Wednesday, July 31, 2013
You remember back in the day how Anthony Wiener was the biggest jerk in congress? Well that was then, this is now... and it seems that like tends to like. His staffer came up with this spectacular quote:
“I’m dealing with, like, stupid f***ing interns who make it on to the cover of the Daily News even though they signed [non-disclosure agreements] and/or they proceeded to trash me.” She also vowed to sue Nuzzi and swore, ”F***ing s***bag. Nice f***ing glamour shot on the cover . . . Man, see if you ever get a job in this town again.”
A-holes. Every last one of them. Even when they keep their pants on.
...the only conclusion I can come to is, it's because McCain is an imbecile.
What is this new trend of his... Stockholm syndrome? Have the Democrats done to John McCain what the north Vietnamese could not? It certainly seems to me like he's embraced their anti-Americanism, even if he doesn't see it for what it is. And every single time the man opens his mouth something even more idiotic comes out.
The Derb and his gang over at vDare can keep you up on every little detail of this. They follow it all quite closely. But at the altitude I watch it from it just makes no sense to me. I'm told that big GOP donors want the illegals...legal-ed, but that makes no sense either. If they are legal they will start demanding the same treatment our current 'low skilled workers' demand. They will unionize, and run to the NLRB and do all the counterproductive and expensive things currently done by the people they're supposed to replace. Bad for management, and bad for the people who used to be the workers. (inevitably bad for the newly legal illegal's too since the NLRB doesn't actually help labor, but that's another topic.)
The only people this makes sense for is Democrat politicians, whose unceasing lust for power would have them destroy the country so long as they remain in control of it. From here it looks like John McCain has become one of them.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
I like the word sin. I think it's one of those English words that describes exactly what it's meant to, in exactly the way it should. That kind of specificity isn't common in a language where there are a gazillion ways to say anything - each with it's own subtle differences in context. But the word sin definitely does the trick. It describes something which seems like a good idea at the time, but in the long run is not only bad for the individual drawn to it, but bad for the people around them too.
That abbreviated meaning doesn't do it justice of course. The real meaning of the word sin is much more complex and rich with a long history and detailed treatment by the some of the greatest minds in all of western civilization. But that does give you the basic drift of it.
But there are problems with the use of the word too. And in secular 21st century America, I think the word's religious overtones are the worst of it. I don't think you have to be particularly religious to discuss sin. It describe a fairly permanent human condition, and at least the motivation for sin isn't bound to a specific dogma or ideology. But liberals don't seem to know that. And the religious theme of the word makes them immediately tune out as soon as it's uttered. To liberals, all morality should be subjective and the sin should be only in the eye of the practitioner.
This idea is ridiculous on it's face, but liberals would prefer not to have that discussion either. Modern American liberals are, in a word, immoral. Being immoral and making it OK for others to be immoral (to do self congratulating harm both to themselves and to the others around them) is a lynchpin of their political ideology. The relaxation and eventual elimination of all standards, is one of the principles to which they are dedicated.
But their concepts of logic and reason have been so deeply tangled up with their frail ego's that you can't even have the discussion with them. Liberals can claim that a conservative locking their car door as they pass through a bad neighborhood is the same as tossing children into a gas chamber, but if a conservative tries to claim that a liberal sending photos of his genitals to 17 year old's might not be the best practice for a public servant, they are considered despicable and hateful somehow.
Advancing this discussion just a hair in the face of that hyperbole, I find this piece by Dennis Prager very interesting. I find it much more interesting than his usual writing (which to be frank I can usually take or leave). In this case though I think this is a useful treatment of the issue, and something to keep in mind when discussing liberal philosophy.
Your typical liberal is dedicated to the destruction of any standards against which all human behavior is to be judged. But most of them don't realize it. All they know is the warm fuzziness of how good it feels to be told you're a good person for your political views. But they believe that every one of the signs in the image above is something that a persons should be rewarded for. And that's the definition of immoral.
Sunday, July 28, 2013
For my part, I'm hoping the Republican Party has had enough of blue state liberal Republicans as flag bearers. McCain these days looks increasingly like he's lost what was left of his mind. Romney, for all his personal virtues was wooden on a good day, and ended up being a poor candidate. Now the talk seems to be to adopt the fat guy from NJ. Heaven help us. As a guy from NJ whose politics look more like the right in the rest of the country, this really doesn't look like a winning solution to me.
My bellwether for politicians is firearm rights. I figure any politician who is in favor of granting the individual that kind of personal power, probably has the right idea about the role of the citizen and their relationship to the government. You cannot boss around an armed population, so I assume that if you're in favor of arming the citizens, the likelihood is you aren't planning on bossing them around.
Christy is unambiguously against gun rights, and after 1.5 terms as Governor in NJ, will be very much accustomed to bossing people around. If elected President, I'm quite sure he would take the legacy left by Obama's fast and loose interpretation of the word limited (as in "limited powers") and run right off the edge of the earth with it. You want a police state? Give a "law and order" type like Christy the loose rules left by Obama, and that's exactly what you'll get.
Christy is a bully. He's less of a bully than we are accustomed to in NJ, but that's only because things are so awful here. In reality he's FAR more of a bully than will be viable on the national stage. He won't be able to motivate the right to go to the polls, and being genuinely anti-union, he won't be liberal enough to win the left. He'll put the Republican party in the same losing position they seem so comfortable with after the last 2 catastrophes.
It seems to me that the next presidential election will be the oil party vs the water party. There isn't anyone left in the middle - only true believers in the glory of top down government solutions, and true believers in bottom up individual solutions. No one is in between,so there is no 'middle' to get.
Trying therefore would be a mistake, and that's what a Christy campaign would be about. He's pro Islam, anti gun rights, pro government healthcare, anti labor union, pro immigration amnesty, and anti abortion. Anyone who looks can find a perfectly legitimate reason to hate the guy. And while you may think NJ frankness is charming and endearing (especially after 8 years of the king of rhetorical duplicity) in the end people will hate him for it.
Rand Paul has a much better shot at motivating the base. The places where he differs from Hillary are issues of principle. So the gap becomes less between Democrat and Republican and more between the ideas under the hood. He's not perfect by any means. But I'd rather lose in a new way than do the same old thing. And it would be nice to have at least one party that was interesting in preserving individual rights for a change.
If Christy is the next presidential candidate, I'll stay home. If I really have to choose between a risky world of Muslim terrorism and an all powerful police state, and I'll take my chances with the terrorists.
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Friday, July 26, 2013
In the hope of being able to pull some rabbit out of a hat somewhere and get an entry at the last minute, I've been training for the NY Marathon. This year it will be about a week before my 50th birthday, and I thought it might be a decent life goal.
The training is going pretty well I think. I'm running further and faster than I have at any time since high school. So barring injuries (and allowing for my industry contacts being able to actually get me in the thing) I certainly think I'll be able to finish the race.
In terms of my time, I think I need to be realistic. A few years back Oprah Winfrey ran the Marine Corps Marathon in DC. She had those decades of strengthening her legs by roaming the plains with the rest of her massive herd, so she managed a time of 4:29:15 which translates to 10:16 per mile. Monumental TV jerk Gordon Ramsay (who I've promised myself to punch in the mouth if I ever see him in person) ran one in 4:26:21. I think I can beat either of them.
I'm hoping to come in closer to Ryan Reynold's time which was 3:50:22, or Ed Norton who ran one in 3:48:01, but I'm older than both of them and have less free time. Still, if I use my time from this morning on my 7 mile long training run, then I would finish the race at 4:00:06. And had it been actual race day I'm certain I could take 10 or 12 seconds per mile off that time. The 4 hour Marathon is a big goal of course, and I think it's within reach. But you'd be shocked how little will power you have after 5 or 6, 9 minute miles.
I'll let you know how it goes.
It's all just a vanity of course. It literally means nothing at all. But I hope you all will indulge me a bit if I decide to test myself a little. Even taken at it's absolute secular worst, its a ego indulgence that harms no one.
Besides, at age 50 my grandfather could barely make it from his front porch to the bathroom without getting winded (of course, he was also carrying that heavy whiskey bottle at the time). And climbing a flight of stairs for him might just as well have been Kilimanjaro. We live long in my family but we don't weather well. And I see no reason why I shouldn't try to put that family tradition to rest.
Even since his being fired from National Review, my friend and shooting buddy John Derbyshire (left), has been a symbol to all Americans of the professional dangers of committing a racial thought crime in the Obama "post-racial" era.
John didn't shoot anyone. All he did was write a response to an article which warned black kids how to avoid white on black crime, by reversing the races. He didn't even write the article in National Review - he wrote it for his much more thick skinned employer Taki's Magazine. But Rich Lowry at NR was so concerned that the scarlet R might be used to describe him and his publication, that he made an example of John and fired him.
But all that was before the Zimmerman verdict showed the racial grievance machine for the utter fraud it is. These days thanks to the vast over-reach by the left, it's become much more fashionable to say the same thing John did. Victor Davis Hanson has said the very thing - in NR no less. And no one is talking about firing him.
You might say this is none of my business and I suppose it isn't. Rich Lowry has a business to run, and he has to make the decisions he believes are best for that business. I certainly don't know anything about running a magazine and don't presume to tell him how.
But National Review is part of our public political dialog. And from the perspective of an active participant in that dialog, I think it was a huge mistake to concede a point to the left on the issue of race. I think in some respect it was the fact that they hounded John from public life so easily that led the racialists to continue to force the Zimmerman family into hiding for their lives, in spite of George's innocence.
But what's done is done right? So the family Derb tightened it's belt a bit, National Review appeased it's political opponents and alienated it's supporters, and we readers learned to get by with a little less of the work of one of America's most interesting political writers. Everyone was worse off, and everyone knows it.
And since NR now seems to have changed it's position on racial appeasement, one can assume that Rich Lowry knows it too. This is arguably a good thing. The political dialog can go along on the trajectory it always should have, and the only person who is still suffering any long term damage from it all is John Derbyshire.
I don't know if there is any fixing this. You know what they say, you can't get the $hit back into the horse. I personally think it would make a great political statement for NR to hire John back. It would say to the racial grievance lobby that their days of bullying the political right are truly over, and I'm sure John could use the return of the income.
But in my nearly 50 years on this earth I've only met a few men who were ever publicly willing to admit making such a huge mistake and none of them were in politics. Even a public apology won't happen - for all the good it would do John and his family. And that's a real shame.
I like to believe that we on the right are simply better than those on the left. I like to think we are less hypocritical, less self deluding and less craven. The sad truth though is that we probably aren't. People like Rich Lowry see themselves as doing what they have to, even if they don't like it. And that's the same excuse the left uses. The only difference is where the lines are drawn.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
I have an old friend who is a fixture in the oil trading business. During the last big oil price run-up, he had a business in west Africa where he would buy up Palm Oil plantations, and then bring an entire biodiesel factory in on skids. He'd convert the palm oil to biodiesel, load it into trucks and then cart away the fuel and the factory both. The fuel would go for sale at market, and the factory would go to a barge out in Lagos harbor to be carefully stored where it couldn't be stolen for the next time it was needed.
With the theft of equipment all but reduced to zero, he found he was able to make money in a market where others couldn't. It dind't scale really well but he was making about 1 million in profit per year on a modest operation. It was all going great for him until his key man on the ground in Nigeria got kidnapped (how another friend of mine and I helped get him out is another story in itself) and the price of biodiesel in West Africa collapsed. But it was a really creative idea that solved all the negative incentives of working in a basically lawless zone filled to the brim with criminals, murderers and bloodthirsty 6 foot 5 inch cannibals who go around in wedding dresses while waving machetes.
This is why whenever I think of Detroit, I wonder if it isn't possible to do the same thing there only with sugar beets or something. Surely the region must be good for something. The idea of reviving Detroit based on trade is preposterous to me. The illiteracy of the locals is far too high, and there would be too much external security required to preserve anything of value. And as soon as you put anything in place that can't be picked up and moved away the thieves in the City Council will tax it out of existence.
We need to be thinking about Detroit as the most northern part of West Africa. It's a lawless zone where the rules of western civilization don't apply. But that doesn't mean you can't make a living there. You just have to recognize that there are limits and be creative about your solutions.
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
As many readers here know, NJ is a "May Issue" state, which in effect means it's a "won't issue" state. In the last 30 years you can count every approved civilian concealed carry permit issued by the state on your hands and feet, without taking your shoes off. There have been so few, even a Democrat could count them.
Well for what it's worth, the law is being challenged in the State Supreme court. The central issue is the "Justifiable Need" clause which gives judges the discretion to deny virtually every permit that doesn't go to someone "connected" in the NJ sense. Only cops, politicians, their rich friends, and the famous need apply. In effect, common NJ citizens are procedurally banned from concealed carry.
And to be perfectly frank about it, this challenge in the State Supreme court won't do anything to change that either. It's just dotting the I's and crossing the T's until the case makes it's way over to Federal court, where it will be eventually use to shoot down the existing law as an infringement on the second amendment. But half the point of the kind of bureaucratic tyranny we live with in NJ is to put obstacles and delays in the system. Laws don't have to be constitutional, they just have to take a really long time (and a really large expense) to get rid of.
This was the principal behind NY's rash of gun control laws last year. They knew when they approved them that they were unconstitutional. That was never the debate. They just plan to be long gone by the time the laws are repealed.
Maybe if you're a politician and you vote for a law that is found to be unconstitutional, you should have to serve 2 years in prison. Something like that would get them focused on the salient issues again I think. And in NJ's case we can save time and just put barbed wire up around the statehouse, and hang a 'prison' sign. Big cost savings there I think.
I could be wrong, but I don't think this is a spoof:
The Detroit City Council on Tuesday unanimously passed a resolution calling for a federal investigation to see whether civil rights charges are warranted against George Zimmerman, who was acquitted July 13 of second-degree murder and manslaughter charges in the killing of Florida teen Trayvon Martin.
It's a good thing the Detroit City council is so laser focused on solving the real problems in their community and not just making sure the pointless harassment of an innocent man is kept up, even though he and his family are in hiding over 1000 miles away.
In that universe I'm pretty sure George Zimmerman has a wicked looking goatee and goes around wearing a dagger shaped pin on his chest.
All hail the empire.
I've been saying it for ages. In the end the pensioners are going to take the brunt of the hit in these municipal bankruptcies. And it's all because government loves force. It's their primary (really their sole) motivator. They have to ask to borrow money but can order the pensions to take what they get.
So far it looks like I called it right:
The current plan (for now rejected by creditors) means a 90% loss for muni-worker retirees, 81% loss for unsecured creditors, and a 75% loss for secured creditors.
The deck will only be stacked worse and worse for the unions as the clock ticks forward.
The video above is the banner link on Drudge as I write this. And I can't understand why the press still fails to see the problem here. It's not an issue of partisanship or wanting to avoid making Obama look bad. It has nothing to do with Obama really - it's a question of economic philosophy.
The central problem of our economy is this:
The Democrats believe the only way to create jobs is to find a way to convince "the rich" to surrender what would otherwise be their profits to create them. They may use a simple tactic like raising tax rates to simply confiscate the money and redistribute it, or they may have something more subtle like tax credits or some other byzantine giveback mechanism. But none of those things creates jobs.
The far left and the unions also believe you can create more jobs by expanding the scope of government or mandating them into existence. But since more government workers do not create any net economic growth, those tactics look good on paper only until the bill comes due. In the end, it doesn't work either.
In truth, the only way you can create jobs is by granting the private sector economic liberty. But since that results in some people working harder than others and (as should be obvious) some people benefiting more than others, the result is a reduction in "equality". The left doesn't like it when equality is reduced, even if it means that things are better for everyone.
Let the standard of living improve 100% for the poorest Americans, 200% for most Americans, and 300% for the richest and most productive Americans, and the left will call it a travesty - even when the living standard for the poor has double.
So here we are again with team Obama trying the same old thing that has failed every time in the past. They will come up with new spending, new programs, new redistribution schemes and new taxes. They'll try to position the levers of economic control in the perfect position one more time, and it won't work... one more time. Because they insist on keeping as much control in the political apparatus as is possible. If they want to go faster, what they really need to do is let go.
The obsession they have with economic equality is, in the end, destructive. It makes them into the enemies of liberty. And no one is going to work harder and make other people's lives better unless they are given the freedom to benefit from it.
As far as the left is concerned that freedom is called "exploitation". When Apple invented a better phone they 'exploited" consumers. When Toyota opened a factory in Kentucky creating thousands of jobs they were 'exploiting" workers. Anyone who does anything without the direct approval and indirect control of government lefties, they will be vilified as 'exploiting' someone. And as long as voters believe that, they will be "exploited" by the Democrat party.
It's no mystery that the massive swing to the left we've seen since the dawn of the Obama age has coincided with the slowest economic turnaround since WW2. It's no secret that the only way we can have a recovery in the age of Obama is if it's a jobless recovery. It's no mistake that part time employment is becoming the norm, and there are college kids out of school for years who haven't had a job more interesting than asking people if they want fries with that.
The only way you get those things is if you grant people economic liberty. And the lefties in government are still very much the enemies of economic liberty.
I'm having a bit of an existential issue when it comes to the latest batch of Anthony Wiener foibles. How exactly can it be so easy for him to be successful while it's so hard for the rest of us?
There is no one out there with naked photos of me. There are no scandals or secrets of any kind. I've tried so hard my whole life to be something other than trailer trash, and had only limited success by Carlos Danger's lofty standard. And yet, he ends up a Congressman and serious contender for Mayor of New York, while I bang away on locked doors and closed off opportunities.
I honestly just don't get it.
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
The great and noble "Justice for Trayvon" movement has scored another civil rights first. Now that the Gerstle family has been saved from their burning truck by proclaimed "enemy of the black race" George Zimmerman, the Gerstle's are terrified they will become the target of hate mobs out for their blood.
The family rescued by George Zimmerman after a rollover crash in Florida are terrified they will become targets for hate mobs who have made death threats to the neighborhood vigilante. Mark and Dana Michelle Gerstle told friends they do not want to talk publicly about Zimmerman for fear they will be accused of portraying him as a hero - and face a backlash from those who consider he got away with murder.
I'm sure Martin Luther King is very proud. Wasn't it him that said "Judge a man not by the color of his skin, but whether or not he was pulled from a burning vehicle by some crazy ass cracker."
Courtesy of the Derb over at VDARE, I would like to call your attention to a stunning blog post on the Human Biodiversity Blog "Those Who Can See". I'd excerpt it, but I don't know where to begin. You'll just have to there and read the whole thing yourself.
But I warn you, unless you're prepared to look the ugly truth straight in the eye you had better wait to check this one out. It's Safe For Work - there is no nudity or gore. But the political incorrect (but truthful) conclusions are breathtaking and more than a little overwhelming.
I was driving my daughter and her friends home from the mall last night when one of the friends complained that she hates when her mother sends her texts in Russian because she has to respond in Russian. This started a conversation on second, third and fourth languages and I made the claim that the first thing you should learn in any language is how to say "please excuse me" because good manners can get you out of 99% of the problems you ever get into anywhere in the world. Had Trayvon known it, I think he'd still be alive.
While I still very much believe that, I recognize that it assumes a certain level of civilization. And apparently not all people meet that standard. You can find some accounts of a few that don't at the link above.
Monday, July 22, 2013
I spend an inordinate amount of time trying to see into the future. Call it an occupational hazard, but it's almost an obsession with me. I'm particularly struck with the transformation of social issues, as they go from fashionable trend, to stale overstatement, to pathetic subject of ridicule. And I see something developing here.
The "Justice For Trayvon" movement and the "Trayvon Martin Foundation" are based entirely on the lie told by the liberal media, and wholeheartedly embraced by the black community. It's founded in the liberal mythology that racist Zimmerman stalked and pointlessly killed innocent Trayvon Martin for being black. But as a matter of evidence this is factually untrue. It's been proven untrue in a court of law. Even Trayvon's friend who was on the phone with him claimed that she thought Trayvon was the aggressor in the meeting and given the timeline, may have even stalked Zimmerman. But the left has charged ahead with their fantasy anyway.
A political movement being based on utter falsehood has never been a big problem for the left or the black community in the past. Just think of all those people out there demanding that Mumia be freed because "blah blah blah racism!". They have no idea what he did, why he did it, or that the evidence of his guilt is so overwhelming. But the left has been using it for fundraising and supporting his freedom on the vague and unsubstantiated claim that racism is somehow connected to his incarceration. No one has ever really asked them to prove it, the accusation was always enough.
But the Zimmerman case is very different than the Mumia case or the other Sharpton led racist shams of the past.
This time the firearm rights community has embraced Zimmerman as one of their own. And they are the only political group on the right in recent years to successfully stand up against the slanders and misrepresentations of the liberal myth generation machine and win. They are as deeply engaged in this fight for the truth of this story as the left has ever been. There are thousands of websites out there where you can read the real facts on the Zimmerman case and deduce for yourself George Zimmerman's obvious innocence. And in the long run that's going to be the death knell for this tactic on the left.
The left has gone on as it always has - ignoring reality where it's inconvenient for their political goals, and changing the story wherever necessary to make their version match their political needs. So we see Trayvon painted not as he was in real life, but as an innocent martyr of the civil rights movement. But since that story is so far from the truth, and the actual truth is being repeated so energetically by the right, this lie will be unsustainable. In this case, unlike the others in the past, I believe the truth will out.
What's more, because they're using it with such reckless abandon, the left's ultimate word is losing it's magical power. As an example, if someone someone were to look me in the eye and call me a racist for supporting George Zimmerman, my most polite answer would be "I guess I am a racist then." And there are millions of people out there today who are opening themselves up to those same baseless accusations who would have never done so before. It's obvious that in the case it really does mean nothing, that it really is beginning to finally mean nothing.
When pressed on the discussion, those same people who afraid to be seen as anything resembling "racist" before are now saying things like "Is it racist to recognize that blacks commit much more crime than whites?" Or "Why is it considered racist to believe you have the right to defend yourself from assault just because the person slamming your head on the concrete is black?" The responses to those arguments are long on anger by short on reason.
And the upshot of all this is that in many circles it's no longer enough for the left to simply point a finger scream racist and walk away. They have to justify their thinking now. They can't just accuse someone of being a monster - they have to actually defend it. But with their version of events being sdo far from reality, they are almost always left clutching at straws.
For me, (and I strongly suspect the millions of NRA members out there who are just like me) the left's thinking on race is all bunk, and we're no longer afraid to say so. It's no longer about civil rights, it's about bullying whites to achieve a blatantly political goal. And NRA members don't go in for being bullied.
My point is, I think the "Justice for Trayvon" movement is a last gasp. The kind of baseless racism accusations of the past that have made Al Sharpton such a comfortable living, have jumped the shark. His day is done, or is at least irrevocably dying. And I think in the future, the Trayvon Martin movement will be the marker of when the pendulum had finally swung too far.
This movement has slandered an innocent man, while he and his family stay in hiding for fear of their lives. Whatever a movement that does that is after, it certainly isn't civil rights. And unlike all the passively witnessed scams Sharpton has managed in the past, this one is being actively engaged in by the right's only successful political group. There won't be any rewriting the truth on this one, and that means the end of the racist inquisition.
Offering even more conclusive proof of his hatred of black people, George Zimmerman emerged from hiding this week to help rescue someone from an overturned truck:
Sanford Police Department Capt. Jim McAuliffe told ABC News that Zimmerman "pulled an individual from a truck that had rolled over" at the intersection of a Florida highway last week. Florida Highway Patrol is now handling the case, McAuliffe said.
Just think of how many trucks rolled over on black people in America last year - and George Zimmerman didn't save any of them. This is even more evidence of what a despicable racist the man must be, and this event will no doubt be used in the federal civil rights suit being cooked up right now by the Holder Justice department. Truck owners everywhere - none of whom have been saved by Zimmerman either, are no doubt lining up death squads and lynch mobs to 'get' Zimmerman if they ever see him out on the street.
(After the treatment he's gotten from the media I don't think anyone would blame George Zimmerman from cynically driving right by anything that looked to get him press attention. It's incredibly noble of the guy to have done this in spite of all else that has gone on in his life.)
Linked below is a brilliant Bob Lonsberry post about the white half of the 'conversation' on race we're told that we're too cowardly to have:
The culture of many white Americans is one of hard work and self-reliance. Our heritage teaches us that work is ennobling, and our religion teaches us that by the sweat of our brow we should eat our bread.
And we feel like we are being robbed by a socially dysfunctional urban black America where out-of-wedlock birth, educational failure, criminal conduct and other irresponsibility perversely entitle people to money we earned to support our families.
We believe that races are equal, but cultures are not, and that a woefully failed black urban culture is cancerously destroying lives and communities. And we feel like we have to both foot the bill to support it and fight it, and watch out for spillover that might threaten us.
White people also believe black America has a predatory crime problem that creates a real danger for all of us.
We believe that because it happens to be an undeniable truth. Blacks are disproportionately involved in crime, and while some blacks believe that’s because of a racist criminal justice system, most whites believe it’s because blacks are more likely to commit crime.
We all pretend not to notice the race of the mug shots on the evening news, but we’re only pretending. We notice, and we don’t forget. We don’t believe the criminal justice system is victimizing inmates, we believe the criminal justice system is protecting us from inmates. We believe people in prison deserve to be there – they did the crime, they do the time.
Black violence – much of it directed against other blacks – has over the years since 9-11 racked up a higher body count than the war on terrorism. White people think that is a big deal.
The fact is, virtually all the white people I know think we're being taken unfair advantage of by a political system and a mass media that unfairly depicts as monsters and crafts policy to punish us for our purely imagined sins.
Read the whole piece. I think it says exactly what our politicians and journalists need to be reminded of.
Charles CW Cooke makes the case for Elliot Spitzer's competition, the madam who used to supply him with hookers. In it, she says what few in the New York Media would dare say about the man - that he's about as low a human being as has ever run for office, even in NY:
“He is a psychopath!” Davis continues, switching gears somewhat. “[He] illegally financed his first two campaigns, got caught by the New York Times, and then he lied about it. His whole career has been built on felonies that he’s never been prosecuted for. How is he going to run for a fiduciary office in which teamwork is required? In his resignation speech, he said he couldn’t control his own compulsions and desires. Well, how can he control a financial situation, and how can he in any measure take responsibility?”
I have no personal experience with Elliot Spitzer. But my perspective on his rise was that he and Andrew Cuomo both made their career running the kangaroo court that prosecuted innocent Wall Street executives for the sin of being successful. The animus toward rich Wall Streeters has always run deep in New York for anyone who wasn't selling things to them. And Spitzer and Cuomo both tapped that economically illiterate voter to build political empires.
I'm glad to hear that someone is calling him out even if the anti-capitalist NY press would never do anything but soft ball him. Here's a little advice for the people of NY. Pick the one who was collecting the money, not the one who was paying it. She obviously has a better grasp of the realities of NY's finances.
Sunday, July 21, 2013
The Obama campaign took, "deep dives into exactly where each demographic and regional group was trending at any given moment." I said all the way back in November that such data, "must have been harvested from far deeper resources than an amalgam of voting lists and donor emails." I also put a little thought to how information incorporated into a map can show how a political message propagates, which is as good as gold for a political campaign. To me, it was obvious that the questions that the IRS required applicants to answer were drafted by a lawyer for the purpose of gathering information for campaign software. The mainstreammedia has been a little late to the party, but there is a glimmer in some corners, where this story is not being spiked, that some others are beginning to think the Obama campaign received government data that was incorporated into its analytic software.
The author of the questions the IRS posed to Tea Party applicants, I am guessing, is William Wilkins. He is one of two presidential appointees at the IRS, a Democrat donor and a lawyer that represented Jeremiah Wright in his fight to hold on to his tax exempt status. It is now being reported that the testimony last Thursday established that, "as early as July 2011,Wilkins's office was involved in the decisions about the unprecedented targeting and unorthodox treatment of Tea Party organizations seeking tax-exempt status." Hogwash. July 2011 was the time for a rear guard action to minimize the damage for events that were in play for a long time. That's my SWAG.
We already know that the IRS routinely leaked private information that damaged conservatives and their causes. To me, believing there was a focused data collection effort and ensuing data dumps to the Obama campaign takes a lot less than a leap of logic. After all, if Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden can download sensitive data without anybody knowing, how difficult could it be for a well placed operative to deliver data to a political campaign? All of the leaks the press has reported until now were published by various front organizations, giving the President plausible deniability. However, I think the Obama campaign, and not a once removed "independent" organization, received illegal data. I can only hope that shoe drops.
So, the IRS was just doing its part to give a positive experience to the public. That's all. Nothing to see here. Move on - there are more important things to distract ... er ... talk about.
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Renowned Anti-Semite, lefty, and visual horror of the DC press corps Helen Thomas, is dead at age 92. Ordinarily I wouldn't speak ill of the dead, but since she was as ugly as that on the inside too, I figure all is fair.
And to sort of purge the visual pallet, I offer this additional image - just for balance.
Florida, especially South Florida was relatively incident free. Possibly because of the apparent state of integration in most neighborhoods' and possibly, more so to the point that Florida fits the description usually preceding the clause "... a polite society".
I go to range sessions with people of dark complexions (they could be afro-Cuban or Caribbean) and they have conceal-carry permits and understand that Stand Your Ground and Self-Defense applies to them as well as me. But that's not the point today. Al Sharpton lost his marbles because his demand for Justice (he demanded an arrest and a trial) had not only been met, but it did exactly what the Criminal Justice system is designed to do. It removed race from the equation and allowed the facts and evidence to proceed without distortion.
That's a victory in anyone's book. Victory for the race-baiters is measured differently and constant state of revenge must be stirred. If Zimmerman were found Guilty of Manslaughter, I bet dollars to doughnuts that Sharpton and Jackson would still be screaming "No Justice!".
Because there were no outrageous riots or roaming mobs of teens menacing our streets, Al Sharpton has decided to go to many cities (two or three in Florida) to promote "Stand-Up to Stand Your Ground" under the Slogan "Justice for Trayvon".
Yeah, Good Luck with that...
Other shrieking banshees that are self-appointed spokespersons for a group that never asked for it have proclaimed "Florida is an Apartheid State". That was the person called Jesse Jackson. Last I saw, there is no minority voter disenfranchisement going on in Florida, if anything its probably the opposite.
I believe there may be a law on the books in Dade County that identifies White males as minorities in certain circumstances. Difficult to find on the nets, however I will annoy the local legal scholar.
Clearly, Florida is not an Apartheid state, and you can fill a library with the lists of minorities of varying complexion and origin holding high public office, acting corporate officers of huge multinationals, as well as small and mid-size entrepreneurs.
The people that can claim "apartheid" at a minimum are probably Mexican migrant workers, but they don't share the racial trait that rings the cash register for Jesse and Al.
No, can't let that happen when the "Reverends" are in town.
Al will seek to get an adverse reaction wherever he goes as a means of demonstrating the existence of a white-backlash. I will be in mostly Cuban and south American proximities today, and I don't expect reactionary stupidity from anyone, but I will be on my guard.
I say let Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and whomever else wants to subscribe to stupid ideas have their day. Let them run with the ball.
The truth will be apparent without an attempt to convince crazy people that they are crazy.
After the Million Man March and all its little Million Youth Marches, people opposed to the ideas and the ideology of the speakers (that is people opposed to race-hucksters) did not try to take away the microphone, they let the momentum of the stupidity careen headlong into the wall of its own moronic construction. It will crash and burn.
Go ahead, make Trayvon the new poster child for something Sharpton or Jackson can readily profit from. Leave it alone, and the truth tends to bubble to the surface. Trayvon was no angel and according to some sources he was on his way to being a career criminal, incarcerated or a casualty among the statistical probability; death by rival gang or rival perp.
The more you confront and admonish the huckster, the more you embolden the huckster. Extinguish the attention, tune-out the distortions, and eventually the fruit of these race-baiting idiots dies on the vine. (someone will tell me that "dies on the vine" or my use of the word "fruit" is bigoted.)
Nancy Grace illustrated my theory to perfection. She claimed to be a champion of race from one side of her mouth, but then hurling racial invectives about George Zimerman's Latin ethnicity, something about churros and Taco Bell.
... y donde esta La Raza?
Funny thing is CNN or MSLSD will never bother to tune into Spanish talk radio. Their hackles would raise if they heard what the "lah-tee-nos" were saying (and very unfiltered) about the story.
Posted by ikaika at 8:51 AM
Friday, July 19, 2013
Mathew Yglesias the business editor at Slate, says a lot of really stupid things on a lot of different but related subjects. But they aren't usually so stupid that you'd think he should be running for Congress, or teaching in a public school. He's almost always wrong, but he's usually wrong in reasonable and thoughtful way. Think of him as the most incompetent person on a trading desk. Reliably wrong, but not clueless - not a unicorn farmer.
But now he has produced absolute evidence that he's one of the dumbest men in America. Today he said this:
Seriously, You Should Move To Minneapolis
No one should ever think about moving to Minneapolis, and ESPECIALLY not for the weather. (And if you ever spent more than a weekend there, you'd already know that.)
Personally I think the situation in Detroit is an opportunity. Someone like the "Free State Project" should move in and take over a portion of the city, and declare itself independent in the process. There won't be anyone from Detroit showing up to reclaim it, and if they have any sort of a reasonable plan there will be huge political pressure on the state to let them be. They can declare themselves the free territory of New Detroit and apply for statehood when they meet the population requirement. (States have those right?) All they would need is enough firepower to hold back the crips long enough to import the people. (And everyone knows that gang bangers can't shoot worth a damn).
Detroit's deal is going to burn bondholders and pensioners, in spite of what the liberal judges say. And going forward through the rogues gallery of municipalities unable to add 2 and 2, the future bankruptcy deals will burn pensioners to a greater and greater extent. In the case of Detroit anyone who bought the debt should have seen it coming, but as soon as municipalities who aren't in the far off tails of the credit curve, then the pressure will be to make it possible for city manager to go back to the bond market again in the future - an option that's surely gone for Detroit. And since that's so, the only option will be to burn the pensioners. I don't believe there will be any federal bailouts for them.
It's just as well. the retired "city workers" took money for nothing, and are hoping to continue the trend. Evidence abounds of their uselessness and sloth. In fact, it's hard to find another city in America that has Detroit's interesting mix of corruption at the top and incompetence at the bottom. Camden probably comes close. And since what's left of the town is mostly black, of course we'll all be told that the reason for the bankruptcy isn't rampant theft, ineptitude and union dominated graft, but racism. Ugh.
As soon as someon utters that excuse I say America should do the same thing with Detroit that the Israelis' should have done with Gaza. Build a 40 foot wall around it, and then fill it with water.
But if the free state project want's to take a swing at it I'll donate some ammo to their cause. Just let me know where to ship the crate.
This is the best thing National Review has published on the issue of race, since John Derbyshire was (unjustly) fired. Heather MacDonald:
The most poisonous untruth being peddled in the wake of the George Zimmerman acquittal is the claim that American justice is racist. The criminal law regularly announces that black Americans are “worth less than other Americans,” Cardozo Law School professor Ekow Yankah wrote on the New York Times opinion page this week. It wasn’t activists who “injected” race into the discussion, scoffed The American Prospect’s Jamelle Bouie on Monday, the “criminal-justice system” is “already” racial. An e-mail alert on Wednesday from the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School proclaimed: “An ugly truth rears its head again: Racial disparities are alive and well in our criminal-justice system.”
The idea that the criminal-justice system discriminates against blacks — and that this bias explains blacks’ disproportionate presence in custody — is a staple of civil-rights activism and of the academic Left. Every effort to prove it empirically, however, has come up short. A 1994 Justice Department survey of felony cases from the country’s 75 largest urban areas discovered that blacks actually had a lower chance of prosecution following a felony than whites did and that they were less likely to be found guilty at trial. Alfred Blumstein has found that blacks are underrepresented in prison for homicide compared with their arrest rates. A meta-analysis of charging and sentencing studies showed that “large racial differences in criminal offending,” not racism, explained why more blacks were in prison proportionately than whites and for longer terms, according to criminologists Robert Sampson and Janet Lauritsen.
The reason there are so many blacks in prison is because blacks commit so much of the crime.
The NRO piece is chock full of useful and uncontested crime stats. Read the whole thing. Email it to your friends who say the Zimmerman verdict was racist, because it wasn't. Trayvon is dead because he picked a fight with a guy who was able to defend himself. And the first step to fixing the aspects of black American culture that compelled Trayvon to think that was a good idea, is finding a way to get black Americans to face the facts about the toxic culture they've built.
And if you will forgive the vanity, this portion of the NRO piece sounds almost exactly like what I've been saying continually since the verdict came in (and what John Derbyshire was fired from NR for saying):
In fact, if a black parent wants to radically reduce his son’s chance of getting shot, he should live in a white neighborhood. New York’s crime profile is typical of urban-crime disparities across the country. The per capita shooting rate in predominantly black Brownsville, Brooklyn, is 81 times higher than that of predominantly white and Asian Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, according to the New York Police Department. Blacks in 2012 committed about 75 percent of all shootings in New York, and whites a little over 2 percent, though blacks are 23 percent of the city’s population and whites 35 percent. Blacks are 60 percent of the city’s homicide victims. Their killers? They aren’t white.
The picture is the same nationally. Black males between the ages of 14 and 24 committed homicide at ten times the rate of white and Hispanic males combined in the same age category in 2008, resulting in a homicide victimization rate nearly as disproportionate. As for interracial crime, black homicide offenders in 2010 had nearly three times the absolute number of white and Hispanic victims as there were black victims of white and Hispanic homicide offenders, despite blacks’ much lower population numbers.
But in spite of the facts and the evidence, for black Americans and the white American left, the utter delusion that black's lot in life is caused by white racism continues to roll on and on.
If you read the comments on that piece you'll find a few which subscribe to an idea pretty common around here as well. The idea that we will never changed the minds of black Americans because the meal ticket of crying racism for every perceived slight is too rich and they aren't interested in facts. I completely disagree with that assessment.
People respond to incentives. Stop the incentives, and black Americans will begin facing facts and will stop screaming racism every time someone puts creamer in their coffee. That's a daunting job to be sure, but it's not impossible. And the very first step in that process is refusing to indulge their obviously fallacious and ridiculous racism claims any longer.
Black Americans are destroying (have destroyed?) black America. It has nothing to do with me and I for one will no longer take even partial blame for it. If you're black and you want me to treat you the same as someone of another race in all social circumstances, all you have to do is start acting like it. But so long as you commit crime at a greatly accelerated rate to people of other races, I'm going to continue to treat you like potential criminals.
And the fault for that lies exclusively with you not with me.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Remember last week when I said this:
So I think as a first step, the people whose minds we should be focusing on changing, are the people on the right who are embedded in the political culture, and will give lip service to the leftist view of racism out of political necessity, but are still lucid and clear thinking enough to be open to the truth when it's presented. If we reach those people we move the ball further down the field and advance our goal of finally beginning to really help black America to begin to heal itself, in the only meaningful way presently available to us. So I put some thought into it, and when I tried to think of who we should be trying to persuade to speak honestly about black America's social ills and it's causes, one name sprang immediately to mind. We need to convince Rich Lowry.
Well this week Rich said this:
Let’s listen to the attorney general inveigh against Stand Your Ground laws and make believe that he knows what the hell he’s talking about. Let’s ignore that the Stand Your Ground law wasn’t the reason the Sanford, Fla., police initially didn’t arrest Zimmerman and that it had nothing to do with the trial.
In short, let’s take a terrible event and make it a festival for all our ideological and racial ax-grinding and a showcase for our inability or unwillingness to reason clearly. Let’s do it in perpetually high dudgeon and while simultaneously patting ourselves on the back about our fearlessness and honesty.
That something short of proclaiming black culture a total failure, but it's certainly a step in the right direction.
He's certainly making the right people angry.
I was in the office till about 9 last night, listening carefully to what some ordinary people were saying. As I was driving near to home, I was still looking closely at how people people behave in certain situations and listening carefully to what they say. So I just wanted to relate a little of what I saw and heard of the national discussion about race as it took place among the those that are our future.
I went down Springwood Ave. in Asbury Park, which up until the 1960's had jazz clubs, grocery stores, restaurants and parades. The Asbury Park High School had one of the most powerful brass sections you could imagine. The entire world has heard echos of that sound with the Miami Horns that back up Southside Johnny and the Asbury Jukes and Bruce and the E Street Band. It makes me sad that sound and that place is gone.
I was on the south side last night, waiting to make a right turn from old Springwood Ave. (They changed the name to Lake Ave. after the riots) onto Main, when a group of about 8 or 9 12 or 13 year old girls crossed the 4 lanes of main, heading toward the west side of the tracks. They took their time crossing the 4 lanes. Someone blew a horn. Upon hearing the horn, the slowest walking girl slowed even more, straightened her back and scowled. She was ready to confront whoever.
About 3 minutes later, I parked near the Great Auditorium at home. There was a group of 8 or 9 kids, 12 or 13 years old near the ice cream store. A girl walked out onto the street and the driver of an oncoming car reacted. A boy in the group said, "Hey there was a car coming ... Be white."
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Tavis Smiley thinks he's gotten to the core problem of the George Zimmerman verdict, and he raised what he felt was the salient issue last night on O'Reilly:
“Arm every black person in America, and then let’s see what the NRA has to say.”
Way ahead of you Tavis. This NRA member has been arguing for years that the thing the law abiding black community needed was to be better armed and the NRA should be doing outreach int he black community. Keeping blacks disarmed was the beginning of gun control after all.
Smiley also insisted that many black men are viewed as a menace, which is absolutely true. Mainly because many black men actually are a menace. The prisons aren't filled with boy scouts. But the big thing Smiley is arguing for is a continuation of the double standard. Young Black men can act as uncivilized as they like, and it's the fault of white America according to Smiley. He doesn't want to see the standard they're held to change.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
These people want blood, so they're gonna have blood. And they're not gonna let a little thing like rule of law, the US constitution, or western civilization stand in their way. Possession of this shirt should be a felony, and the guy who sold them should go to jail for conspiracy and incitement to violence. And we should all be ashamed that we let anyone get away with demanding the death of a man found innocent by a jury of his peers.
Black America is the barbarians, and they aren't at the gate, they're inside already. This can't be OK with the rest of us. We need to start holding black America to the same standard as the rest of America. Throw these bastards in jail.
White vigilantes gun down dozens of black youths!
Just kidding. A mob of black protesters attacked and beat a CBS News reporter. CBS barely wants to report the story. As is usually the case with black violence, ABC and NBC are pretending it never happened.
The white vigilante backlash will have to be filed under the totally imagined liberal fantasy section along with the great Amish riots of 2012, and the Tea Party racism taunts of 2008.
The attorney general, cynical lefty that he is, has once again demanded an honest conversation on race in America. OK, I'm willing to do my part.
The problems with black America are no longer the fault of white America, and they haven't been for decades. Single parenthood, high school dropout rates, drug and alcohol use and abuse, crime, violent crime, a culture of dependency and general lawlessness - black America outpaces white America on virtually every negative sociological scale.
And the solutions that white America has offered to black America since the 60's have only served to make things worse. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life, give a man a fish and you shatter his self esteem, make him into a dependent, and offer him a life filled with hopelessness and despair. That's been America's proposition to its black minority for the last half century. But it's worse than that.
As a culture we've also embraced the idea that it's a sin against society to even speak honestly about the double standard that black America is held to. The soft bigotry of low expectations amounts to a belief that black America cannot care for itself. The left has used this idea to turn black America into a class of dependent 'client citizens' whose only productive act is to vote. And to ensure the permanence of their clients, they have made it a sin to openly call it what it is.
To publicly recognize the violence, lawlessness and societal rot that's present in the black community is considered an unspeakable truth in the mass media, and will be followed up from the left with accusations of the scarlet R - racist. Even to hint at it obliquely in some ways will raise an uproar. Beyond that claiming that it's black America who is responsible for its own woes represent a kind of media suicide. It's true of course. But to say so publicly means the political end of anyone who dares utter it. But we can't fix it if we can't talk about it. So its this cultural phenomenon that's the first thing that has to change.
So in thinking about this, the goal oriented part of me asks this question. How do we do that? How do we go about making it OK to say true things about Black America - truths that black America will eventually need to recognize about itself - so that we can begin to repair the societal damage done by multiple generations of dependency? We all know there is literally nothing you can say to Al Sharpton to change his mind about race in America - or at least to make him admit the truth about race issues publicly. He's far too vested in racial division to ever put his core business at risk. And with the broader left you never know if the person you're dealing with a cynic or true believer, so the odds of being able to convince them of anything is slimmer than average. Even trying will do nothing but bring hyperbolic accusations of hate.
So I think as a first step, the people whose minds we should be focusing on changing, are the people on the right who are embedded in the political culture, and will give lip service to the leftist view of racism out of political necessity, but are still lucid and clear thinking enough to be open to the truth when it's presented. If we reach those people we move the ball further down the field and advance our goal of finally beginning to really help black America to begin to heal itself, in the only meaningful way presently available to us. So I put some thought into it, and when I tried to think of who we should be trying to persuade to speak honestly about black America's social ills and it's causes, one name sprang immediately to mind.
We need to convince Rich Lowry.
I've met Rich in a social setting. He seems bright, personable, and lucid. The luddites of the far right might say he isn't part of the 'real right' but those conversations are unproductive. Whether he's far enough along the spectrum to suit personal tastes is irrelevant. All that matters is the question of whether he's far enough to the right to be able to tell the difference between fact and opinion, or to be open to the truth of a subject when presented to him. In my opinion that certainly seems to be the case.
I would even go so far as to say that speaking in private, he is probably eminently open to the rational and reasonable arguments about the real causes of the social ills of black America. That is to say, he knows that all these continual accusations of racism are overwhelmingly bunk. I've never actually discussed it with him, but it's the impression I've gotten. And if I'm right about that, he doesn't need to be persuaded to see the truth, he only needs to be persuaded that this is the right time for him to be telling the truth to others.
In that vein I think what we would need to convince him of, is that he does more good for black America by publicly recognizing the falsehood of most racism accusations, than by continuing to toe the standard media line and pretending that 'racism' is still a legitimate complaint. We would in effect need to convince him that by taking a stand, and demanding that black America really be honest with itself, he wouldn't be marginalizing the position of his magazine, he would be putting it at the forefront of a discussion whose time has come. He would be parting the clouds created by Al Sharpton - Jesse Jackson et al, and allowing some sun to shine on the issue.
It will no doubt mean exposing himself and his magazine to its own accusations of racism, but those accusations are present already anyway. And since those accusations are overwhelmingly false in the present political climate, they hold far less weight than they might have in the past.
The left's cure for black America's problems has been in place since the Johnson administration, and few policy initiatives have shown a more spectacular failure. Over time the accusations have become less rooted in reality and more the product of leftist fantasy. It's time for America to wake up from this mass delusion.
At least the members of the political right should have the courage to accept that fact and to say so out loud. The children on the left won't like the medicine, or even admitting that they have been part of the problem rather than a cure. But if we're serious about helping black America finding its way out of its downward spiral, we need to begin to be honest with them. The first step for that is at least fully able to be honest with ourselves.
Convince someone like Rich Lowry to quit pretending that pointing a finger and screaming "racist!" is still a valid complaint, and maybe he can begin to help convince everyone else.