Wednesday, April 24, 2019

Nothing Is Free

Mark Dice has a nice takedown of generic old white lady/fierce Indian warrior Elizabeth Warren and her desperate gambit to get some momentum by promising to wipe out college debt.




Warren's obvious target audience here are the hordes of (mostly white) millennial college grads who took on six figure student loan debt to get degrees in the "History of Renaissance LBGTQ Architecture By Womyn Of Color" and now for some odd reason can't get a real job and therefore have no way to pay back an unsecured loan the size of a home mortgage that is enforced by the near unlimited debt collection ability of the Federal government. It is obvious pandering and that is really what the Democratic primary contest, early as it is, has turned into. Naked, raw pandering. Which candidate can promise the most "free" stuff. Andrew Yang proposes a $1000/month handout. Cory Booker proposes a lump sum for "disadvantaged", in other words non-white, young folks. Bernie promises free everything. So in order to cling to relevance, Warren is proposing not only "free" college but also magically wiping out the hundreds of billions in existing student loan debt. Of course that doesn't happen by actual Hogwarts magic (Debtus Obliterato!). The money was borrowed and the money was spent. Colleges aren't going to give it back. That means either the big lenders like Sallie Mae have to write off an incredible sum from their books, which I would assume would force them into insolvency and out of business, or the government will have to bail out these borrowers, tacking another trillion dollars onto the existing debt.

That sounds like a great idea!

In all seriousness, Warren and others promising "free college" and loan forgiveness are not dealing with the actual underlying problem. The problem is two-fold. First, kids with no business borrowing unlimited sums of money are given loans, no questions asked. Second, this spigot of easy loan money makes it possible for colleges to inflate their prices year after year, because no matter how high it goes, a kid can get loans to pay for it. The demand for college degrees is huge and the supply of loan money, backed by the Federal government's guarantee of repayment, is unlimited so there is no pressure on price.

The only way a student should be able to finance college via loans is to apply for a loan like anyone else. When I worked in banking, there were some things we looked for in a loan application. First, if you borrowed the money, are you likely to pay it back? That comes from your credit history because if you are responsible with credit in the past, you probably will also be in the future and the opposite is usually true, if you habitually are terrible about paying back loans in the past, chances are you will be the same in the future. Second, can you pay it back? It wasn't smart to loan someone money if the required payments were more than they made in a month or if they were already juggling a huge pile of debt (your debt to income ratio and your payment to income ratio). If you make $2000 a month and already have $1500 of that spoken for, I am not going to give you a loan with a $700 monthly payment. Finally, what happens if you don't pay back the debt? That is why we have loan appraisals and car valuations. If you want to buy a house worth $150,000, I am not going to give you a loan for $250,000 (or even $150,000) because if you don't pay and I get your house, I am not going to be able to sell it for enough to recoup my losses. So those are the big three factors.

The problem with student loans is that 1 and 3 are out the window. Most college students are young and don't have a long credit history to work from. Plus student loans usually have no collateral so if you don't pay my only recourse is to hound you for money, an expensive and usually less than fruitful practice. That only leaves the second factor, ability to repay.

When it comes to ability to repay, the lender should look at your course of study and how likely that is to lead to a career where you can service the debt. If you are majoring in electrical engineering or better yet actuarial science, you can almost certainly swing repaying a loan of almost any reasonable amount.

For example (and an opportunity to dad-brag). One of our daughters has always wanted to be a doctor. She is an undergrad now about to finish up her degree in biology and will graduate with distinction for her GPA. She recently took the Medical College Admissions Test and scored in the top 1% of all pre-med students taking the test, with a score well above the average score for Harvard's 2019 incoming medical school class. So she is essentially assured admission to almost any medical school in America. As a graduate of medical school and a practicing physician, depending on specialty, she will be pulling down a six figure salary and perhaps a very high six or even a seven figure salary. As a lender, giving her loans for $200,000 to pay for medical school is a pretty sound decision as she has a better than reasonable ability to pay it back.

Now, what if instead of medical school, she wanted to get a graduate degree in Classical Congolese Literature and it would also require a loan of $200,000. Why would a lender give her that loan? She already has limited credit history and no collateral and now you are adding in the likelihood that she won't get a job that would allow her to service that debt and likely never will be able to keep up with the minimum payments, much less ever pay it back in full. It makes absolutely no sense and no lender would ever give her a loan. Except that they do because the risk equation is all out of whack thanks to the government guaranteeing the loan.

When the government is guaranteeing a loan, it suddenly becomes smart to make bad loans. Why not make a bad loan if you don't have to deal with the consequences of it defaulting? That is the whole sub-prime mess in a nutshell. Banks made crappy loans to sketchy borrowers that they never would have normally because there was so little risk to the bank in doing so. Back in my banking days people were taking mortgages for huge amounts of money, some with payments that didn't even cover the monthly interest so just making your regular payment meant the loan balance was going up every month. This easy money meant that housing prices skyrocketed. Lots of available loan money meant that buyers could borrow more easily and that allowed them to stretch their offering price and pay more than they should. Housing prices went up, loan balances went up and the banks got rich making essentially risk-free loans. Then it all went to crap and people who never should have borrowed the money in the first place defaulted and lost their homes. Mortgage backed securities got hammered. The government had to come to the rescue with more make-believe money. Rinse. Repeat. You are going to see this happen again because the elected officials care more about pandering to unqualified buyers than they do about the impact on the economy. Why would they care when they can get the votes, blame the banks and not really feel the impact?

The same thing is happening in student loans. Artificial supply of loan funding has been causing artificial inflation of college expenses so even mediocre colleges offering useless degrees could raise their prices double digit percentages every year and still fill up the classrooms. The big difference is that when you default on a mortgage, at least the bank gets the house and can sell it, although usually at a steep loss. When you default on a student loan, there isn't an asset to seize so you just have to keep squeezing it from the borrower.

While I appreciate those that say that people took these loans of their own free will as adults, and they did, they never should have been approved for those loans in the first place, just like you wouldn't give an 18 year old with no credit history and no job a $25,000 unsecured loan. The government and financial institutions were making bad loans knowing they would fail. So the long-term solution is to stop subsidizing student loans. Again, if you want a loan you go to a lender and make your case. If you can't show how the education degree you are getting will lead to an income that enables you to pay off the loan, no loan for you. That would mean a lot less people getting useless four-year degrees and probably a lot of campuses shutting down and/or laying off staff and faculty. That is a good thing. There are already too many over-educated, overpaid college employees in America. Most people of average intelligence and ability should be learning a marketable skill and a degree in Communications is not a real skill. Nor are most liberal arts degrees. I would argue this is true even of most business degrees. Not that many people I worked with in financial services had business degrees and the ones that did were in no way better at their jobs than people like me with degrees in Political Science. If you want to study Renaissance literature, go to the dang library or use Google. There is no reason anyone needs to spend $125,000 and four years getting a degree in some esoteric field of study unless they can self-finance it.

That will never see the light of day because suggesting that means you are "anti-education" and everyone must slobber on themselves about how much they value "education" to get elected. The average voter has no idea what the word education really means but they do know that more education=good, less education=bad.

Some version of Elizabeth Warren's proposal will probably become law, if not after the 2020 elections then certainly after 2024. It is just one more nail in the coffin of America. We are going to find out pretty soon that when everything is free, it will suddenly become very expensive indeed.


Tuesday, April 23, 2019

Learning From The Past

This is a great video from Sensible Prepper....




Way too many people think that the solution to surviving in a SHTF situation is just the right gear. If I have just the right scope on my super customized AR and optimize the magazine placement on my plate carrier, I will be OK. I get the desire to have the neatest "tacti-cool" stuff. Right now this all seems very theoretical and having the coolest, latest gear gives you bragging rights. When things go sideways? If you lack basic skills and lack a support network, you will pretty quickly be a corpse wearing the most awesome 5.11 tactical gear and some looter will be sporting your awesome AR rig.

We can and should learn from the past. When SHTF, things are going to regress quickly. Things you have come to expect and rely on without thinking, like internet and "flip a switch, lights come on" reliable electricity are not going to be there. Nor will super cheap fuel for vehicles or homes. If you live somewhere really hot and the power grid goes down, how will you deal with that in August? Or if you live somewhere cold and the same happens, how will you survive January? What are you going to do if your coat starts to rip and you can't order a new one from Amazon or if you want to eat corn in the winter but the Wal-Marts are all closed?

This video is a great starting point to start thinking about what sort of old skills we have lost and what you should start to relearn as a family now.

Sunday, April 21, 2019

Is Our Society Worth Saving?

Sometimes I really wonder. Some days I think it is worth fighting for and some days I come down firmly on "nope".

I am having more "nope" days of late.

Stuff like this is why.



What the actual hell is going on here?

The phrase "start a family" has been in existence for a very long time. In less obscenely awful times, the normal course of life for normal people was that a man and woman would meet and decide to get married. At some point after the marriage the wife would get pregnant. Of course this wasn't always the case, infertility has been a problem forever. Some men can't get women pregnant and some women are just barren. But for most of human history in the Western world, "starting a family" was one of the key milestones of life.

Living in the middle of an Amish community we still see a lot of this. The Amish only attend school through 8th grade and then start to prepare for adulthood. High school aged boys learn from their fathers to do something useful, farming or carpentry or some other way to support a family. Girls the same age often take over many of the household chores from their mothers, although many also "work away" for a few years. Marriage is assumed, boys and girls don't start dating until they are 18 and when a boy asks a girl out for the first time, it is because at some point down the road they are thinking marriage. While some wait until later to date and some never get married, for most marriage and children is the reason for dating. They are not stumbling from one dating relationship to another until they finally meet "the one". They are seeking "the one" right off the bat and asking a girl out implies you strongly suspect she might be the one. Most Amish get married, get married fairly young, essentially never divorce, have kids early and often and are generally happy. It is not idylllic, there are plenty of serious issues in their community. The rules are baffling and most Amish don't understand them. Their lack of education can be off-putting and they can be incredibly naive and gullible. They are very stand-offish toward non-Amish and even Amish we have known for years are very private. A decent number of Amish weddings happen on Sunday, which is code for "girl got knocked up and they have to get married right away". Still, it is light-years better than trying to explain how a single woman with a cat or a couple with some houseplants qualifies as a "family:".

This is important. The saying "start a family" is not intended to denigrate anyone. It is just a simple phrase that indicates that a married couple is moving to the next natural stage, having children. Couples getting married and starting a family is how the species and the society is perpetuated. But a lot of people seem to really like this notion of redefining the word "family" to mean any sort of connection between people, or animals or even plants. I posted this short thread about her assertion:



I think those are solid points I made but when I tweeted this, her tweet had 91,000 likes. I checked a few hours later and it was up to 111,000 likes. I just checked again and it is at 149,000 likes and 36,000 retweets. Those are Trump level numbers. The childless late 30s cat ladies are chugging down box wine and creating fake twitter accounts just to like this tweet.

What makes this idea that family can mean anything you want resonate with so many people?

The answer is very complex but it is also very simple. Humans yearn for connections and no connection is stronger than family. We always understood this but some time in 20th century people who hated this idea started to gain ascendancy by infiltrating our cultural institutions: colleges and public schools, the entertainment world, the bureaucracy and "mainline" religious bodies. They started to denigrate the normal family structure, told women that they need a man like a fish needs a bicycle, urged women to find their identity in careers and "education" and to view marriage and child-rearing as onerous punishments that interfere with a happy and fulfilling life, instead of being the main driver of a happy and fulfilling life. Sex became disconnected from reproduction via birth control and abortion on demand, ceasing to be something one only engaged in within the bounds of marriage and turned into a recreational sport. Government, fueled by the tax dollars of men, began to replace those same men as the protector and provider of women and their children. Far too many men were all too happy to go along. Sex without responsibility, not even if it resulted in children? What a great deal for cads and scoundrels. In the early days of the sexual revolution the future seemed bright. Full "equality" between the sexes and all the humping you want, just for the taking.

Fast forward to the turn of the millennium.

More and more women are finding out that the pot of gold at the end of the sexual revolution's rainbow is a toilet bowl. Women have more "opportunity" than ever before. Women are in every professional field. They outnumber men in college, by some pretty wide margins at some schools. A woman came within around 80,000 votes of becoming President in 2016 and the odds are very good that a woman will be President or Vice-President in January of 2021. All of these things are supposed to make women happy.

But women are miserable.

You can see it in the workforce. You can see it on social media with the endless vacillating between empty gushing about how awesome things are to the passive-aggressive complaining. You can see it in stores as women try to fill the void in their lives with purchasing stuff and more stuff. You can see it in the way so many women, especially "professional women" are gulping down anti-depressants like Skittles, washed down with boxed wine. They were promised a utopia and instead things keep getting worse but for some reason they think that if they get just a little more "equality", they will suddenly break free into glorious womanhood and have it all. The dirty secret of the feminist pyramid scheme is that all feminism is accomplishing is spreading the misery of feminist "intellectuals" and cascading it down to normal women. It is trickle down misery, a handful of super homely early feminists looked with jealousy at normal women with happy home lives and decided to make those normal women as miserable as they are. Their plan seems to be working.

Lucy Huber, the author of that very popular tweet, is apparently 30 years old, not bad looking and reasonably intelligent. She has three cats and is engaged, and also has spent too much time pondering and writing about her own breasts. In more normal times she would be married already and have a couple of kids. She isn't unmarried right now because she is hideously ugly, it seems to be because she is incredibly neurotic and has bought into the mystery cult of feminism. I assume she wants a family but doesn't have one yet and that clock is ticking. Biology is pretty hard to defeat. You can freeze your eggs but you can't make yourself younger. Being up every other hour all night for night after night is a game for 23 year old women, not 43 year olds. So she copes for her lack of a family by redefining the very word. Now she and her fiance and her cats are a "family". A couple with a houseplant is a family. People sharing rent are a family. An infinite number of iterations of combinations of humans (or animals or even plants) all qualify as a family. Once you let loose the normal definition of a family, anything goes. The stranger sitting next to you on a bus says good morning? Now you are family! Looking at a row of potted geraniums at a nursery? Congrats, you and the geraniums are a family!

If we can't even agree that a family has certain parameters and that relationships outside of those parameters are not families, then we have lost the foundational structure of human society. We already have no identity as Americans other than people that happen to be within the borders of the United States. Without a real, meaningful definition of family we are all just a bunch of tax cattle and consumers, economic units that bounce from one relationship to another with each other (and animals and plants). That is no way to sustain a society. This is the way we are heading and it probably is time to admit that we need to burn it all down and start over, rebuilding from the ashes because what we have right now isn't worth saving.

Saturday, April 20, 2019

The Genius Of The Gun Grabbers

David Hogg is an opportunistic little liberal weasel that has parlayed the shooting of his classmates into a political career. Despite being a borderline imbecile and having crappy test scores, he was given a spot at Harvard. Side note, if you think going to Harvard indicates you are smarter than average, you aren't really paying attention. Somewhere in America, an actual really bright student is not going to Harvard because he lost his spot so Harvard could have a social justice mascot. David is trotted out like the court jester for the cameras to yammer about gun control even though he has never shot a real gun in his life.

Little Davey isn't content with spreading misinformation about guns. He decided to weigh in on a very short video clip that shows a cop pepper spraying a black guy in the face and then throwing him down. I am not sure what the context here is, there are two cops arresting a different black guy surrounded by a crowd of young folks. It looked pretty excessive but I wasn't there and I am always suspicious of videos that start well into an event. Anyway, this is the sort of logical, critical thinking you get from someone accepted to Harvard.


The gun-grabbing community wants to disarm the civilian population. They don't trust us with guns even though the vast majority of gun violence is restricted to a small percentage of the population using handguns they obtained illegally.

That means that the only people in the U.S. that would have guns are cops. But here is little Davey saying that "at most schools the police ARE the threat". So which is it? He wants the only people allowed to have guns being the very people he thinks are the real threat at schools. If cops are so dangerous, why not disarm them as well? Then the only people that would have guns would be criminals. That certainly sounds like it would be safer.

Hogg is unfortunately typical of younger Americans. Force fed a diet of politically correct "social justice" garbage their entire lives and taught to rely on their feelings instead of thinking critically, they can't see even one step beyond what they are saying. They are unwilling and unable to make the intellectual steps required to see the consequences of their proposals. "I see cop doing naughty thing, cops are the real threat!" even though a young black man is almost entirely in danger from other young black men rather than the cops.  But Davey lacks the intellectual maturity and ability to realize this or even to consider it.

Surrender even a few of your rights to imbeciles like David Hogg and the rest of your rights will quickly follow.

Friday, April 19, 2019

Bug Out Now

One of the main components in the arsenal of people convinced that things are going to collapse soon is the "bug out bag". Designed to hold enough essentials to keep you alive until you can get somewhere safer, some are relatively small while others are trekking backpack sized kits or even multiple huge plastic totes. First aid, food, fire making, spare clothing, water filtration, etc. are all common items in these bags.

That is all well and good. If I lived in a neighborhood where I was concerned about being vulnerable if (when) the wheels come off, having stuff ready to go makes some sense. But if you are serious and are convinced this is going to happen, I would suggest that you don't need a "bug out bag", you need to be bugging out permanently right now. I subscribe to Rule One from Ol' Remus at the Woodpile Report: stay away from crowds.

In the event the existing Cold Civil War turns hot, people in large urban areas are going to be stuck and that means urban areas will be death traps. In a large urban environment fuel and food supplies are going to run out quickly. All it takes is a few trucks being waylaid and the drivers given the Reginald Denny treatment for the deliveries to stop and when gas stations and small urban groceries start to run out it will cause a panic and a run on remaining stores and stations which will accelerate the process. If you are not familiar with Reginald Denny, this is what happened to him:



This was not happening during a mass nationwide civil unrest, this is just looting, rioting and mayhem after the Rodney King verdict. Imagine this sort of unrest, with an additional quarter century of endless reinforcement of resentment, resulting not from an unfavorable verdict but from general collapsing of society. Then multiply this by almost every major city in America. The 1992 riots in L.A. resulted in 52 deaths and over 2000 injuries. The National Guard and the Army and Marines were called out and over one billions dollars in damage resulted. Now if you are a guy driving a gas tanker truck and you see stuff like this happening to other truckers, maybe you don't drive into an urban area especially since you have to leave your truck to make your deliveries.

"But I live in the suburbs so I will be OK."

Really?

The suburban area my wife grew up in is a mostly very nice little city adjacent to a larger city. There are around 20,000 people in the town as of 2010. It is over 90% white, mostly ethnic Catholic working and middle class people. It should be fine, right? Well maybe not. Right across the border between her home town and the larger city is a housing project with a reputation for unsavory characters. All of the eastern part of the larger city is pretty sketchy, like make sure the doors are locked and you are aware of your surroundings even during the day sketchy. In other words the trouble in the urban area is in walking distance from the suburban area she grew up in. When all of the stores and gas stations are looted, you can be sure that the crowds will look east to the big box retailers and residential areas a few miles walk away.

But even if you are in a suburb like the one I grew up in on the opposite side of the same city, you are going to have issues. Where I grew up is not a reasonable walk from the main city and there is an intervening suburb. But many of the same problems are going to occur when the gas and grocery delivers stop.

The more urban the area, the worse it will be and the faster it will go sideways. No gas to get away and food running out. You are in trouble and your biggest trouble might come from the neighbor in the apartment next door. Your bug out bag won't help if things go crazy overnight and your car is on empty when you wake up and realize it is time to go.

The best thing you can do right now is create distance between you and trouble. Again quoting from Remus:

There's nothing in this kind of civil war for men of sound mind and good will. Rule One is your best guide: stay away from crowds. If you're in or near a city, especially the coastal urban complexes, plan and commit to self-evacuation. First out is best out.

"But my job is in City X!"

Get a different job.

The number of terrible decisions made by people based on their employment is really uncountable. I moved my family a bunch of times so I could make more money. Now I am out of the corporate world entirely with nothing but some serious health issues to show for it but my kids spent most of their early lives living out of boxes and preparing for the next move. In a world of telecommuting and millions of unfilled jobs, you can get a job anywhere. What value is there in a 401k plan and an health savings account when the economy collapses? I make substantially less right now than I did five years ago. I look at my old W-2s and am shocked by how much I was making but then I realize we are not living worse off now than when I made more money. We adjusted and life went on. We have a nice home on some acreage in the country. We have food on the table and live quite comfortably. You can make these changes. The only question is if you want to.

If you are single, you can throw it all in a decent backpack and walk away from your car but if you have a family, how far do you think you will get trying to walk away with a couple of small kids, your spouse and hundreds of pounds of gear? Not far enough to get to safety and certainly not far enough to get wherever you planned to bug out to in the first place.

It is all well and good to have the best bug out bag in the world, be wearing the dopest tactical clothing from 5.11 and have a super customized AR-15 but if you are sitting stuck in a car on a highway, running out of gas, too far from home to walk back and nowhere near safety, you are about to become a heavily armed, well dressed corpse and some looters will gladly take the contents of your bug out bag.

The best place to bug out to is where you already live, in a place where you are prepared to ride out the storm. The best time to bug out is right now.



Tuesday, April 16, 2019

The Land Of Look At Me

As all normal people were lamenting the burning of Notre Dame, far too many people saw it as an opportunity to bang the drum for their own pet causes. I don't have much to say right now about the actual fire but I would like to note the weird phenomena of people that can't even give others a moment to express their own feelings.

First Trump, a man incapable of not weighing in on any event, sent out a tweet expressing how horrible the fire was and then making the weird but harmless suggestion of using flying water tankers to put it out. That is pretty common in forest fires but wouldn't work here for a number of reasons. That didn't stop the court jester of "conservatism" from using the heart-wrenching events in Paris as his backdrop for making a dumb joke at the President's expense.


Oh, that is some comedic gold Ben! No wonder everyone thinks you are so clever when "owning the libs", code for "verbally defeating college kids". If a synagogue was on fire, I wonder if he would be amused at someone using that event as the setting for making a joke. He got ripped up and down for it so he deleted his tweet quickly but the internet remembers. So then he started tweeting conciliatory tweets about our "Judeo-Christian" heritage. That ruffled some other feathers so weasel Bill Kristol who still maintains he is the One True Savior of Conservatism replied back with this comment:


Nice that he put philosophy in snarky scare quotes. So as Notre Dame smolders, we have two Jewish guys arguing about the significance of one of the most significant Christian edifices in Western civilization in relation to centuries old religious conflicts between Christians and Jews. You can't make this up.

Others were gleeful about the "karma" of Notre Dame burning, some sort of cosmic retribution for French colonialism (that brought civilization to otherwise backward places). If so, karma isn't terribly timely as the French haven't been a colonial power for a long time and it sort of seems that they got their payback in World War I and II. I am not an expert on karma. Some even suggested that all of Europe was built by black people, a variation on the notion that white people in America just sat around on the porch while black people did all of the work and invention in the U.S.. Like for example self-proclaimed "thinker" Jamil Khan here:




I think he really believes that Africa was full of universities and libraries when European discovered Africa and that these raiders stole all of the knowledge and culture of Africa and appropriated it to create Western Civilization. Meanwhile, Africans apparently were unable to replicate what they had already created and have lagged far, far behind the rest of the world ever since. Also weird that the super advanced Africans were so easily conquered and colonized by the backward Europeans. A topic for another day perhaps.

Where this got really weird was in the "woke" church movement. Instead of Christians lamenting the horrible events which should grieve anyone claiming the name of Christ, some decided to instead take the opportunity to drone on about their own oppression. Duke Kwon is an Asian SJW "pastor" endlessly complaining about racial intolerance. The person he quotes, a black woman going by the handle of "dee2roe", real name apparently DeeDee Roe, is no one I had heard of before but she seems pretty angry.


As a note, the guy arrested was trying to impress a girl he met on Facebook that was a self-described satanist and he was into "black metal" so burning churches seemed to be his weird way of impressing her, like John Hinckley shooting Reagan to impress Jodie Foster. I guess that makes him a "white supremacist", unlike the black guy in Mississippi who burned his own church.

So some churches in Louisiana were burned and got some coverage in the US. A guy was arrested. Meanwhile a cultural icon with almost nine centuries of history is burning with worldwide live coverage. Notre Dame has been visited by tens or hundreds of millions of people, it is where Napoleon's coronation was held and he was married. Henry VI of England was crowned in Notre Dame. It has survived the French Revolution and two World Wars. It held many Catholic relics which, while not authentic in any sense, are still icons of great significance to Catholics and to European culture. But hey, take this opportunity to publicly bitch and moan. If I were a suspicious type I would suspect that the fact that Notre Dame was built in a European nation by European men was the real source of her anger. Duke seems to find this very profound.

Anyone who is a parent of more than one child has observed the behavior of children when another child is getting some attention and they aren't.

Older Brother Tommy: "Mommy, I got a gold star on my spelling test!"

Mother: "That is great Tommy, I am so proud of you!"

Little Sister Suzie: "Look at me mommy, I am standing on one foot!"

Mother: "Just a second sweetheart, Tommy is telling me about his spelling test"

Suzie (turning red): "Mommy, look at me! Look at me! LOOK AT ME!!!"

It is common behavior for kids and most of them outgrow it but obviously many adults never got past that point. A significant chunk of the loudest voices on social media feel that any attention paid to something other than their pet issue is a grave insult to them. Like spoiled children they assume that if you are paying attention to someone else, it is because you hate them. Also it suggests a callous disregard for what anyone else finds important. A 900 year old architectural monument, priceless and irreplaceable, isn't really on the same level of significance as a local church in Louisiana. 

Folks, it really is OK for people to mourn something that you don't care about. It doesn't mean your cause is being neglected. Can we all try to grow out of the pre-school mentality that demands constant attention and reinforcement?

Monday, April 15, 2019

Hate Crime? Nah.

I am sure you didn't see this news story because it doesn't advance the narrative:

Pregnant victim randomly attacked by group of teenagers speaks out

Why didn't you hear about a pregnant woman being assaulted on camera by teenagers in Quincy, Massachusetts? I will give you some quick visual clues, let's see if you can spot the reason:

Here are the teen assailants that were arrested, "Tyrese D. Johnson-Nurse, 19, and David D. Russell, 18". Tyrese has already mastered the head thrown back, "look at what a bad ass" mug shot pose. I am guessing this isn't his first time in front of a police camera.


And here is the victim, Leanne Hindy.


Hit the buzzer if you can guess why this isn't on the national news. Bonus points if you can guess how much wall to wall coverage it would get if the races were reversed.

These fine young gentlemen, who no doubt were on their way to work after volunteering at a nursing home and who had recently turned their lives around, are being held  "...on charges of aggravated assault and battery on a pregnant woman and assault and battery". If convicted you can expect them to spend a number of years in jail. Since the one charming young gentlemen said, in response to the screaming woman saying that she was pregnant, “I hope he dies” while kicking her in the stomach, it wouldn't be out of the question to charge him with attempted murder.

For a fun little game, imagine that the pregnant woman was black. Two white teens decided, apparently for no reason, to spit on her, beat the crap out of her and kick her in the stomach while saying they hoped her baby died.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be on the scene immediately, marching arm and arm with her family. Every Democrat would weigh in about how outraged they were. Trump would be blamed by one and all. There would be trending hashtags about justice. You can also be sure they would be at least investigated for committing a hate crime.

But in the real world where whites are overwhelmingly more likely to be the victims of violent crime perpetrated by blacks than vice versa, this won't be investigated as a hate crime. It will probably end up with a plea bargain and they will get a slap on the wrist. Unless the two black teens were wearing T-shirts saying "I hate crackers" and were caught on video saying "Ma'am we are attacking you strictly because you are white and we hate white people", there will be no suggestion of a hate crime because those laws are not really intended to punish people for committing crimes based on hate.

If you needed further evidence, this should be it. So-called hate crime laws are designed to be punitive and to enhance the punishment of white people involved in crimes against non-whites as a retributive measure to "balance the scales" for past injustices committed by others whites, both real and imagined. That is their only purpose. Who knows what the motivation of these two black teens really was. Would they have assaulted the pregnant woman if she was black? If this was a different state than Massachusetts with restrictive laws on firearms ownership and relatively low rates of concealed carry permits, would they have been so bold? If this happened to my wife, pregnant with my child and one of these thugs attacked her and kicked her in the stomach while expressing his desire to kill my child, I would have killed him right there in the street to protect my wife and unborn child. I guess criminals are more bold where the population is disarmed.

Stop imagining you are living in a country that operates under the rule of law. Everything is now tribal. For one tribe to win, another has to lose and everyone is playing by these rules except for one tribe, which happens to be the largest tribe and the ones responsible for the free society enjoyed by the other tribes. The government, the "education" system, the "entertainment" world, the legal system and very soon even the tax code, are all being weaponized to provide an official enforcement mechanism for this tribal warfare. "Muh Constitution" isn't going to save you. Trump isn't going to save you. Relying on basic human decency isn't going to save you.

We are all living in a clown world and you either adapt or you are going to end up on the train to a gulag.