Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Forget About Skepchick? The Wall Did Not.

Her peak. Low peak, but her peak.
Anyone remember Skepchick? Rebecca Watson, flash in the pan atheist advocate, was a woman who a fellow atheist at a conference followed her into an elevator and invited her up to his room or out for coffee or something benign but she felt threatened. This created a row within the atheist corner about sexism. Goddammit (I have no clue what atheists say) men can you refrain from asking beautiful specimens like Rebecca to your room when in a completely safe space like a hotel elevator that most likely has a video camera watching everything. Maybe it was a precursor to the microaggression brigades or an early example of the thin skinned offended crowd with access to self publishing and Youtube. Rebecca is single, and it will probably stay that way. Why? Because you may have forgotten her 15 seconds of SWPL fame, but the Wall did not forget about Rebecca.




Nerdy girl with a quirky look but a serious case of face pollution (too much face for her head) hit the wall at 90 mph. That video is from March of 2014, and the comment section is pretty vicious. She is 33 now, but my God, does she look awful for 33. This is with make up and good production values for her Youtube video about Feminism. You want Rebecca to stop talking about feminism, well guess what, she is not having any of it and will keep barking about it... with a sad look in her eyes. Forcing myself to watch the video, she has quite the androgynous look. Her face shape is more of a man's oval. That jawline killed her because the moment she gained any weight, it fleshed out her face, making it more mannish.

She knows it is over. How does one top a guy innocently asking her out almost being raped in an elevator? It's impossible. On top of that, she could not string the horrible near assault into a running column for Slate, Salon or whatever progressive rag. Rebecca might as well start touring one bedroom condos and buy a few cats. Maybe she can find a lady partner after she turns forty so that she can force novelty and rebellion once again on her family but relax because lesbian bed death will spare her for having to have an active sex life. Isn't that at the heart of aggressive atheism? Shock, novelty and rebellion against one's family and extended social network. If she is an atheist, I do wonder, who will she curse and cry to in the lonely years that fill the rest of her life?

The horror, the horror.

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

WW1 Anti-German Propaganda

Check out some WW1 anti-German propaganda posters. This is intense imagery. One poster draws an ape in a German helmet grasping at the globe. A knife has been lodged into the globe in Europe's spot with blood spilling out. Other posters have scary imagery of a muddy German clawing his way up, out of the trenches, and over the ocean towards you safe American! The German is called a Hun. Used by the Anglosphere nations, it was a derogatory term. Propaganda exists but how it is used changes. These posters versus the world of today reveal enough about our leadership to show that our elites are not American but disloyal globalists. America is not a nation among nations but the seat of empire with an imperial management system not a nationalist leadership class.

What I find interesting is how free America was to use harsh terms for propaganda for what was effectively a war of choice. World War Two propaganda was extremely graphic, but that war was a bit different due to the Pearl Harbor sneak attack (those crafty rat bastards). President Wilson ran on a platform of "He Kept Us Out of the War" to turn around within weeks of his inauguration to plunge us into the war and on the side of the Entente. Did it come down to the Entente owing JP Morgan more money than the Central Powers owed Jacob Schiff? Was Bismarck right that it was Americans speaking English and not German that would decide the 20th Century? Eugene Debs, whatever you think of his socialism, was jailed for a speech where he encouraged men not to go to war for the elite. Even Pershing put the brakes on deploying men even after arriving in France due to our raw recruits and lack of proper training and equipment. Looking at the timeline, how much of the Entente's machinations to get the Americans involved stem from a need for cannon fodder and to replace the sloppy Russian manpower on the eastern front?

Did the US use posters for our wars of choice like Vietnam, Iraq and even Afghanistan that said "Kill the Gook" or "Destroy the Towelhead"? I was not around for Vietnam, but I do not recall anything like that for Persian Gulf I or post-9/11 wars. George W. Bush said he wanted Osama Bin Laden Dead or Alive and the media threw a hissy fit. Terrorism training videos show white guys, and our federal agencies shoot at cutouts of white grannies and teens. The television program 24 that was tailor made for the post-9/11 world (debuting right after) could not be bothered to have Muslims attempting terror plots. What I remember of post-9/11 media was a rush to calm the population; tame the mighty beast that was American rage at the terrorist attacks. Fear of a backlash on Arabs or Muslims was mentioned in the news. My university sent Muslims to the local schools to teach the kids "see Muslims are just like us". It's a religion of peace... that stones women, gays and marries cousins to one another. Progressives were baiting Americans to lash out with full on Arab-Muslim hate, even accusing the heartland of Islamophobia before anyone could do anything Islamophobic.


Who defines Islamophobic? What is wrong with noticing the pattern of Muslim violence? The chattering classes and media say so. They say so and SWPLs (Faceborg example here) parrot their statements and beliefs into mocking reactions to Muslim violence even after events like the Boston Bombing. This "Islamophobic" expectation for Muslim violence was built into the White House's explanation for the Benghazi attack. It was over a video implies you think so low of Muslims that random Youtube videos will drive them to fire rocket launchers on American assets. Anyone call the State Department Islamophobic? This early '00s fear of a backlash on Muslims was all in the shadow of a bunch of Muslims committing the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor. "This was our Pearl Harbor," was repeated often but wrong. This was our chance for blood lust, but it hasn't been. Finally that conflict the overstimulated Gen X crowd bemoaned lacking in Fight Club was here. It has not worked out that way, and I blame our elties and the media who have created our interconnected, globalization era. You think Muslims are flying planes into towers in Shanghai and the Chinese aren't marching across the Middle East until they get to Israel, shaking hands with some Jews and marching back across miles of bloody sand. Chinese hotels right now are not taking in Japanese patrons over tiny islands in the ocean.

Some commenters on my random posts say modern men wouldn't fight the Mexican invasion or step up to fight the Muslims. Bullshit. I'll take the other side of that bet. One condition. I'll do so if you give me control over the media and freedom to make propaganda posters like the above. Imagine Auster's small immigrant crime or Muslim dysfunction posts but writ large. You think men would not rise up to combat the Mexican invasion if I created movies showcasing the terror in the Southwestern US starting in 1986? Clinton would have had to form border patrols by '97 after I was done with propaganda. Real border patrol efforts unlike his phony '96 immigration act that was a response to populist anger in California. To play on the Yglesias "Green Lantern Theory" of military power, imagine starting anti-Islam propaganda in the '90s after the first World Trade Center attacks and bumped it up with the USS Cole. You would never hear "religion of peace". We would also need to have "ungrateful Muslim shits" reports after saving their asses in the random Balkans police actions (or would we even be fighting there). Starting right after 9/11, blare out non-stop exposes on Muslim dysfunction. At the end of a program when Lee Greenwood's "Proud to be an America" blared and a bald eagle landed on an American flag, the masses would hold back tears and shoot wherever I pointed.

Doubt there is not an audience for it? Go watch the Hugh Hefner Comedy Central Roast, especially Drew Carey's bit. Taped weeks after 9/11 in New York, the jokes are on Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, but they deal in every stereotype about Muslims one can imagine. These are prog comedians yucking it up. Do you recall George W. Bush throwing out the first pitch (a perfect strike) at the World Series in the Bronx? I do not need to link the video because I can see it now. As dumb as it sounds, my friends and I all hugged thinking, "It's going to be ok". Give me that power over the message and I'll have the debate be not to bomb or to bomb, but do we turn the sand to glass or just bomb the cities to rubble and send in the A-10 Warthogs and Apaches vs. hold outs afterwards. Like with crime, those who enable and support the terrorists must feel the effect. Grim sure, but if you got drunk with your pals after 9/11, I know you had those talks.

Sadly, that is not our system. It's why they do everything to lull natives to sleep. Nixon's Silent Majority has become a sleeping majority that they just need to keep asleep until it is no more. Why else would they hyperventilate that Tim Tebow might lead Christians on new crusades instead of concentrating on rappers glorifying crime inspiring little kids for the thug life? That is not our system. Our Army could not do that even if we do have the technological power. The wealthiest of Arabs are important dollar recyclers and debt buyers in the petrodollar system. Our media would not allow it. Fast forward a couple of years after Drew Carey's Hefner Roast act, and Chris Rock is ringing the bell screaming paraphrased "anti-immigrant leads to anti-black and anti-Jew". We live in the flat earth, the global village, the interconnected world. I doubt enough of us have the stomach for a real clash of civilizations as we are conditioned now, but in the right setting with the right conditioning, we are capable of anything.

Monday, April 21, 2014

Bubble Tops - Buying an NBA Team

It is easy to take shots at Bill Simmons and Grantland. With Simmons specifically, it is what he is capable of writing versus what he often writes. He is also a well paid employee of ESPN/ABC, which also indirectly owns the NBA through its television deal. His column last week on buying NBA teams to be part of the world's most exclusive club was idiotic to anyone with any knowledge of money and the ownership selection process. His framing of the story is because he is a paid promoter of the NBA product and his audience is not entirely basketball fans, so he's reaching out for new viewers. Even digging into the idea, crappy NBA teams going for record deals is a sign of a money bubble near a top.

Simmons is an NBA fan with a masterful book on the NBA on his resume. He even pimped the game when it was at a nadir, and no one on ESPN was enthusiastic about the game. Simmons' own readers mock his slavish devotion to the NBA. Fortunately, ABC/ESPN bought into the NBA with a television deal in 2002, and his pimping of the game has been useful. It is amazing how many insider things he knows, jeez, it is like he's a channel for the NBA to hint at where it is going. He spent this entire February not talking or writing about the Super Bowl, the Seahawks, Pete Carroll's vindication, the Manning flameout, NCAA basketball or anything else besides the NBA. Pimp the NBA enough, and a sliver of his viewers might watch more playoff games on ABC/ESPN. His claim the NBA's ownership circle is the most exclusive is a joke in itself as Mark Cuban has owned the Dallas Mavericks for over a decade, running it extremely well, while Major League Baseball has repeatedly denied Cuban the chance to own an MLB team (Dodgers, Cubs, Rangers). The NBA had to find a Russian billionaire with a shady past to buy the Nets and only with the promise he could move the team to Brooklyn.

Simmons mentions legit reason for people wanting to buy a team like the new collective bargaining deal and coming media deal, but he does not dig into the mechanics of other reasons. Why did the Dodgers go for $2 billion? What about purchasing cost depreciation and salary depreciation? Simmons will tell his readers these teams are a sideshow for owners but the prestige is so awesome, but he will not explain how they financially help an ownership group in their financial bookkeeping. When a team is bought, 100% of the purchasing price can be depreciated over fifteen years. Other sources said 50% depreciation of tangible assets over 5 years and 100% of salaries over 15 years, but those might be the old rules. This is on top of considering the player salaries as a business expense. Teams can turn big revenue years into small revenue years and low revenue years into losses. Those losses then can be applied to an owners other income. Yes, the 1% use tax loopholes to keep more loot and the IRS rolls over and shows its belly rather than play tough.

It should come as no shock that in the last two sales (the Warriors and Bucks) a hedge fund and private equity maven has been one of the leaders of the purchasing group. These guys have been enjoying the wonders of the latest bubble (the Bernanke Bubble). What better way to hide income from bubble gains than a giant capital investment with huge depreciation allowances and low current revenue? This is where gains for the 1% of the 1% go, baubles. Only their baubles are sports franchises that leech off of municipalities for stadium deals and subsidization. To his credit, Simmons does mention the leagues that hold municipalities hostage by threatening to leave. If I were a big city mayor, I would call their bluff. Simmons and Grantland will not go into those specifics because they are not paid to explain the whys of the sport or business, only push the idea that the NBA is fannnnnntastic.

Friday, April 18, 2014

Robert McGinnis and Titillating Movie Poster Art

My college dorm room always had a few movie posters up on the walls. My roommates and I would discuss switching things up if a semester's mood took a turn. If you love the movie posters of old with their focus on artwork and not so much on photography that just plastered the actors face for zombie consumers to see, check out the work of Robert McGinnis. McGinnis, great Scottish name, was definitely a fan of the .70 ratio and sexy dames. His work is like taking Elvgren's poster work and moving it ahead two decades. McGinnis started as a pulp fiction cover artist and made a big splash with his poster for Breakfast at Tiffany's. Take a look at some of his work and Google for other images if you are inclined. Happy Easter.
Hepburn and this poster made the "little black dress"

Jane Fonda in Barbarella was a 20 out of 20

Interesting concept movie that Hollywood should remake

Captures Connery's intrigued "really?" look perfectly


This is the best Bond movie but no one talks about it.


Cover for a fake book.

Fake pulp fiction book

This film is Gloria Guida in all her 20 year old glory.

Domino in Thunderball was my favorite Bond girl. Terrific promo artwork.

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Note on Golf and Men

Bubba Watson won his second Masters title last Sunday. There was a nice special moment as he finished his round and cued up wonderfully for the cameras was his 2 year old son walking up to him. It was a mini-Kodak moment. When Watson won his first Masters, it was several weeks after his adopted son was born. When he won his first, Watson was in tears, hugging his mother. His father had died of cancer just a few years earlier. It was more emotion beyond the "fist-pumping thrill of victory" in one moment than Tiger Woods had shown his entire career. All those years of myth making, Tiger's father Earl had never told him that while everyone loves a winner, they want to know you're human, too. Whether Watson or Woods, a common theme to the idea of golf is it is a man's game. Women can play it, and play it well, but it is a guy's game. Golf is one of the few areas where it is acceptable for men to engage in a social setting and private atmosphere without women.

No kid ever picks up a club at five and says, "I want to play golf". Despite Earl Woods' statements, we all know Earl superglued a club to little Tiger's two year old hands. It is slow. It involves strategy, thinking, three dimensional visualization and a variety of skills that come from practice, experience and time. Your dad says, "let's go golfing" and for four hours it's just the two of you, and mom doesn't care (secretly happy you're both gone). She probably thinks it is boring. You start playing, and it's like being in a fraternity. Even if you have not golfed in years, you can always come back for one round and with a built in excuse for bad shots. You schedule a weekly or monthly round with a friend or a special event with a group of friends all in town. It becomes guy time. What do you talk about for four hours? Everything and anything, your past, your present, your future. Stuff you don't discuss with your women present. Each golf swing takes two seconds. You shoot maybe 100 strokes for eighteen holes, so in reality you play the sport for a little over three minutes and fill the other three or four hours with talk. Over four hours, a friend slowly explained to me why and how he was divorcing his wife. To my wife, it was just an afternoon golfing with a buddy.



Watson and son

It's quality time. Good thing is everyone usually hits a great shot and an awful shot over eighteen holes so there are multiple opportunities for male joking on friends to show inclusion. A guy who was like a third grandfather to me, Bill, took me golfing in Florida when I was twenty three and on my first bachelor with money vacation. I went out with friends each night that week in Tampa, but Bill scheduled an 8am tee time. I dragged myself out of bed hungover and pounded some Gatorade to golf with him. His hair was John Forsythe perfect. We spent three hours golfing and talking about women, his good grandson, his bad grandson (I knew both well) and my life plans. He needled me about alligators all morning. Kept giving me crap every time I hit a ball by the water. By hole 16, I saw an actual gator and jumped a few feet. I could hear him laughing behind me. If Bill scored better on a hole, he'd mention he was 75 or I was still drunk. After that round, we had lunch with his wife. I swung by later in the week to give him a small present (a book I mentioned while golfing) and say thanks. It was the last time I saw him alive. I'll always remember that round as a nice final moment with him and because for three hours he talked to me like a grown man.

Because golf equipment and skills last so long, it is not just playing a round that opens those bonding opportunities. Your golfing buddies can gain 30 pounds and still play a round with you unlike every other sport. My uncle died of cancer. He gave me his good clubs before death came calling. I still use them. My grandfather gave me his driver. Small stuff, but they explained why they gave it to me, "you're just starting out. my irons are top shelf" or "you are so tall. you must use a good driver". My dad bought me a great putter as a slight joke on him beating me because he could putt better than me. Guy ways of sharing a moment, passing something on and acting like it is small potatoes. I hit out of sand traps the way I do because of Bill. They will all be dead, and I'll explain the whys to my son.


The Masters kicking off the golf season and being so close to Easter is special. Every Easter I think of Sundays from my childhood when the Masters was on and my grandfather would provide color commentary a kid could understand. Gramma only entered the room to announce when different food was ready. My dad and I had a hard time talking about anything when I was first out of college, but we could saddle up and play a round on a sunny Saturday. Even if you have nothing to talk about, your play or a refreshment sales girl will be discussed. Bubba Watson was in tears when he won that first Masters. Missing from that moment of triumph was his dad. His former Green Beret dad introduced him to the game. He has his son now. The cycle will repeat. Father to son. I have not golfed in years, but I know when my son gets tall enough, we're going. Just the guys.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Sebelius Did Resign Because Obamacare Won

The ambiguously gay duo of Matt Yglesias and Ezra Klein bequeathed to media watchers a wonderful headline on their new site, Vox, "Kathleen Sebelius is Resigning Because Obamacare has Won". I would agree with the fey duo if not for the final touch where either Yglesias or Klein (unsure of which since Klein updated it) says that she can leave with it looking like a success. That is an outright lie unless viewed from an evil, progressive perspective. Obamacare is a win if one looks at it as the point where every political debate, election cycle or budget discussion was altered to forever involve health care and the mortal wounding of the private insurance and health care system. That was the progressive goal in the slow march towards fully nationalized health care.

Using the word "won" is important for it reveals the mindset of progressives and policy wonks like Klein. It is about winning, not positive policies or good governance. Like FDR's Social Security 1% idea, it is the foot in the door. They could have used a word like "success" or "working" in the headline but they chose to use "won". Vox is a site designed for lazy SWPLs to learn talking points boiled down to 15 second cocktail party comebacks and sound bites... and Faceborg comments. Won is the cue for a progressive foot soldier to throw in the face of anyone daring to criticize it. Any fool can see that it is not a success. Premiums continue to rise. Millions lost their individual coverage in the last eighteen months, which makes the supposed 7 million enrolled look like a wash. Think of the 7 million number. It is anywhere from 25 to 43 million short of the uninsured.

It is thousands of pages of red tape backed up by years of lying. More Obama-Sebelius statements were thrown into the lie column when the post-Obamacare premium numbers showed an increase in annual premiums by $2500 not a decrease (check Politifact's twisting of a truth meter score). Politifact can deny it, but the increases since Obamacare went into effect are partially driven by Obamacare due to simple changes in the law like removing pre-existing conditions exclusions. The insurers also padded premium levels to set up reserves for the near future hit of the Obamacare landscape. Part of the Obama administration's rosy GDP projections is due to expectations the underclass will now spend more on health care because they are covered now.

Not to defend the Obamacare legislation, but America does need to face some facts with regards to health care and insurance costs. We get our insurance primarily through our employers. Therefore, we are subject to group rates derived from the demographic profiles of our workforce. The average American is roughly 7 years older than he/she/zhe was in the 1970s. Older people create more health care needs. People are working longer, as Zero Hedge often points out that employment for those over 55 has been strong through this depression. Boomers have to work since they did not save anything for retirement. Never thought they would get old. The media discusses the unemployment problem of the under 30 crowd. In this horrible recession, we have employers with older employees and not a lot of new blood into their firms. This makes the average age of a corporation older, which means insurance based on actuarial tables where age and gender are the prime movers will cost more because the risk pool is older and more likely to use health services. I will not discuss it, but we have not slowed down on getting fatter, which creates demand for health care (more properly labeled sick care). America cannot look in the mirror and see that it is the fat, middle aged Prom Queen going to her 25th Year Class Reunion, not perky 18 year old going to Prom Night.

Yglesias and Klein do not care if insurance costs have risen significantly since the law went into effect hurting employers from hiring new employees. If the per employee cost jumps by $3,000 ('09-'13 rise), that is roughly 10% of the average salary of an American worker. That hurts producer costs in the middle of a recession. They do not care. The Obama administration is not about an economic recovery. Obamacare is not about covering people. A down economy makes more people dependent on the government, which is their goal. Obamacare is about power and destroying the private system from the progressive perspective. From here on out after the Supreme Court allowed Obamacare to continue, every budget debate will have an Obamacare element. How much? Who? What programs? If you threaten to cut it or take anything away, CBS, ABC and NBC will all have special segments in the news about poor little angels who will be crushed by the cutbacks. If Obamacare destroys the current system, the progressives get to watch the media say the only way to fix the plan is a nationalized system. The health insurer perspective is trying to install a nationalized system administered by private health insurers so they can collect profits. That is the battle, and right now, it looks like the progressives are winning.

Europe is already making changes to their social welfare system, with some nations even looking at privatizing portions of the health care system. Progressives do not care. They just want socialized medicine so they can be art history majors and not have their parents get mad at them, "Ginger, at least Emma will have insurance even if she paints using vaginal fluids, phew". Yes, the US system is not perfect and places 37th on international rankings of health care systems, but it is 37th because we score poorly on metrics that involve socialized system characteristics. We score poorly compared to OECD nations on infant mortality because we have a 40 million person African nation and 50 million person Mexican nation within our borders. Japan and France do not have those populations, but for us, they become problems which progressives can fix with programs like Obamacare and eventually, Hillarycare (Clintoncare sounds better). Obamacare is a progressive trick applied to a nation that bears little resemblance to the America that existed when nationalized systems were dreamed up or educated consumers were required. Obamacare did win. No matter how poorly Obamcare does, it is like an NFL lineman taking a 15 yard penalty for roughing the passer on a play where they knock the other team's quarterback out of the game. It is disgusting. It is a shame, but the later victory is all but certain.

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Mechanics of the Race Hustle Game

Want to run down the race rabbit hole? Read Doug Glanville's essay on when he was racially profiled in his driveway. Kafka would be proud of the ludicrous response to a simple police officer's question by Glanville's social circle and the community. Glanville steps outside to shovel his driveway and a cop asks him if he is shoveling to make some money, unaware Glanville lives there. The progressive horror follows. Let us review the theater of the absurd.

Glanville was not affected by this cop questioning him, maybe a bit let down, but he went on with his life. The offense meter bumped up when others found out. Forget any anguish if say a black guy in the neighborhood was going around breaking and entering but hey, the cop "noticed" something was odd. He is at fault for recognizing patterns. Glanville's Ivy educated lawyer wife shot an email to the state senator that lives near them (the mayor and governor both live nearby too).
As soon as I told my wife what had happened, she sent the senator a furious email under the subject line “Shoveling While Black”:
Doug just got detained by West Hartford Police in front of our house while shoveling our driveway, questioning him about asking to be paid for shoveling. The officer left when Doug told him that it was his house. There were several other people on our street out in front of their houses shoveling snow at the same time. None of them were stopped for questioning. Just wanted to vent to someone whom we know cares and would be equally outraged.
Before I could even digest what happened, my wife's email had set a machine in motion. A diverse swatch of Hartford influentials banded together to assess the situation, including the chief of police, local attorneys, and security officers from the neighborhood civic association. Within a couple of hours, I had outlined my version of events to the Hartford police department’s internal affairs department. Most told me that I just had to decide how far I wanted to take my complaint.
Our next door neighbor (the one with the snowblower) helped my wife and me sort out the facts and figure out our options. He has a legal resume that covers a wide range of jurisprudence, from parking authorities to boards of African American–centric charter schools. He was in our living room within an hour.
The first step was to articulate exactly what the West Hartford officer had done. He'd been outside his jurisdiction—the representative from internal affairs had confirmed this. That meant a police officer from another town had come to my house, approached me while I was shoveling my own driveway, and—without any introduction—asked me a very presumptuous question. 
All of this had put me in an extremely vulnerable situation. In one moment, I went from being an ordinary father and husband, carrying out a simple household chore, to a suspect offering a defense. The inquiry had forced me to check my tone, to avoid sounding smug even when I was stating the obvious: that I was shoveling the driveway because the house belonged to me.
The cop asked a presumptuous question! How dare he! Two weeks ago a cop asked me who I was as I walked out my garage with a phone in my hand. Should I have called the ACLU? This all happened before the crack black legal team of offended race hustlers could learn the possible motivations of the cop. He was just an evil cop. What might the officer's motivations be?
I soon learned that West Hartford had an ordinance that prohibits door-to-door solicitation. A man whom I allegedly resembled had broken this ordinance. Someone in West Hartford had called the police, and a young officer, believing he was doing his duty, had pursued the complaint to my street. Our block would have been the first stop for the wayward shoveler if he had entered Hartford. 
Right away, I noted that the whole thing had been a lot of effort over shoveling. The West Hartford ordinance allowed its residents to call in violations at their own discretion—in effect, letting them decide who belonged in the neighborhood and who did not. That was a problem in itself, but it also put the police in a challenging position. They had to find a way to enforce the problem in a racially neutral way, even if they were receiving complaints only on a small subsection of violators. In my case, the officer had not only spoken to me without respect but had crossed over into a city where West Hartford’s ordinance didn’t even apply. 

Right away Doug? You noticed right away? How about when your wife was cranking out her email? There is no way she did not talk to herself and occasionally yell out to you about how fired up she was. She emailed a state senator about a cop asking a man why he was shoveling when a call had come in. Glanville's second paragraph reveals the problems of a multicultural society run by progressives in a democracy. Everything must be done in a racially neutral way in the progressive mind no matter how concentrated complaints are. Sounds like disparate impact applied to policing. This will only get worse, and the authorities in Connecticut reveal to Glanville how.
The mayor of West Hartford assured me that he championed efforts to diversify his town, and the chief of police told me he is active in Connecticut’s statewide Racial and Ethnic Disparity Commission in the Criminal Justice System.
Proving their progressive merit badges were earned, the mayor and chief of police both have spent hours biting their lips and shaking their heads as ethnics tell horrible tales of locked car doors and scowls in elevators. Connecticut: bastion of horrible racism. If you look at the NY Times census maps, West Hartford is where whites ran to in order to escape the gang problems of Hartford and East Hartford. United Technologies had a lot of employees who lived there. If you look at the race distribution map for Connecticut, it does have a nice financially arranged apartheid set up for progressives to safely live in small towns and suburbs while all the blacks live in several cities. It is okay when progressives do it with money, not when Afrikaners or Southerners do it with laws.

This is pretty pathetic for a racial harassment event. It still becomes an Atlantic article for SWPLs and older liberals to shake their head at or even cry while reading. Sniff sniff, why did we ride those buses decades ago? This is all an absurd waste of time, money and effort that reveals more about the demented situation we have in the American legal system whenever race is involved. Think of what these experts Glanville had at his disposal are experts in: race harassment, what is racist, what tripped the fuzzy grey line, et cetera et cetera. This is how the race hustlers work. Did you hear Glanville got shook down by a cop in his driveway? Oh Lord, it's Alabama 1954, never mind that Glanville could buy a home in the mayor and governor's neighborhood. What Glanville and company do not see, what they can never comprehend, is that when a minor question by a concerned cop elicits such a response by dozens of people, people with real authority, the power is in the hands of people like Glanville, not the evil, white cop.

Once in Place, a Democracy's Programs Only Grow

This is a small, quaint anti-FDR advertisement from 1936. The ad is about Social Security. It was a simple 1% deduction then, with the prospects of going "as high as 4%". The money was never guaranteed to get back to you as Congress may appropriate it for other uses. There was no guarantee. No lockbox to borrow from Al Gore. Whether you believe the government or you believe outside observers, Social Security will go broke within your lifetime. Even before it goes broke, it will hit triggers due to deficits that will cut benefits instantaneously. You will not get paid what you expected. These warnings in 1936 were not dire enough. The warnings were written by men who did not understand the nature of their enemy or of the game they played.

If only it went as high as 4%!
Did this work in 1936? No. FDR was reelected with a higher % of popular vote (60%) and picked up a few extra states, losing only Maine and Vermont. The right tried to warn people, but the people made their choice. Buying votes with farm reform, works projects and "doing something" all worked. Amity Shlaes book "The Forgotten Man" describes how FDR's administration is the start of mobilizing and paying off constituencies as well as the idea that the government is responsible for a healthy economy. Hoover bought into that second part as well, and some of the back and forth as the administrations transitioned reveal just how despicable FDR and his cronies were. They wanted things as awful as possible for their first 100 days of legislative activity to fix the problem in their preferred manner to secure future power.

We are still playing by this gameplan. All programs have a constituency whether low end section 8 leeches or GE's tax allowances and government help for "green" engine contracts when GE has never physically made the energy saving engine. The right's failure to realize the left sees politics as life and more power as the only goal, while they view politics as part of life. They could not dream of scaring voters enough about Social Security or see how FDR's gang had transformed the idea of voting. The progressives of FDR's era were the American children who put into play what Jacques Barzun called the great switch. Liberals using the means of the state for power, control and change rather than liberals wishing for more freedom from government control. The above 1936 advertisement did not go far enough. If honest, it would have stated how once you let the government take a hold of you for 1%, you are a dependent upon them. Once the government makes a move for 1%, 4% is not far, and incrementally they keep grabbing 1% more. Barzun and the old Republicans of the 1930s all miss that this is only possible when operating in a democracy.

Sounds about right