the USA, but one kid from England on one episode).
I refer back to a Gavin McGinniss article about Naked and Afraid. He remarked that the show demonstrated the true physical differences between men and women in a survival situation. That show is ok, but it began drifting into the realm of forced reality TV.
"Forged" doesn't pretend to be anything other than what it is: a competition between bladesmiths.
Women have appeared on the program and from what I recall, no woman has won the $10,000 prize for the winner of each episode.
I'm not suggesting that a woman can't make a blade, but the ones that submitted blades were subjected to a sprint conducted in a hot forge with at least 2 or 3 other contestants shaping metal.
A good knife usually takes a few days to manufacture assuming you have the equipment and the knowledge. The show narrows it down to 4 hours. The contestants are not models or actors looking to add to their stock reel. The contestants are a collection of regular guys, ugly mutts, some fat, some skinny... they are the type of guys you'd expect to be sequestered away crafting knives.
The judges are knife crafters and weapons experts. As Doug Marcaida says when he tests an instrument of death: "It will kill".
A politically incorrect statement by today's standards, but an accurate statement when determining that the claymore sword or battle axe just cleaved through a human analog (like a pig carcass or a ballistic gel dummy).
Chauvinism alert: the knives submitted by the female contestants have been chopping knives, cleavers, kitchen knives, camp knives etc... I'm not saying a woman can't craft a weapon for killing, but under the circumstances I believe men are genetically programmed to approach the same task for a purpose that has been exercised from the time man learned how to flint knap. Swinging hammers and bashing steel requires a level of physicality that is beyond those of lower bone density.
If you haven't seen the show, give a watch and share your thoughts.
Because of this show I have gone off the deep-end and am now looking to purchase additional knives for the arsenal. Coupled with the state of Texas allowing Open Carry of knives and swords, a Damascas Italian dagger would make a nice accessory to my business casual ensemble.
I am also interested in the Karambit as a concealed weapon option.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

- The Test For Racism

What people do tells you what they think much more than what they say. So here then, clipped from a test the Derb gave to Charles Murray back in the day, is the ultimate test of whether or not you really are a racist.

Imagine yourself an elderly widow with a room to let. Two people want to rent the room. One is a young black man the other, is an elderly Japanese woman. Both seem about equivalent in their ability to pay you. Who do you rent to? The obvious answer, is the elderly Japanese woman. And by this test, 100% of the Americans be they black or white, liberal or conservative, are racist.

But here's the thing. If everyone is racist, then no one is.

- Peta-Flopping At Slate

It's hard to tell if April Glaser is an idiot, or if Slate has an 'idiots only' editorial policy. This week, she's trying to gin up some terror regarding ultra-high speed computers.

So what’s the point of that? The more powerful the computer, the more realistic the models it can create. Supercomputers are already used to predict weather and earthquakes, but there’s not currently enough computing power to model complex biological systems precisely enough to make endeavors like large-scale transitioning to wind energy, for example, feasible. An exascale computer would be powerful enough to uncover answers to questions about, say, climate change and growing food that can withstand drought. It could even predict crime (hopefully with more accuracy and fairness than current predictive policing systems).

A fast computer is like a fast car. All it's going to do is take a bad driver off the cliff at a mildly higher speed. It won't do predictive modeling any better, because the mathematics of prediction prevent it.

Take for example miss dim-wits dream of more 'fairly' predicting crime. What causes 'crime' according to our betters? Poverty is one input. White oppression is another. Those two inputs are so extraneous I don't know what else to list here, but let's say maybe she goes for more conventional predictors like 'hour of the day' and rates of illegal gun ownership. (For the sake of argument, let's assume that the latter's correlation to areas populated most heavily by black Americans can slip by the cultural sensors without being deemed 'racist'.)

This is just a rhetorical example, I'm not actually trying to predict anything here. But let's say that using the powers of ESP that liberals are well known for when they detect 'hate' in others, they determine that 'white oppression' has ticked up momentarily on the upper east side. They ratchet up the oppression index, and what comes out? The simple answer is nonsense. The first rule of computing (and for that matter regression) is garbage in, garbage out. So the racisms of regression thwarts another effort to achieve the perfect liberal world.

Let's take a slightly more realistic example. Suppose there are hundreds of inputs to the actual crime predictor model, and each of them represents only a tiny change in the cumulative probability of a crime. If the inputs really are independent, then you will get only a tiny change in the output, along with a tiny change in the error factor. If they aren't independent, then you are back to the 'garbage in' rule.

Weather can be predicted by ultra fast computers because there are only a few inputs. Temperature, humidity, and atmospheric pressure account for the vast majority of the variability in weather. Add in the dependent variable of wind direction and speed, and you get a simple system that can be expanded fractally. You can calculate it on a scale of miles or a scale of inches, with inches it would mean 4,014,489,600 (number of inches in a mile squared) more calculations, but the same simple formula. Since it's explicitly time dependent and supercomputers are really fast, that's something it CAN help with.

But actual crime involves the actions of 'criminals'. Those are millions of independent decisions made by independent actors, each motivated by independent reasoning. You can predict broad inclinations of people with a wide range of individual error, but there is no way to successfully predict the actions of independent people. I know, I've tried.

This is similar in my mind to the fears regarding AI. The Derb is concerned about the long term risks of AI because the future is infinite, and theoretically we will continue to get faster and faster machines with better and more rapidly reacting models. I don't deny that the long term threat is out there, but my contention is that at it's most threatening it will remain on the horizon a lot longer than anyone thinks. You can't make a computer 'the same' as a person without giving it the same kind of flaws a human possesses, and that will always limit it.

And I don't mean to correlate the Derb with This idiot girl from Slate. Based on her writing, she lacks the intellectual capacity to shine his shoes. I only mean to broadly say that fear of technology is silly. It's like fear of guns. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And since technology is just another tool like a gun, in the near term at least, I think it's the same irrational fear.