In his Moneybox blog at Slate, Yglesias blurbs that small, private schools can scale themselves down to sustainable levels so that they do not go out of business. Some colleges are in danger of closing. Whoop-tee-damn-doo. Philosophy major Yglesias thinks it is pretty simple since they are sitting on a lot of awesome real estate that has gone up in value. OMG, just downsize! Maybe Matty Yglesias could look up old Bradford College that had been in business for nearly 200 years when it closed its doors in 2000. Could it be the product? What he fails to take into account is the college system, which is as agile as a three toed sloth, the product, the consumers, and basic economics.
Colleges don't change. Seriously, what change is there in the degree a Millenial earns vs. their Boomer parent. It's the same 4 year BA with worse filler for credits. The only thing about the product that has changed is that you get better dorms and cool stuff like gyms, rock walls and more gyms. The real product: the ticket to the good life and good jobs. That product is now harder to find, and schools are having trouble justifying the high costs when the job placement rates are worse with each graduation class. His good point is that small school are especially sensitive to it, and it's so amazing that fewer have failed. Gee, Matt, why? Maybe a multi-decade, debt slavery scheme that is coming to an end might explain the rise and hopefully soon, fall of schools. Maybe Americans have caught onto the "go to college or you're a loser" brainwashing trick your media friends pulled for decades.
Small colleges are more sensitive to enrollment. Small colleges do have smaller alumni networks to fundraise from. How do you get kids to go to your generic college versus another? Bradford lavished student aid on students and built brand new dorms to entice students to stay on campus rather than commute, thinking they could attract wealthy enough students to start minting coin. It didn't work. Maybe a brilliant mind like Matt could see that when private schools can take advantage of low interest loans and dole them out without dipping into the endowment, they take their tuition check and shift the risk of non-payment off to the lender. Cheap loans make it possible to raise the costs for everyone, thus reaping more money from the kids who don't qualify for any aid. Yglesias cited a black school closing, and another for cutting jobs (nice, pointless Occupy protest pic). What is the benefit of going to a crappy, historically black college over getting a degree online? Is it worth it over a degree from a subsidized state college that can provide the same party atmosphere? Looking at black employment levels, probably not. Another problem is that the student loan game has reached mass awareness that the loans are non-dischargeable and are not worth it. The students at the margin who picked a private school over public and absorbed the cost is disappearing.
Education is a product that is finally facing disruption. HR departments are starting to accept online degree programs as legit, which is the key since HR decides who is interviewed let alone hired. If consumers can get what you are selling elsewhere with the same results for cheaper, they will take their dollars elsewhere. All bad business models eventually meet their end. College is no different. Like the first defaulters on housing loans and first sign of the housing crisis was in hot spots with the worst borrowers, schools at the margin are the first to feel the pinch. Small private schools and historically black colleges sound like prime targets. What happened to the beautiful old buildings and new dormitories in Haverhill, MA that formed Bradford? They were sold to a bible college with some help from a billionaire donor from Oklahoma. In the heart of progressive Massachusetts sits a little bible college making money that was selling a good enough product to raise enough funds for a lifetime. It's the product, and no amount of sold off buildings will make up for a bad product with marginal consumers.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Monday, June 17, 2013
Obamacare in Action: Transfer Your Wealth to Insurers
Obamacare made it over the Supreme Court hurdle, and companies are rushing full bore into implementing, designed, administering and executing on the new rules. Plenty of economic and financial writers mention how Obamacare is a sop to the insurers or that it is going to create a de facto single payer system administered by private insurers for a profit. There is the other side of analysis (usually on conservative sites) that explains Obamacare as a Trojan horse for a future single payer system. I doubt the lawyers of America will allow that as a single payer system destroys the current medical malpractice system. A recent discussion with medical insurance guys has me leaning towards option one now, as the insurers are too damn smart and wrote the law themselves. The insurance companies figured a way to shift tax dollars and your wealth into their pockets without providing you a good or service.
Obamacare's implementation has been terrible, partially due to concerns over the Supreme Court decision and partially due to it being a government program. The insurance companies have been hard at work on this one, so rest assured, this will get handled appropriately enough for them to make a buck and the liberals to see insured lives increase. There were roughly 30 million Americans without insurance. Some by choice, some by stupidity, and some by the horrible system of capitalism. Recent news reports have spotlighted the practice of employers dropping nonessential employees to under 30 hours per week to skirt Obamacare rules for requiring employer paid coverage as well as hiring only part time employees. This makes sense for them from a cost perspective. Will these employees go uninsured? No, because then they slide over to the exchanges and the government subsidy programs. Some uninsured people will just pay the fine, others will pay the fine and start up an HSA, but some will want coverage. Insurance companies are just waiting for them there.
Insurance companies right now are designing programs that meet the government's bare bones bronze level coverage that only costexactly what the government subsidy is. There will be higher level coverage, but these marginally attached employees will have to pay actual dollars for those above the subsidy line (not happening). The focus is on getting the minimum coverage to fulfill government regulations but to only cost the subsidy. This will provide crap coverage, jack up everyone else's rates and not make anyone healthier, but it benefits insurance companies. The insurance companies are taking your wealth turned into tax dollars, using the government mandates to create a new, required pool of customers for them. >Sarcasm Alert< You're not going to believe this, but there is a big pool of Spanish speaking uninsureds. The goal is to make a simple, stripped down plan that will be easy to market in English or Spanish.
Crony capitalism at work to push the progressive agenda. Libs pretend they are helping people's health situation. The focus is on access to health insurance, not even health care or being healthy. The insurance companies have a new pool of risk to cover and make money. Through the mandates and subsidies, the pool of risk is forced to be a buyer at a set price. It could be higher, but why set it higher when you could scare marginal buyers away into the ranks of penalty payers and not insurance consumers? As a penalty payer, they don't send the money to insurance companies, but to the federal government. All the insurance company has to do is set up a crappy insurance program that gets the dollars from the underclass and uninsured. The uninsured are just the conduit of taking your money and sending it to the insurance companies. This will get recycled back into the government system through taxation of profits and lobbying.
Movie Idea: Alicia in NYC Wonderland
Hollywood is s festival of schlock. We know it's crap and even they know it's crap. Scratch that. Some of them know it's crap, as Spielberg and Lucas are warning of a coming implosion. Here is an idea for an independent film that wouldn't cost much. It's kind of like a remake, so some dumb producer will support it, but it's a bit different. Let's use "Alice in Wonderland" as a skeleton for the movie, but set it in modern day New York City and flesh it out with the characters of NYC. We have to think what will be appealing to a lefty producer who most likely is Jewish and might be gay. Read on for the details if you wish.
Start of the day is Alicia on Staten Island with her parents visiting friends of the family. Normal kid-parent friction. She goes down to sleep for the night mad at them. Parents love her blah blah. She sets out early next morning to high tail it. She takes early morning ferry over and has weird conversation with old man (the door from AinW). She gets to ferry terminal in Manhattan, and like many runaways, realizes how dumb her idea was. No one knows where she is, and she has no cash. Can't figure what to do. First bump in with Chesire guy, as maintenance guy in terminal. He gives her some words, she plays close to the vest, and she sees a "White Rabbit Delivery" truck. Her dad works for that company. She decides to follow it to hitch a ride. Alicia's journey is up the island of Manhattan to home in Spanish harlem (hmm, this is like Alice in Wonderland crossed with the Warriors).
Tweedledee-Tweedledum - Two Asian guys in Chinatown with names that phonetically sound like the tweedle twins. We'll make them gay, and they give her a ride up the island a bit. Like the tweedle twins, they are obsessed with logic, manners and recite a story they memorized. They will drive horribly. She gladly gets out the car with them in Central Park. She sees a "White Rabbit" truck parked nearby and walks to it....
The Alice is Big in the House Scene - The truck is delivering refreshments for an event. Alicia is in Central Park as there is some children's special event going on. Everyone is in costume and passing around candies, cookies, drinks, etc. General goofiness, and then she'll piss off someone because she's bigger and older than many of the kids and is tossed off the west exit of Central Park.
Snooty Flowers scene - Alicia gets collected up in a swarm of 3rd world looking kids, and is ushered into a swank apartment building. She and the other United Nations looking kids enter a sweet apartment with a bunch of 40-something, single white women hanging out having a party. The kids all sing one of those lame "We're all different, yet we're all the same" songs, and at the end of it, Alicia realizes that these ladies have all adopted these 3rd world kids. The hostess asks her where she is from and where her mom is, but once they find she is a random Mexican-American, they escort her out, oblivious to the irony of 'their' children.
Caterpillar - Alicia walks a bit and hears some weird Indian style music. She gets closer and sees it's white trust funders smoking from a hookah. A young woman beckons her in, and the crowd gives her the "Who are you... where are you going" routine, which she answers with straight answers, but they don't get it. They are stoners constantly discussing the higher transcendent crap. She looks out the window and see a "White Rabbit" truck. Leaves as caterpillar crowd, (we'll have them make weird connect 4 type physical configuration) gets weird. She misses truck but bumps into Chesire guy who is building super. He recommends she reach out for help. Alicia too independent and stubborn. Keeps walking and smells something good, which brings her to...
Mad Hatter Tea Party - Alicia comes to a store run by a SWPL guy with ornate facial hair and a stupid SWPL hat. An androgynous woman (March Hare) can be his business partner at their boutique tea shop. They talk absolute non-sense and are hyperobsessed with tea, never answering her questions ("Can I use your phone?") and never giving her any tea. She's getting into the triple digits for street numbers, so she knows she's getting closer to home. It's still light out, but she's hungry. Meets three brothers, Ace, Deuce and Trey, who will take her to their mom....
Queen of Hearts - Alicia meets Queenie with a heart tattoo who is a big black woman with tons of sons. She has many dressed in red. Queenie (should it be LaQueenie?) claims to be the HBIC of her building and block. She is excited to have a girl around as she never had a daughter. Never offers help. Snaps on her sons and even hits one or two. Eventually she asks Alicia if she wants to ball. Alicia doesn't play but says she will if she can get an escort home after. Queenie challenges her to a game of HORSE, bragging of her ball skills which sounds funny because she's fat. She claims she was good before her first kid (Ace). On a playground court, she is a maven and gets H-O on Alicia. She even makes "ho" jokes about Alicia. Alicia's nearly in tears and when Queenie takes her next shot, you hear an airhorn sound. Queenie misses and goes nuts on the boys. Alicia looks, and sees the Chesire guy behind the wheel of a large truck. He smiles. It's Alicia's shot. She closes her eyes and throws it over her head. It goes in. She thinks she's got Queenie. Nope. Queenie saunters over and says that is her closing shot. Goes to take the shot, and then we hear gunfire. Everyone scatters. Bodies going everywhere. Alicia confused and mixed up.
We see her in the front seat of a vehicle as it pulls up to a house. Guy on radio mentions dropping her off. Arms pick her up and bring her to the door. Her parents do that talking fast Spanish excited and happy thing. Lots of thanking God in Spanish. Reunion is sweet. Her dad says "Thanks Cesar", and Alicia looks back to see who dropped her off. It's Chesire guy, and he's driving a "White Rabbit" van. Come on, I set you up here with that one. You knew it was coming. She thanks and hugs him. End the movie. It's a happy ending.
"Alicia in a New York City Wonderland"
- Modern day NYC - Movie is one long day in city.
- Alicia is Hispanic girl (Mexican) from Washington Heights, maybe 8-10 years old.
- Chesire cat is played by one actor (Hispanic guy) who shows up that is always doing a different shit job in the city.
- White Rabbit is the name of the trucking delivery company her father works for, therefore, Alicia's following of the trucks is the plot device that moves her from different spots.
- We'll have short scenes where concerned parents are trying to get cops help, praying for her return, eventually going home and waiting.
- Minorities, a gay element, and a NYC setting, what producer says no?
Start of the day is Alicia on Staten Island with her parents visiting friends of the family. Normal kid-parent friction. She goes down to sleep for the night mad at them. Parents love her blah blah. She sets out early next morning to high tail it. She takes early morning ferry over and has weird conversation with old man (the door from AinW). She gets to ferry terminal in Manhattan, and like many runaways, realizes how dumb her idea was. No one knows where she is, and she has no cash. Can't figure what to do. First bump in with Chesire guy, as maintenance guy in terminal. He gives her some words, she plays close to the vest, and she sees a "White Rabbit Delivery" truck. Her dad works for that company. She decides to follow it to hitch a ride. Alicia's journey is up the island of Manhattan to home in Spanish harlem (hmm, this is like Alice in Wonderland crossed with the Warriors).
Tweedledee-Tweedledum - Two Asian guys in Chinatown with names that phonetically sound like the tweedle twins. We'll make them gay, and they give her a ride up the island a bit. Like the tweedle twins, they are obsessed with logic, manners and recite a story they memorized. They will drive horribly. She gladly gets out the car with them in Central Park. She sees a "White Rabbit" truck parked nearby and walks to it....
The Alice is Big in the House Scene - The truck is delivering refreshments for an event. Alicia is in Central Park as there is some children's special event going on. Everyone is in costume and passing around candies, cookies, drinks, etc. General goofiness, and then she'll piss off someone because she's bigger and older than many of the kids and is tossed off the west exit of Central Park.
Snooty Flowers scene - Alicia gets collected up in a swarm of 3rd world looking kids, and is ushered into a swank apartment building. She and the other United Nations looking kids enter a sweet apartment with a bunch of 40-something, single white women hanging out having a party. The kids all sing one of those lame "We're all different, yet we're all the same" songs, and at the end of it, Alicia realizes that these ladies have all adopted these 3rd world kids. The hostess asks her where she is from and where her mom is, but once they find she is a random Mexican-American, they escort her out, oblivious to the irony of 'their' children.
Caterpillar - Alicia walks a bit and hears some weird Indian style music. She gets closer and sees it's white trust funders smoking from a hookah. A young woman beckons her in, and the crowd gives her the "Who are you... where are you going" routine, which she answers with straight answers, but they don't get it. They are stoners constantly discussing the higher transcendent crap. She looks out the window and see a "White Rabbit" truck. Leaves as caterpillar crowd, (we'll have them make weird connect 4 type physical configuration) gets weird. She misses truck but bumps into Chesire guy who is building super. He recommends she reach out for help. Alicia too independent and stubborn. Keeps walking and smells something good, which brings her to...
Mad Hatter Tea Party - Alicia comes to a store run by a SWPL guy with ornate facial hair and a stupid SWPL hat. An androgynous woman (March Hare) can be his business partner at their boutique tea shop. They talk absolute non-sense and are hyperobsessed with tea, never answering her questions ("Can I use your phone?") and never giving her any tea. She's getting into the triple digits for street numbers, so she knows she's getting closer to home. It's still light out, but she's hungry. Meets three brothers, Ace, Deuce and Trey, who will take her to their mom....
Queen of Hearts - Alicia meets Queenie with a heart tattoo who is a big black woman with tons of sons. She has many dressed in red. Queenie (should it be LaQueenie?) claims to be the HBIC of her building and block. She is excited to have a girl around as she never had a daughter. Never offers help. Snaps on her sons and even hits one or two. Eventually she asks Alicia if she wants to ball. Alicia doesn't play but says she will if she can get an escort home after. Queenie challenges her to a game of HORSE, bragging of her ball skills which sounds funny because she's fat. She claims she was good before her first kid (Ace). On a playground court, she is a maven and gets H-O on Alicia. She even makes "ho" jokes about Alicia. Alicia's nearly in tears and when Queenie takes her next shot, you hear an airhorn sound. Queenie misses and goes nuts on the boys. Alicia looks, and sees the Chesire guy behind the wheel of a large truck. He smiles. It's Alicia's shot. She closes her eyes and throws it over her head. It goes in. She thinks she's got Queenie. Nope. Queenie saunters over and says that is her closing shot. Goes to take the shot, and then we hear gunfire. Everyone scatters. Bodies going everywhere. Alicia confused and mixed up.
We see her in the front seat of a vehicle as it pulls up to a house. Guy on radio mentions dropping her off. Arms pick her up and bring her to the door. Her parents do that talking fast Spanish excited and happy thing. Lots of thanking God in Spanish. Reunion is sweet. Her dad says "Thanks Cesar", and Alicia looks back to see who dropped her off. It's Chesire guy, and he's driving a "White Rabbit" van. Come on, I set you up here with that one. You knew it was coming. She thanks and hugs him. End the movie. It's a happy ending.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Father's Day
Wake up, and then wake up and excite my son because dad is home, not just mom, so it's party time. Eat breakfast with some music on, and laugh at which songs make him dance. Play 'clock-clock' where I put him up on the counter so he can play with the radio. Put him down, let him run around playing. Maybe we play with his megablocks, building a city. We'll use his chalkboard to do 'teach' where he reads letters and numbers I randomly write. He's pretty sharp for 2. He'll ask me to draw a chicken, duck, bear, sun, dog and tree. He's gotta eat and watch a show. After his nap, he'll play around, and get out in the backyard. He'll entertain himself with occasional help. He eats dinner. Eventually, we'll repeat the cycle from the morning, blocks, teach, show, whatever. We'll get mom in on the act and go for a walk. If I get behind the stroller, it is to pop a wheelie to get him laughing. Mom will bring him up for a bath, and dad will unwind. Mom will get him ready for bed, read him a story and then tell him to call for dad, "Daaaaadyyyyyy". Half the time, I come in immediately, and other half, I walk beyond the doorway like I can't hear him, "Someone talking?". He laughs every single time. I make it in, give him a high five, hug and sometimes tickle him if he rolls around. I put the stuffed polar bear (Evgeny) on the edge of his crib, which he throws out like he's a rebel. We close the door as I hear him say "Night night, love you". That is not Father's Day. That's every weekend.
Marriage is not a monolith. Fatherhood is not a prison. Life is what you make of it. Yes, this is idealized, self-serving family man propaganda, but this was false choice, self-serving bachelor man propaganda... but I won't flop so terribly that I need to add a clarifying update. Plus, my paragraph is true. I live a blessed life.
Marriage is not a monolith. Fatherhood is not a prison. Life is what you make of it. Yes, this is idealized, self-serving family man propaganda, but this was false choice, self-serving bachelor man propaganda... but I won't flop so terribly that I need to add a clarifying update. Plus, my paragraph is true. I live a blessed life.
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Help Syria? No, Help Rich Arab Partners
It has been a long propaganda campaign by the US media and the administration to prod and push the American public into supporting military intervention in Syria's Civil War. The little dorks at Cracked.com have jumped into the act as well. There has been discussion of atrocities, which turned out to be by the guys we will support. It is about toppling a dictator to install democracy, which will put another Islamist party in power that is aligned with Al Qaeda. No one with any reach outside of Zero Hedge has discussed what it is really about, which is a nice, fat natural gas pipeline for the Qataris (links 1, 2). We will not get the gas, but we support this because the Qatari and Saudi billionaires are in our billionaire dollar bloc.
In the second link, Zero Hedge does a great job of explaining why the Assad regime stands in the way of Qatar and Turkey's ambitions to transport and deliver gas to European markets. This is a win for Qatar as the Saudis do support the Islamist rebels, but they do not support Qatari gas exports. The entire Nabucco gas pipeline system, which Turkey has the control center piece to, is a way for non-Russian gas to make its way to energy hungry European markets. This is a win for Europe as they get cheaper natgas, and can't be threatened by the Russians (loss for them). Israel wins by destroying Assad, which will weaken Iran. Al Qaeda and Islamists get a win, what? This is a win for America because.... wait there is no win for the USA. This is just a required duty of running the Global Protection Racket. Qatar is home to a giant American Air Force base, which we built after we moved operations out of Saudi Arabia. The Saudis and Qataris are massive purchases of US debt with both of their sovereign wealth funds in the global top 10 (if you consolidate China's). Those funds also buy up a ton of debt and equity of American businesses. We need to recycle that money. How will the Qataris get more? Export more gas!
This truly is a conflict we should stay out of due to the bigger picture issues. Left them keep killing each other. Russia and China have their client states in the MENA, and so do we. Turning Syria from an Assad regime to a collapsed state like Egypt, just ties them to our camp and pisses off Russia/China. The natgas issue will anger Gazprom/Russia. Do we want to upset the two countries that are amassing gold reserves and agitating for a realignment of the internal monetary order? Our elites most likely don't care because we're top dog and will always be (idiots). The financial elites and State department must have pitched globalization to the Military-Industrial complex as a way to foster more need for intervention and limited kinetic action to increase revenue streams and stabilize earnings. Plus, the MI corps get new buyers of weapons! What happens to Iran? If they lose Assad, it hurts them, but it also sends a message to beef up all defense measures and quicken work on nukes. Iran has an election coming up, and they had riots the last time. Hmmmmmm. Bigger historical picture: it's a shame the Romans didn't work with the Persians for peace and to power share in the Middle East, creating stronger communities and defenses cemented for centuries to rub out Mohammad when his band of roving warrior cousins started to expand.
The American people do not want to intervene in Syria. They don't want immigration reform either, but our bought and paid for political class does. Just like the billionaires playing the tunes and calling the shots in domestic deals, so it goes in international affairs. These Arab billionaires are dirty bastards, but they are aligned with us, and our dirty bastards. Let's give three cheers for globalization. We make others billionaires, they become part of our economic system, and then we have to show up to flex muscle when they ask for it. This really is just an overt step in our involvement in Syria. There is a theory that Benghazi was our coordination point for running guns and equipment to the Syrian rebels since Gahdafi's death (Google it). We all know how right many conspiracy theories have been proven the last month. Sit back and enjoy the show. We're about to see if a Russian and Chinese proxy can defend against US support when given time to plan a defense. Despite Saudi and Qatari billions flowing to rebels, Assad seemed to securely have the upper hand, which is why Uncle Sam is jumping in. Only time will tell, but remember, this is for a Qatari emir and his natural gas.
Friday, June 14, 2013
Naomi Wolf Doesn't Get Snowden
"The Almighty says this must be a fashionable fight. It's drawn the finest people." - Stephen in Braveheart
I still am feeling out this Snowden guy, but man oh man, are the chattering classes of elites on guard. Liberals seem to be half and half, but you at least now know which of your friends is a pure statist and who has liberal principles. You can tell the necocon vs. conservative/libertarians as well. It's been fun to witness. The big split seems to be Boomer vs. everyone else. Was there any doubt the Boomers would get prickly? Waddling into the mess is Naomi Wolf. She has a nice, cathedral apparatchik smearing of Mr. Snowden and needling of his motives, his life and even into his soul. Maybe she'll turn out right that he isn't who he purports to be, but reading her little bitch-fest, I could smell the Boomer over whiffs of journalist scum.
Wolf cites how Snowden is super-organized, used slides for a presentation, he is calm, throws out what may happen to him, how the police state would want this and oh no, his cute girlfriend is always shown in pole dance poses. Naomi, step outside your pampered Jewish pseudo-academic life and take a look at Snowden from a POV who may understand a Millenial man and dislike the system. Shot with a great cameraman and of high quality? Naomi, there are teens with Iphones who shoot better than TV productions from 10 years ago. Time flies and tech advances. Snowden is super-organized because he is a product of our education system and involved in IT and government contracting. You dipshit Boomers didn't teach us to critically think and form our own opinions but we put together tons of presentation projects (thank you Powerpoint) and were rewarded on crossing ts and dotting is. IT and government contracts engage in the same monotony. The guy's been trained to use slides.
From an interview demeanor standpoint, you don't know this because you're a journalist/academic hack, but Snowden's calm because he's not a neurotic Jew (familiar to you), and he isn't a Boomer who will overemphasize everything to make it more important. He might also be on some anti-anxiety meds like so many men now. Snowden mentions the possible end to his story to inform people of his risk because people have become desensitized to stories as we all think everyone is getting paid to tell their 15 minutes (hint hint, you media types did this). Yes, the police state may want this. That is your best point. His hot girlfriend is paraded out in scandalous pics because the media is defending Obama and wants to smear Snowden as involved with a skank therefore Snowden is discredited. It's like showing Trayvon's 12 year old pic despite him being 6 foot 1 and age 17 when shot, just in reverse. See: Snowden bad for going after liberal system, Trayvon good for being black. Am I explaining this in simple enough terms?
See, Naomi, it makes sense when you aren't an aging Boomer beyond one's prime who spent decades deep in the media. In fact, let's review a book you wrote. Check your Wikipedia page. Here's your roadmap for a fascist movement to destroy a democratic state (italics are mine):
There are many good Boomers out there. There are many who served in Nam when they couldn't get a draft deferral or had a bad lottery number. Many got chewed up by downsizing and outsourcing. Many raised families and did a good job. Another bunch of Boomers tore at the fabric of society and tried to overturn the entire system only to sell out lickety split for big bucks in the '80s and '90s. You assholes threw Molotovs at cops, soldiers, whomever and laugh about it at picnics 20 years later while lording over us for decades with zero tolerance suspensions from school (Pop tart shaped like a gun? SUSPENDED!). You guys don't have principles, and sold out so long ago and for so little that a Millenial walking away from a nice piece of ass, Hawaii and a six figure salary is beyond your comprehension. I hope Snowden isn't a paid Chinese spy, because that would reveal a new ability for the Chinese to get an espionage leg up on us without having to resort to Chinese engineers and scientists (Los Alamos, anyone?). Even if he is a spy, he is pushing into the spotlight (if it can stay there) a serious topic. Even the Oathkeepers support the discussion. Snowden isn't going to be like any whistleblower you know because the world has changed since Ellsberg, and we're talking about shooting the devil in the back here, not blowing the whistle on a tech firm or a financial corporation. Naomi, I shouldn't be so hard on you, but like a lot of Boomers, you just don't get it.
I still am feeling out this Snowden guy, but man oh man, are the chattering classes of elites on guard. Liberals seem to be half and half, but you at least now know which of your friends is a pure statist and who has liberal principles. You can tell the necocon vs. conservative/libertarians as well. It's been fun to witness. The big split seems to be Boomer vs. everyone else. Was there any doubt the Boomers would get prickly? Waddling into the mess is Naomi Wolf. She has a nice, cathedral apparatchik smearing of Mr. Snowden and needling of his motives, his life and even into his soul. Maybe she'll turn out right that he isn't who he purports to be, but reading her little bitch-fest, I could smell the Boomer over whiffs of journalist scum.
Wolf cites how Snowden is super-organized, used slides for a presentation, he is calm, throws out what may happen to him, how the police state would want this and oh no, his cute girlfriend is always shown in pole dance poses. Naomi, step outside your pampered Jewish pseudo-academic life and take a look at Snowden from a POV who may understand a Millenial man and dislike the system. Shot with a great cameraman and of high quality? Naomi, there are teens with Iphones who shoot better than TV productions from 10 years ago. Time flies and tech advances. Snowden is super-organized because he is a product of our education system and involved in IT and government contracting. You dipshit Boomers didn't teach us to critically think and form our own opinions but we put together tons of presentation projects (thank you Powerpoint) and were rewarded on crossing ts and dotting is. IT and government contracts engage in the same monotony. The guy's been trained to use slides.
From an interview demeanor standpoint, you don't know this because you're a journalist/academic hack, but Snowden's calm because he's not a neurotic Jew (familiar to you), and he isn't a Boomer who will overemphasize everything to make it more important. He might also be on some anti-anxiety meds like so many men now. Snowden mentions the possible end to his story to inform people of his risk because people have become desensitized to stories as we all think everyone is getting paid to tell their 15 minutes (hint hint, you media types did this). Yes, the police state may want this. That is your best point. His hot girlfriend is paraded out in scandalous pics because the media is defending Obama and wants to smear Snowden as involved with a skank therefore Snowden is discredited. It's like showing Trayvon's 12 year old pic despite him being 6 foot 1 and age 17 when shot, just in reverse. See: Snowden bad for going after liberal system, Trayvon good for being black. Am I explaining this in simple enough terms?
See, Naomi, it makes sense when you aren't an aging Boomer beyond one's prime who spent decades deep in the media. In fact, let's review a book you wrote. Check your Wikipedia page. Here's your roadmap for a fascist movement to destroy a democratic state (italics are mine):
- Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy (terrorism, changing in form DHS ads)
- Create secret prisons where torture takes place (check)
- Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens (check, minority gangs)
- Set up an internal surveillance system (check, NSA-DHS-FBI-IRS)
- Harass citizens' groups (check, IRS targeting Tea Party)
- Engage in arbitrary detention and release (check, indefinite detention)
- Target key individuals
- Control the press (check, hey that's you)
- Treat all political dissidents as traitors (check)
- Suspend the rule of law[28]
There are many good Boomers out there. There are many who served in Nam when they couldn't get a draft deferral or had a bad lottery number. Many got chewed up by downsizing and outsourcing. Many raised families and did a good job. Another bunch of Boomers tore at the fabric of society and tried to overturn the entire system only to sell out lickety split for big bucks in the '80s and '90s. You assholes threw Molotovs at cops, soldiers, whomever and laugh about it at picnics 20 years later while lording over us for decades with zero tolerance suspensions from school (Pop tart shaped like a gun? SUSPENDED!). You guys don't have principles, and sold out so long ago and for so little that a Millenial walking away from a nice piece of ass, Hawaii and a six figure salary is beyond your comprehension. I hope Snowden isn't a paid Chinese spy, because that would reveal a new ability for the Chinese to get an espionage leg up on us without having to resort to Chinese engineers and scientists (Los Alamos, anyone?). Even if he is a spy, he is pushing into the spotlight (if it can stay there) a serious topic. Even the Oathkeepers support the discussion. Snowden isn't going to be like any whistleblower you know because the world has changed since Ellsberg, and we're talking about shooting the devil in the back here, not blowing the whistle on a tech firm or a financial corporation. Naomi, I shouldn't be so hard on you, but like a lot of Boomers, you just don't get it.
Your Choice: Batman or Superman?
Completely devoid of new ideas, Hollywood is trotting out Superman for viewers again. The last reboot kind of sucked from what my friends told me, but there must be too much revenue potential for Hollywood to wait and relaunch it again. Superman is a great story, but America seems to have moved beyond it because we love the anti-hero now. It's part of our devolution. Whenever a Batman or Superman movie comes out, it makes me revisit the Batman or Superman choice. What did you read as a kid? What type of comic fan were you? As a great deleted scene in Pulp Fiction explained, you're either an Elvis or Beatles man. You can like both, but ultimately, you'll pick one over the other. Who you got, Batman or Superman? It probably reveals more about you than the character.
This isn't about adult readers. It isn't about the beta fantasy BS, because comics targeted kids. I enjoyed comics growing up because I loved to draw, and I had a young uncle who would let me read his. He'd make up a character, and I'd draw how I imagined him. Video games and comics can bridge 15 years. He and I both liked Batman, and for the same reasons. Batman is born a rich kid who suffers a horrendous tragedy. Rather than live a life of decadence, he channels everything into fighting crime. He is obsessed with fighting crime to avenge his family's death. Almost all of his opponents are psychologically damaged individuals, like him, and usually intelligent, like him. He has to out-think the villains. He's complicated, and he is just one man applying himself. He's human and vulnerable. The citizens don't even appreciate his efforts, but he feels it is his duty as a leading citizen of the city to try to clean it up to an ungrateful, declining population. He works at night, using the shadows to his advantage. He has to hide his face. Any man could choose his path but only he did.
This isn't about adult readers. It isn't about the beta fantasy BS, because comics targeted kids. I enjoyed comics growing up because I loved to draw, and I had a young uncle who would let me read his. He'd make up a character, and I'd draw how I imagined him. Video games and comics can bridge 15 years. He and I both liked Batman, and for the same reasons. Batman is born a rich kid who suffers a horrendous tragedy. Rather than live a life of decadence, he channels everything into fighting crime. He is obsessed with fighting crime to avenge his family's death. Almost all of his opponents are psychologically damaged individuals, like him, and usually intelligent, like him. He has to out-think the villains. He's complicated, and he is just one man applying himself. He's human and vulnerable. The citizens don't even appreciate his efforts, but he feels it is his duty as a leading citizen of the city to try to clean it up to an ungrateful, declining population. He works at night, using the shadows to his advantage. He has to hide his face. Any man could choose his path but only he did.
What is Superman? Superman is an alien, orphan raised in a safe, small town who has these magical powers he never knew he was born with that make him invincible, powerful and able to fly. He is unique. No one can be like him. Not just in being a one of a kind orphan, but in abilities. His foes can never match him physically, but they can outsmart him. His foes are pathetic, with the exception of Darkseid. Luthor is a brilliant concept but has no power to challenge him. He fights crime in the security that he can't be beaten. Actually, his only weakness is if a scrap of his home planet, where he is really from, somehow makes its way to Earth. He doesn't hide his face when doing his good works and is complimented and loved by his city. He graciously serves mankind. I can see how a reader can get into that, but they better be 10 years old.
I'm already slagging on Superman people with that last line, but it does seem more appealing to kids. If you're a kid drawn to Batman more than Superman as a kid, maybe you have a darker home, maybe some rougher stuff happened, or maybe you know evil is always going to be out there so you have to fight it. Your choice of Batman or Superman probably says more about your childhood than you as people change their tastes. How many kids grew up liking Luke Skywalker more but switched to Han Solo after some years? Although President Obama says he a Superman fan. The Superman opening will sell plenty of tickets, but that first weekend will have a different crowd than an opening for Batman films. It's just part of who you are.
I'm already slagging on Superman people with that last line, but it does seem more appealing to kids. If you're a kid drawn to Batman more than Superman as a kid, maybe you have a darker home, maybe some rougher stuff happened, or maybe you know evil is always going to be out there so you have to fight it. Your choice of Batman or Superman probably says more about your childhood than you as people change their tastes. How many kids grew up liking Luke Skywalker more but switched to Han Solo after some years? Although President Obama says he a Superman fan. The Superman opening will sell plenty of tickets, but that first weekend will have a different crowd than an opening for Batman films. It's just part of who you are.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Lifetime Abortion Incidence + Black Marriage
The cathedral does a good job of choking off some information. I scoured the Internet looking for "what percentage of women get an abortion in their lifetime". It was a bit difficult to find, but a study in 2011 said the cumulative abortion incidence for American women is roughly 30% (300 per 1000 women by age 45). A source for data in 2008 says it is around that figure as well. This might be under reported due to self reporting when women get one done, but it is the best we have. Couldn't find that stat broken out by race, odd. I started searching for this after having a talk with a black friend about the Gosnell grand jury testimony. She mentioned how the GOP tries to reach out to black women but then demonize the stuff they like, proceeding to list a bunch of gimme-gimme government programs. Abortion was one of them. I then played dumb and mentioned the variety of things about abortion like "it's sad rough of a life it is for so many black women that they choose to end a life rather than raise it" and "isn't it weird the libs always put Planned Parenthoods in the hood". It didn't sink in for her. Her lesson for me didn't sink in until I did the search. The abortion incidence rate is a measurable figure that is a clue to the black marriage problem. It may point to black females disqualifying more black men.
If the lifetime rate is 30% of all women, but black women get abortions at a rate 5x or so higher than white women and only make up 12.5% of the female population, what is their lifetime rate? It's got to be higher right? We know that roughly half of all black pregnancies end in abortion, but what if it's a similar number for black women getting abortions? What if the number is freakishly high like 60%? Something that is that common might move from being considered a "grave, serious choice" (liberals use this phrasing) to just another form of birth control. Just another form of BC is the argument used by some social conservatives that abortion acts as BC for irresponsible women. Cons want you to think that the decision is nonchalant, therefore women are horrible thinking this way about new life while the libs mention it is as grave matter and only a women in a tough situation would turn to abortion. You, middle of the road voter, will support it if you think every woman getting an abortion is searching her soul before doing so. If abortion in the black community is that widespread, it leans towards the just another form of BC, not serious choice side. If it does, then this is another government paid for good. If it does, then the aborted baby is not your child but a burden or obstacle for you.
Sorry for the abortion paragraph tangent. The marriage problem came up in a comment thread on GLPiggy. I mentioned that instead of purely viewing the declining marriage rate of blacks as men withdrawing but of them not being up to snuff with drop out rates and criminality factored in. If you read the Black Boys Report, the high school completion rate since 2000 (nothing earlier) has consistently been under 50% with some years under 45%, so if you meet a black guy under 30, there's a 1 in 2 chance he didn't graduate high school. Should we blame black marriage rates declining with an education fact like that? Another commenter mentioned men being disqualified by the women, and even Heartiste mentioned it is a 2 way street. I kind of laugh since the Roosh Forum is full of fantastic, college educated black guys bitching about black women and my workplace has a clique of wonderful, flawless black women that bitch about the lack of good brothers. It is a two way street, but what facts may tip us off as to who is more to blame. Aborting children at absurd rates in relation to every other race does have socioeconomic factors at work, but it is the ultimate sign of women saying "You and your seed are not worthy".
Sorry for the abortion paragraph tangent. The marriage problem came up in a comment thread on GLPiggy. I mentioned that instead of purely viewing the declining marriage rate of blacks as men withdrawing but of them not being up to snuff with drop out rates and criminality factored in. If you read the Black Boys Report, the high school completion rate since 2000 (nothing earlier) has consistently been under 50% with some years under 45%, so if you meet a black guy under 30, there's a 1 in 2 chance he didn't graduate high school. Should we blame black marriage rates declining with an education fact like that? Another commenter mentioned men being disqualified by the women, and even Heartiste mentioned it is a 2 way street. I kind of laugh since the Roosh Forum is full of fantastic, college educated black guys bitching about black women and my workplace has a clique of wonderful, flawless black women that bitch about the lack of good brothers. It is a two way street, but what facts may tip us off as to who is more to blame. Aborting children at absurd rates in relation to every other race does have socioeconomic factors at work, but it is the ultimate sign of women saying "You and your seed are not worthy".
If a matrilineal and matrilocal community uses abortion that much and marriage is a problem, then the marriage problem may lend credence to the good brother shortage concept. The entire culture condones the killing of new life on a rate far outside the norms of other ethnic groups, and their fathers are treated as disposable units to subtract or add on mom's whim. A man is assigned no value and excluded when mom says so. Hell, his seed is worth so little that half of the time his children are aborted. Social conservatives, right wingers and generally everyone who is not a white liberal points out the harm that rap's glorification of thug life as well as movies have on black youths, but what of the immediate message of a child's father not being worthy? The constant flow of men in and out, men who don't succeed at the rate of women and are semi-attached must consistently send the message of useless men. This has to affect the value assigned to men and the expectations of their role in the family. Fixing the decline of marriage is a multivariable situation. There are many things that will have to be addressed, but it will help everyone to admit that both genders are contributing to the problem.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
When Propaganda Doesnt Work, Import New People
Looks like our elite paymasters are doing everything in their power to get a fresh, new wave of unwanted immigration rammed down Americans' throats. This happens to be timed roughly at the same time that a bombshell is dropped, confirming that the NSA is collecting all of our telecommunications data. The outrage over this seems to be disproportionately from Americans who are white, independent of government assistance and younger. Opinion polls, Faceborg, and even twitter can reinforce that composite image, as the NSA couldn't compete with "Love and Hip Hop" for Twitter trends. Liberal media propaganda does work, but it is not nearly as effective as it used to be. Because the media has lost its effectiveness and the old socialist message was a loser to many white voters, the government decided to import a new people to further their economic control.
Right after the second World War, Americans were obsessed with cutting the budget deficit. Keynes' elixir had worked on the elites but hadn't sunk in with Joe Six Pack. The '50s newspaper propaganda did everything to try to change this. Most of our literature, dominant form of exchanging ideas then, pushed the increase in government expenditures. Captain Capitalism has a great post on this phenomenon of rising government share of GDP. He's right. What is also right is that this was a propaganda effort to convince people that the government programs were needed and beneficial. Sadly, there were no alternative media outlets that could point out the hypocrisy on display. In the very same newspapers blasting headlines about bad schools and poor government goods, you had advertisements for all of the post-war consumer and durable goods. On the same page were ads to make life a dream while a reporter was telling you how America was falling apart and falling behind. This was a lie.
It was a lie with a purpose. The purpose was to get people to shift more money to public goods and away from private goods. This was the liberal government dream of having more of the economy under government control and influence. Americans couldn't be forced into Communism when fighting against the USSR in a Cold War. They had to be manipulated into believing public investments and government control of the economy was needed. This was a steady message in the post-war period. Check Google's Ngram for phrases like 'government spending needed', 'bad schools', 'public investment', 'invest in schools' and other public expenditure garbage. This suffered a setback as the right figured out how to latch onto the free market Milton Friedman ideas and the left's '68 takeover scared America away from them for years at the polls. Once enough white Americans rejected that and bought into greed is good (initiative), the powers that be needed to elect a new people.
Importing people from socialist countries, importing people who become government welfare cases, importing people from Leninist states (Mexico), importing people who may score lower on average on IQ tests all cater to a party that feeds off government patronage power. It also is putty in the hands of those who control our media messaging system. I can look through the NY Times presidential endorsements of the 20th century and laugh if I want or just assume the default 21st century journalism setting is leftist, corporate scumbag. Who is easier to trick, Average Joe or Dumber than Average Joe? Who is easier to get attached to you, a person who depends on you for living in the USA or a multi-generation born citizen? Who won't care about you reading their texts if you give them a free phone? Who is likely to confuse government goodies with the government protecting your rights? The left needs more dependents to trick to get a higher share of the economy under their thumb. They need to divert more income from the economic exchange loop through their highly inefficient government system. They need more fools.
Right after the second World War, Americans were obsessed with cutting the budget deficit. Keynes' elixir had worked on the elites but hadn't sunk in with Joe Six Pack. The '50s newspaper propaganda did everything to try to change this. Most of our literature, dominant form of exchanging ideas then, pushed the increase in government expenditures. Captain Capitalism has a great post on this phenomenon of rising government share of GDP. He's right. What is also right is that this was a propaganda effort to convince people that the government programs were needed and beneficial. Sadly, there were no alternative media outlets that could point out the hypocrisy on display. In the very same newspapers blasting headlines about bad schools and poor government goods, you had advertisements for all of the post-war consumer and durable goods. On the same page were ads to make life a dream while a reporter was telling you how America was falling apart and falling behind. This was a lie.
It was a lie with a purpose. The purpose was to get people to shift more money to public goods and away from private goods. This was the liberal government dream of having more of the economy under government control and influence. Americans couldn't be forced into Communism when fighting against the USSR in a Cold War. They had to be manipulated into believing public investments and government control of the economy was needed. This was a steady message in the post-war period. Check Google's Ngram for phrases like 'government spending needed', 'bad schools', 'public investment', 'invest in schools' and other public expenditure garbage. This suffered a setback as the right figured out how to latch onto the free market Milton Friedman ideas and the left's '68 takeover scared America away from them for years at the polls. Once enough white Americans rejected that and bought into greed is good (initiative), the powers that be needed to elect a new people.
Importing people from socialist countries, importing people who become government welfare cases, importing people from Leninist states (Mexico), importing people who may score lower on average on IQ tests all cater to a party that feeds off government patronage power. It also is putty in the hands of those who control our media messaging system. I can look through the NY Times presidential endorsements of the 20th century and laugh if I want or just assume the default 21st century journalism setting is leftist, corporate scumbag. Who is easier to trick, Average Joe or Dumber than Average Joe? Who is easier to get attached to you, a person who depends on you for living in the USA or a multi-generation born citizen? Who won't care about you reading their texts if you give them a free phone? Who is likely to confuse government goodies with the government protecting your rights? The left needs more dependents to trick to get a higher share of the economy under their thumb. They need to divert more income from the economic exchange loop through their highly inefficient government system. They need more fools.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)