We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, April 21. 2016
White Privilege Conference Too Privileged?
At least she's honest
Are Parents Bankrupting Themselves to Look Adequate?
The Lemonade Menace - Armed agents of the state protect us from children everywhere.
Hate Hoaxer Kayla McKelvey Could Get Jail Time
Hate Hoaxer Kayla McKelvey Could Get Jail Time
Yiannopoulos has repeatedly faced opposition during his "Most Dangerous Faggot" speaking tour.
Federal Park Ranger Mocks Founders, Constitution ... While Leading Tour of Independence Hall!
How Democrats Destroyed Camden - A city's unwavering allegiance to the Party that ruined it.
California’s Pension Hubris - If a new plan goes forward, CalPERS will get its hands on billions in private-sector retirement funds.
"This Is Going To Be A National Crisis" - One Of The Largest U.S. Pension Funds Set To Cut Retiree Benefits
Why Are We Expecting the Next President To Fix the Economy? We should be demanding only that they don't keep screwing it up.
George Soros Only Funder of ‘Immigrant Voters Win PAC’
Why You Don't Understand Trump. OK old people. I'm going to try to explain it to you.
Donald Trump Plans to Adopt More-Traditional Campaign Tactics - GOP front-runner says his campaign is evolving; coming soon are policy addresses, teleprompters and a speechwriter
My guess is that Manafort asked him whether he was serious
"With Donald Trump, for the very first time, American conservatives will have a clever, determined, and fearless mongoose going after this Clinton cobra"
Saudi Arabia Snubs Obama on the Tarmac, Sending Only a Minor Dignitary to Greet Him As He Arrives On His Farewell Tour
Obama's making a futile trip. The United States and Saudi Arabia no longer see anything the same way.
The non-Islamic factors on which Islamic terrorism is blamed are not unique to Muslims. Only Islam is.
Taiwan is on Its Own
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
"He is like the dog that caught the car he was chasing; he doesn’t know what to do next. I think Trump entered the presidential race on a self-promotional lark and — to his great surprise — found himself winning, mostly because he accidentally tapped into underlying issues such as political correctness and immigration. When he first adopted them, I don’t think he had any clue about their potency."
I think there is some truth to this, if you take out the qualifier, "accidentally". I remind you that he has yet to release his tax returns.
I think his views are fairly long standing and that they happened to parallel the interests of the folks who foresee a bleak future for themselves and their children. Yet, I agree he didn't anticipate their potency.
No. 100% wrong. He has been testing out the waters for awhile now...jumping in to the race at various times. He also wrote a very policy-heavy book in 2011/2012. He also hired someone just to listen to talk radio for years (as far as I understand) so that he could figure out the issues callers care about.
That does not sound like a lark to me.
You can also go back in time to multiple interviews where he was asked about getting into politics or running for president. He said that he was not interested unless he felt things got so bad that he had to do something about it.
Which sounds exactly like the man who jumped into the race last year.
Trump is not a wealthy man because he chases follies. He's a wealthy man because he is very targeted and driven.
"White Privilege Conference Too Privileged?"
I'm increasingly convinced that this whole trend will ultimately collapse under the weight of its own inherent contradictions.
"Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad."
I do understand that and I am not unsympathetic. Whites, in particular Northern European whites are in general more intelligent and have a better work ethic than do blacks and others of color. Not my fault or for that matter the fault of those of color, just the way it is. So I studied harder in school while the children of color committed minor crimes and sex acts. When I graduated I went on to college, no scholarship so I worked full time too. This is a difficult and long path that so many people of color reject so they instead move on to major crimes and more sex. Later after marriage and children I found myself working two jobs often and choosing not to party or hangout on street corners, after all it is really too dangerous with all those criminals and drunk drivers anyway. So I worked, buying fixer uppers and turning them over to increase my wealth. Still doing it at 72 I bought a fixer upper 4 months ago and worked 40 eight hour days in a row to turn it into a nice rental. Now I'm on vacation pondering the choices I made that gave me the privilege I enjoy in life.
The black privilege seems to express itself in things like the terrorist organization "Black lives matter" and destroying colleges and gaming welfare.
"Whites, in particular Northern European whites are in general more intelligent and have a better work ethic than do blacks and others of color."
Gosh, I haven't read a statement on race quite so incisive as that since, oh, let me see, the crank ethnographers of the early 20th Century.
that's racial identity politics. he claims racial solidarity with a certain group to excuse or mask personal shortfallings.
as Jew lawyer, I outwork and outthink everyone, except, possibly, Canadians once in a while.
Asians, particularly East Asians , are in general more intelligent and have a better work ethic than Northern European whites and other whites.
Just pick up anything you own and check where it was made.
A century ago, that wasn't the case. Apparently, "intelligence" is highly malleable.
Any shared trait in a particular population is malleable; that's how evolution works. That's not to say that intelligence in a particular individual is very malleable.
Populations that reward intelligence, or that find themselves in situations where intelligence is naturally rewarded, will on the whole start to exhibit greater average intelligence. That's a function of the fact that intelligence is largely heritable, not of some notion that it's a "malleable" individual trait. Not that I disagree that cognitive function can be enormously harmed or improved by good or bad training, attitude, and habits. There are lots of intelligent people who never take the trouble to learn to think straight or inform themselves.
Texan99: Any shared trait in a particular population is malleable; that's how evolution works.
So you're claiming that biological evolution explains why Northern European whites were economically predominant in the last century, and why today "Asians, particularly East Asians , are in general more intelligent and have a better work ethic than Northern European whites and other whites"?
Well of course I knew that statement would upset some people. I do realize there are certain facts/truths one just doesn't say out loud. It is true that whites of Northern Europeans descent are statistically more intelligent than Africans and most other ethnicities. And as someone pointed out certain Asian groups are statistically more intelligent than whites. It is what it is and if it is too painful to hear than choose to ignore it.
no one's upset, we're just laughing at you.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Used to be, there was a lot of that better work ethic around in most everybody. I blame the Dems for telling the various minorities that they are not smart enough to do things or excel or even graduate from high school without the Dems' thumbs on the scale for them. And to prevent thru welfare payments to have a father living with their mothers. And to encourage them to be contrary and obstreperous.
Last time I saw that many self-references, Gone Windy, it was from TOTUS.
I found myself working two jobs often and choosing not to party
When I was in college, I had three full time jobs, one as a deck officer on a tramp steamer that rounded the 'Horn weekly, and partied constantly. I graduated early, with honors of course.
Whites, in particular Northern European whites are in general more intelligent and have a better work ethic than do blacks and others of color. Not my fault or for that matter the fault of those of color, just the way it is. So I studied harder in school while the children of color committed minor crimes and sex acts.
so, why did you study harder if the "those of color" wouldn't study hard anyway. you could beat them just by being some ordinary dude.
isn't it true, sir, that you are, in fact, also a person of color?
There are two cities that I will not visit under ANY circumstances. Detroit is the other but its probably safer.
these are the RULES. we must Obey the Rules. whether its for kids selling lemonade or voterless elections.
there's nothing more important than Rules. no exceptions. Rules are Good.
there's nothing more important than Rules. no exceptions. Rules are Good.
Said the large corporation that lobbied for and got a rule that put its smaller competition out of business.
Said the political group that got a law passed to the detriment of their opposition.
I agree with your point that rules are valuable and should be followed, but there are good rules and bad rules and there are rules that are taken to an extreme for vindictiveness or merely an exercise of power. There can be too many rules, too.
Let's start with the rules our government is supposed to follow - the Bill of Rights... "Congress shall make no law...", "... shall not be infringed.", "... shall not be violated...", etc.
frankly, I don't give a damn about kidz lemonade stands. I care deeply about the parallel issue of obeying rules for the sake of rules, which is is offered as a justification for GOP's election manipulation in Colorado and as a qualification for Cruz, as a political angle shooter.
the lemonade stand issue makes this clear: the worship of rules for rules' sake -- legal positivism is the formal term -- divorces common sense from rule making because it assumes that all rules are inherently good and We Must Obey. justification for the GOP's cancelling the Colorado election "because the rules" is also a kind of stupid legal positivism, so were the Enabling Acts.
more bluntly, America has trended towards more direct participation in politics by a broader base of voters, hence, women's voting rights, black voting rights, removal of education or property qualifications from voter eligibility, referendums/propositions, direct election of senators, voter approval of tax hikes, a movement from caucuses to primaries. the GOP's actions in Colorado were bullshit, in spite of The Rules.
I tried to make the satire as obvious as possible. I shall endeavor to make it more so in the near future.
"[The] worship of rules for rules' sake - legal positivism is the formal term - divorces common sense from rule making because it assumes that all rules are inherently good and We Must Obey.
Up here in Canada, the late great commentator George Jonas once observed something similar regarding laws:
"Crime is not wrong because it is illegal, it is illegal because it is wrong."
RE “Healthy” School Lunch Mandate Nazi Michelle Obama Says Pizza And French Fries Are “Hands Down” Her Favorite Food…
who among us could have guessed that Moochelle pigs out on pizza and fries?
Re: One Of The Largest U.S. Pension Funds Set To Cut Retiree Benefits
Ava Miller, 64, and her husband, Ed Northrup, 68, could see their combined monthly pension income cut to about $3,000 from the nearly $7,000 they receive now, according to a letter they received from Central States in October.
If the cuts go through, Miller, who worked as a dispatcher in Flint, Mich., said they will need to dip into their savings to help cover their $1,300 mortgage payment, heating bills and trips to visit her 84-year old mother. Northrup, a retired car hauler, has started applying for truck driving jobs that could supplement their potentially smaller pension payments.
I somehow have a hard time working up a lot of sympathy for a union pension plan that seems to have promised more than it can deliver - especially when it promised a $84k pension to a couple who are aggrieved they have to dip into their savings to pay the bills. What exactly are they saving for? And how much did they pay into that retirement plan?
It may very well be that the plan was actuarily and economically and mathematically sound at one point and this couple put a reasonable amount of money into it, but I'm not willing to bet money on that being the case. I've seen too many union deals that seem to be predicated on the existence of flying unicorns and other fanciful ideas about how economics works. You simply can't subvert the market forever by getting paid twice what a freer market would dictate your labor is worth.
Why question the couple's personal finances or savings? We're they supposed to have been somehow magically set up to get along without a pension in retirement?
Unless there are other factors not revealed here, There is no reason to presume they didn't participate in good faith in a pension plan with a reasonable expectation of a certain return upon retirement.
How would any one of us feel if our pension provider suddenly came along and said: "So sad, too bad, we've halved your pension cheque."?
Ouch. Lots of typos in that one.
My apologies to all for failing to hit "Preview".
While am sorry that their pensions are about to be halved, or near offer, do question why they would go into retirement with a large mortgage? Unless one had to borrow against the equity in one's home for an unforeseeable expense, it seems logical that one would endeavour to pay off one's debts before heading into retirement and a reduced income. That's our philisophy. We don't want to hit retirement with any more debt obligations than are essential.
In other news, Vox (I know, I know; but bear with me a second) had this article today:
I think it may have been written with one of this blog's regular commenters in mind.
For the Barrister
Would you please be so kind as to tell us what is legal in a case of social science research. For example: if a researcher needs the information from a particular high school over a particular period of years--but, does not require the names or identities of the individual children, how difficult is it to get that information? If you want to compare outcomes from one generation to the next does this require a supreme court decision? is there a process, if so do you know where to start the search for this process?
Thank you for your help.