Thursday, February 28, 2013

We Bail JPMorgan Out, They Accrue Risk

What's JPMorgan and those Too Big To Fail/Jail banks doing with all of that money the government and FED has shoved at them? Finding entrepreneurs and new business ventures? Nah. They are just acquiring assets and getting bigger and bigger. Forget the CDS 'whale' trading. JPMorgan recently agreed to purchase MetLife's $70 billion mortgage and servicing portfolio. This will not spur the economy. This is just a preferred, super-sized bank using its top capital standing to acquire another asset block. The behemoth banks get to help the consumer by refinancing those mortgages on Met's block (in a weird twist, Met didn't refinance loans), but we know that with ZIRP in action, JPMorgan refinances that block at a sticky mortgage number and still collect their vig. The big get bigger, and this only makes JPMorgan a riskier ward of the state and more sensitive to interest rate changes. A treasury rate dislocation is going to hit them even harder now. Wait, they can just write CDS on themselves and count the rise in that as revenue/profits like Citigroup, stupid me to think JPMorgan is not special.

Lesson from JPMorgan: We need to break up the big banks.

Why did Met sell the block? Official word is they wanted to sell it and remove some features that made them a bank holding company, subject to different rules. It is more the case of a firm stepping away from its core competencies and failing. Met was not happy just purchasing mortgage backed securities for their asset portfolio and collecting the 5-8% that they offered. Met wanted to cut out the middleman and make the loans themselves, playing the arbitrage game that Met could spend less on making the loans than the commission fees they paid the MBS salesmen and have greater underwriting control over the loans. Met's not alone. The Hartford did this as well with commercial loans, and has taken a bath. Now that times are tough, Met does not have the decades of expertise to handle the downturn. How bad did Met screw up? They also sold their reverse mortgage portfolio. With how rigged those were against the elderly consumers, I can't believe a company could screw those up. Met knew nothing about mortgage lending and servicing and really only got going in originating after the housing slump began. This move cost over 4000 good paying jobs. Last to the party doesn't sniff champagne, only vomit.

Lesson from Met: do not move away from core competencies. If you're the biggest life insurer in America, stick to that. Snoopy abides.

Anti-Male Propaganda​: Boomer Dating + Shaming

Boomers can never just walk the beaten path. Everything they touch and do must be different from their parents' generation. Marriage, college, work, parenting, everything has been altered when Boomers enter the realm. Eventually, they'll try this with beating the Grim Reaper. They will fail. Boomers made a mockery of the institution of marriage, and as they reach late middle age and elderly status*, they are dating differently. Our cultural taste makers have noticed a pattern to the dating and are offering advice and shaming men. Taken in combination with all the lonely, greying feminist articles of the last few years, this little blurb, "Why Boomer Women are Perfect for Boomer Men", is a nice propaganda article trying to guide Boomer men towards Boomer women and shame them from chasing younger women (thanks grerp). This is anti-male freedom propaganda that would never be levelled at a mirror image of Boomer men: women under 32.
This article uses a Boomer male to shame men out of chasing hot sex with younger ladies because, in his words, "Great sex stems from the heart, not the head". This writer harps on the idea of an emotional and mental connection. There is much to be gained from that, but what if some Boomer men don't give a shit about that? These guys might just want to pop a blue pill and have a fun, sex filled Friday night. What if some have been burned by divorce and only want a quick hit? Men have routinely been considered the gender afraid to commit, so they may not value a long term relationship at all after their family man years are done. What if they are saying to women, "we don't need your mental baggage, just put out?" They can get away with it because the numbers game is in their favor now (see Dalrock graphs), and sex outside of marriage is the norm. They don't need to commit to get what they want, and they now have the male to female ratio in their favor. These middle aged (or elderly) men also have a generation of Gen-X women who possibly are children of divorce or have daddy issues and might be up for casual relationships with older men to partner with. These women are also modern gals who don't mind being used for sex because they can rationalize it as it's what they want. The author also mentions that Boomer women state these men don't meet their basic needs, which he refutes, but he never lists what the women say are basic needs. Anyone want to wager that list is reasonable for men over 50? Anyone want to guess if we'll see this same column for cute, single women under 32? No takers, I thought so.
Is it a fair comparison? These Boomer men are described by the author as:
trying, but mostly failing, to extend their casual sex years beyond their physical capabilities....aren't interested in relationships, but rather that there are so many more choices for men than women, particularly online, that a man can easily become like a kid in a candy store with a bag of dimes, wanting to sample every sweet
There are more options, they are afraid to commit, they are reaching for alphas, disdaining betas, trying to extend their casual sex years, and are not pairing up with the 'smart choices' that are better fits for them. Did I describe a Boomer man or cute single Millennial? Due to the quirk of desirable traits and the pure single male to female ratio, Boomer men are just the mirror image of women under 32 (32 is when the white male/female ratio tips in men's favor). This article is shaming men about their dating choices, but they are exhibiting the exact same behavior of cute, single Millennial gals. It is worse for women due to pair bonding effects, single motherhood (Boomers aren't banging fertile partners) and the reproductive window issue, yet Huffpo is shooting out an article shaming a group sitting in the catbird seat from exercising their sexual freedom. Look at the share box: this article has hundreds of likes, digs, etc. and a huge platform to broadcast the message. Imagine the power to influence the lib crowd, the intended target, if Huffpo said to women under 32, "Get off the cock carousel and marry a good guy", Jezebel and the flabby feminists would be shouting slut shaming.
I'll admit, I do think Boomers are perfect for each other because I despise many of their behaviors. That is not the point though. This is male slut shaming and an attempt to restrict the sexual freedom of adult men. This is, "Boys, stop banging who you want to bang and shack up with that Boomer gal who was a crow all her life and is lonely now". It is their choice. They will live with the consequences. It is far less damaging to society as a whole if a sliver of Boomer men are trying to chase whom they desire, alpha women, compared to Millennial women in their prime fertility years doing the exact same thing. Sexual freedom is sexual freedom, and should be allowed for both genders in modern America, right? Isn't that what feminists fought for? Live with the consequences. In thirty years, I'll probably be reading articles aimed at me, Millennial male, to take on some lonely, cast off carousel rider as a second wife. I only ask for tattoo removal first. I'd expect this article from a woman, but Huffpo, like many modern media outlets, chose to use a Boomer male to add authenticity to their article. They selected one who may as well be a traitor. Here's his book, that can be summed up as "Men, Stop Sucking". The Turks created and used janissaries. The progressive cathedral is no different of a ruling order.
* I split life into 20 year periods: youth 0-20, young adult hood 20-40, middle age, 40-60, elderly 60+. Shut up Boomers, if you need hip replacements at higher rates and your risk for cancer and heart attack slopes up dramatically, you are elderly.

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

China - Next Global Hyperpower

Well, you can just stop and think of what could happen if anybody with a decent system of government got control of that mainland. Good God... There'd be no power in the world that could even—I mean, you put 800 million Chinese to work under a decent system... and they will be the leaders of the world. - President Richard Nixon

China. The magical land that if you dig straight down from America you get to, and they are just like us. The missionaries kept singing their praises of being hard working and open to Christianity. Then we betrayed a friend, and everyone was asking, "Who lost China?". That question scared politicians on the left for decades, and was part of the McCarthy-Nixon line of attack on the commie friendly left. That slick SOB Nixon and Kissinger "opened" China, and they have been modernizing ever since. Bush 41 and Clinton had mealy mouthed responses to China's crack down in Tienanmen and steady human rights abuses all for that ever increasing need for more cheap labor. China learned a lesson with the Asian currency crisis in the late '90s, and their mercantilist game of reserve accumulation influenced all of Asia. The 2008 Olympics was the coming out party for China, and a growing uneasiness started in the USA. Americans have felt the national decline for a while just as China has been rising. Sure, Japan was an economic challenger and the Soviets had a nice run, but there is something deeper to this China game. Americans can feel it more and closer than our blinders wearing media. China will be the world's next hyperpower.

China set out on a road of industrial modernization. They also set up some social changes around the same time with their One Child Policy. While the West pushed the free trade meme and turned a blind eye to underclass dysfunction, the Chinese went in the opposite direction with mercantilist policies and limiting children from the underclass. They mismanaged their currency once before which caused massive food inflation, coincidentally right before the Tienanmen Square protests. The Chinese have had steady growth for decades now. They print money like mad in their dollar recycling scheme to keep their currency low to steadily drain jobs from the West. China's tech and manufacturing is occasionally top notch and dirt cheap. Did Microsoft sell Windows in China at $3/piece to combat piratism or because the Chinese forced them to do so to enter the Chinese market? Some Chinese manufacturing is completely below American standards and studies show their operational research and organization means it takes 18 Chinese firms to do what 3 US firms can do, yet consultants whisper in corporate ears to move jobs there (comical blog that often links odd Chinese stories). On the innovation side, Chinese patent numbers have been rising. The current focus in China is for gold, natural resources from 3rd world countries (Africa + "String of Pearls"), and creating bilateral trade and currency agreements to avoid the dollar. At the current rate of domestic gold production and importing, China will pass America's reported gold reserves in 2018. China has been making their move slowly, and while they too have income inequality issues that make liberals fret, they have lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty. Even if it is a ponzi economy on the edge, isn't that Europe and America as well? Would you rather be multikulti Europe or racially tense America as the economic order goes through a giant dislocation and reorganization or 92% Han China?

As noted above, they have tackled social problems. As Chuck has written, it's eugenics on a massive scale and alien to the American high road taking, status whoring way of life. China's mandarins are different from America's mandarin in that they are crony capitalist bastards, but China comes first. This might be a genetic thing with the English outbreeding and altruism at work. It might be the difference in the Oriental vs. Occidental mind. Does China have SAPLs? If so, they don't care about random minorities getting whacked. Corruption is everywhere in China, but looking around, there is plenty in America. China has a unique set up where they have the central authorities delegate responsibility and authority to local, provincial leaders. If someone runs a ponzi scheme and screws over the locals, they appeal to the central authority, and then someone gets jailed or capped. A corrupt official jumps on a plane with millions? Well, that plane will redirect and land back in China to take off again with one less passenger. They allow tons of freedom, but not the right to vote and not freedom of religion. The Chinese leadership realizes that the Chinese don't care about political rights (voting) if they are safe, feel treated OK by the law, and have a steady supply of food and consumer gadgets. Freedom of religion? It's the East. Entirely different religious tradition than you, SWPL, with your fake claims to support religion, you wouldn't understand. This is NOT an endorsement but imagine the secondary and tertiary effects on America's school system, obesity problem, welfare state, political system, oil usage, et cetera with a one child policy the last 30 years.

There are cracks in the mirror. The growth seems a bit odd with the ghost cities for millions that no one occupies. GDP doesn't count final sales, only if something gets made. I don't trust their stats, but I don't trust ours either. The Chinese suffer from a Coastal-Inland bifurcation of economic development. Their environment has take a huge toll for their economic growth. The military is a bit behind us, but up until the late '90s, the military was busy making money in economic ventures instead of working on assets and technology. There is that odd '90s period where they seemed to grab secrets from the USA as Chinese nationalists made donations to the Clinton re-election campaign (book here). Their military has a defensive outlook compared to America's attack posture, but they've made some changes with recent moves. Drones, stealth frigates and even an aircraft carrier aren't really defensive pieces. Their puppet pieces in the Middle East and North Africa are losing battles to American puppets, so their soft power projection might be far weaker than we envision. Crony corruption and negative selection affect the political system, but from an objective standpoint, how much worse is it compared to other big countries? A defense of China would be that when corruption gets bad enough, people get iced. They also have a huge local loan loss pool out there, so the trillion or so in TSYs might be needed to pay off those loans. Years ago, I considered their TSY hoard as a non-military weapon of mass destruction against the US. Over time, I have waffled as it feels like they have performed vendor financing for the US economy, and that never goes well for the lender/producer. People say they can't sell their TSY hoard or else the value of them would go dow, but who would ever bet against JPMorgan selling them derivative protection on TSYs as the Chinese simultaneously sell the TSYs with someone else? That sounds like a Chinese thing to do.

Others have noted these same problems, but like me, see them as either not as bad as a jealous western media sees them or as hard to overcome. There is another counter to the criticism that is like a mini-lab for what China could develop into with more time: Taiwan. Taiwan is a model as it's roughly the same people (+90% Han), only separated by a recent civil war. How have the Han of Taiwan done since being banished to a small island off the coast of China? Taiwan does extremely well. As a satellite of the American empire, it has received massive subsidies and aid, but so has China. I've heard arguments that we shouldn't fear Mainland China taking over Taiwan, but Taiwan being allowed to run Mainland China.

That's the heart of the matter. We expect them to come through and rise up to the top. Americans consider them intelligent and crafty. Caterpillar just lost $500 mil in assets in China last year. They might be so crafty that they reject the hyperpower title, and as a superpower act as a pole in a multipolar world with equal footing or a slight advantage compared to America. It might be the Sun Tzu approach to war vs. our European inherited Clausewitz approach that has been muddied by hearts + minds kumbaya antics. As I like to say with warfare and the Occidental hang ups, had Muslim terrorists crashed planes into Shanghai skyscrapers, the Chinese Army would have laid waste to everything from China's western border to Israel, stopped and made some business deals with the Jews there, and then gone home. Screw world opinion. That is also why Al Qaeda doesn't step to them. I doubt they'll leave us alone after decades of meddling there. Who is going to grow their food if they destroy their farmland? America will. They do have major roadblocks, but for every roadblock, they have a positive of equal size. When a writer mentions all of the above for positives and negatives, one thing they lean on is the demographic problem. Usually, pundits state the problem and don't finish the thought through the whole way. If China has spent over thirty years amassing wealth, building a middle class, trying to create a domestic consumer economy and denying their citizens the right to have more than one kid, how huge of a baby boom (and consumer economic boost) will they experience when the Chinese get the greenlight from the mandarins to have more kids? When they do flip that switch, it will be when China is ready. By then, they will be firmly entrenched in their new role with their hand on the steering wheel, if not for the world, for their preferred sphere of influence.

"...and they will be the leaders of the world." - Nixon

Tuesday, February 26, 2013


With the news of Lawrence Auster's deteriorating health, well wishes, emails and even blog posts have gone up about Mr. Auster. Let me add one more. Back in my college days, David Horowitz came to visit my university for a chat. Horowitz has an interesting tale of being raised by commie parents, working extensively with the left, and then breaking from the left after he had seen the beast behind the mask. Horowitz answered positive and negative questions, pushing back on some white liberals and pointing out some ludicrous accusations from the few blacks present. Besides his fears of the growing imperial presidency, he dropped the name "Lawrence Auster" when a Jewish girl asked him if Horowitz felt like a traitor to his religion. Horowitz joked that he wasn't alone in moving left to right, and that Lawrence Auster had even gone one step further by converting to Christianity. That is how I discovered Lawrence Auster's writing. I'm forever glad I did.

Reading Auster's writing at first, my thought was "Wow, he's different". It wasn't neocon BS. It was writing with eyes open to the reality of the society we lived in after the OJ trial verdict revealed that stew that people had conditioned themselves to forget that was bubbling underneath a poorly sized lid. I liked laughing at the jokes in Jonah Goldberg's columns and enjoyed his light approach, but Auster was serious, sharp and knee deep in our decline. This was also the period where I started reading Houellebecq. Auster's view of the post-1968 changes in American society creating an upheaval, that from a long term view, is still fresh and messing with long standing traditions that built the world's greatest civilization was a breath of clean air. As recently as 30 years ago, the things people now take for granted, accept and consider normal would have been considered an infamnia. Currently in 2013, we see writers on both the left and right discussing societal decline, but in 1999, the bridge to the 21st century, millennium good vibes were everywhere in Western media. I only exchanged a couple emails with him and nothing was earth shattering. I disagree with him on some things, but his writing made me think differently about many topics. His analysis of our world usually taught me something. Other times, it made me not feel alone.

Auster's sharp eye is used for the serious and the amusing. His approach to pop culture pieces is even entertaining. A recent one made me chuckle but struck at the core of an issue that I had never considered. Auster did a post on Kim Kardashian and her "astounding", "amazing", and near perfect hourglass figure. I laughed at the comedy of Mr. Auster finding and analyzing her, as well as tipping his hand on the type of female figure he liked. Within that post, he conveyed the idea that we live in an age where everyone thinks that they can create their persona, life, and image by whatever means necessary for whatever ends they wish. To piggyback on that thought, in our age of social media and technology, we have our material self and our digital self. Our digital self is not just who we are on different platforms but the controlled bits of information that we allow others to see. Our online self can be as fake as Cher's plastic shell of a body. We craft a persona to display to the outside world. This blog is no different.

I'll miss Lawrence Auster's writing. Will I try to learn from his work? Yes. Will I tell more people about the VFR Archives? Definitely. Will they wonder why he never installed a comments section? Absolutely. As more eyes become open to the sickness around them, it would be wise to have them read the words of a brilliant writer for what is right. If they read through the years and get towards the end, they'll learn something else. Recently, Auster has also revealed how to face death with grace. Reading his posts as he has handled his cancer has also been a nice display of how a person can face their mortality with dignity. While his posts are controlled, constructed expressions and not off the cuff conversations, it is comforting to see that people still can approach death in the opposite manner of our scared of aging and scared of death society.

Monday, February 25, 2013

Illegitimacy Number Retouched

Illegitimacy is one of the plagues that contribute to our civilization's decline. Politicians skirt the issue and others make lame excuses for it. It is a rising problem, and recent trends have become worse. Our elite have begun to take note of it with even the NY Times getting in on the action. Never tsk tsking the women, but blaming the men and mentioning marriage as a new class divide. Remember, we cannot restrain women's sexuality in any manner or ask them to be accountable at all. Big daddy government will be there to back her up with taxpayer money. A recent article in a Catholic newsletter got me thinking. Is abortion masking the numbers?

Abortion isn't a huge issue in white birth numbers, it is marginal for Hispanics and Asians, but the black abortion rate far outstrips their percentage of the population (40% vs. 12.5%) and the rate is far higher than white abortions. We should not be surprised that this all goes back to higher rates of unintended pregnancies. There is a statistic that 83% of all abortions are to single women. Some websites claim 40% of black pregnancies end in abortion, while others say 48%. Now if I do some rough, simple assumption based math and split the difference, that means 83% of the black abortions are to single ladies while 72% of live births are to single moms. Adding them up, I get an illegitimacy pregnancy rate of 77%. If the black abortion rate is 48% of all pregnancies, then we are approaching 80% for the number of black pregnancies are illegitimate. I don't know how a culture survives that.

Inversion of the Mourning Process

There's the weeping "leave me alone" type. The hysteric. The rock solid stoic. The evasive one. There's the jokester masking pain. There's the solemn one. Just about every calling hours and funeral sequence has those characters. Burial rites have been critical moments throughout history. Burial locations were often the original sacred groves or spots for early human societies. Each society handled death differently, but mourning after the death for an extended period of time was a common practice even in the modernized West during Industrialization. Post-WW2 American society had grown men wearing black armbands for recently departed family members. Anyone do that anymore? Quick check, I'd say no. Another quick check, I'd say mourning or expressing grief in public would be minimal today. What changed? With current technology, current victim culture primacy and the way people die today, mourning has changed its substance and become focused on "what were your actions in the spiral down of their death".
Sudden deaths do occur. I see statistics on causes of death every three months, so I know that cancer and heart disease related deaths make up a large chunk of deaths for all people. I'm not talking about younger deaths here, but deaths of our elderly grandparents. How many people watch a 75 or 80 year old grandparent die who at 55-65 would have died if not for the miracle of modern medicine and science? I've seen three in my family and many others through friends and extended family. Do your families practice old school mourning in black beyond the funeral? Do they take formal pictures? It's informal now and you might get shout outs on their birthdays as a reminder. There is no nitpicking on the level of mourning. I had a dumbass cousin wear all white to a funeral because it was part of her author/product profile. She had been doing a year in white (eye roll + dismissive wanking motion). That grandparent had raised her when her mom abandoned her. Special connection. Wore white for her fucking book when everyone wore black. No one mentioned it. Hell few people discussed the death and funeral a week or two later.
But they kept score of who visited my gramma in the hospital. They had an unofficial statistical analysis of who visited, who stayed by her side, how often people visited, phone calls per day, tears shed per bedside visit, and an array of score keeping that would have made Bill James blush. The core of this score-keeping was what did you do in the long spiral down and how did you carry that burden? Many families will do this, and mine is no different. People all stake their claim as to who did what for how long and how much. Mourning in the past was a sign of respect and love for the loss of the individual and proper recognition of their life. This new styled pre-death burden bearing is victim status claiming. "See, I really cared about them. I showed up after work every day for the last 6 weeks! Look at how deeply I feel." One of the lamest arguments or claims I have ever heard was from someone who had to possibly make the decision on pulling the plug. Fortunately, their elderly parent died on her own, but after the funeral, I must have heard "Look, I was going to have to make a decision", half a dozen times. This wasn't about you and your decision responsibilities. It was about the end of her life. It was the last page of the disease filled, last chapter to a long life full of joys and sorrows. These people disregard anything that happened in their past that was awful or completely self-centered; what happened those last six weeks is what matters. I check back six weeks later, and they've usually gone right back to their normal lives. Little comment on their lost love one. It's not all of them, but a large bloc.
This is weird and seems to be an inversion of the tradition of mourning. Maybe it's because mourning is for people to process a death and to reflect on the individual who has gone, while the 'look how I endured' jockeying shifts the focus back to ourselves. We can't just make it about that soul that left our earthly plane. Nope, got to bring it back to how it hurt you, how you suffered, how you felt that pain of loss. This entire switch in mourning going from post-death and focused on the dearly departed to post-death haggling over pre-death actions of others is from our modern medical system. Keeping someone alive on ventilators or struggling through daily pain for just a few more months or a year sets up the game for us to play 'look how I endured'. It's not about an elderly person dying with dignity or on their terms; it's about the family doing enough. We're selfish bastards, and we have the technology and time to play out our drama instead of the finality of a quick death to review a dead person's legacy. While some people use that scientific and pharmaceutical delay of death as a time to come to terms with losing a loved one, many others just use it as another "I'm a victim. Look at me" moment. It's our society. Death is a part of it. We can leave our mark on it as it leaves its mark on us.

Saturday, February 23, 2013

Quick Book Review; "Eagle Against the Sun" - Ronald Spector

Noted to my in prior post, typical Americans learn about the Pacific War theater in WW2 as Pearl Harbor-Midway-Hiroshima. American students today might only learn, "Evil Hiroshima nuclear bomb droppings that you should feel guilty about forever". I don't know, but it sounds plausible in today's educational environment. Feeling a bit ignorant about the details of the Pacific theater, I sought a great source. A friend recommended "Eagle Against the Sun", and it delivers the goods. Read this book for a feel of the vast scope and the amazing accomplishment that the US pulled off in WW2.

The book feels a bit like a series of articles, but it is perfectly fine in my book considering the oddity of the Pacific theater. I've blogged about this before, but Hitler's stupid error in declaring war on America after Pearl Harbor allowed FDR to declare war on Germany and divide our attention and resources. Without that, America had no direct reason to fight Germany. We only had to deal with Japan. Despite Japan attacking America directly, the Pacific theater did not get the immediate focus it deserved as FDR agreed to "Germany first, Japan second". Let's do a slow sarcastic clap for FDR. Our allies were of minimal use as the Chinese Commies didn't fight squat, the Chinese Nationalists were of limited help, the British fortifications were overrun by the Japanese and India was always threatening to rebel during the war, the French were screw ups in Indochina, the Dutch had limited to hold onto, and worst of all, the European colonial powers had been slightly dickish after WW1 to their colonies so the Japanese promise of self-determination and a greater Asian Sphere of Co-Prosperity was enticing to natives. America was fighting a tough battle to slow the Japanese down so that they could still retain connection with Australia and New Zealand and control the Pacific. We never expected to have the Pacific actually won before four years of fighting was through. We had their codes broken, which this book discusses and had some luck on our side at Midway. We also had frustratingly great equipment that would have one thing off that we did not correct until many lives were lost. An example would be that America had great submarines but bad torpedoes. If MacArthur was such a great asset (he was) and fighting such a critical path, why did FDR and the war department limit the funds and men available to him? This is a very quick read. You will learn some things and enjoy it.

Quick Book Review: "When Titans Clashed" by Glantz + House

As a typical American, my World War Two education was mostly the European theater where American involvement happened, and in the Pacific, Pearl Harbor to Midway to Hiroshima. As I trekked through college, it became pretty clear that the Russo-German battle of WW2 was an epic fight that my teachers and their limited time with us could cover. With the fall of communism in Russia, many of the old archives were opened to historians. Glantz and House take full advantage of them to explain the Nazi-Soviet battle in "When Titans Clashed". There is a nice build up of how the two sides developed their armies in the '30s, the purges, the preliminary fights each side had with others, and then the main course: Operation Barbarossa. This is a quick read and a great read. The eastern front was the showdown between the two giant assholes Hitler and Stalin. Hitler trusted his generals less and less as time went on and took over direct control of operations more and more. Stalin, humbled a bit by his failings in the first weeks, delegated more and more to his generals. He might have realized with all of their asses on the line that he was just a bureaucrat.

The book cites that horrible start to Operation Barbarossa where the Nazis roll over the Soviets despite Soviet spies giving the exact start date to the invasion. No one could get to Stalin. He had a case of the yips and the Nazis kept advancing. When the Soviet leadership went to get Stalin for direction, Stalin thought they were there to arrest and execute him. I've read this in other Stalin books. Why didn't anyone? How could some of these ruthless weasels (Beria being most likely) never ever make a move on him? The guy drank a ton and went to bed late and drunk often after the war. Why didn't anyone smother him with a pillow? Stalin was so odd that he'd sentence trusted friends' wives to die just because he felt like it. Never his own hands, always the machine Gulag system. Mass hypnosis by the adoring crowds in Germany for Hitler is constantly examined in historical works. Why doesn't anyone ever ask why these tough bastards of the Russian mold couldn't lift a finger to challenge Stalin man to man?

Future SWPL Career Reassignments

In a wonderful future where we've slimmed down the leviathan state, destroyed NGOs and skewered non-profits, many SWPLs will be out of work. This will be a problem. It is one thing to have Joe Six Pack or Britney McMastercard lose their job, but it is entirely different for our credentialed vanguard to be out of work. An unemployed or replaced by a robot middle and lower class American can be bought off with trinkets, gadgets and Internet porn, but a SWPL will need self actualization. We might not be able to fire civil service employees, so we might have to think creatively how to reassign them. It goes completely against their stereotype, but SWPLs will make tremendous law enforcement officials.

SWPLs are smarter than the average American (not saying much) so we do not want to waste their intelligence in an world getting dumber by the birth. I know they swallow blank slatism and other lefty fallacies whole that are idiotic, but that is for status whoring. Many SWPL jobs are really the SWPL doing something that a family or social circle would do for a child or troubled individual but no longer happens because people are selfish jackasses or degenerates who accidentally had a child because they couldn't wear or require a man to wear a condom (mentoring, teen leadership development, parenting). We would need to match up SWPL skills. In our reformed future, we would need to provide the utmost security for our citizens as well as work as efficiently as possible to streamline the state's organs so that we can lower the tax burden as much as possible. What are some behavioral or occupational traits of SWPLs?

1. They know how to take orders from spending decades in school.
2. They are good at doing research.
3. They like to help people. They practically get off on bragging about it.
4. They are good at adapting to and using modern technology.
5. They like to travel.
6. They crave job security and will work for the state without feel self loathing or at least masking it by drinking and doing drugs.
7. They love to enforce rules (unwritten) in their group as well as in society at large.
8. They are great at feeling something for someone else like taking offense for entire races or religions not represented at a party.
9. They love to be the efficient one.
10. They love to be individuals in socially acceptable, conformist ways.

In a reformed future or restoration, there will be a massive need in processing the many criminals that will be finally dealt with as true barbarians should be. That will involve a lot of paperwork, multitasking and quick decisions. With their technology skills, they can set up the programs so that the judicial system runs quicker or so that welfare departments know if the welfare recipient passed their drug test and/or had their Norplant or Depo shot at the appropriate time (efficiency, technology). Every missing person case should get a personal SWPL case worker (empathy, travel, help). Every cold case will have at least one if not two SWPLs working on it (research, travel, help). If a SWPL solves a cold case, the SWPL gets a three month sabbatical to write a book about it and an interview on the top rated, privately funded podcast that replaces NPR. Health advocates, anti-smoking officials, diet advisers, policy consultants, and the rest of the SWPL infested occupations that will be defunded will unleash many educated individuals onto society. If we cannot technically lay them off and eliminate them from the government payrolls, we can reassign them for better use and application of their mental abilities.

Friday, February 22, 2013

Marvin Gaye for a Friday - Duet Love Edition

Strictly platonic. That is the description used for the partnership of Marvin Gaye and his duet partner Tammi Terrell. It's cute to read little descriptions of their duet career. She's the extrovert. He's the shy one. He was the young prince of Motown who always wanted to be a crooner, and she was the lesser talent who would never be Diana but could use the help to her career. Their voices sound fantastic together. The semi-scatting that Marvin would do to back Tammi's vocals at times was a cool, organic sounding touch to their songs. They worked their magic together for a few albums. Terrell collpased onstage, was diagnosed with cancer, and eventually died at an incredibly young age. It would be an understatement to say that Marvin Gaye was distraught and depressed by her death. Nothing happened between them.
Did they really get down? Gaye was married to Berry Gordy's sister for over a decade, unable to have children, and even if he wanted to, Berry Gordy's sister looked like Berry Gordy in a wig. That might have messed with him. Supposedly, Gaye had a bad marriage and was a moody man, yet he never stepped out on his bitchy, man faced wife with the hot little thing that sang loving duets with him on long tours? Never? Men and women can't purely be friends. At some point something must have happened. Why else would Marvin break down so hard at her collapse and later death? His first album after Terrell's death in 1970 was the 'socially conscious' and devoid of any love songs album "What's Going On?". Marvin Gaye was a love song making machine, yet he made a concept album with not a single love song right after Terrell's death? Not a single love song until 1973? Come on.
There is another alternative. Maybe Marvin Gaye was Tammi Terrell's beta orbiter. Gaye was a success, but not yet the megastar that he was in the '70s. Gaye was also described as shy and depressed, which does work sometimes, but it seems like he might get outshone at a Motown party if he was an introvert. Looking at their duet career, it makes sense that Gaye may have been the nicer guy that Terrell came to with her problems from the jerks she dated. She gets sick and then dies, and Gaye's love is never ever returned. It's a great unrequited love pair (if it happened). It also makes more sense why Gaye would produce the dark album "What's Going On?" and not release a baby making album or song until 1973. That is roughly three years after Terrell's death. For a guy who cranked out love songs, that's a weird gap. Sure, Gaye and Terrell's relationship was strictly platonic but not by his choice.
Here's my favorite duet of theirs, "Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing, Baby". I love when they sing in unison, "no other sound is quite the same as your name, no touch can do half as much". For the love of God Hollywood, make a miniseries or movie based on Gaye's career.

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Fun with HBD: Few Great Black Dropback QBs, Blame Poor Spatial Visualization Ability

Every year in the draft since the arrival of Michael Vick, there seems to be amazing hype for the next hybrid black QB who will revolutionize the position and sport*. The NFL combine is in town right now, so the city is crawling with despicable sports writers. The unfair thing for black quarterbacks is that the media will pigeonhole them into the running QB mold when they might not be a running QB, but the media has to force it because they are black. The NCAA game has plenty of mobile, black QBs so why doesn't it translate to NFL success. Likewise, the media was pretty silent on Jake Locker and Andrew Luck running at Cam Newton speed; it's a bonus for them, not the main course for their upside. It is part of the PC liberal narrative. This is why mobile, white QBs like Big Ben and Aaron Rodgers are surprising with the mobility despite displaying it their entire college and pro careers. The hybrid QB is shiny and new despite Roger Staubach being Roger the Dodger 40 years ago and Fran Tarkenton being a master of the scramble in the '70s. Despite the rush of more black QBs in the NFL, they still seem to flame out like any other, and sometimes sooner than others. The worry is also why there aren't more. The answer might be genetic. My dad's coached baseball for 30+ years, and whenever he coached black kids, he noted they hit poorly and needed more instruction on it than white kids. His comments on vision and the NFL combine being in town got me thinking. I'm not going down the IQ or Wonderlic road, which has merit but dummies have been some of the greatest QBs like Marino and Favre. Blacks have worse spatial visualization than whites* and in an increasingly pass oriented game, this ability matters more in the NFL than in the college game.

Broken record alert: I wait for QB's to show me their stuff in their third season. We've seen too many flame outs and too many QBs who don't make the leap for me to get super excited about rookies. I've blogged before that the college game is more conducive to the running QB because first, defensive talent is spread thin over 100+ college teams versus 30 pro teams, second, foot speed has a wider gap in the college game between elite and the average (ask Reggie Bush), third, a running QB can outrun defensive ends and linebackers and plow over defensive backs in the college game more than in the pros, and fourth, defenses are not as exotically schemed in the college game so coverage reads are easier. This is why Vince Young could be dangerous in college but fail miserably in the NFL. He ran a 1 read passing attack at the University of Texas, and could truck defensive backs while outrunning DEs and LBs. In the pros, Demarcus Ware and J.J. Watt can run him down, and larger safeties like Laron Landry will pop him hard. Nobody is perfect in predicting which QBs can make the leap from college to the NFL, but reading schemes, recognizing coverages and seeing the coverage shells unfold quickly is absolutely critical when a QB has 3-4 seconds to drop back and make his decision.

What makes Drew Brees, Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers and Peyton Manning so good? They consistently watch game film to pick up patterns in pre-snap formations and watch how coverages might be disguised one way but unfold as another. They recognize the "mike" defender, who is their responsibility, so that if a blitz comes, they know their hot read. They recognize, make adjustments and execute. Besides intelligence, memory and studying, spatial visualization is key when the play unfolds. Completing a pass is like chucking a stone into a hole in a three dimensional map viewed from a nearly horizontal plane. Almost a decade ago, Bill Belicheck stopped the red hot Peyton Manning cold in the playoffs. One of his tricks was setting up the defense pre-snap to trick Manning into believing that he was facing a Cover-2, but in reality, the Patriot defenders would drop back into a Cover-4. Belicheck also had the Pats line up in the same blitz looks as when they faced the Colts earlier that season, but they didn't blitz in the playoffs. This worked on Manning and the Colts to perfection and is a testament to Belicheck's smarts and his team's execution of his game plan. Manning didn't realize the Cover-4 until it was too late, and once the Colts were down, Belicheck could change things up, adjusting to Manning's in-game adjustments. With smart defensive coordinators dreaming up schemes to trick QBs, NFL teams need a QB who can make great pre-snap reads and then in-play, read the defense extremely well in space to know where to make the correct throw, minimizing incompletions and turnovers. As Ron Jaworski says, the QB looks at the coverage, not the pass rush, and throws to the open spot in the defense per the routes run by the WRs.

A quarterback touches the ball every single play. He has to throw it 30 or more times a game. This spatial visualization is needed at a high level and on a consistent basis. To go back to my dad's observation on hitting, look at what a hitter has to do in 500+ plate appearances a season. Consider the hand eye coordination that goes into hitting a baseball, including the spatial visualization to recognize the pitcher's arm slot, spin on the ball and expectations of where a curve, slider, change up moves to by the time it gets to the plate. Hitting a baseball consistently is the hardest thing to do in the big 3 sports. Recent news reports and MLB outreach programs have focused on getting black representation in baseball up above the generational low of 7%. Baseball is very focused on spatial visualization in almost every avenue, Besides cultural reasons for the lack of black baseball players, this key ability is naturally lower in blacks than whites. Playing quarterback in the modern NFL relies on similar visual abilities. This isn't the whole answer, but it's an explanation we should consider as part of the story.

Playing quarterback is mostly throwing ability, but it's not just arm strength. There are many components to great QB play, and as the game becomes more complex, the mental and visual aspect grows in importance. One bit Steve Sailer has mentioned is that as a player ages and their speed slips, a QB who relied on his legs will lose his edge, and they better have their passing game improved by that point. A swift Mike Vick won't last no matter how strong his arm if he can't read defenses. I call that the Steve Young-Donovan McNabb transition. My point here is that blacks test worse than whites in spatial visualization, and this might be why black QBs seem to use their feet to make up for passing deficiencies that they can't overcome at the pro level or after their speed is gone. With an increase in complex coverage schemes and masking of schemes pre-snap, that very ability is critical in those 3 seconds after the snap. This is much more important than in the days of the 1970s when it was downfield bombing into man coverage by Lamonica, Namath, Bradshaw and Staubach (all of whom called all of their team's plays except Staubach). West Coast offenses created by Bill Walsh and the deeper seam passing attacks that Manning spawned and others copied rely heavily on timing, recognizing coverages and throwing to the right space at the right time. How often do you hear announcers say, "That interception is on the wide receiver as he cut to the wrong spot/ran the wrong route". Quarterbacks throw to a spot per the coverage scheme. Before I ramble on too long (too late), if we consider the importance of spatial visualization in sports and how blacks are at a disadvantage genetically, this could explain their lower profile at the quarterback position.

* No studies after '75 were available that mentioned a race difference in this ability. Lots of studies on gender differences. Gender differences in this ability might be acceptably politically incorrect to discuss and study, though this paper cited differences may be biological and genetic because of evolution they cited a study that hinted that stereotype threat may alter women's scores. The blank slatists will never ever stop.

Why Did Spitzer Resign?

If you could draw up a resume for how to be future Democrat president, it would be hard to top Eliot Spitzer. He's a brainiac, he's got the Ivy pedigree, he's from an extremely wealthy family, he's got a tough as nails persona but is also a family man, and after earning some bucks on the private side, he became a Manhattan DA. The blueprint for Democrats is to be a young, hard charging prosecutor so no Republican can say later that you were soft on crime. After he had reached the NY state Attorney General's office, he was so aggressive going after big names that he could count the scalps of giant, corrupt crony groups he had sliced in victory. He looked like a populist fighter for the little people despite being from the 1%. Here's a rarely discussed secret to his political success, Spitzer was great on the phone with donors. Spitzer was elected governor of NY, and if not for a high class hooker scandal that forced him to resign, he would be in the non-Hildawg Clinton driver seat for the Democrat nomination for president in 2016. Because of the 14 year freshness rule, he could run if '16 looked bad in 2020. Looking at the weak Democrat bench (really Hildawg is their only viable hope) and considering that he had the stones to go after big financial interests in NYC, Spitzer would be a shoe in. It just didn't work out for him despite the wonderful career he built because of sex with a pretty hooker. Why did Spitzer have to resign over paying hookers when he was not charged with any crime and other politicians before and after have done far worse? The FIRE economy interests wanted him out of the way, and they knew his kink was more than you could handle.

Spitzer made a name for himself by going after mutual fund companies, a stock exchange, and his crown jewel achievement, destroying the Greenberg family legacy due to bid rigging and contingent commissions. Hank Greenberg was the patriarch of an insurance family that controlled a significant bit of the insurance market with him leading AIG as the heavyweight insurer and his sons running March + McLennan (huge broker) and ACE Limited (gigantic foreign firm). Hank Greenberg reformed AIG's operations and grew them into the force they were prior to the bankruptcy. He also started the belief in underwriting for no underwriting profit, with the only profit a firm would earn would be on investment income (risky but it paid off). He was nicknamed Hank like the famous Jewish baseball player Hank Greenberg who was the "Hammering Hebrew". Hmmm, wonder what is implied? Hank Greenberg was a well connected man, that if his wikipedia entry is to be believed, was offered positions in the CIA and had Henry Kissinger as a friend and partner. A unique thing about NY insurance regulations is that in order to do business there, you must have a headquarters or sizable operation there (add in crazy state licensing regulations). Anyone who wants to play must be there, and this applies to any case you work on that has exposure of over 10-20%. Contingent commissions didn't exactly go away as every insurance carrier created a new commission program that still paid NY brokers extra commissions, but it was now disclosed properly. Insurance has been a huge moneymaker in NY from the days of their merchant port high times to the insurance like CDS of today. To go after Wall St. (smaller targets not TBTF) is a challenge. Adding in the insurance conglomerates, it is astounding that Spitzer forced Greenberg and his son out (he says otherwise). At Greenberg's age, it was the final taste in his mouth from his career. If he took out Greenberg, who in the FIRE economy could stop Spitzer?

Looking at what Spitzer did to insurance, why in hell would any of the FIRE economy pieces want a guy like him in charge of any government system that would have executive power and a bully pulpit? Greenberg says Spitzer thought he was above the law. Above the law for the hookers or his actions going after Greenberg? It's unclear, and even if it's for his hooker stuff, does it matter? Spitzer had more than enough money. He didn't need the FIRE economy payoffs. This isn't Clinton or Obama who want to secure a future with steady millions after they leave office. Spitzer didn't need it. Wall St. couldn't buy him off if they had to. With all of Wall St.'s corruption and problems, far worse than commission bonus plans for insurance, why would they trust him as governor of NY, US attorney general or worse, president of the US? He had executive authority in Wall St.'s situs state starting in Jan of 2007 to January 2011; exactly in the middle of the financial crisis when the masses were begging for anyone to go after Wall St. Where is their leverage on him? He can't be bought off, so they figured out what his kink was and used it against him.

The press coverage of the whole situation was funny since you have articles that discuss his use of hookers as well as disinformation articles trying to pin the attack on Spitzer as a GOP move. If the GOP did pay some guys to research him, why didn't they find the transfers for hookers or use of a well known high end escort service? They couldn't dig that up, yet the author of the linked article tries to loop them in. Where do you think Wall St. and Insurance bastards get their girls for conventions, conferences, client visits, etc.? Ten years ago as a newbie employee, I wrote a nice chunk of business with the New Jersey and NYC offices of my Fortune 500 company and their top brokers who were Mercer, Willis, AON, etc. After year end, I was invited (along with some executives) down for a night at the Meadowlands, daytime golf sessions, a Bruce Springsteen concert and then a nightcap at the "VIP Club". My guys said, "Everything is taken care of, nothing is off limits". While the executives present were high up at my company (one performed a scheduled insider stock sale at $10 mil), I was a noob and an even smaller noob in my industry. What's on the table for the real big boyz? Bill Gross, Russ Winter and others joke about the high end hookers that Wall St. had to use to get rating agencies to slap AAA on subprime securities. Corruption is everywhere because man is a weak willed animal prone to give in to impulse. Greenberg and these high finance guys have the Emperor's Club in their cell phones, and hey, what's a madam going to do with all of her secrets? Money changes hands, and a rising star collapses on itself.

Yes, hookers can be favors, but they also are liabilities. They get you dirty. You become a dirty figure that is compromised. Godfather Two laid out an extreme method of going after a compromised politician. Spitzer paid for Ashley Dupre to sign a confidentiality statement. It might just have been sex, but the press revealed enough for us to know he was considered 'difficult' or harder to handle. Why would we need to know that? Spitzer paid for a confidentiality statement. The implications are that Spitzer was into some weird or wild stuff. Maybe not, but that is what is implied. Did the media mention the confidentiality statement enough? Our FIRE economy barons needed to remove a figure they considered dangerous enough to take them down. This isn't a political plot. Spitzer was on the right side (Dems), and had done the right things. Fellow Democrat Sen. Menendez was just busted for underage hookers in the Dominican Republic, but you don't see him resigning. Greenberg and the Wall St. boyz needed to knock off a potential threat. Spitzer had more money than he needs and had already proven he'd go after whomever to win. Imagine what Americans will be screaming for in 2016 if the economy is still meh or slipped further into depression and Wall St. is still riding high? Spitzer could have run and said "I took it to AIG and mutual funds. I'll take the broom to Wall St.", and it would be credible. He could have even chopped off the crooks at Citigroup, which was on life support in 2009 to send a message to the others, and he'd look even more credible for a later run in office.

Wall St. needs to get to the statute of limitations for their actions in 2008 (and before) as well as keep their politicians in charge and calling the shots on investigations for as long as they get overt and backchannel bailout money and subsidies. Wall St. thinks they can ride this out with enough time. Why would they ever give up the power they have? If they can't buy you off, they will search by any means necessary to find a person's weak spot. People will vote for the hard charging anti-corruption candidate, people will vote for the guy who cheats on his wife, but Americans aren't voting for the guy who cheats on the mother of his children by choking hookers with a butt plug in place. Who cares about competence, little voters need to think they are normal.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Fun With HBD: Racial Differences in Women's Asses

Human biodiversity (HBD) so often is used in blog posts to explain the important or serious stuff, but it has applications in the superficial world, too.  Can't we lighten up occasionally in our societal decline to apply science to something fun. Spend a month watching twitter trends and clicking on the odd race ones and the phrase "white women got no booty" will pop up eventually. My observations of the female form lead me to believe that there are a lot of white women with fantastic asses. Like many things for people who perceive to be at a disadvantage in general, if insecure or threatened black women consider this their edge, they will mention it at every turn. My tumblr feed displays thousands of white women with great asses. Tumblr's slogan should be "the safest way to view porn without leaving a browser history trail". What's the secret? It is possible, but difficult to buy a rear end. Some idiots say a person needs to eat 'good fats', but really it comes down to squats or yoga.... and then genetics. A woman's pelvis tells the story.

If two women of the same height have the same muscle and fat mass on their legs, they should have the same bottom, right? Wrong. How wide is each woman's pelvis? A woman with a narrower pelvis will have a narrower area to place the same muscle and fat as the other woman, which creates the pop that a cute booty has. The mass cannot go left or right, it must jut out. What does science say? Black women have narrower pevlic inlets and outlets than white women. Narrower pelvis + same mass = bootylicious. Case closed. With my amateur eye, I would say that there is something different about the look of a cute booty on a black girl vs. a white girl. Black girls with nice asses seem to start with mass higher on the ass curve (where the lower back meets the cheeks) than white girls. Side note: on the internet, a white woman with a booty is referred to as "whooty" or a "pawg". I love women who are slender with curves in the right places, so it doesn't really matter to me.

Life is a bit cruel. The gifts we receive often have a negative side effect. Narrower pelvises are found more often in black women, and so are higher rates of death from childbirth. A narrow pelvis is a risk factor. Obesity doesn't help, but a girls got to keep her extra somethin'-somethin'.

Cross Posted at Judgement of Paris

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

California's Last Chance Had No Chance - Prop 187

Golden California. The beautiful coast where one watches the sun set on the ocean was the physical representation of America's mid-20th century peak. It is gone now. Turned into an Anglo version of a Latin American system with a massively skewed Gini Coefficient. Was there a chance to turn back the tide? California voters thought that was in 1994 when they voted overwhelmingly for Prop 187. Prop 187 was the famous anti-illegal immigrant state referendum that California voters passed with 58% supporting it to deny benefits to illegals, as Californians had grown to dislike the massive wave of immigration that was stressing their systems and changing their state. Prop 187 was branded "Save Our State". Voters may have strongly supported this, but that wonderful cathedral lefty infrastructure would not let it stand. Nearly 20 years later, we can see that the referendum was properly titled as it was overturned in court, and California is doomed.

While Prop 187 was a 1994 ballot referendum in California, it's genesis started with the 1986 amnesty. After the amnesty solidified the status of illegal Mexican immigrants in Mexico, the hispanic population in California experienced a baby boom as fertility jumped from 3.2 to 4.4. Amnesty also gave new illegals the idea that if they jump the border, a later amnesty will await them (like tax amnesty programs backfiring). The problem of illegal immigration depressing lower skilled occupation's wages was exacerbated by the early '90s recession, and old Pat Buchanan ran his '92 insurgent campaign vs. Bush 41 with immigration reduction as a primary plank. His message resonated, and while the national politicians did not pay attention, Californians did. After only eight years, Californians had seen enough change in the schools, neighborhoods and stress to their social services that they felt they needed to take control. Prop 187 was titled "Save our State", and through the ballot, was Californians trying to control their destiny. It would have denied services and schooling to illegals and children of illegals, requiring proof of legal residence. In other words, requiring people to prove they were not lawbreakers. In '94 the Prop 187 referendum was passed by a 3-2 margin, and Gov. Pete Wilson rode that and a recovering economy to re-election. Sadly, this stood no chance of sticking around in our system.

Californians did not expect the Feds to do their job as they had not enforced the border well since '65. The law was technically a passive or reactive means of dealing with illegal immigration (or infiltration). The Feds would be in charge of immigration, but if they failed to do their job, California's state agencies would properly administer services to citizens only. President Clinton was not going to enforce any immigration laws, and he was part of the crew that united to oppose the bill. It is a hodgepodge of the coalition of the left, from this site:

Opponents of the Proposition 187 included the California Teachers Association, California Labor Association, California Medical Association, State League of Women Voters, California State Employees Association, Los Angeles City Council, President Bill Clinton, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, and the democratic candidate for governor Kathleen Brown.

Now it seems odd that a state that was going through stress due to illegal immigration, where services and agencies were being strained, would find support from those very agencies and institutions being stretched by illegal immigration. Those groups have nothing in common but being on the left. They everything to gain by importing new leftist voters used to a socialist state system.

That coalition was depressed by the will of the people, but as we continuously learned, the will of the people only matters when it supports a leftist crusade. An old appointee of President Jimmy Carter made sure Prop 187 met its death. She hinted at it in 1995. She later killed it in 1997 (NY Times here, LA Times here). Side note: Notice how the LA Times is far more sympathetic to Prop 187 compared to the NY Times. Proximity helps compared to the cathedral. Judge Mariana Pfaelzer, who served in private practice for decades never acting as a judge until Carter's appointment, ruled:

Judge Pfaelzer rested her ruling on what is called the federal "preemption doctrine." Article VI of the U.S. Constitution contains the Supremacy Clause. It holds that laws passed by Congress are the supreme law of the land and that, if they conflict with laws passed by the various states, the state laws are invalid. Under the authority of the Supremacy Clause, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that federal laws can "preempt" state laws. For example, the power to regulate interstate commerce is given to Congress under the Constitution. If a state were to pass a law trying to regulate interstate commerce, that law would be preempted because Congress already exercises its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce and the state laws could conflict with federal law. Preemption does not only apply to commerce matters, but to areas traditionally left to federal control including bankruptcy, patent and trademark, admiralty regulation, and immigration.

What I find interesting is that California's Prop 187 was not about immigration enforcement or patrolling the border, but about how state agencies would administer programs. Judge Pfaelzer even says that the California laws do not conflict with immigration and that the Prop 187 legislation was a scheme to reduce immigration. The new rules would merely check eligibility. We go through this non-stop when we use government services that are tied to income, yet no one says that those state agencies are infringing on the IRS' rights and authority. A scheme is one thing, and a scheme is not an infringement of rights if a byproduct of that scheme is to discourage people from breaking the law. Prop 187 wouldn't remove illegals; it would have just made it tougher for illegals to live in California after breaking the law. This is classic Humpty Dumpty "a law means what I mean it to mean" behavior from a lefty. Judge Pfaelzer had her orders from the same crowd that had the California Teachers Association trying to block Prop 187 despite being one of the hardest hit groups by illegal immigration, "Our side must win".

Scattered throughout the aftermath articles in the NY Times and LA Times are mentions that Prop 187 would end up in the Supreme Court. It did not. That ruling would have been a truly huge ruling in our modern history as it would have emboldened other Southwestern US states to pass similar legislation. It might have also helped Arizona when they recently passed and then had partially blocked the check IDs for illegals legislation, which was somewhat overturned. Why did Judge Pfaelzer delay her decision until late fall of 1997 if she was hinting at her ruling in '95? Gov. Pete Wilson would be the reason. Prop 187 was appealed up the chain by Gov. Wilson, but his term was up come January of 1999. He was replaced by Gray Davis who later asked for mediation on the ruling and then quietly withdrew the state's appeal in summer of '99; his first year in office. The Supreme Court never got a chance to hear the case. Mission accomplished for the left. It's not about policy and good governance. It's about winning at all costs, future be damned. Adios California.

Sunday, February 17, 2013

Fictitious Capital - American HGTV Style

Fictitious capital is an old Marx concept used in his many attacks on the economic system of the 19th century that he needed to smear in order to install his system of rule. Fictitious capital pops up in bubbles, and formerly had been confined to speculator markets, banks and what not. Part of the problem of our current mess is just how widespread the credit bubble was and how big the bubble was blown. Through the process of securitization of home mortgages, sliced tranches of CDOs, derivatives, transnational sales of fixed income securities, and countless financial innovation in the last 25 years, the financial system reached a point where simple psychology and human behavior of common people created our mess. Fictitious capital in our era is illusory wealth that does not exist except in the coding of banks and the minds of the little people. Here it is in a nutshell.

Sequence in any home in an area that experienced a property bubble after 2000

Husband: "Jeez, the Hendersons sold their house for $350,000. Smith sold theirs in the divorce settlement for $300,000 a couple months ago. Wasn't ours appraised for $200,000 when we used the HELOC in '97 for the furnace?"

Wife: "Yes, and our home is the same size, plus we added those chic, granite counter tops that no one else has in the subdivision after I saw them in my Martha Stewart mag. Our house better be worth what their homes are worth."

After a 15 minute phone call to bank...

Husband: "Honey, I refinanced at 5% + cashed out $100,000 of our money. Vegas baby!"

Wife: "That's good, right?", husband bulges eyes + nods, "OMG! I can update my wardrobe!"

Multiply that conversation by millions.

That equity bump from the neighbors selling inflated assets was created out of thin air. No one is really richer. There was no capital or deferred spending that created the investment. This was phony money from Greenspan's credit bubble which was misallocated by banks to consumption. The modern Housing ATM concept. Fictitious capital turned into real debt. Today, the debt still exists but the capital evaporated. By hook or by crook, more deleveraging is needed.

Spot the historic bubble.

Evidence of Declining Western Societal Willpower

Hawley Harvey Crippen murdered his wife in England in 1910. Evidence was mostly his affair with a cute girl, dumb behavior after his wife's disappearance, and then a body the authorities found in the basement that the prosecution showed having some groove that resembled a stomach scar his wife had. DNA analysis has since thrown the murder conviction into doubt. He was tried and convicted in October of 1910 and executed on November 23rd, 1910. 30 days.

Lawrence "Pliers" Bittaker engaged in raping, torturing, kidnapping and murdering several young women over several months in 1979 and was convicted and sentenced to death in California in 1981. The evidence was conclusive and his partner in crime struck a plea deal (life sentence) to testify against him. He still remains on death row and answers his fan mail by signing with his nickname "Pliers". 30 years and counting.

Saturday, February 16, 2013

Quick Review: Vampire of the Continent

Moldbug references Vampire of the Continent and Foseti reviewed and recommended it. I'll spare you. If your teachers and professors didn't already give you a balanced view of the causes of WW1, read it to see the German thought process and point of view. If you had well rounded profs for British and modern European history classes, you already know much of what is written here. This is because the modern phenomenon of American teachers tearing the British Empire a new arsehole wherever possible as they strive to revise everything that happened prior to their mindset's ascendancy.

1. British foreign policy was focused on securing maritime rights, knocking out colonial rivals and preventing any single nation from dominating the continent so that England could maintain their maritime power and presence globally, without having to be on guard for an invasion from the continent.

2. Germany was smart enough to see the pattern of British behavior to the point where this propaganda book was written and published globally, yet they were dumb enough to think the Brits would stay out of WW1 or even side with them. In their defense, the Brits were extremely reluctant to commit ground troops at all, and hemmed and hawed right up until zero hour.

WW1 was the war that shaped the 20th century. I've blogged on this before because we still live with the unintended consequences today. Damn you "Sealed Train"!

Friday, February 15, 2013

Reasons the Liberal Priesthood Dislikes Downton Abbey

FORBES has a nice essay on why the left is swiping their claws at Downton Abbey. They get close to it. The rich do get more of a fair shake on the show, which does infuriate the latest trend of demonizing the current 1%. Forbes is so close, but maybe they can't go there because it is a financial magazine. The left hates Downton Abbey because it glorifies the prior ruling elite that was replaced by our current world order. Downton spotlights the inequities of yesterday in all regards with a somewhat critical eye on the modernization we slog through daily. Downton has characters repeating steady messages and customs of the old days as if they should happen because they have always happened. The left despises this because people watch it and adore it.

My wife watches Downton Abbey, and through marital diffusion, I understand bits about setting, characters and plot points. Downton Abbey does push many of the same messages on television today, but they slip in plenty subversive elements. How does Downton flip the script on so many things that modern Hollywood pushes as righteous?

1. There are consequences for bad behavior that can smear others by association.
2. A gay guy is a BAD guy and a wife sets her husband up to take the fall for her suicide.
3. Women are constantly told they need to hurry up and marry.
4. A woman rejects the offer of a life together full of love to remain at the Abbey as a servant.
5. Rich, older men can make good decisions.
6. They rarely discuss politics in their lives. Never in front of ladies.
7. The women make fun of the sister who is a "women's libber".
8. They need a male heir to keep the Abbey.
9. No one claims to be a victim for status. They seek to be rich and awesome for status.
10. Wealthy people (including the rich patriarch) volunteer for the army to fight trench warfare for King and country. While there, the young man thinks of returning to his Downton.

Women, including SWPL women, love it. They get sucked in by the accents, wonderful setting and period piece costuming, but once an episode, something reactionary slips. Uh oh, the exposure to non-progressive ideas might influence the minds of viewers. Highly susceptible female viewers. Women will lament the absence of men like these classy, rich gentlemen, but really their disappearance is those women's doing in both Hollywood and in real life. The show gives plenty of moments to think "We're better", but there are plenty of moments that make you realize that Downton Abbey is the British version of Mad Men. It is the window onto the peak and early decline of a global hegemon. Hollywood might actively suppress the idea of a new Archie Bunker or Alex P. Keaton, but British television found a way around the left coast blockade. Downton's success might just well spawn historically accurate imitations on American television. Hollywood just might have to crank out a show on Gilded Age Chicago or post-Civil War San Francisco. I would cheer it. A toast to God, King and Downton!

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Theory on the .70 Ratio Preference - Hendricks Trimester

Physical attraction should not be the sole foundation to a relationship. It is however part of the foundation to a relationship. There has to be something pleasing to the eye to inspire a man to approach a woman or a woman to respond to a man. Despite Hollywood, feminists and the fashion industry's attempts to brainwash men otherwise, men still love that .70 waist to hip ratio. Science has shown that even blind men prefer it, and this preference cuts across all cultural lines. The .70 ratio allows someone like Christina Hendricks to be most likely 180 lbs on a scale but still attractive in the eyes of men. The linked article mentions that evo-psychologists suggest it is a signal for a woman being more fertile. My theory is that the .70 waist to hip ratio is a non-pregnancy state that mirrors the Hendricks Trimester phase of a woman's pregnancy, triggering our biological imperative to have sex with women to reproduce and continue our genetic line.

My Viking genes are stirring.

The Hendricks Trimester is that period of a woman's pregnancy where her breasts and rear end get that hormone boost and expand but the rest of her body does not (especially the waist). This might be why you have seen formerly skinny or not curvy women look great when first pregnant, move up a cup size or magically develop an ass. It is a short span of time, lasting no more than three months, hence the name Hendricks Trimester, but it is a glorious three months. Through the ages, men witnessed countless women carry children. Men most likely saw that Hendricks Trimester look on plenty of women. Men who did not learn that the .70 ratio was good for child bearing had their lines die out. Others learned and had healthy children and wives. Others also learned that those curves feel great to the touch as well as mark the start of new life. Through evolution, the selfish genes wishing to procreate would realize that a woman looking in the Hendricksian way would soon give birth to a  child. This cue was a sign that women who appeared that way had kids, therefore your genes passed on. New life is what matters. Our genes will drive us to procreate. Some men just need a visual cue. It's not the signal that the woman has good child bearing hips. It is that she looks like women newly pregnant who have just a bit of that extra jit that looks great. Men want an heir. Men see the .70 ratio in the wild, and the brain signals to our balls that this is a Hendricks Trimester cue. Approach!

Cross posted at Judgement of Paris.

Early Retirement Ages for Firemen + Cops are OK

The public employee pension battle has been flaring up at hot spots and as the economic pie shrinks further and municipal borrowing costs rise, this battle will only get worse. California is the cutting edge, but ever so often, a news report comes from a podunk county or city that reveals pig at the trough behavior by local public employees. There are absolute abuses in negotiations, over sized benefit packages and retirement allowances that can start for very young retirees, but there is one oddity that I support. Retirement ages, whether the ridiculous Greek social security system or rural American teachers retiring at 52, must be reformed, but I am fine with one exception. I agree that police officers and firefighters should have retirement ages around 55.
We definitely need reform of how we calculate police officer and firefighter retirement pensions. Because so many of these negotiations are between the individual municipality and the police or firemen's union, it will be a slow process. My problem with safety employee pensions (as with many other public employees) is the level of compensation. The formulas differ state by state and muni by muni, but no one should be getting the same income retired as they do while actively working. There should be some maximum threshold for these pensions, indexed to inflation. I'd argue public employees like teachers and government workers need a later retirement age, but that's another post. Capping pension payments, disallowing 'spiking' (working OT or cashing out sick leave in a final year to boost the pension payout) or linking them to longer averages of annual salary (top 5 salaries, not final year salary) will help municipalities and states. This is another form of corruption as votes have been finagled and wheels get greased when compensation for protected employees in positions that can't be outsourced to China are involved. Let us focus on the cost of the monthly pension amount or defined benefit vs. defined contribution plans rather than on retirement age due to the nature of their work.
If people on the alt-right and mainstream traditionalists dislike the idea of women fighting on front lines due to physical differences, then we need to consider a ladder unit with two 60 year olds on it vs. a ladder unit with two 20 somethings in their place. Would you want a ladder unit showing up with a couple guys in their mid-50s, or for those mid-50s guys to be at home 'retired' while younger guys come in to rescue you and potentially save your home and family? Instinct and feel are skills or situational awareness internal systems developed with experience, so a 55 year old firefighter will have a wealth of knowledge. That 55 year old is physically a 55 year old. I'm not saying they will automatically be less physically fit than a 30 year old, but chances are they will be less fit, alert, quick and weaker on other measures of strength or stamina. It makes sense to have men who have been firefighters and cops for 20 or more years retire younger than the average desk jockey. My grandfather retired after 25 years as a firefighter, and then worked another job because he was in his fifties and still capable. He just wasn't lugging gear up and down staircases anymore because he didn't trust himself and wouldn't put others at risk. The wear and tear of physical work when lives are on the line makes me support a relatively young retirement age for them.
There are plenty of physical jobs that don't have special, lower retirement ages. Sucks for nurses, roustabouts and welders in the private sector. Some of them might be in private unions. Some of them might have defined contribution retirement plans. Hopefully their compensation during their careers makes up for this problem. As far as cops and firefighters, I don't want a 60 year old lumbering up the steps to help a family in a burning building. I don't want a 60 year old walking the beat, running into criminals or responding to emergencies. We need to reform and change the retirement system for public employees. Pension payouts should have a years worked component rather than the 20 and done that is so often used. Pensions should be designed as a supplement or a step down, not a continuation of their lifestyle and earnings for eternity. These decisions will come to the table as munis start breaking promises because the bills are coming due, and there is not enough money for everyone. There are many features to play with, and far better negotiation points to focus on than asking a fireman or cop to work a few extra years and put the public at risk.

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Review: Vico's "New Science" + Thoughts on Its Influence on Marx

As a fan of mythology and history, Vico's New Science had long been on my 'must read' list. New Science is an interesting read on the origins of civil society, the ancients, the pre-Greek barbarians, mythology and the most cited piece of his work, the course of nations. Vico uses the actual language of the ancients to try to unlock the foundation of their early, pre-recorded societies. There are countless passages that are memorable and spectacular. I loved the interpretation of myths, which are original and would eventually be the basis for some of my professors' theories nearly 300 years later. Vico's interpretation of the Hercules myths are fascinating, but make perfect sense when one considers what early European settlers switching to farming endured. A couple parts not discussed in many reviews that are recurring themes are Vico's description of how important legitimate children were and are, which the ancients enforced strict laws to encourage, and the aristocracy-democracy-monarchy arc. His approach to legitimate children is common knowledge, but something that we don't follow today with our legal system. It shows how the overturning of the legitimacy customs of the 1970s in our legal codes was truly revolutionary. Vico constantly refutes the idea that monarchies became tyrannical and created the need for democracies. Vico's view is that aristocracies were the first forms of government as heroic, armed men would set boundaries and the rules of civil society, forming a bond or social contract with the plebeians that they offered protection or conquered. This was followed by plebeian emancipation or empowerment, which created democracies. Democratic problems and layer upon layer of laws and degeneracy created the need for a monarch who would lead armed forces to control and restore liberty and security to the population. Vico stresses the idea that religion and marriage predate government and that combined with shame, form the basis for the bonds of any nation state. It is very interesting and a quick read once it gets going. I recommend it.
There are some drawbacks. Some of Vico's work has been shown erroneous due to newer research. Vico is also a serious Christian, so everything has that Christian doctrine mindset woven throughout it. Vico believed in giants as well as the literal truth of the Bible's history. It's an entirely different point of view compared to our modern one, so it is a bit interesting to read but could be annoying for modern readers. Vico also uses the word 'golden' a lot. It's cool but gets old after 400+ pages. He used it so often that it reminded me of my dad when my dad learns a new word or catchphrase that he likes and beats it to death. My dad liked 'golden' in the '80s, so I kept hearing my dad's voice when I read a sentence with golden in it. These are the bad bits, and considering the positives cited above, I still recommend the book.
Vico and Marx
Whenever I searched for Vico, I found articles citing that Vico influenced Marx. Marx even mentions him in some letters he wrote as a must read. The writers all say that Vico's idea of a course of nations (rise, peak, decline, destruction) influenced Marx. This seems like a simple influence, and for Marx to cite Vico and to have stressed the importance of Vico, it seems to be avoiding how Vico's entire book influenced Marx. Marx was critical of the 19th century European system of society. He disliked how the existing order was and wanted to overturn it to a communistic set up for the workers to own things. The intelligentsia vanguard would run things until the dream had been realized and everything was perfectly equal, all was shared and all was owned by everyone (very simplistic breakdown). Marx needed to build something new, but he had to first destroy what existed at the moment. Vico lays out the groundwork for the foundation of society, which western Europe was built on through the ancients. Vico mentions how the Justinian code of law went out of fashion but then came back into fashion as western nations left barbarism behind, which reveals the modern basis on fundamental, classic concepts. Because Vico laid out the foundation for the traditions that built the ancient system of civil government, Vico also showed what to attack in order to destroy it.
Marx mocked religion. Marxists constantly called marriage an oppressive system, subjugating women for the benefit of men. Vico states that religion and marriage came before government and are the foundations of any society. Vico also cites the power of shame in restraining behavior to build an orderly society for the benefit of its citizens. Vico constantly mentions the ancient rules with regards to legitimacy as well as the concept that marriage allowed for reliable heirs who helped pass on culture, wealth and civilization. Since Marx, his followers have been attacking religion, attacking marriage, changing societal norms and laws that encourage illegitimacy, and creating the no shame culture that permeates our western media and lifestyle. Marx's foot soldiers have been destroying the very basis for society that western civilisation was built on in order to set up their system, which is completely out of line with the customs and norms that built western civilization to the heights it reached. Rules were created to encourage behavior that, through thousands of years of experience, Europeans knew created a healthy society. To borrow from Vico, the drive for equity above all else in democracies has chipped away at those rules, creating the chaos that we have now. As Vico states, the concept of Chaos has roots back to when society was barbarous due to the unknown paternity of wild men during the era of promiscuous women. Marxists need this chaos to then fit their technocratic socialist government structure on top of it to order and control society along lines opposite of traditional western thought. No writers discuss this bit of Vico's influence on Marx because it would be revealing the game plan and motives behind all of their policies. Being on the side of the Marxists, they couldn't allow that.