Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Sterling, Incognito and the Management of Black Emotional Constipation

Someone gets in a jam. It is a jam of their making, but a tough jam that may involve losing money. That someone is part of a media approved group. That someone has interactions with a well known ne'er do well from an group that is commonly portrayed as the bad guy in the media's racial narrative of America. Selective snippets of communication are released that could be construed as racist. Some lines are what polite society would say mean talk or talking like a jerk. The media paints the ne'er do well as a racist jerk, the outrage cycle starts and suddenly the designated aggressor is hit financially and becomes a social pariah. He spends a week as the news cycle's enemy number one. Useful enough to distract everyone from our continuing economic and social decline. That is a quick summation of Donald Sterling's current Tom Wolfe novel that Steve Sailer has been all over with great insight (it's his strike zone of race, sports, media, conspiracy). Mixed race cutie is open minded, unlike the evil, octogenarian billionaire Jewish racist. It's a soap opera since there is no crime so it cannot be a Law and Order. It is also played out.

It's the same thing Richie Incognito went through last fall.This is how predictable and automatic the media fueled politically correct, race, gender or homosexual game is today. These victims are guided by a lawyer (Stiviano) or an agent (Martin) into covering for a problem by creating a circus that fits the media's narrative, making them a victim. Martin had checked into a mental clinic and was being pushed around by his teammates and coaches. Stiviano was the defendant in a lawsuit by Sterling's wife about her receiving gifts from the Sterling community pot. That pot has to be nice since the Sterlings have quite the marriage arrangement (old school loveless pre-no fault divorce tolerance of one another). Sterling and Richie Incognito both had reputations as jerks. They both fell prey to selective revelations. Sterling comes across as a jerk, but just how bad were his statements? There is an irony to Sterling having a half-black mistress, being okay if they both are in pictures with blacks, but his territorial behavior is the evil, horrible racist statement of the week. It's Selma all over again. Once all texts were released, Incognito's statements turned out to be back and forth with a teammate he cared about dearly. Context matters, but not in the rush of the modern news cycle. Even Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's eloquent essay on the witch hunt mentions the bubbling up of racism still, as if it will ever be stopped. Kareem does not pause to wonder behind the scenes on the situation or even if Sterling was saying anything worse than the jocks running up and down the court calling each other "faggot". If we can mic up players for NBA games, can we mic them up and attach an electrode to shock them when they violate PC speech? Players and progressives should be careful what they wish for and where it may lead.

This is the game. As long as our media is sovereign and is not held accountable for their bungling of stories or blatant skewing of situations like the Incognito or even the Zimmerman-Trayvon incident, we will not see change. The progressives will no change them, so it might take some real moneyed interests to feel the wrath of witch hunts to get things to change. Not to take their side, but maybe these generated outrages and witch hunts serve a purpose for the progressive elite besides hurting enemies or economic gain. A black youth shoots and kills another black youth over a new pair of Nikes around Christmas and blacks will type in comment sections "SMH" (shaking my head). Every half hour a person is murdered in America, and with half of all homicide victims and perpetrators being black, that means one an hour dies to elicit a "SMH". Rape a four year old? SMH. Break in and rob an elderly couple and rape an elderly lady? SMH. Donald Sterling says some questionable things, Paula Deen is accused of using racial slurs decades earlier, or some random teens in Jena, LA get into a sticky situation, and the black community unleashes their vitriol.

 
What if because blacks are the perfect Democrats (+90% D voters, higher utilization rates for government services, help control cities, would vote for a sex offender with 80% support), but they are caught in a trap? There can be little to no real talk, as witnessed by the reaction to Cosby's poundcake speech or the Mayor Nutting of Philadelphia's jabs at the flash mobsters. Blacks are victims of crime at high rates in the highest crime neighborhoods in America (other blacks are the perps), but to draw attention to it becomes a problem since it plays into law and order conservative talk. The breakdown of the black family can be delicately discussed and framed in specific ways by approved liberals, but to probe why blacks have an illegitimacy rate of 72% in an era of free birth control and abortion on demand is impolite. What if blacks are so emotionally and spiritually constipated with their current state that these ridiculous witch hunts overreactions are a way to keep them sane, channeling their anger and frustration to useless outlets? Best they spew hate and anger out at figureheads over silly and ever changing interpretations of witch racist rather than have them look around and see the utter ruin in which they live. The mandarins at the helm of our progressive institutions would not want that awakening. The media will cue up another witch hunt when the food stamp rate passes 65%.  For now we are stuck with a cabaret.

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Programming the Party Into Identity



It becomes a steady idea that I repeat, but we manipulate enough voters to give specific people power to siphon off a bit more resources from the federal trough. The brilliance of the banks buying the Democrats in the '90s was buying the party completely committed to politics as life that had cover from the media. As much as people make fun of the GOP, the liberals, progressives and pragmatists of the left are naked about wanting power, forget principles. All vectors are about securing more votes and power. To get that commitment, it takes programming people to see themselves as party members first, thinking humans second (or at all). The commitment today has been driven deep into the core of our identity.

A poll by The Hill in early 2013 right after the 2012 election revealed some of the stupidity of political identification. A majority of voters supported using budget cuts and not adding taxes to solve the deficit problem. The poll specifics showed how Democrats were the party to support an idea not normally associated with the Democrats, with Republican voters answering along ideological norms. When the poll asked which party they trusted more on budget issues, the need to identify with the clan showed up, as well as the need to run away from the GOP. Neither article is truthful on the way the poll was done. A simple analysis from The Hill discussed the brand issue especially after the "bruising general election". A bruising general where they retained their majority in the House and were a few hundred thousand votes from victory if in key states for the presidency.

The other view is that the media has made the GOP a toxic name and hurt the GOP. This makes sense when one considers the attention given to a lane closure on a bridge in New Jersey by Gov. Chris Christie versus the avoidance of a myriad of scandalous acts by the Obama administration. The number two Democrat in California's state assembly Leland Yee was connected to the Triads, foreign gun and arms running, corruption and other acts that '80s action film villains would pause at doing, yet he received a cursory glance from the media's spotlight. That constant slant does help the electorate move left, hurting the appeal of even basic ideas like how to fix a spending problem.

The Hill's poll guts show they did not ask some important follow up questions to figure out if these people even understood what they were doing? The Hill did not ask the respondents who stated support for the Democrats budget handling right after answering the opposite a question or so earlier why. Why did they change? Was it knee jerk instinct? If the respondent had been told which idea belonged to which party, would the results have been the same? That is what The Hill wants readers to think, but the poll did not do that. It still might have shown the same odd switch in back to back questions. We do not know. We are only told that voters like a GOP idea but not the ideas of the GOP.

otherpartymarriage.banner.kevindrum.jpg
Even without specifics, the poll does reveal the ignorance of voters to say they support an idea yet not realize that their answer on which party they trust more on the very same concept contradicts their first two answers. Politics has become tribal, and not just do to immigration and multiculturalism. In 1960, 5% of Americans would have been upset for a child to marry a member of the other party. In 2010, it was 40%. The rise has been steady with a recent uptick. How much difference between the two parties is there? This is one of the basic choices in life: marriage. America has moved so far into open minded territory that we have near universal approval of interracial marriage and rapidly growing approval of gay marriage, but nearly half of us do not want their kids to marry one of "them". It is a sick result of destroying communal bonds in private life. You might bowl alone, but at a Tea Party rally or Occupy Wall Street protest, you can be amongst friends, you can belong, you can feel part of something.

Monday, April 28, 2014

Review of War on Whistleblowers + Crony Capitalism's Choke Points

If you're looking for an entertaining documentary that is not nearly as heavy as its title, check out the "War on Whistleblowers". The production values are interesting because they rely on music to really convey the emotions they want you to feel in an over the top manner and use special effects to feel new and cool. It's a documentary. Do we really care about those effects or music? What's the story? The story is that there is a squeeze on people who might be whistle blowers when it comes to our national security state. The entire focus is on the post-9/11 war on terror world of secrecy, corruption, military contracts and what the system will do to people just trying to save lives or uphold the constitution. This documentary came out in April of 2013, which is right before Edward Snowden's revelations. If anything, this documentary is a nice way to view the world of whistle blowers, the insane power of the media and crony capitalism's attempt to close all loopholes.

The whistle blowers describe how the bureaucracy of the Pentagon froze them out. No classified clearance, which meant no security related jobs. The military-industrial complex was protecting their contracts, putting lives in danger. The Coast Guard had poor performing ships out there that no one cared about and this turned from negligence to fraud. It is interesting how the MI complex went into overdrive after 9/11 and how Homeland Security has become a clearing house or nexus for all sorts of secrecy. This is not new. What is hysterical is seeing a liberal project come down hard on Obama, but still blame it on him siding with the security state cronies. They just cannot admit it is the state in general. The NY Times review of this documentary brushes this off despite participation by NY Times reporters. Whoop-tee-doo is the gist of the review because the content is important but the presentation is cheesy and childish. This is made comical considering Edward Snowden came out with the NSA information just two months after the documentary was released. The documentary explicitly stated how whistle blower protection did not protect a national security person, like Snowden, and here he was showing how important that protection is needed. The black box of budget spending, the NSA collecting everything, outside contractors becoming fiefdoms of their own, and a wide variety of revelations. Snowden was not protected. Even more damning is how the media did not glorify this whistle blower but portrayed him in odd lights.

Our media is the most powerful entity in the American system because it decides what to tell, how much to tell, and what to omit. They portrayed Snowden as a high school drop out without a college degree and a dancer girlfriend that had lots of pictures out there with her barely clothed and around a pole. Smear the messenger. They never explained the why or the reality of those little facts until the meme had spread of some drop out stealing from the NSA. The media did this on top of our security officials immediately pouncing on him. Throughout the documentary who hear how whistle blowers become stories. It still all relies on one reporter giving the whistle blower the time of day. Multiple times, the leaker has to go through an outside agency to work as the story broker. At any moment, the reporter can say, "Sorry, not interested". This is probably why the entire documentary was aimed at national security whistle blowers and the evil "red empire" of the wicked military-industrial complex. Think this happens with non-security state issues? There are no whistle blowers out there for anything related to financial crimes or misdemeanors say from 2007 to the present day? One whistle blower discusses how he made a Youtube video. At the rate that our state media is going, Youtube uploads and viral videos will probably be the future for whistle blowers. Now we all should reconsider that Google purchase of Youtube in 2006.

The documentary touches on the importance of contracts, and this is an element of our crony capitalist system that stitches up a final loophole. It is not just national security, but they are the go to bad guy for liberals to point to corruption. Corporations have merged and consolidated since the 1970s, companies have poured in billions compared to say the 1976 election cycle, and they have our politicians bought and paid for, but who could hold them accountable? Someone on the inside with a conscience or sense that fraud, corruption and waste are happening. Going after whistle blowers is just a last step for an industry or large corporation to complete their purchase and corruption of the government agency or system that is supposedly watching them for the little guy. Bought politicians vote contracts your way and then the system squeezes anyone who might object. The government is a piece of everyone's business, which the Snowden revelations showed is the case for even glamorous cool tech companies. Big business has an interest in seeing their donations turn into revenue, and nothing should stand in the way. Even then, they still have to fear media exposure, and  as Solzhenitsyn said decades ago at Harvard, the media carefully picks what it wants to expose.

It is not the credibility gap but the credibility trap. You've taken money. You stopped caring if contracts, products or services deliver on anything. You are on their list, and in their black book. It is a system, and they are sucked in because not just their livelihood is dependent on being a part of it but they are a little crooked, too. Does this do anything to improve the general welfare for Americans? No. Does this improve the security of Americans? Not really. Does it secure the state? Yes. Does it grow the state? Yes. Does it make even what citizens would consider powerful industries dependent on the state? Yes, if they need to hit their EPS and keep that stock price up. Zuckerberg and the Google boys need a few billion more. Does the dismissal of whistle blowers in other industries secure the big banks? Maybe. Why does Monsanto have such a lock on our government and farmers across America? I do not know. Where are the whistle blowers for those industries? No intrepid reporter has uncovered those gems yet or even bothered to look.

Friday, April 25, 2014

Politically Incorrect Guide to People's Most Beautiful Women

PEOPLE magazine has their "most beautiful" issue out. It is pretty awesome to witness the editor's attempt to validate the women who read PEOPLE. They are fooling no one but the women who will flick through the photo collection after debating "who wore it best" at the front of the rag. Let us look at the top ten.


10. Kerry Washington - Kerry at age 37, seems to be a bit old to grab the title of "hot black actress that even white men will project themselves with" from Halle Berry, but it looks like she won the battle against Zoe Saldana. Of course she was cast as the left behind slave wife that Jamie Foxx would trek through the south to save from the slave owner. Never noticed until this picture, but her eyes are different sizes.


9. Stacy Keibler - The 34 year old former WCW wrestling manager turned C list Hollywood arm candy for George Clonney turned reject who quickly married someone no one has ever heard of is in at number nine. She, like Washington, has aged well, but seriously? Do the mid 30s women just having their first kid need to feel sexy because Keibler is on the list?


8. Molly Sims - Feeling less than sexy because you turned 40 ladies? Fret not, Molly is here to remind you that you too can be 40 and still be hot. Sims is pretty, but Sims a dozen years ago should be on this list, not now. What does she need to promote anyway?



7. Gabrielle Union - This is getting ridiculous. Union is 41, and was very hot years ago. She's already starting to show the middle aging bit. Damn, her man knocked up someone else when they were on a break and she took him back. Hahahaha, Dwyane Wade (much younger than her) is going to leave her in a few years, sending her into a Demi Moore tailspin. Guess middle aged black women need a self esteem boost seeing Union here. "She got a younger man, I can get me one too!"


6. Amber Heard - At 28 she is the youngest woman here. She actually is gorgeous. They should do a bi-curious lesbian remake of Vertigo and cast her in the Kim Novak role. Laugh at that idea, but it's maybe two years away from getting funding.


5. Pink - She posed sideways to hide her dick muscles. Pink is 34, and come on, no one is buying this. No one was buying it 10 years ago. Even the boys back in Doylestown were done with her in 1998. If you had told me in 2002 that Pink would be on this list and Britney Spears would be a pudgy has been, I'd have checked you into an asylum. Pink's inclusion is so the tattooed, edgy girls who are fading in their 30s and have begun to regret bad decisions can see her in PEOPLE and feel good as they sit in the tattoo laser removal waiting room.


4. Mindy Kaling - PEOPLE mentioned her Dartmouth degree right off the bat. She is 34; nice hair, but come on PEOPLE. This is interesting that Indian women now have a representative, but I guess using the hot chick from Slumdog Millionaire was too obvious. Thinking about this, it is an insult to Indian women; here's your inclusion but it's a pity spot. I could go to Dartmouth right now and find 10 hot Indian women. I typed this on Ask.fm: ever notice the lack of Indian strippers and escorts? Probably has to do with Indians doing so well economically in America (or they lack the stripper gene). Guess Mindy's show's ratings are bad enough they need this boost before May sweeps to save it.


3. Jenna Dewan-Tatum - At 33, she is still looking good. Nice catch by Channing Tatum. Interesting that the one woman with a decent rack they pose laying on her back to hide the guns. Wouldn't want women to get the idea that looking like a normal woman and not a 13 year old boy is okay. You'd think the media is run by gay men or something.


2. Keri Russell - At 37, even with the botox, this is a bit of a stretch. No breasts, deep cut blazer, no smile due to botox freezing, and The Americans must need some publicity. Curly haired Keri from 1999 would be reasonable on this list but come on, do mid-30s women need the boost considering the Keibler and Pink inclusions above?


1. Grace Jones Lupita Nyong'o - Kind of muscular? Check. No breasts? Check. Man's length hair? Check. Androgynous? Check. She has a nice smile, nice eyes and looks young, but give me a break. Red blooded men in America may be disappointed seeing this but we all know the gay producers in Hollywood are more disappointed when they find out that Lupita is a she.

PEOPLE loves pushing the women of color bit when these issues come out. Is their self esteem that low? Are they suffering from anorexia and bulimia at high rates? Could they not find a Victoria's Secret or video vixen to throw into the list instead of passed their prime actresses? Surprised they did not recycle First Lady Michelle Obama for this issue. This must be because they decided to not push the alternative body types this year with so many in the top ten being Hollywood thin. Only one woman is under 30, and she is the one cuddling with Johnny Depp who is 50 in real life. Male privilege. Good to see the media be consistent and not allow the list to be full of women with well developed breasts and round asses. Quick look back at the list and check their left hands. Some of these women are married, but only one wedding ring visible. Remember, this list is for women.

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Depression 2.0 Links

As our Depression 2.0 marches into year five, it might be worthwhile to look over some recent articles for a full grasp of the dystopia, the suspended development of modern life and the avoidance of reality in both us peasant and our elite.

The NY Times notes that the Canadian middle class caught up and most likely passed the American middle class in wealth and our lead versus other nations has declined. The article and graphs conveniently leave out changes in Western European nations which have faced a bit of an economic cataclysm themselves. Also missing from the chart, the effect of unrestrained immigration on the American middle class. Can't mention that. Note that no one discusses debt forgiveness anymore. Occupy buried that.

Read abut the rising tide of Boomers in California forced to move in with their elderly parents. Not a sympathetic crew. In their defense, the FED's need to reinflate the housing bubble and rising rents due to Wall St-Private Equity scarfing up properties for cash to rent out has priced many of them out of affordability. Immigration has killed California, but hey, let's not mention that. I liked reading the Boomers bitch about being treated like children. Multigenerational living was the norm for ages. These idiots whine about it when they are the failures moving back in with their near death parents.

Home sales dip to a 20 month low. Realtors say the supply is to tight that new construction is needed. Prices are rising due to cash transactions. Here's the key that the media will not chase, "The sharpest sales increase occurred among homes priced at $1 million or above. Purchases rose 8 percent in that category. Sales fell in nearly every other price group." That rise is the only reason the average sold home's value rose. Only sales band that saw an increase. The plutocrats have it good.

SWPLS can do their ruin porn documentary creating, spelunking and adventuring on North Brother Island. All the fun of watching America's decline in 3d without the fear of being killed by blacks vibrant youths in Detroit. The urban ruin adventuring is a placeholder for the SWPLs to recognize that the decline is real but do nothing about it. As an observer or voyeur, they can remove themselves from it, get back in their SUVs and enjoy some cat gifs on Tumblr.

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

Monday, April 14, 2014

Signs of Decline, Incurable STDs

The progressives tell me that everyday is a better day. Forward! The future will be brighter. What about today? What about trends? Having the technological ability to have a video phone conversation with family across the globe is the future we were promised, but plenty of others items point towards a future we did not expect. How many sexually transmitted diseases can make comebacks? Looks like all of them except for HIV are on the march. The CDC says that chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis are all rallying. The report cites the scare number of 1 million Americans living with HIV. Do not worry about that, as the number was 1 million twenty years ago as well, and America now has 317 million citizens. The repetitive problem of infections on curable infections has now created a situation where doctors believe gonorrhea is on the edge of being incurable as it is growingly resistant to antibiotics. We're down to our last one. We live in the 21st century, is this a sign of decline or progress? It might not be a sign of decline as much as it is a sign that progressive wishes to perfect man will fail due to human nature and that long forgotten truths will make a comeback.

There is some discrepancies in gonorrhea reporting as the CDC report says 330,000 new cases, while an Atlantic article in 2012 says 700,000 new cases a year in the US. Either way, this is stupid human nature since gonorrhea transmission can be stopped by the simple use of condoms. Pushing the use of condoms has been a government and media effort for decades now. Many people just do not want to use condoms. More sex education will not be needed as this is 2014; we are flooded with talk about sex, safe sex, wild sex, gay sex, et cetera. Many people just do not want to use condoms. What about some proof? The CDC cites that blacks get chlamydia at a rate of 6.8 times whites. Here are two other careless sex consequences experienced at higher rates in the black community than the white community: abortions and illegitimate children. All trace back to not using birth control. Maybe all traces back to lack of condom use. This despite a media that has pushed condom use within that community to the point of rap and hip-hop music from 25 years ago citing the need to have safe sex. Before you laugh at red staters in Mississippi having the highest infection rate while New Hampshire is the lowest infection rate, keep in mind that Mississippi has the highest number of blacks as a percentage of its population (blue voter dysfunction, red state situs).

It does not work with everyone. People have to understand consequences. People have to worry about consequences. Medical technology can cure many STDs. Now the simpleton does not consider how someone with an STD like chlamydia or gonorrhea might also be carrying worse bugs. Those worse bugs are much rarer, but per the CDC many of the gay men getting syphilis now are also HIV carriers. A simple shot or oral antibiotic cured the small infections in the past (and now), and acted as a safety net. What is there to fear in catching a bug that the doctor can fix? Combined with bacterial evolution, we now face those simple bugs becoming potential death sentences again. Syphilis is a huge concern as it is deadly at greater rates than gonorrhea (chlamydia cannot kill you). Syphilis has jumped up to 15,000 infections a year, most new infections in gay men. Odd that we hear about the 70,000 gays who have married in the last decade but not of the 15,000 annual syphilis infections. Progressives forget that all of the education in the world is tossed away if the person does not listen, comprehend, internalize and then act on it. Not everyone is a Brahmin paranoid about ruining their chance to get a PhD in linguistics. The disconnect between our mandarin elite and the rabble they rule over is best exemplified by the silly gender and sex assumptions of Brahmins, which the lumpen proletariat do not understand.

Where could this lead? A hint might be how the West responded to HIV-AIDS. There was a hyper-scare in the late '80s and early '90s over HIV-AIDS. Part of it was to make straights think that this could happen to them just as easily as gay men. It was also real. Tracking AIDS deaths, the number dead per year marched up to 50,000 in the mid-'90s. Tracks along with women dressing like schleps in the grunge era, the "how many partners have you had" stupidity, multiple movies made where a woman caught HIV from her cheating husband (not a gay blood donor) and wearing red ribbons. ESPN sports writer Bill Simmons likes to cite this period of restrained sexuality as a bummer through his college years. Even the illegitimate birth rate was stagnant in that period. There were huge consequences, even if the threat was exaggerated for straights, for sexual promiscuity. You could drop dead within three years of catching HIV. It changed in the mid-'90s. What also changed in the mid-'90s was medicine. The AIDS cocktail worked like a charm. Deaths from AIDS dropped from over 50,000 in 1995 to roughly 12,000 today. The cocktail has crazy side effects and costs a lot of money, but you lived. Gays lived long enough to create subcultures of barebacking HIV positive men proud to be HIV positive. If gonorrhea, chlamydia and syphilis become incurable by 2020 and that affects 1 million people per year, how fast do adults alter their behavior? Even if we are a nation of 317 million, remove the under 15 and over 70 crowd and the pool gets smaller. Chip away with the morbidly obese or happily married, and the pool gets smaller still. Those 1 million infected become a greater chunk of the sexually active and single crowd.

This will not lead to a religious revival, but the Gods of the Copybook Headings shall return. Before antibiotics, there was a reason promiscuity was shunned. The Church in the 6th century could look at the ruin of decadent late Rome and craft social policy to change the course of history. There is a reason sluts were shamed and romeos and gigolos were mocked. They were disease carriers. Gay men were in the closet for a variety of reasons, and only with the help of progressives and the media did they dodge a push into the basement for spreading HIV-AIDS into Western society. How many women will continue to ride the carousel? If they continue to do so, be ready for automatic condom use men because if they choose to ride for years they do not want an STD to shut the door on their late hope that they can have one baby at 39. Your favorite strip club might be raided or given the heads up to change its internal business practices to keep its license. If nothing changes, we will see some carnage. The low future time orientation crowd will continue making mistakes until the word spreads that the nice doctors in lab coats do not have a fix this time. Media outlets will prime up some A block segments on those who need more education to prevent such horrible outcomes. Just how much will the media have to twist reports to make people think the antibiotics became ineffective  against specific STDs for reasons beyond our impulsive behavior? Why twist when one can omit? The media will do in the future what they do now, which is avoid citing the correlation between unrestrained sexual behavior pushed by that the media and academia and incurable STDs. While we whisked away carried on the tornado winds of our passions, the Gods of the Copybook Headings slowly stalked us. They will outlast us, return and instruct society anew.

Friday, April 11, 2014

Auctioning Humans

Debt serfdom may be the rage today to keep the lumpenproles in line, but until the Civil War and some constitutional amendments settled things, actual slavery was the means of keeping the underclass "in line" It was not just enslavement of blacks or indentured servitude of whites, but also the idea that there was a class below the peasant farmers in status. No matter how much the large slave holding estates were (few families would have been paid off if the North choose to do so) screwing the common man, at least the common man was free and not a slave. Let us look at the advertisements of slave auctions and be witnesses to history.

What is a "city guarantee"?


 
"Sold in families" hurts on myth of traders not talking into account families


 
Toddlers as part of package, must be family lots again.

 
Looks like an estate settlement auction. Common in the South as all of their capital was either land or slaves. Debts had to be covered by one or the other.

 
This one has children listed but no mention of selling slaves as families.

 
Wide variety of skills here. I imagine Hollywood would twist this into a horrible mockery of what it is at its core; liquidation of a small business.

 
Considering the date, 158 slaves would have been a huge payoff for the benefactors of this estate liquidation. This guy had a rice mill. Of course the North was never going to buy out the slaves. It would have given the elites of the South a huge capital boost, and a new labor pool that was accustomed to no pay. They would have set up factories and done well if their white tradesmen class was savvy enough.

Thursday, April 10, 2014

Two Cover Girls

Two covers caught my eye recently but not because the women looked sexy. Beyoncé showed up on the cover of "Out" magazine and Lena Dunham appeared on the cover of "Glamour". These are pretty big figures in the cesspool of American pop culture, receiving accolades and praise from the chattering classes. What do they say or what do the pictures say? Their images reinforce the blurring of gender definitions and the ability of a modern individual to create themselves not just in outfits but in core association like race or gender.

Cover shot: Another White Woman oh wait, it's Beyoncé
The cover picture is black and white, helping to mask her skin tone. She has platinum blond hair. When we look back on the last 15 years, in say 20 years, are we going to say it was incredibly strange that the number one black female sex symbol in music spent her career with blond hair or will Beyonce be called a prophet of human modification?

This is the comparison for black women.
The media is quick to discuss the unfair media representations of white women for unattainable physiques or looks. What the hell is the media saying to black women by constantly strutting out blond Beyoncé (with light skin, A cups and no ass) and Rihanna (with red hair, no ass, very light skin)? Black women in America are overweight at a rate of 82%. The pressure is not working on them to match up, but goddamn, they do not even have a reasonable symbol. 

Gender confusion
There is another picture with Beyoncé in a hat, but this feels a bit Dietrich. It also plays on something that has to be present at drag shows now but will definitely be in the future: drag Beyoncé. She is tall, thin yet wide. She has minimal ass, A cups and her facial features are not petite. Easy to envision gay black guys or even Hispanics pulling off drag Beyoncé. Beyoncé is an attractive woman, but I cannot help but think of the days when blacks ripped Whitney Houston for not being black enough, see photo shoots like this and laugh my ass off. At least Beyoncé's odd thing is her blond hair obsession. It's not like androgynous Lena Dunham.

Is that a chubby gay teen?
I used to think Lena Dunham was a long prank on pushing fat acceptance. Not anymore. The NY Times has been following Dunham since she was 13, which is creepy but tips their hand a bit. Dunham, with a compliant media, is willing herself into being sexy. She is not, but that does not stop the media from discussing her openness towards her body, sexuality, blah blah blah, support the chubby girl. Is she feminine? Is she redefining femininity? Is she taking on a man's form to push that she is doing comedy like a man. Look at the picture above and check the one below.


Guy got done up for an AAU basketball game

Looks like a teenage guy. In these two pics, her breasts are nonexistent, her face looks kind of square-ish and she has the tat visible in what looks like a yellow muscle shirt. Put some make up on one of those confused teens in Slate articles and this is what you get. Like Beyoncé, Dunham is a phony symbol of the 21st century empowered woman fighting the patriarchy. They have both been used by the Democrats for Team Obama. They both push messages of women ruling the world or our bodies our rights. They are also examples of the media pushing the idea that no matter what you are you can mold yourself into something different by your own will. Beautiful black woman? Forget it, dye your hair and you can play Marilyn for a magazine. Flabby fugly girl? Ehhhh, let's be edgy and let you butch up a bit. Whatever you want and whatever you want to be is yours if you only want it badly enough.