Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Friday, January 18, 2019

Why "Evangelicals" Support Trump Despite His Failings

Some time ago I was listening to the Steve Harvey show and they were discussing how they couldn't understand how Christian people were supportive of Trump. Their position being that Trump as so immoral and had broken so many Christian rules that it was impossible to square being a Christian and a Trump supporter. I'm going to address the question here with a recent example from CNN in reference to Karen Pence:
(CNN)Karen Pence, the wife of America's vice president, Mike Pence will be teaching art at a Christian school in Virginia that bans LGBTQ children and requires employees to declare their religious beliefs. Like a real-life setting for "The Handmaid's Tale," Immanuel Christian School insists applicants initial a pledge to "live a personal life of moral purity."
Given that homosexuality is an explicit sin in the Bible, why does it need stating? Furthermore given that the US Constitution not only explicitly enforces the natuaral right of citizens to freely exercise their religions it also explicitly states that there are to be no religious tests for office holding. So then if one is supportive of so called "American values" as stated above, there is no controversy or even anything newsworthy of what Karen Pence decides to do with her time and what values she holds and lives by.
This language is disgusting and insults millions of taxpaying American citizens, many who have served their country. That it is acceptable to the wife of the man who is a heartbeat away from the presidency should horrify and alarm all Americans.
"disgusting and insulting"? Well maybe to you. It's actually not "disgusting and insulting" to millions of people who hold the exact same opinions who are also "taxpaying American citizens". Furthermore, what is actually "horrifying" (why do liberals use this kind of language all the time anyway?) is that someone who purports to be concerned for the welfare of "taxpaying American citizens" is so willing to throw away the free exercise rights of a citizen and their right to participate in the political sphere simply because some other Americans don't like what religious views they hold and exercise. That's "horrifying".
For all their professed beliefs, Pence, and his wife, show unwavering support for a man who has been married three times, divorced twice, has had five children with three women and who has been accused of (though denies) paying a porn star and a Playboy model hundreds of thousands of dollars to conceal affairs he'd had with them.
Yes. The Donald certainly has many moral failings. So why would Pence among other evangelicals support him? First answer by CNN:
It comes down to this: If the Pences love their God so much, then they would not sit in a White House with a man who shows no moral compass and said he never asks for forgiveness. They would be on the White House lawn, with the King James Bible in hand, disavowing a President who is a horrible representation for our children.

The very answer as to why millions of evangelical Christians support Trump is because Trump has supported their right to freely exercise their religion in private and in public. The end years of the Obama administration were direct attacks on "Christian" values: Support of transexuals. Support of homosexual marriages and the use of the state to enforce these preferences including threats. The same Trump that has supported Christians has also said he didn't care what bathroom Bruce Jenner used at Trump Tower. In other words Trump is not concerned with forcing his beliefs or non-beliefs on Christians. As he shoud NOT. Thus he protects the interests of evangelicals to be free from government interference. That is why Trump has their support. When CNN, Steve Harvey and the rest understand this and stop supporting politicians and companies that attack Christians then Trump will lose his support for the same reasons brought up by CNN.

And so long as companies like Netflix get away with programming that in the recent past would be a crime called endangerig the welfare of a child, the support for Trump type politicians will grow in many quarters not located in NY or California.

Wednesday, January 16, 2019

No White Man In Sight, Dead Black Girl Out Of Mind

I was particularly bothered when a high member of Black Lives Matter said that "black on black crime" wasn't "a thing". Particularly when more black people are killed by other black people every 3 to 5 years than were lynched in the entire "lynch era" of the United States. How callous and uncaring one has to be to not even acknowledge the dead black bodies simply because no white person was involved.

So here we have Jazmin Barnes. Dead. Shot due to mistaken identity by two black males. When questioned it was said that the shooter was a white male with blue eyes>. I was immediately put off by the commentary about blue eyes. Blue eyes are a recessive trait. A low number of white people have natural blue eyes. A large number of people with blue eyes have contacts in. As a matter of fact, blue eye contacts are one of the most popular colors.

Blue eyes are genetically recessive, and therefore much less common worldwide. Blue eyes are formed by the absence of pigments in the eye, where the blue color is formed by the scattering of light as it's reflected off the iris. While blue eyes are less common than brown eyes, they are frequently found from nationalities located near the Baltic sea in northern Europe. It's estimated that approximately 8% of the world's population has blue eyes.
8%. World wide.

So I thought that it was highly unlikely that whoever was responsible actually had blue eyes.

The media and the usual suspects went on and on about how this incident, unsolved and unproven, was "yet another sign" of racial tensions. And Trump was at fault for that. Certain celebrities pledged monies for funerals and the like.

Then the real killers were found after a tip was sent in. The killers were black. The guy in the red pickup was, at most a witness to the event.

And soon thereafter Jazmin Barnes was dropped from news coverage in favour of the white girl held in a house by a white man.

The sad thing about this, aside from yet another dead black person was that the sense of normalcy when the killers were found. Oh it was a black male drive by. Seen that, been there. Nothing unusual. The thing is that these kinds of tragedies happen all the time and celebs rarely put on a show of support to these victims of black violence. But as that leader of BLM said: "It's not really a thing."

I hope one day that black people wake up to how they are being used and manipulated by the media to see white people as the cause of all their problems and issues. No. We free. We choose. We are responsible.

Tuesday, January 15, 2019

Not Getting Paid Due To Govt. Shutdown? Blame Dems

I'll keep this brief:

Only a fool. A damn fool did not see the government shutdown coming. Last year when Trump signed the last long term budget that failed to fund "his" wall (millions or people voted for Trump due to his promise of The Wall so it's their wall as well), Trump said that he would never sign another budget like that again.

Democrats crowed about how they didn't give Trump shit and, if I recall correctly, they even poison pilled that budget such that no funds from that budget could be used for a border wall. They were tee hee-ing and guffawing at how The Donald was a shit negotiator and how they rolled him.

Now he's keeping his promise and not signing "anything like that again" and being pilloried for it. If someone tells you they will punch you in the mouth if you "say it again" and you "say it again" and get punched in the mouth do you act surprised? No? You knew the deal and ran your mouth anyway. Same thing applies here. Dems rolled Trump last time. They told their base that The Donald was a paper tiger, or that Mueller would have him out of office and they failed to take the threat seriously and now millions(?) of federal employees are facing economic hardship.

It's very tempting to blame Trump for this. Of course if you are partisan, then Trump is to blame. I'm not partisan. Trump could have done this last time. He compromised, "bigley" last time. Federal employees got paid last year because Trump backed down. By all "fairness" it is the Democrats turn and they are failing. Hence the shutdown.

In the end both parties are dug in. The Democrats have gone all in on obstructing and removing Trump while Trump is appearing to keep both his oath of office (that protect and defend) as well as campaign promises. Any compromise is going to make party bases somewhat unhappy. But that's negotiations. But this all could have been avoided had Democrats taken Trump's statement seriously.

Saturday, January 12, 2019

Rwanda Bans Skin Bleaching Products

From AlJazeera:

I see these products in the stores and it breaks my heart. I remember when I first noticed African women who's faces were way lighter than their necks or other body parts. I was unaware of the use of bleaching products and I thought it was makeup. In the past I had seen many very dark women who put on white base makeup which made their faces look entirely different from their necks. Often these were very attractive women who, in my opinion, had ruined their faces with that makeup.

While banning a product may "help" in that they will not be available, the real issue is the reason why these products are being used: The belief that their skin color is bad.

Just consider how bad this stuff is. Those florescent bulbs you buy in Home Depot? They don't want you to break them or dispose of them in your regular trash because it contains mercury. Yet these women will put this on their bodies regularly.

Tuesday, December 04, 2018

Lead With A Lie, Bury The Facts

I used to be a fan of the NYT. I grew up in an age when serious students were required, for example, to read and summarize an article in the science section of the NYT. Now, I would only use the NYT to clean my cat box litter. Yes, they have fallen that far off. The NYT I grew up with wouldn't touch a person who would state, publicly, that a race of people ought to be eliminated. Yet today's times has not a few of these individuals drawing a paycheck. It is not much unlike Counterpunch since the passing of Cockburn. Shrill voices calling any and everyone to their right nazis and fascists for simply pointing out easily observable facts rule these kinds of publications. But this is not a gripe session about periodicals I used to like. No, this is evidence of The Narrative. So here's the deal.

Headline:Can We Finally Stop Talking About ‘Male’ and ‘Female’ Brains?

Sure it's an "opinion" so it's not supposed to be technically "news". But still, "prestige" publications ought be careful about what they allow in their pages. Anyway? Why, when we know there are statistical differences in the way men and women utilize their noggins, should such an opinion even be worth printing. Surely there are better things to write about. Long ass quote 'cause I really don't care about traffic to

At its core is the persistent belief that men’s and women’s natures can be usefully and meaningfully carved into two categories or “natural kinds,” that are distinct, timeless, and deeply biologically grounded. Today’s version of this idea continues a centuries-long quest to find the source of this hypothesized divergence in abilities, preferences, and behavior in the brain: You can find this notion at work, for instance, in popular books like John Gray’s “Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus” in the 1990s, Louann Brizendine’s “The Female Brain” and “The Male Brain” the following decade, and last year’s “Results at the Top: Using Gender Intelligence to Create Breakthrough Growth” by Barbara Annis and Richard Nesbitt.

But a version of the same assumption is also sometimes subtly present in scientific research. Consider, for example, Cambridge University psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen’s influential Empathizing-Systemizing theory of brains and the accompanying “extreme male brain” theory of autism. This presupposes there is a particular “systemizing” brain type that we could meaningfully describe as “the male brain,” that drives ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving that distinguish the typical boy and man from the typical “empathizing” girl and woman.

Or consider studies that report sex differences in brain structure in terms of two different classes of brains. Thus, a globally publicized study by Madhura Ingalhalikar and colleagues on the human connectome — that is, the enormous set of connections between the different regions of the brain — which concluded that “male brains are structured to facilitate connectivity between perception and coordinated action, whereas female brains are designed to facilitate communication between analytical and intuitive processing modes.”

The problem with these approaches is the implicit assumption that sex differences, whether in brain structure, function, or behavior, ‘add up’ consistently in individuals to create “male brains" and “female brains,” and “male natures” and “female natures.”

Three paragraphs in order to get to what the "problem" is. Lefty types always have a "problem". One of their "problems" is "implicit" this and 'implicit" that. Shit cannot be just "this" or "that". If you say you are a nationalist you MUST be implying you are a "white nationalist" and want to enslave and exploit poor people of color around the world.

But no, see, the point here is that there are sex differences and if there are sex differences then some man or group of men somewhere will exploit these differences for their own benefit because only men exploit their differences to get ahead.

But that last quoted paragraph shows the clear lie of the piece. That there are statistical differences between men, as a group and women, as a group, it does NOT mean that any individual in either group MUST be a certain way or another. No one has ever made such a claim. Just as it is entirely true that though black people in America commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime when compared to whites, such a fact tells you very little about any particular black person you meet.

And so the author of this "opinion" piece undos their own point with:

In other words, humans generally don’t have brains with mostly or exclusively “female-typical” features or “male-typical” features. Instead, what’s most common in both females and males are brains with “mosaics” of features, some of them more common in males and some more common in females.
That is what we've known all along. So basically this entire piece is a waste of space.
: Not a single person had only feminine or only masculine scores on these variables. Rather, what was typical of both men and women (70 percent of them, to be exact) was a mosaic of feminine and masculine characteristics
No shit sherlock. Nobody said that these characteristics were mutually exclusive. The bell curve distribution of IQ for example shows that most men and women are "the same". The outliers at each end are where the differences are pronounced.
The key point here is that although there are sex differences in brain and behavior, when you move away from group-level differences in single features and focus at the level of the individual brain or person, you find that the differences, regardless of their origins, usually “mix up” rather than “add up.”
Again, no shit. We who have been following this have known this all along. And we know it is the same for other observable human phenomenon like IQ. There are group differences and there are individual differences. The mistake is to think that because you know a few individuals that you have a grasp of how millions of them generally operate. That's "the problem".

Thursday, November 29, 2018

Don't Work, Don't Get Paid

Only in America, or maybe in other parts of the world where that which is obvious is not to be stated, can there be a report published in which what was already known is seen as "new" and "news".

So this morning on CBS there was a report in which it was "found" that the Pay Gap(tm) between men and women was larger than we "thought". Apparently, women are making somewhere around 38 cents for every man's dollar. Shocking. If such slave wages were possible to have a successful business I would expect the male unemployment rate to skyrocket. I mean what sane manager would pay a man $10/hour when he can have a chick do the same shit for $3.80?

So how did they get to this startlingly bizarre conclusion? Well see, they looked at 15 year data. In that time they found that women had children or cared for presumably elderly parents and thus we not working for a significant amount of time. Apparently, the researchers were SHOCKED, SHOCKED I tell you to discover that if you don't work, you don't get paid!

This is totally unsurprising when grievance studies takes over "research". People need to find reasons to be upset. Hence, we should now get mad because women don't get paid when not at work. That men also do not get paid when they don't work is not a problem you see. Fuck men.

Also, in a sane society, we wouldn't see a problem with, you know, taking care of your children. Only in fucked up countries that pander endlessly to those in possession of a vagina, is child rearing less important than going to work for a large corporation where you make the CEO extremely wealthy, while abandoning your children to daycare centers who may or may not indoctrinate your children in shit you don't agree with.

Look, I don't have a problem if the state wants to encourage family formation by providing financial support to families. I DO have a problem when people think that a private enterprise ought to be Daddy Warbucks and be held financially responsible for the financial support of women who decide to have children. It's your body, not the company's or the state's. Keep them out your body and you keep out of their bank account. But this is what happens when in order to "not be dependent on no man" becomes the reality of "dependent on some business/government".

Wednesday, November 07, 2018

Notes On The Mid-Terms

1) It is quite normal for Congress to change hands in mid-term elections. Generally speaking, the electorate prefers that Congress be oppositional to the executive. A party that has the Executive, Senate and House will soon not have all three. So to me some of the results were not unexpected. I'm old enough to remember when Republicans, under Newt Gingrich thought they had the "infinity stones" to rule in perpetuity.

2) I also expected, in the increasing partisanship of the electorate that the House would see more changes than the Senate. House districts are gerrymandered by law in order to create "super majorities" on either political grounds or on racial grounds. So we have in some cases persons who lost their races because their districts were redrawn in a manner that stripped them of their "usual" supporters. That said, the rapidly changing demographics of the country is going to be seen on the district level first and then flow upwards. This is inevitable. Getting back to partisanship as the de-platforming wars continue where people's livelihoods will be dependent upon whether an employer can stomach negative press and tweetstorms, persons with views, lifestyles that are not supported will move to other places more conducive to their views.

3) The increase in R Senators is not too surprising. After the Kavanaugh hearing, the public got a good look at the Senate and I think that moved some/many undecided voters. Like Trump or not, seeing a person's reputation dragged through the mud in the vicious way it was done and realizing it could be you or your loved one, could not have sat well with people who are not consumed with "orange man bad". This also puts the spotlight on Ginsberg. Now that Republicans do not need any Democrats to approve the next Supreme Court judge, should Ginsberg pass before 2020 at the least, The Supreme Court goes very conservative for a very long time. No doubt this is why Trump has called the results a big win.

Also, Senators benefit from being statewide decisions. Unless you have a huge metropolis like NYC, the voters in urban districts can be balanced out by those in suburban and rural districts. In places like NY State, not so much. Basically, for statewide office all you need to do is win NYC and the rest of the state doesn't matter.

4) Abrams and Gillum are bigger winners than Republicans may realize. The Democrats have a long term vision that the Republicans either do not understand or are unwilling to counter. They are not called the stupid party for no reason. The Democrats plan is and has been Power Through Population Replacement. The first meaningful and deadly shot was the 1965 immigration act. The second deadly venom was the immigration amnesty that Reagan signed in the 1980s. Aside from the whole "cheap labour for big business" thing, the game was this:

New immigrants, aside from Cubans, lean Democratic by large margins. Their children, not wanting to betray their parents and heritage will likely continue that leaning. So you have a time "bomb" of 18 years.

The next deadly venom was non-enforcement of immigration law. This in combination with a misapplication of the 14th Amendment meant that you had an "unpredicted" number of new citizens being born to people seeking to protect themselves from being deported by becoming a parent of said citizen. More 18 year fuses.

The next deadly venom was control of the education system. This indoctrinated white students into thinking that they are racists and the receivers of unearned benefits of being white. Slowly but surely this attitude went from Universities on down. The effect of this was to split the ever shrinking white population into two groups: Good (guilt-ridden) and Bad (not-guilt ridden). When combined; dwindling white population, growing non-white population, split white population, The Democratic time bombs have been going off. They need not win *this* election or *that* election. What each election allows them to do is gauge the rate of change in the target areas. Neither Gillum nor Abrams could have even made it past primaries in the America of even 40 years ago. And that is not based on race. That is based on stated policies.

What changed was that the demographics of GA and FL have changed (This is Hilea!) to the extent that such persons *and* policy positions are acceptable. Recall that an article about Abrams flatly said that white voters were essentially not something she was even concerned with. It was the "Black Girl Magic" of the growing non-white population that would carry her into office. And lets be clear from the results: It nearly happened. The only reason she is not governor-elect at this very moment (she has not conceded as of this writing) is because the time bomb has not gone off yet. It will.

Gillum was and is similarly situated. If anything his views were to the left of Abrams. No way his positions would have flown in Florida of even 2000. But again, the only reason why he is not governor-elect is that the time bomb has not gone off. It will.

And really, we don't even have to take Race into consideration with these analyses. Look at Texas. How did Beto do so well? Again, his positions would not have flown in even year 2000 Texas. Again the demographic time bomb hasn't quite gone off but it will.

Republicans as a national and eventually statewide party is a dead man walking. They are on the "Green Mile" and they don't even know it. The future of the Republican party is on display in California. Why is this a bad thing? One party rule is not good for democracy. Not at all. There needs to be principled opposition in every government. You cannot have "checks and balances" when all those involved agree on the same things. A dictatorship of The Party is no less a threat than the dictatorship of one person.