Tuesday, May 03, 2016

Why Target Will Win The Bathroom Boycott Battle

I hate doing prediction pieces. Particularly when I'm not dealing with law. I'm a logic person by nature and if I can't lay down solid premises then I won't usually make a prediction. I'm going to go out on a limb based on certain circumstances and history. They are key reasons why I think Target "wins" in the long term.

1) The power of big business.

We talk about "to big to fail" when discussing banks but this thinking applies equally to big box retailers. Big box retailers have decimated the mom and pop economy. You can probably count on your hands the number of places where the vast majority of people purchase their regular items. Target is one of those places. A large percentage of the US population buys products at Target, Walmart, Kmart, Sears, JC Penny. Sears and Kmart are the same company. Old Navy, Gap are the same company.

The only way that Target is affected by a boycott is if Target stores are as empty as a Target store in Bergen County on a Sunday. For those who don't know, Target stores in Bergen County NJ are closed and therefore empty. Unless or until I see Target stores empty, particularly on profitable Saturdays, Target wins.

The other thing about these big businesses is that most of them are run by people who run in the same circles. If you think that Walmart, Kmart and Sears have not or will not have the same policies, you are mistaken. They may not announce it. But believe me, as soon as one person suffering gender dysphoria is denied access to the toilet of their choosing, the companies will fall in line. Company's dislike bad press but what they despise more than bad press is being labelled "bigoted".

2) The power of the state:

Should Target decide to reverse course and declare a traditional position on toilets they will be met with the same problem that Chik-Fil-A met when the owners of that franchise declared it's position on homosexuality. Never mind that Chik-Fil-A discriminated against exactly zero customers. We had town and state officials attempting to deny it the ability to do business. And that was years ago before WW T got into motion. Such a move by Target would bring down wrath from Federal agencies on down. That's not even getting into the effects on the social and business circles of the executives. I would not be surprised if Target then became the target of a discrimination lawsuit by the federal government, a private citizen "customer" as well as an employee. It would be very public and very nasty.

3) The historical record:

So far the only entities that have fared well against the "gay mafia" has been Duck Dynasty and Chik-Fil-A. What are the characteristics of those two entities? They both did not give a damn about the public. The Duck Dynasty was willing to go back to whatever it was they were doing before they got their show. And you'll note that since then you haven't heard too much about them in the media. Similarly Chik-Fil-A refused to kneel and is still a small player in the fast food market.

As noted before, Target is not similarly situated. It has no real principle to hang its hat on and it is certainly not willing to go out of business because...

4) Who exactly is the customer base?

Target, among many other businesses doesn't really know who it's customer base is. Or maybe it does. What we are going to find out is how many of it's customers are conservative or traditional and of those, how many are willing to put their money where their mouth is. As said earlier in the piece unless Target finds it's stores empty, particularly in states, cities and towns with a supposedly conservative or traditional base, they will be just fine in the long run.

There's a lot of talk about how much the stock has gone down. I think the excitement over that is overblown. That is short term losses and doesn't necessarily mean that actual income or sales have gone down. The latter is far more important than stock price.

People returning items and the like looks good but Target is also considering whether their "liberal" customer base would do the same thing if they reverse course. If the "liberal" customers are far more organized and effective in their targeting of a reversed Target then Target would lose more. This is the calculus. Which base of customers are more willing to actually carry out inflicting long term financial harm? I'm not entirely certain from the history I've seen that conservative or traditional customers are so motivated.

5) Media collusion

Already we have seen the tactic of disappearing Target news in the media. This will act as a means of dropping the decision into the memory hole. Americans have a very short memory span. Since conservative and traditional Americans tend to be employed with lots of responsibility, this can mean that they can forget about the Target decision. This helps Target in the long term. Believe me when I say that if Target had made a different decision it would be in the news for weeks on end. Chik-Fil-A and recent "religious freedom" bills are evidence for that.

What would get Target back in the news as a "win" for boycotters? A quarterly report with massive sales declines. The kind that threatens to have store closings.

Sunday, May 01, 2016

Dear Move On.Org: Please Fuck Off

I have been a long time subscriber to MoveOn's mailing list. Mostly due to it's opposition to the Bush presidency. Which was completely reasonable. However once Obama got into office MoveOn became an entirely different beast. Or perhaps it was the same beast but I was mistaken as to the type of beast I was dealing with. Since the 2016 campaign, MoveOn has become, in my opinion, more than just a mouthpiece of the Democratic party but a party to treason. I don't throw the word treason out very often and I don't use it lightly. In a country that has freedom of speech enshrined in it's sovereign law, the charge of treason is not something that should be easy to accuse much less prosecute. But here's why I say so.

I received yet another anti-Trump e-mail from MoveOn which contained the following:

My name is Ann Lewis, and I'm the Chief Technology Officer at MoveOn. I'm writing because MoveOn is under attack by Donald Trump, and we need your help.

Here's the situation: Over the past few months, as Donald Trump has campaigned from city to city, MoveOn members have turned out for peaceful demonstrations against his carnival of hate.

In response, Trump attacked us in the media, calling MoveOn members "not a good group of people," while his media surrogates explicitly blamed MoveOn for violence he incited at his rallies.1,2

Now MoveOn can call Trump's campaign whatever they want. But I have a serious problem with a supposed American organization calling a candidate who is opposed to illegal immigration and it's attendant devastation on jobs and it's crime that shouldn't occur on US soil at all as a "carnival of hate". But that's not the worst of it. Having now admitted that MoveOn member have attended Trump rallies, this means that MoveOn knows full well that their member have engaged in violence at these rallies. It is a federal crime to commit acts of violence or even disruption at an event with secret service security. This means that MoveOn is, as an organization enabling the breaking of federal law in order to influence a presidential election. This. Is. Treason.
That's when things started getting ugly. We've been flooded with hate mail, spam, and personal threats to our staff and online security.

As a result, we're conducting a top-to-bottom security audit to secure our systems in advance of the general election. We won't back down from Trump, but we need to be prepared. Will you chip in $3?

In a rule of law America, a "security audit" would be the least of MoveOn's worries.
We've all seen the videos of Trump supporters punching and shoving protestors—as well as Trump's explicit statements encouraging violence. What the public doesn't see is the avalanche of threats that come in through email and social media. It's more hate mail of a more vicious nature than we received even when we took on the NRA or helped take down the Confederate Flag. It's frightening.
I'm going to guess that MoveOn is staffed by feminists. In any case, this is the line that earned this posting. Just this past week we saw an ugly, ugly, treasonous and racist (of the "anti-white" form. There are many forms of racism since, racism is any ideology of or about race) protest against Trump. Property was damaged. People were assaulted, harassed and threatened with bodily harm and there were open calls for breaking up the US as a nation by people flying foreign flags. Donald Trump who is lawfully running for head of state was forced to reroute his entrance to a secret service "secured" [sic] event due to this.

There is free speech and there is treason and sedition. What we saw last week was the latter. In America, no candidate for office should be so threatened. Persons should be able to see and hear this candidate without fear of life, limb or property. Instead of MoveOn sending a message to it's membership condemning the behavior we saw. MoveOn asked for money for it's security systems.

Fuck Move On.

And fuck Clinton and Sanders. And Cruz and Kaisich. The DNC, the RNC and each and every representative that failed to stand up and speak forcefully against the behavior we saw last week. The condemnation of the behavior shown last week should have been across party lines, ideological lines and any other lines that American citizens have drawn for themselves. Violence and intimidation to enforce a political desire is and should be unacceptable. Period. That is the entire point of the right to vote and the entire point of freedom of peaceable assembly and petition of government. If the so called "leadership" cannot stand up for constitutional principles which is what "we are supposed to be". Then I get to call them traitors.

And MoveOn can fuck off. They were good with the violence so let them deal with it (even though they aren't seeing any of it and they are simply damseling for dollars).

A Good Lesson in Taxes

In this presidential cycle we have seen The Bern discuss taxing the rich often. Many of his followers are under the impression that the rich are not taxed enough and that if you taxed them some more all the problems would go away. Well they didn't say that but it's a good generalization. I saw an article in the NY Times which should serve as a reality check about taxes.

Before I get to the article I want to provide some background thinking: I knew someone who worked with Les Brown. He relayed a story to me. Basically it was that if you've only seen say $100 then you think that $100k is a lot of money. But people who have say a million. $100k is not really all that much. It is a matter of perspective. Now to the article:

Our top-heavy economy has come to this: One man can move out of New Jersey and put the entire state budget at risk. Other states are facing similar situations as a greater share of income — and tax revenue — becomes concentrated in the hands of a few.
While the amounts may be large by historical standards and the "one man" part may be unique, the general situation is an old one. It is why states do almost whatever they can to retain large businesses (who used to be the 'one man').
The New Jersey resident (unnamed by Mr. Haines) is the hedge-fund billionaire David Tepper. In December, Mr. Tepper declared himself a resident of Florida after living for over 20 years in New Jersey. He later moved the official headquarters of his hedge fund, Appaloosa Management, to Miami.

New Jersey won’t say exactly how much Mr. Tepper paid in taxes. But according to Institutional Investor’s Alpha, he earned more than $6 billion from 2012 to 2015. Tax experts say his move to Florida could cost New Jersey — which has a top tax rate of 8.97 percent — hundreds of millions of dollars in lost payments.

Hundreds of millions of dollars, off of one person. One rich person decides to move and state budgets are in jeopardy. Do you pay "hundreds of millions" in taxes? What this reveals is that the rich are, generally speaking paying the lions share of the taxes that the government spends. You, who makes the average salary of say $50k pay relatively pennies relative to these persons, yet get so many benefits.

If we were to look at this in black and white, one realizes that relatively speaking blacks as a group don't pay taxes. Yes we pay income taxes like everyone else, but there are so few "extremely rich" black people (and black companies of high worth) that generally speaking if black people didn't pay taxes, the impact on government revenue would be very slight. Yet Black people, as a group, are the beneficiaries of government spending well out of proportion of our monetary input. Continuing:

“If you’re making hundreds of millions of dollars and you’re paying close to 10 percent to the state of New Jersey, you do the math,” said Jon Bramnick, the Republican leader in the New Jersey Assembly. “You can save millions a year by moving to Florida. How can you blame him?”
Now personally I think 10% is fair, especially at that level of income. I have more issues with companies that don't pay any taxes based loopholes than by the tax rates discussed here. And I will say this: I agree with Sanders AND Trump that the hedge fund people who create nothing and produce very little jobs ought to be seeing a relatively higher tax burden than those who produce state income taxes in the form of many many jobs.
In California, 5,745 taxpayers earning $5 million or more generated more than $10 billion of income taxes in 2013, or about 19 percent of the state’s total, according to state officials.
There weer 38.43 million people in California in 2013. 24% of them were under 18. Removing those under the assumption they are not paying taxes we get 28,880,000 persons. Now if 5745 persons paid in 19% of the tax revenue then each person input .3% of the state revenue. The other 28,800,000 persons input 002% of revenue a piece or about 2 orders of magnitude less. Kinda makes you think about what kind of population you should have in order to have a stable tax base.

Saturday, April 30, 2016

The Left Goes All In On Ending Air Passenger Safety

Last week I posted on how the left has gone all in on the concept of black inferiority. In that post I highlighted the point made by an "educator" that certain traits are inherently white which meant that their opposite was indicative of black culture:
“The racial narrative of White tends to be like this: Rugged individual, honest, hard-working, disciplined, rigorous, successful,” she said. “And so then, the narrative of U.S. public education: Individual assessments, competition, outcome over process (I care more about your grades than how you’re doing), ‘discipline’ where we care more about your attendance and making sure you’re not tardy than we care about your relationships … proper English must be spoken (which is just assimilation into standard U.S. dialect), hierarchical power structure, and heavy goal orientation.”
Now there are those who may think that this is only going on in "education" but no, this concept is being pushed throughout America (and elsewhere I suppose). Today's example comes from the FAA.
The Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) has been running a program for the past two years to promote unqualified nonwhites as air traffic controllers (ATC), despite the ready availability of highly-qualified whites.

News of the anti-white racism emerged after a lawsuit named the government’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EOCC) as a co-respondent in an action launched by white ATCs against the FAA.

For those put off by the language used in the linked piece, please get over yourself. The point isn't the language it is WHAT is being done. Pay attention. Air Traffic controllers are the people who essentially direct all air traffic. If they mess up, you die either in the air or on the ground. If they don't mess up tooo badly you get million dollar damage to airplanes. In other words, this is a profession where a typo, missed decimal point and lack of attention to detail doesn't just result in a need for a retraction or reprint, but could end up killing people. You would think that of any profession, an Air Traffic Controller would be immune from dumb diversity experiments. You'd think.
According to the claim, filed in United States District Court for the District of Arizona, the original test, known as AT-SAT, tested for “characteristics needed to effectively perform as an air traffic controller. The characteristics include numeric ability, prioritization, planning, tolerance for high intensity, decisiveness, visualization, problem-solving, and movement.”

Beginning in 1995, the FAA collaborated with universities and colleges to create accredited degree programs in diverse Collegiate Training Initiative (CTI) schools.

“Then, the FAA gave a hiring preference to veterans, those with CTI program degrees, references from CTI administrators, and ‘well qualified’ rankings on the challenging Air Traffic Selection and Training exam (AT-SAT)—a validated, proctored, eight-hour, computer-based test,” the MSLF said.

You'll see that the test reflected the requirements of the job. You'll also note that those requirements are, per the preceding quote to be "white supremacist".
But on December 30, 2013, the FAA announced that it was eliminating the test to transform the agency into “a more diverse and inclusive workplace.” The announcement was “accompanied by a suspect analysis that purported to show women and minorities as ‘underrepresented’ in those the FAA hired,” the MSL statement continued. The old AT-SAT test was replaced with a “Biological Questionnaire,” which contained questions such as “The number of high school sports I participated in was . . .”; “How would you describe your ideal job?”; “What has been the major cause of your failures?” and, “More classmates would remember me as humble or dominant?”
What exactly do these things have to do with the job? This is not the first time such things have been done. See the New Haven Firefighter suit Lefties are willing to put your safety at risk in order to push their programs. I am all for hiring people who are qualified and if a company wants to diversify their workforce, no problem, well some problem but only ideologically in terms of brain drain, but there ought never be a lowering of standards to get there. Lowering of standards is an admission of black inferiority. If you don't believe in it, then you don't lower the standards for work.

Saturday, April 23, 2016

Left Goes All In On Black Inferiority

I'm going to let you the reader in on a secret: I'm old. I'm old enough to have done a thing called research and study before becoming the Pan-Africanist that I am. Oh, you didn't know I was a Pan-Africanist? Well if that surprises you the reader, it is either because you're new and have no clue who Garvey is or you're an old reader and don't know who Garvey is. Now I say that because as an old timer, I know that in days of old things like segregation and assumed black inferiority were things that lefty black people did not like. So it is of little amusement to see lefty blacks being at the forefront of the New Segregation movement (Safe Spaces) as well as the New Black Inferiority movement. Indeed blacks have so approved these things that lefty whites are now able to make clear arguments of black inferiority that haven't been seen since the high days of Jim Crow. These arguments have reared their head in the so called 17th Annual White Privilege Conference that was held in Philadelphia.

At this conference one masculine looking Heather Hackman opined:

“The racial narrative of White tends to be like this: Rugged individual, honest, hard-working, disciplined, rigorous, successful,” she said. “And so then, the narrative of U.S. public education: Individual assessments, competition, outcome over process (I care more about your grades than how you’re doing), ‘discipline’ where we care more about your attendance and making sure you’re not tardy than we care about your relationships … proper English must be spoken (which is just assimilation into standard U.S. dialect), hierarchical power structure, and heavy goal orientation.”
So lets be clear. Hackman is saying that it is white or "acting white" if one is "honest, hardworking disciplined, rigorous and successful." Therefore to be non-white is to be dishonest, lazy, undisciplined, lax and generally a failure. Moreover to be black is to be emotional ("How you're doing") and to not be able to master the language.

I have read such ideas about black people that goes back to the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. That no one in Hackman's circle even paused and said: Umm, you know this sounds awfully familiar shows that these people have simply not done the research.

Hackman said when she was a professor, she freely employed these methods with her own students. She once let a student complete an essay assignment as a graphic novel, and allowed students to write in non-standard English or even foreign languages she herself couldn’t read.
Meaning this "woman" decided to not do her job. It's one thing to have a command of English but have issues with grammar and spelling (things that happen here often). It's entirely different to simply allow students to not master the language at all because you're trying to make a racial point.

Here's a quick example of how full of shit Hackman is. Imagine that the organization that was responsible for landing a probe on a fast moving comet ran under the ideology of Hackman. In order to land that probe you have to be on time, which means being disciplined. It takes mastering mathematics and putting in a lot of work to design the probe. This takes hard work, discipline and rigor. You can't be late with the landing because you'll miss the comet and/or destroy the probe. In other words it is impossible to master high tech or to run a highly technological society without the so called "narrative of white".

Welcome to the New Left Crow and the new White Supremacy movement.

Evidence For Welsing's Isis Papers?

Another perhaps special, instance of the use of projection is the historic and continuing desire of whites for sexual alliances with non-whites- a desire indulged by white males throughout the world. This deep desire has been projected onto Black males and females, and is manifest in the notion that people of color have sexual desires for white males and females. The Color-Confrontation theory postulates that whites desired and still do desire sexual alliances with non-whites, both male and female, because it is only through this route that whites can achieve the illusion of being able to produce color. The extreme rage vented against even the idea of a sexual alliance between the Black male and the white female, which has long been a dominant theme in the white supremacy culture, is viewed by the Color Confrontation theory as a result of the white male's intense fear of the Black male's capacity to fulfill the greatest longing of the white female- that of conceiving and birthing a product of color. [My underlines]
At another level, white male homosexuality may be viewed as the symbolic attempt to incorporate into the white male body more male substance by either sucking the penis of another male and orally ingesting the semen, or by having male ejaculate deposited in the other end of the alimentary canal. Though anal intercourse, the self debasing white male may fantasize that he can produce a product of color, albeit that the product of color is fecal matter. This fantasy is significant for white males because males who are able to produce skin color are viewed as the real men. [My underlines]
The Isis Papers Before I enter into why I provided the above quotes I want to address the second quote. If we take the above quote seriously then it should be suggested that this applies not only to homosexual white men but to heterosexual ones as well. In the example I'm going to provide we will see that anal sex is not (or no longer) necessary for the "fantasy". Now for the example:


Wife gets black baby jackpot. Him is cucked.

Start with the headline:

My wife and I are white evangelicals. Here’s why we chose to give birth to black triplets.
What rational reason would there be for a white couple to give birth to black triplets. And lets leave aside that until very recently such an act would have been impossible. What deep underlying psychosis would cause this couple to spend the money it takes to secure and implant the offspring of some other couple?
This past Sunday, my gorgeous wife – a white evangelical, like me — gave birth to our beautiful African-American triplet daughters whom we adopted as embryos.
Adopted? Children are adopted. Embryos are bought and sold.
These sweet girls will hopefully soon be coming home to meet their 3-year-old African-American brother and 2-year-old biracial sister, both of whom we adopted as infants.
So this is a habit then...
I grew up as a child of evangelical missionaries in Honduras, very aware of racial diversity because I was the blue-eyed, cotton-topped white kid who stuck out like a sore thumb, but all the while felt deeply connected to the people there, even though we looked very different.
If you got this far and still thought the opening quotes were at a minimum "offensive", you might want to go back and read it again.
My wife, on the other hand, grew up in the delta of Mississippi and it wasn’t until she took a few trips to Haiti that the veil of racial prejudice was lifted from her eyes. One of the central themes of Christianity is, after all, that God, through His Son, is calling people from every tongue, tribe and nation.
I missed the part of the Bible that called for seed carrying.
When we were still dating, a common bond that drew us together was the fact that Rachel and I both wanted to adopt. While we were fertile, we were both deeply convicted that one of the ways to be pro-life is to involve ourselves in adoption.
Lets assume the above is truthful in terms of the outward conversation. Given what we've read so far, I believe the entire "pro life" and Christian angle is a cover for a deep desire on the wife's part to have black babies, as is done by high profile celebrities. On his part his desire to be seen as fathers of black babies is so strong that he is willing to cuck himself (apparently without the sexual intercourse) to raise the seed of other people.
Knowing that it is often more challenging to find adoptive homes in the United States for non-Caucasian children we informed the agency that we were willing to accept any child except a fully Caucasian child.
Uh huh...
We did this with the deeply held conviction that if the Lord wanted us to have a fully Caucasian child my wife would conceive naturally.
Uh huh....You'll note this is the only time "natural conception" is discussed. No one even bothered to ask them if they tried to have their own children.
There is something beautiful and enriching being the only white face sitting and chatting with some of my African-American friends as my son gets his hair cut on a Saturday morning. There is also something wonderful in the relationship that is built as my wife asks a black friend on Facebook how to care for our little biracial daughter’s hair.
Per the opening quotes: Mission accomplished!
I felt sheer delight during this pregnancy watching my son and daughter, with his dark brown skin and her with the ringlet hair and slightly tan skin, kiss my white wife’s growing belly. Each evening they said good night to those three growing little girls in her belly, and now they get to finally say sweet dreams to their baby sisters — face-to-adorable-face.
Did I step into a fetish magazine? Seriously though, how can this not be a textbook example of what I quoted above? HOw is this not using, to take a popular phrase, black bodies in order to salve deep seated genetic self-hatred? The delight at knowing black bodies were growing in his wife's belly (which I assume he had his penis near at some point closely timed to implantation).
I can remember a friend going through the adoption process telling me he had always wanted his family to look like a little United Nations.
This is telling us that this is not just one person. I will remind the reader that most interracial marriages/breeding that involve black people are in the form of black male and white female. And that incidence has grown to about 30% (whereas in the 1970's or so, it was maybe 5%). At the very least we can respect those that don't cover up their desires with "Pro life" and "Christian" values. But these people are examples that makes the Isis Papers not something you can just dismiss out of hand (though it does contain some items that are factually wrong among other things).

Sunday, April 17, 2016

Compelling Behaviour

In my lifetime I have watched society move from “get government out of my vagina” to “put government in my vagina”. For those who don't understand this means going from legalizing abortion under the argument that the body is a person's property and they have privacy rights as to what they do with it (out of my vagina) to make a law that makes other people pay for my birth control so I don't have to pay for it (government in my vagina- and your wallet).

I have watched society move from “leave us alone and stop criminalizing our private behavior” to “compel other people to participate in our private behavior (weddings) and advocate for us (like us or else...)”.

I have watched society move from “don't push your beliefs on me” to “I will have the government force my beliefs on you.” The latest being the so called “religious freedom” laws that have been passed, modified and sometimes repealed by various states. The very fact that there needs to be “religious freedom laws” in a country where the sovereign law of the land explicitly protects religious freedom to exercise (live your faith) from any action by government with very slim exceptions is a sign of just how bad US society has gotten. What is worse is that one has to even retreat into a “religious argument” for things that should be “common sense” or what for generations was understood by all. However when you no longer have a common national culture, you cannot have "common sense". So lets get into the latest nonsense.

Declining to serve a person is not the same as declining to perform a specific service. One would think that the above statement is self explanatory but it isn't for a lot of people. I'll give two examples of the former that is and should be illegal (with a few exceptions) I'm going to use race here since a lot of people try to do the "what happened to black people is the same" argument:

1) Black persons enter an eatery. Owner or employees of the eatery announce that they do not serve their kind at all and to get out. This is and should be illegal. You are declining to perform any service whatsoever to the persons simply based on who they are. There is no “black” way to cook eggs and make coffee. There is no endorsement of behavior by serving eggs and coffee to a person who is black. 2) Homosexual person comes into an eatery. Owner or employee announces that they do not serve their kind at all and to get out. This should be illegal. Except in very rare cases, usually in reaction to a new outrage, this is not happening. Again, there is no different "homo coffee" or "homo eggs".

What Is Happening

A homosexual couple enters a store asking them to provide a service for their wedding. They tell the owner of the business that it is a same sex couple (something that couldn't even happen prior to 2000AD). Owner declines to perform that service. Couple gets upset because the owner is not approving of their behavior. You'll note that the owner did not decline to serve the homosexual couple. They declined to perform a specifics service. Why isn't this discrimination against a person? Easy. Lets change nothing except for WHO asks for the service.

A heterosexual person enters the store and asks for service for a wedding for a same sex couple who has contracted or otherwise agreed to have the heterosexual person plan for them. The owner declines to perform that service. Who has been discriminated against? It cannot be the heterosexual person who inquired about the service. He (or she) received the same response. The homosexual couple who the heterosexual person was inquiring for hasn't been discriminated against, they aren't the contracting party. They aren't even present.

Now lets twist this some more. Say a homosexual person goes to a store for service for a heterosexual couple's wedding. The store owner agrees to service the wedding. There is no discrimination. Again we note that this is about the service being requested and not the person requesting the service.

It should be clear then that what these activists are demanding is that the government force businesses to conduct business it doesn't want to engage in. As far as I know that is unprecedented in US history. Yes, the government has forced businesses to do business with persons which they did not want to do business with. But never before has there been an attempt to force businesses to engage in business they do not provide. Not only does this violate religious freedom it violates the rights of people to associate with or not associate.

The Hole Goes Deeper

On top of the nonsense described above, we have a new push to normalize gender disphoria. What is most pernicious about this is that not only do the proponents want to force people to associate with behaviors they do not agree with, they are telling people to actually believe in a non-truth. And they are willing to use the state monopoly on legalized violence to do so.

NY City passed a law that punishes any business where the owners or employees refer to an actual male or actual female as something other than what this actual male or female believes itself to be. Per Snopes:

According to the new guidelines, the commission can impose civil penalties of up to $125,000 for violations of the law and (in extreme circumstances) of up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of "willful, wanton, or malicious" conduct.
And what is “willful, wanton, or malicious conduct”?
Examples of Violations a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual's preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman "him" or "Mr." after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses.
So though Snopes is out to discredit reports that NYC will fine you for correctly identifying a male as a male, it establishes that NYC will in fact do so. Basically it's saying “We're going to give you till the count of ten to say there are 5 lights and then we'll drop this hammer on you.”

Speaking the truth and telling facts is now “willful, wanton or malicious conduct”. The rabbit hole has gotten a mile deeper.

Lest you think that I'm overstating things in regards to state violence, I will remind the reader that Eric Garner was killed due to laws against selling loose cigarettes. Whether you agree that it was a choke hold that killed him or not, the fact is that ultimately the state may use violence to enforce any law it wishes. If they will kill Eric Garner for selling loose cigarettes* then what will stop the NYPD from killing a citizen who declines to lie about someone's gender OR pay the fine or appear in court over it?

Look, I could care less what a man or woman thinks they are. I don't care what they do in their home. I don't care, mostly, what they do in the street. I don't care what they do with their friends. I do care when the state tries to coerce me into playing the game. Again, at no time prior to now did the state ever even consider that it could tell citizens to actively participate in a lie under penalty of law. ---- *It can be argued that Garner was killed for resisting arrest. This is a valid argument insofar as you remove the reason for the initial contact. However it must be understood that Garner would be alive today or at least had died under different circumstances if the law against selling "untaxed loosies" did not exist.

Monday, April 11, 2016

BLM Representative Once Again Misrepresents Black on Black Crime

As is de rigueur for those in the BLM movement, yet another representative tried to deflect attention from the largest single threat to black lives: Other black people. First we have the black people hold no responsibility argument:
Black Lives Matter DC Core Organizer Aaron Goggans stated that “It’s not just a few white cops killing a few unarmed black men. It’s actually the state systematically creating up systems that are killing black people” and “it’s important to talk about the myth of black-on-black crime as just that, a myth” on Thursday’s “CNN Newsroom.”
You see, all that black crime, headed to levels not seen since the early 90's? That's all the white man's system that is making black people kill each other when they are not being killed by police. Black people are so dumb that they are unable to see this system for what it is and therefore are unable to beat said system. Black people are just too dumb to win.
Goggans said, “Well, it’s important to talk about the myth of black-on-black crime as just that, a myth. Any Google search of the term can come up a lot of different articles.
Including mine.
He added that while he wasn’t saying black-on-black crime isn’t a problem, “I’m saying that that intercommunity crime happens in all communities across the country, and it is a problem that the movement of Black Lives is focusing on.
Oh it's IS a problem? How big of a problem? Oh the same as "all communities"? Apparenlty Goggans didn't read my article because he'd realize that the issue isn't whether crime occurs in communities, it is the AMOUNT of crime, particularly murders that happens in black communities relative to these other communities. If black crime was in proportion to it's population this conversation wouldn't be had.
The movement of Black Lives is also focusing on state-sanctioned violence, which is a different thing. It’s not just a few white cops killing a few unarmed black men.
Actually the data shows that it is a "few" white cops killing a "few" unarmed black men.
It’s actually the state systematically creating up systems that are killing black people, both women, black children, black men, black queer, black trans, and black gender nonconfroming folks.”
Because black people have no agency and therefore no responsibility for their actions.
Goggans further stated, “There are many folks on the ground in Chicago who are doing great work. You can look at The Interrupters.
Outfits like The Interrupters have been around prior to BLM. Where were all these folks when people like The Interrupters were doing the hard work of directly confronting those who are committing the violence against black people?
It’s important that we talk about how the police are used in black communities.
Police go where the crime is. So if this joker spent his time with The Interrupters then he'd be directly addressing the presence of police. I know this is hard stuff to understand though.
It’s important that we talk about, like in Flint, for instance, you have both the state and federal government refusing to govern, and refusing actually take care of the black community there.”
Is this a good time to point out that the Flint City Council is practically all black? And the guy who made the decision that lead to the lead problem is black? No? Let me know when we can discuss the failure of the black city council to govern and "take care of the black community there". I suppose those city council members were duped by "the system" too.
Goggans also argued, “I think we need to fight all the forms of injustice that [the] black community face[s]. And I think you can’t use black on black crime, or this myth that somehow white people are not also killing white people to obfuscate from the fact that the state is killing black people in America.”
Again, the issue is not whether white people kill each other (they do). The issue is the rates of killing as a proportion of the population. And the state (meaning police, assuming he means that) actually kills more white people in America than it does blacks. But you'd have to do that thing called research to know this.

Friday, April 08, 2016

As if 2008 Never Happened

I was shocked. Really, when I read the following from the Washington Post:
The Obama administration is engaged in a broad push to make more home loans available to people with weaker credit, an effort that officials say will help power the economic recovery but that skeptics say could open the door to the risky lending that caused the housing crash in the first place.
This is what happens when people believe their own hype. The whole "To big to fail" was the last stage of the cancer that dumped the economy in 2008, the first, foundational stage was the granting of mortgages to people who could not afford them or were too damn irresponsible to pay for them. The no income verification loans. The only 5% or whatever down loans. It's as if there is a class of "leadership" who think people get bad credit by accident.
President Obama’s economic advisers and outside experts say the nation’s much-celebrated housing rebound is leaving too many people behind, including young people looking to buy their first homes and individuals with credit records weakened by the recession.
Hey look. If you're young, you probably haven't gained enough gainful employment to have saved a downpayment. Also in this society if you're young you are probably wasting loads of money "hanging out" rather than finding a spouse, living together and saving together which is the fastest way to build wealth. To the "credit weakened by the recession" point, if your credit is bad because of the 2008 recession, that sucks, but you don't get to get a house on shaky grounds because of it. If you can't recover you stay in the land of renters. As it should be. That doesn't make 'em bad people, just bad risks.
In response, administration officials say they are working to get banks to lend to a wider range of borrowers by taking advantage of taxpayer-backed programs — including those offered by the Federal Housing Administration — that insure home loans against default.
You mean the taxpayer should be on the hook again for mortgages handed out to people who shouldn't get them? Did 2008 NOT EVER HAPPEN?
Housing officials are urging the Justice Department to provide assurances to banks, which have become increasingly cautious, that they will not face legal or financial recriminations if they make loans to riskier borrowers who meet government standards but later default.
Essentially they want to legalize what is now considered mortgage fraud and predatory lending? Really?
Officials are also encouraging lenders to use more subjective judgment in determining whether to offer a loan and are seeking to make it easier for people who owe more than their properties are worth to refinance at today’s low interest rates, among other steps.
As others in the blogosphere have pointed out, wasn't the point of uniform rules to get rid of discrimination that having "subjective judgment" enabled?
Administration officials say they are looking only to allay unnecessary hesi­ta­tion among banks and encourage safe lending to borrowers who have the financial wherewithal to pay.
Which is what lenders are (or ought to be) doing now. Those persons who have fucked up their credit or by circumstances beyond their control have messed up credit lose out. It happens. Life is not fair.
“If you were going to tell people in low-income and moderate-income communities and communities of color there was a housing recovery, they would look at you as if you had two heads,”
Anyone who is "low income" ought not even be asked about home ownership. Low income persons shouldn't be looking to get into a mortgage. Low income persons ought to be looking into increasing their income. And there are plenty of people in "communities of color" who are and have been buying houses. They aren't "low income". Yes those people of color exist.
“It is very difficult for people of low and moderate incomes to refinance or buy homes.”
I repeat: Low income people ought not even HAVE a mortgage much less refinancing one.
But they declined 90 percent for people with scores between 680 and 620 — historically a respectable range for a credit score.
I had no idea anything below 700 was considered "respectable" when looking to borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars for something that takes quite a bit to maintain.
“If the only people who can get a loan have near-perfect credit and are putting down 25 percent, you’re leaving out of the market an entire population of creditworthy folks, which constrains demand and slows the recovery,”
Now I will agree with this. Asking for 25% down is too much. With decent houses in some locations easily going to 300-400k, 25% is 60-100K. That is very hard to save for many people.
The FHA historically has been dedicated to making homeownership affordable for people of moderate means. Under FHA terms, a borrower can get a home loan with a credit score as low as 500 or a down payment as small as 3.5 percent.
Credit score of 500? I wouldn't lend someone with that score 5 bucks much less a couple hundred thousand. No. They need to up that credit to 650 minimum. And I'm not even comfortable with that. I also think 3.5% is too little. 10% should be the line.
“My view is that there are lots of creditworthy borrowers that are below 720 or 700 — all the way down the credit-score spectrum,” Galante said. “It’s important you look at the totality of that borrower’s ability to pay.”
Guess what? The borrower's ability and responsibility to pay is reflected in their credit score. The only mitigating circumstance would be medical emergencies and identity theft which includes parents and other relatives using ones identity when one is a child.

It's really sad to see these government folks disregard the 2008 financial crisis in their zeal to enact some social justice program.