Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Saturday, November 30, 2013

Doubly So

Reading a piece over at Nicholas Stix Uncensored and saw the following:
From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century Eastern seaboard to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history: a community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future – that community asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure - that is not only to be expected; it is very near to inevitable.
And for African-Americans add the historical hostility to authority, due to the experiences of white supremacy, and you have a double impact.

Friday, November 29, 2013

Sniffer Dogs Are What?

From the AP:
The troops don't have metal detectors or other equipment to search cars. And they are missing another important tool: sniffer dogs. Although the canines are very good at finding explosives, the use of sniffer dogs seems to be an unattainable dream in Somalia, where the conservative Muslim population reject sniffer dogs because touching them is "haram" (sinful).
You know this is total bullshit right?

Business Insider Doesn't Understand IQ

Business insider attempted to correct London's mayor , Boris Johnson's commentary on IQ and economic success.
Whatever you may think of the value of IQ tests, it is surely relevant to a conversation about equality that as many as 16 percent of our species have an IQ below 85, while about 2 percent have an IQ above 130. [According to the Guardian, Johnson then asked whether anyone in the audience had a low IQ. To muted laughter he asked: "Over 16% anyone? Put up your hands."]
Adam Taylor responded with:
There are many problems with this statement. First, it's a fudging of what IQ measures. IQ testing is designed to show someone's intelligence relative to others. An IQ of 100 is based on the median score, and higher or lower scores are based on their relation to this median score — scores each standard deviation (SD) up or down are defined as 15 IQ points greater or less. What this means is that if you somehow managed to make the everyone with an IQ below 85 leave the U.K., the curve on which IQ is based would shift, and there would be a new 16% of the population with an IQ below 85. All Johnson is really saying which such a statement is that some people score above average on a test, and some people score below average.
Adam doesn't know what he is talking about.

First of all the 100 in the IQ distribution curve described above is ONLY for those classified at Caucasian. It is not the "median score" for everybody. The median score for those classified as Asian is actually 115. The median score for those classified as African is 85 (let that sink in for a minute).

So Adam has the median score part wrong. Onto Standard Deviation.

Standard Deviation is determined mathematically: It is the square root of the average of the squared differences of the values from their average value.

It is not "15". It is "15" for this data set So again, the SD of 15 discussed in the quote isn't some random number to fit the data, but rather a result of the data and it's averages. For the different Mean IQ levels the standard deviations will change based on the population data. In the case of Caucasians, one standard deviation from their median is 85. Mind you that IQ's below 85 used to be considered mentally challenged.

So now that we've corrected Adam on what the Standard deviation is lets get to his really flawed argument.

What this means is that if you somehow managed to make the everyone with an IQ below 85 leave the U.K., the curve on which IQ is based would shift, and there would be a new 16% of the population with an IQ below 85.
Well no. If all the sub 85 IQ people left the researched median would STILL be 100. The base (median) wouldn't change because that number is based on long term research. But per chance we were to run with Adam's assertion that magically the curve would change then if anything, by knocking out all the sub 85 scores, the median IQ score for Caucasians would increase. It would approach that of Asians. Once that happened, one standard deviation down would be around 100. 85 would be at least 2 SD down and represent a very small number of the population. Much smaller than the population in the original setting.

Yup. See what happens when the IQ median creeps up? Less folks down in the 85 range. See what happens when the median creeps down? More people in the 85 range.

So Boris isn't wrong at all. At least not factually. If the UK were to deport or otherwise "dispose of" the portion of it's population that score below 85 on an IQ test, then it will in fact have a brighter population. Singapore has a policy in place that STRONGLY encourages bright people to breed with each other. Any clue as to why?

Whether that brighter population would produce better economic results is something that can be questioned. And the morality of such a eugenic move could also be discussed. One other thing that would happen if people with IQ's below 85 were "removed" would be a epic drop in crime rates. Particularly violent crimes as most of the people who commit these crimes have low IQ's. But the sheer math? Boris has it right. Adam has it wrong.

Thursday, November 28, 2013

So It's Natural Then

I know a lot of people who like to be "bothered" by what they call "segregation". That is, that white people tend to want to live among themselves. It really upsets some of these folks that white people would dare do such a thing. Of course in their total focus on whatever it is white people are doing, they fail to notice the various Asian communities. In fact it seems that the folks I come into contact with have no interest in integrating Asian communities. I suppose that's the old "white is right" philosophy in play. I've often commented to these folks that if a group of people volunteer to freely associate with each other how is it "segregation"? Segregation, as I've written about before, implies a power and coercion on the part of one party (or a third). Freely moving into a particular community is not coercion and therefore not Segregation. Even if the origins of that community did begin in segregation.

So NPR has an article in which they state what should be the obvious. People with like minds (and backgrounds) tend to live together. Of course they are talking Democrat and Republican, but don't be naive, this applies to far more than politics.

States themselves have , with most legislatures and governorships controlled entirely by one party. As a result, not only are blue and red states tracking different courses on just about every issue, but some people are seeking to escape their states. But if Americans are sorting themselves into like-minded communities, are they doing so on purpose? In other words, are people voting with their feet by consciously moving to states or counties that reflect their own partisan preferences? Researchers at the University of Virginia and the University of Southern California suggest that, yes, they may be.
Republicans have held an iron grip on governorships in a lot of states, even as their national counterparts are suffering the lowest approval ratings ever. Witness the re-election of Chris Christie in NJ. In what should be seen as particularly shocking, that Republicans got 20% of the African-American vote in NJ. That is like hitting a grand slam in the world series. Black folks simply do not vote for a Republican in that kind of numbers. Anywhere.

Similarly I have pointed out that in NJ, though Obama took the state in 2008 (and 2012). It was on the strength of urban voters in Passiac, Essex and Bergen Counties (as well as Trenton). The rest of the state is red, red, red. And when you look at the election returns across the country, Democrats do very well in urban areas and do very poorly in rural areas. It is only because of the population densities of urban areas that the democrats can do well.

Of note, these red rural areas are very very white. And these white areas have far less crime of all types than their urban counterparts. therefore they do not respond to gun legislation hysteria which seeks to make them pay for the actions of largely urban (and non-white) dwellers. And from what I'm reading in various blogs, there is a migration of like minded whites out of what they consider liberal states and moving into the northwest (Hello Colorado).

People then tend to end up living among people who are more or less like them, in terms of economic status, shopping preferences and the like. But the U.Va. and USC researchers, in a forthcoming paper in the Journal of Experiment Social Psychology, suggest that increasing numbers of people want to live among people who share their ideology as well. People are motivated to move away from communities where they don't fit in and try to find areas that are more congenial.
Really? People want to live among people who share their ideology. Shocking! Shocking!!
"It is natural for people to desire communities where they share a worldview with their neighbors," writes the team, led by Matt Motyl, a doctoral candidate in psychology at U.Va.
Natural you say?
"The desire to live near people of the same ideological group," the study authors concede, may be less important than jobs, safety and clean air, but they conclude it's "relevant" nonetheless.
What if the ideology concerning safety like say "gun control laws" drives the decision to live near people with the same ideology?
Torben Luetjen, a German political scientist who has been studying liberal and conservative enclaves in Wisconsin. "America has split into closed and radically separated enclaves that follow their own constructions of reality."
And when this happens in a country what usually happens?

Denial

The linked Salon.com article is a classic case of denial. Title header reads:

Colorado lawmaker resigns in face of recall over gun control vote In that piece we find the following:

“Most Coloradans believe that going through a background check is a reasonable thing to do if it means we can keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals,” Hudak wrote in her resignation letter. “Most Coloradans believe that the convenience of high-capacity ammunition magazines is less important than saving lives in tragedies like Sandy Hook, Aurora and Columbine. By resigning, I am protecting these important new laws.”
Think about it for a minute. If per chance Hudak was correct about what "most Coloradans" believe, then why resign? Stand at the ballot and let the people express their belief and return her to her seat. Her resignation is a recognition that the fact is most Coloradans do not believe what SHE believes they should believe.

Belief aside, Sandy Hook would not have been prevented by any gun law whatsoever. Not limited magazines or background checks. Why? Research shows that even though shooters bring much ammunition to shootings, they rarely use even 1% of what they bring before they kill themselves. Secondly Adam Lanza did not go through a background checks because Adam Lanza did not purchase the gun he used. Perhaps "most Coloradans" know these things and don't like hysterical lawmakers imposing their faulty views on everyone else who is, you know, law abiding.

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Manufacturing Is Tied To What?

He argues, for instance, that the demise of US manufacturing dooms the country not just intellectually but creatively, because innovation is tied to the process of making things. (And, unfortunately, he has the figures to back that up.) WIRED got Smil’s take on the problems facing America and the world.
Mr. Garvey back in 1920 told the African: Where are your ships, your factories and men of big affairs. People thought he was being ridiculous to want black folks to create what they wish to consume and engage in all levels of commerce. I wonder why? Oh right.

People who do not solve their own problems (making things) depend on those persons who DO solve their problems. The people who create the solutions profit and progress and the ones who consume the solutions feed those who create the solutions. Take a walk around various ethnic neighborhoods and see who is producing solutions to their problems and who are not. line that up with levels of poverty and employment. The results should be "interesting".

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Who's Kid Is That?

I saw The Best Man Holiday this past weekend. I also saw a commercial this morning. I have a problem with something I saw in both. I have a friend who tells me I'm “Technical”. I suppose that's a nice way of saying “way too picky” but my “technical” mind kicked in when Lance's children were shown in The Best Man Holiday.

See apparently, in great disregard for general genetics, Lance and Mia have a set of rainbow children. One of those children sporting light skin and practically straight hair stands out as a “who's kid is that?”

See, there was no discussion of adoption in the film. Nor was there any mention of Lance having tipped out on Mia or of Mia having done any more tipping out. Therefore;we are left to assume that all of those children are biologically Lance's and Mia's. The problem is that Lance (played by Moris Chestnut) is, shall we say, “quite the Africoid” and Mia, while clearly less so, is not so mixed as to produce a child like that unless she had been cheating with someone not so “Africoid” as Lance.

In fact here's a nice photo of Mr. Chestnut's actual children:

Note that Mr. Chestnut's wife is significantly lighter than he is. Matter of fact she closely matches the Mia character.

There are a lot of confused people out there who will quote popular science about how African-Americans are mixed. Yeah that's true for some or maybe most of them but it is not true for all of them and it is how much so that is the point. Generally children come out as a combination of the parents. Mom's eyes. Dad's face. Maybe mom's entire face but dad's body type. Maybe dad's face but halfway between mom and dad's height. Etc. But generally speaking the children resemble the parents, strongly. After all they share 50% of their genes. The same applies to black folks. The problem, if you may call it that, is that you introduce color into the equation. Skin color of offspring generally falls between that of the parents (albinos being an obvious exception). Not only that but since skin color, nose shape, eye color and hair texture are linked traits, children will also come out generally with a combination of the parents hair texture.

This is why among more self hating African-Americans, the obsession with mates with “good hair” is prevalent. If you are an outsider the amount of commentary in regards to hair type of children, particularly girl children, would make you wretch in disgust. But it is well known that if you and your mate has “nappy” hair then your children will have said hair too. Black folks do not pop out babies with “odd” hair unless they have odd hair themselves (which is actually a growing trait given the general breeding patterns in the African-American community).

In case y'all forgot, Morris's hair looks like so:


You don't get damn near straight hair from that.

So knowing this, “that child” in Lance's home stood out. But for an increasing number of people, this is considered “normal”. Why? Well it goes back to the Cosby show. Bill Cosby in complete disregard of genetics decided that his on screen family would “represent all the shades of us”. So in blatant disregard for the science, the children ranged in skin tone, hair texture and facial features and thus began this really silly trend of making African-American families rainbow in order to reflect some social fantasy of the producers.

This was also in a commercial I saw this morning where another supposedly African-American family contemplating Christmas shopping had a child that was clearly “not theirs” (unless adopted). Every time I see this I wonder who the producers think they are fooling. Then I remember that they are fooling a lot of people. And well, people like me who point out the obvious are being “divisive” and racist or whatever else other than “truthful”.

Which brings me to my last point, which is not actually about children but still about genetics. spoiler alert At the end of the movie Mia pulls off her wig to reveal what I suppose the audience is to regard as her natural hair. Short, close to the head. To me that was a pretty powerful statement. First some background which should be common knowledge but you never know who is reading this.

African men and women have the same hair texture.


Yeah it looks like that...and sometimes tighter.

No, there is no miracle of genetics in which African women grow straight hair and the men grow curly hair. We all have the same hair. African women use chemicals to “uncurl” their hair or use what is referred to as a hot comb for similar effect. I will not bore the reader with a long explanation as to why this is done but if you asked the honest opinion of the vast majority of African-American men and women, the overwhelming response (possibly after 'easier to handle') would be it looks better/more feminine. In fact many black men (and women for that matter) will outright tell you that natural haired black women look masculine. But that's not the subject of this entry so back to Mia's hair.

So near death Mia takes off the wig and wears it natural. What a statement that Mia could not and had not accepted her hair, as it grows out of her head until she was literally a day away from death. Such a shame. OK I lied, it does have to do with the children. See I think a part of why the producers tried to pass off “that kid” is due to the confusion about black women's hair. After all, if you think that black women's hair grows straight naturally, then why can't they have a straight hair baby? Makes me think of the numerous black women who have never, ever seen their mother's natural hair texture.

Ever.

Look at Michael Jackson's “kids”. Why are there people who still think they are biologically his? Those are not his children, at all. And mind you, Michael Jackson is mixed himself. He most certainly would have children with a white woman who would share a lot more European type features than African, but that there? Nope. Doesn't mean that MJ wasn't a loving father. Not at all. Just don't pass the bullshit plate my way and expect me to eat it.

So could we please stop with the random rainbow children. Please? If you wanna put some light bright kids in a movie, then please have the parents resemble the appropriate geno and phenotype for that. And for all you folks out there who are getting fooled by hollywierd, Yeah um, if you messin' with Morris Chestnut, you're NOT having “that kid”, unless you're not black, at all, well, maybe a little bit black, just a little bit, and even then, odds are long. Reallly long.

U.S. Flies B-52s Into China’s Expanded Air Defense Zone

Two long-range American bombers have conducted what Pentagon officials described Tuesday as a routine training mission through airspace recently claimed by China as its “air defense identification zone.”
I think China (or Russia for that matter) should fly a few bombers 13 miles off the US east coast and see how Washington reacts to that.

Friday, November 22, 2013

Compare and Contrast

So Counterpunch has a piece on the American Criminal Elite Where we find this gem:
Let someone die in a gang-banger crossfire in South Central, and William Bennett will rush to indict an entire generation, an entire race. Where are the sermons from Bennett, Murray and the Sunday Show moralists about the CEOs scuttling off with their swag, leaving their employees to founder amid wrecked pensions and destroyed prospects? A street kid in Oakland is in the computer by the time he’s 10. No “criminal propensity” profiles for grads of the Wharton or Harvard business schools.
It takes the special thinking of a liberal to actually write something like this. The authors would seriously want us to say that stuff like the Knockout Game which has been claiming victims for at least 2 years now is somehow equal to the might be criminal propensity of a business school grad? Really?

The above is supposed to be the same as studying in business school.

Seriously.

This is not to dismiss the criminal conduct of those in the industry who have given us the housing collapse among other things, but really, that's on the level of random gun [and non-gun] violence?

No. And don't insult black people's intelligence with that nonsense either. One of the most pernicious forms of white supremacist racism is the dismissal of agency of black people when they do wrong. If the authors want to talk about the crimes of corporate elites, do so, but leave out the rank comparisons to street violence.

Living Wages and Inflation

Reading through comments about that "socialist" city council member in Seattle made me think I should revisit my support of livable wages. Some commentators brought up the potential for prices to rise dramatically if the minimum wage is increased.

On the surface such a concern seems valid. After all labor is the highest [recurring] cost for most businesses. Equipment has a high one time purchase and then a cost associated with maintenance and then can be sold to recoup some of the original costs. But as automation has shown, machines cost far less than human labour, particularly when measured against sheer productivity gains.

There are businesses that run at very high profit margins on their final product. It is completely false to claim that somehow raising the wages of workers who put together say Nike sneakers would push prices of Nike sneakers up. The only reason why Nike sneakers would go up in price would be because Nike was protecting it's profit margins. Smaller mom and pop stores would have larger problems with large increases in wages. On the one hand many family run stores with family as employees are somewhat immune from the issues, because the family generally co-owns the business and so money is evenly split. They live their lives with the business and nobody is really getting insanely rich off the business. They may be a part of the 1% due to raw income but they are at the bottom part of the 1%.

At the upper end of the 1% are folks who aren't really making money because they produce anything. They make money off of money off of money. Minimum wage increases will do nothing to their wealth. Not one bit. In fact I would hazard to guess that a lot of those top top top earners give away more money than a lot of workers make in a year or ten.

On the other hand one has to be pretty careful about wages. Should a no skill job pay the same as one that takes 8 years of specialized training to do? I certainly do not think that the guy who changes the oil on my car deserves the same pay as the one who can take apart my engine or transmission. I DO think that the guy who changes my oil should have the opportunity to get the training to take apart my engine so he can get that pay if he so chooses. But I'm not up for increasing his oil changing pay because he simply thinks he should be paid more to do it.

Of course therein lies the conundrum: What job deserves "living wages" as opposed to shall we say "entry level, HS student, don't expect to support a family on this" pay? If a lot of people who should be in "support a family" job are in "HS Student part time" job trying to support a family then there is a problem with the kind of work available and not so much what is being paid to do it. As I've pointed out in other entries, those "part time, don't expect to support a family" jobs are going to go away with automation and self-service. So, for example, if you think you will be able to be a cashier at a department store for the next 30 years and support your family, you have a whole other thing coming. And no amount of minimum wage is going to help.

This brings us back to the point I made in the last post: As technology decimates low and medium skill work (anything done by hand) and those previously employed doing these things (and the future would have been workers) are no longer employable but are still, you know, alive, what is government going to do? That is the policy question that needs to be looked at.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Flex Point

Kshama Sawant recently won an election in Seattle. She says she is a Socialist and has some ideas about how businesses should be run:
I wouldn’t call it “more socialist,” in the sense that it doesn’t make sense: It can be either capitalism or socialism. But what we can do, in the journey toward making the economy into something that works for everybody: We have to fight for major reforms under capitalism … We are going to be pushing forward for $15 an hour minimum wage in Seattle in 2014 …
I'm not opposed to a $15/hour minimum wage. In fact I'm all for a livable wage.
But we also have to be honest … That’s not going to be enough. Because the system itself is a system of crises … Capitalism does not have the ability to generate the kind of living wage jobs that will be necessary in order to sustain a decent standard of living for the majority …
Well here starts the problem. It isn't that Capitalism does not have the ability to generate living wage jobs, it that technology, the very sector Kshama comes from, has completely upended labour. Anyone familiar with history knows that for a while between Unions and business ideas like that of Henry Ford created quite a few middle class jobs where a man could, on his own salary, purchase a house, marry and support his family. That man could do so without a college education. Those days are fast closing.
Boeing has an enormous factory, [as well as] all the auto factories that are lying defunct right now in the U.S. — they all have enormous capacity for production. And there’s any number of workers with the skills, and people who have the potential of learning those skills. And instead we have a situation where, because we don’t have a say in the production, either the machines are lying idle, or the machines are being used to produce destructive machines like drones.

So what we need to do is to take the machines and the factories into democratic, say, democratic ownership — and the workers can contribute rail cars or buses, something like that, something that is beneficial to society. And that’s something that creates jobs — it will create living wage jobs …
Are you comfortable with the government telling you what your business should and should not produce? I'm all for responsible business but I am not for dictating what businesses should be in the business of doing. Boeing would not produce "destructive drones" if there were no customers for said drones. Kshama should be more concerned about why those customers exist more so than the means of their production

But her commentary about Boeing also underlines her complete blindness to business realities. Boeing factories aren't sitting idle because they don't want to use them. Boeing has idle factories because it no longer needs to use them to produce what they want. And why should a business pay to maintain a factory they have no need for?

And apparently Kshama thinks that Boeing would pay people x amount per hour to produce "rail cars or buses" when robots (who I'm sure she programmed for at some point) could do the job far cheaper. Unless of course she thinks the government ought to pass legislation requiring a certain number or percentage of human employees. Good luck with that.

See, I don't mind Kshama's attitude and vision for the people. The problem is that she apparently does not realize that the tech ship has sailed. More and more jobs previously done by "the people" (those who are not college educated and who's jobs do not require a college degree of any sort) are soon to be automated. How long do you think a $50k/year Starbucks barista job will last against the soon to come fully automated coffee stores that makes perfect coffee every single time?

or a Burger King?

Or a totally self service supermarket where RFID items are automatically checked and paid for so there are no cashiers or lines?

Department stores with RFID on all items so you pick up and go? Where robots can and will restock items (assuming one goes to shop).

Where there are no gas stations or attendants?

Where there are no road crews?

Where there are no bus drivers?

What happens when the minimum wage hits the reality of the jobs they were intended for are gone? That is the real problem facing the people. A technology makes human labour more and more unnecessary what do the countries do with the people who will supposedly still need money to get the stuff they need and want?

This is the real question for those concerned about the future. The flex point is fast approaching. Who's paying attention?

Sunday, November 17, 2013

Who Says Illegal Immigration Doesn' Hurt Blacks?

From the NY Times:
“I’ve been turned down from McDonald’s because I was told I was too articulate,” she says. “I got denied a job scrubbing toilets because I didn’t speak Spanish and turned away from a laundromat because I was ‘too pretty.’ I’ve also been told point-blank to my face, ‘We don’t hire the unemployed.’ And the two times I got real interest from a prospective employer, the credit check ended it immediately.”
Not French, German, Italian, Swahili or Arabic.

Spanish.

Not even a language indigenous to this hemisphere.

I've already laid the case out of why those so called black leaders who are good with illegal immigration are throwing black folks (particularly those without college educations) under the employment bus for political gain. Someone ought to demand that these black elites explain to regular ol' black folks, who are experiencing double digit unemployment, as to why they are OK with adding more competition into the workforce and helping to create an employment environment that blocks them.

Friday, November 15, 2013

The Affordable Care Act "Issues"

So it is amusing to see the great whale fail of the ACA website coupled with the millions of cancellations of insurance policies made illegal by the ACA. All of it was avoidable. First and foremost, had we passed go (The insurance companies) and went directly to a single payer policy by expanding medicaid and medicare to cover everyone, cradle to the grave, none of the policy cancellations we have seen would have happened at all because everyone would be covered once the expansion kicked in. No looking for a policy. No figuring out what your budget could afford. You have a Social Security card? You have insurance. Easy peasy.

There would have been no website to sign up. You ever use a website to get your SSN? I didn't. When my mother had to claim her SS and Medicare benefits the already up and running structures in place, though a bit rough around the edges, worked fine. Why it was thought it would be better to make up a brand new system, process and bureaucracy to implement something that is already working and already scaleable.

It was clearly a bad idea and this whole thing makes the opposition look like they were right all along which of course they were, even if for the wrong reasons. Yes the ADA ought to be done away with but not for the status quo. The ACA is a poor excuse for handing insurance companies more customers. And a lot of people are finding out I and others were absolutely right to point out that said companies will make more money because they have every right to charge more to meet the new "floor" of coverage that is legally required (the reason why so many are getting cancellations in the first place).

I'm certain that this will be rectified in the near future with modifications, deadline extensions and the like. And the insurance companies are about to make a nice bit of change even with the so called increase caps. All in all, all of this would have been better with single payer.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Who Played Patsey?

Were you familiar with the story of Solomon Northrup before? Absolutely not, and I was shocked and dismayed that I hadn't heard of it. I, of course, talked a little bit with my friends about it, and few if any had heard of the 12 Years a Slave autobiography.
And many will continue not to know.

But she did an excellent job. Excellent.

Monday, November 11, 2013

The Simple Beauty of Tanned Skin

Just don't have the other things that usually go along with dark skin.
Women quickly realized that they looked and felt better with tanned skin. But why?

Tanned skin hides skin imperfections like cellulite, dark spots, wrinkles and veins. Suddenly the skin, even of an older woman, suddenly looks glowing and more youthful when tanned. Cellulite is smoothed, dark spots are muted, wrinkles seem to disappear, and varicose and spider veins are camouflaged and sometimes completely covered by the bronze glow.

Women? What women?
Men notice you, girlfriends comment on your beautiful tan, and clothes and jewelry look even better against tan skin.
Really?
I wonder when these women figured that out?
Wouldn’t it be great if we could get that tan we all crave without ruining our skin? Coco Chanel had no choice but we do, because we have sunless tanners. Sunless tanners offer a safe option to get the tan we crave without the dangers of the sun.
We who? I believe nature provided some of us protection from the "dangers of the sun".

Friday, November 08, 2013

And What About The People?

Neil Winton is very excited about the future of self driving cars.
he avoidance of accidents will cut insurance costs, while fuel savings from more efficient long-distance cruising and congestion avoidance are big potential pluses. There will be industrial winners too. Software for in-car applications to entertain drivers with new time on their hands will boom. Radio and recorded music businesses will lose a captive audience. Railroad and short-haul airlines will suffer. If you can move from your home to your destination, door-to-door in the comfort of your car, who’s going to take the train or plane? Highway speed limits are likely to be raised significantly when the new technology demonstrates it can eliminate accidents, cutting journey times and adding to the virtuous circle. All those high speed train schemes being touted in the U.S. and Britain are likely to end up being used by driver-less cars, not hugely expensive and inflexible high-speed trains.
In Neil's piece he waxes poetic about the benefits of all this automation but fails to mention the real human costs. Sure a few disk jockey's on the radio may lose a few people (who will listen to them while in their commutes anyway) but what about all those people who drive trucks for a living? Do you really think a human is going to stay awake, at the wheel doing absolutely nothing for 8-12 hours while his or her truck does the driving? You think a company will pay for that? Really? How many truck drivers would be out of jobs? Truck Driver Salary.com says there are 3.5 million truck drivers in the US alone.
There are approximately 3.5 million professional truck drivers in the United States, according to estimates by the American Trucking Association. The total number of people employed in the industry, including those in positions that do not entail driving, exceeds 8.7 million. About one of every 15 workers in the country is employed in the trucking business, according to the ATA. These figures indicate that trucking is an exceptionally stable industry that is likely to continue generating jobs in the coming years.
Well there goes 3.5 million jobs. Doesn't include the soon to be automated loading and unloading jobs.

According to the BLS There are 239,900 taxi drivers. Add that to your loss of truck drivers and there's nearly 400 million jobs up in smoke.

But these "lowly" people barely rate a mention among the educated class with jobs where there is little competition from automation and immigrant labour.

Oh yeah and most of these jobs that will go poof? They are done mostly by men. Oh I know, they can all be retrained as mechanics.

In The Back Of The Head

Members of Renisha McBride’s family said they believe the African-American woman was racially profiled by the homeowner. They said McBride, whose cell phone had died, had gone up to the house on Outer Drive seeking help after she was involved in an auto accident early Saturday morning. They say McBride was shot in the back of the head with a shotgun as she turned to leave. [My emphasis]
Shooting at someone in the back, particularly if they have not entered your home or threatened you in a credible manner is murder. The castle doctrine does not apply here. There is no reason for this man to not be in jail right now. If he was THAT nervous about someone knocking at his door in the early morning he should not have answered and called the police, or spoke through the door after checking the window.

This man came to the door, locked and loaded. That means intent to shoot. He should be in jail.

Wednesday, November 06, 2013

Why the US Lags Other Advanced Economies in Women’s Employment

Eileen Appelbaum's latest published in Counterpunch.It contains this bit:
The share of women 25 to 54 years of age who are employed tells a similar story. This ratio peaked in 2000 at 74.2 percent before falling to 72.5 percent in 2007 and 69.2 percent in the second quarter of 2013 — behind even the employment rate of women in Japan, which reached 70.6 percent in that quarter! Today, the U.S. lags behind not only the Nordic countries but most other advanced industrialized English-speaking nations (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the U.K.) and the major continental countries (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland).
While that may be true. Ms. Applebaum fails to note one very important thing about all if not most of the countries she has listed: The have stagnant or negative population growth. The average age of their population ranges from the late 30's to mid 40s. A lot of those countries (Japan very much excepted) are dependent upon immigrants to fill work and to boost their tax base (and care for their elderly).

The US has a birth rate of 13.82
Australia 12.47 Canada 10.28 New Zealand: 13.94 (only one higher than US) United Kingdom: 10.65
Austria: 8.65
Belgium: 10.15
France: 12.57
Germany: 8.18
Netherlands: 10.40
Switzerland: 9.59
Japan: 7.64

Median Age:
United States: 37.2 years
United Kingdom: 40.3 years
Canada: 41.5 years
New Zealand: 37.4 years (again the only one comparable to the US)
Austria: 43.9 years
Australia: 38.1 years
France: 40.6 years
Germany: 45.7 years
Netherlands: 41.8 years
Belgium: 42.8 years
Japan: 45.8 years
Switzerland: 41.8 years

So yeah. I could look at this data set and say, well if you want your country to die off slowly, do please "improve" women participation in the work place. The data would sure support that. But I'm not a feminist so I won't do that. How about it's best for the country if women don't feel that they are only worth something if they are working to make someone else money. How about not shaming stay at home mothers? How about not shaming the men who support those stay at home mother's (and the children they care for)?

Of course the reason why Applebaum doesn't see this issue is because to many in so called feminist circles population growth is bad. Some going so far as to believe that having children is destructive to the environment (it is not, it is all the junk we modern people associate with families that is degrading to the environment, starting with the huge gas guzzling vehicles many parents have for "convenience").

I guess it's too hard for some people to understand that if women, who are often the primary caregiver to young children (and there is nothing at all wrong with that) are to be primary caregivers to young children, they cannot also be in the workplace. And there is nothing wrong with that either.

Tuesday, November 05, 2013

White People Use Crack?

There is a running "joke" in some white corners of the internet about how Marion Barry's drug habit was indicative of what to expect from black politicians. I wonder if the same will be said about Rob Ford, the Toronto mayor who has a crack habit?

I doubt we'll hear anything. After all, that corner of the internet has been mighty quiet about the recent shooting at LAX, while they spilt much digital ink in regards to DC.

Monday, November 04, 2013

I'm Sure It Isn't

Wall Street Journal opinion piece by Tim Cook:
Workplace Equality Is Good for Business
Said by the head of a company with nary a negro at the top executive level. Ever.

Say Mr. Cook, is not having black people at the top of your company "Good for business"? Given the profits I suppose it is.

And if that is so, then if a company is equally profitable without homosexuals (known and out) then how is it "good for business" to change? Are homosexuals more profitable than blacks?

Serious question.

Are homosexuals better for business than blacks? Looking at Apple we seem to know the answer to that don't we.

Don't get me wrong, as I explained before, I get it. Really I do. I just find it highly, highly, highly ironic that a Companies near and far, bend over backwards to play the "we support women" game (of which the homosexual thing is actually a part) while they are blatantly No Negro Lands(™) in their employment practices (particularly in the upper levels) and nobody calls them on it. But hey, like the Oracle of Matrix fame, I understand "the why". So none of this surprises me.

Verone Mankou Get's It

In light of yesterday's post here's someone who understands what I'm talking about:
"Now we are building our factory in Brazzaville. Before we designed in Congo, assembled in China and sold in Congo -- no! I want to design it in Congo, assemble in Congo and sell it in Congo."

Sunday, November 03, 2013

The Walk Video

First watch the video.

Now read.

Apparently the video was made last year. I first saw it today while watching the NYC marathon. This video is amazing in it's complete exposure of the total fuck up that African/Black so called leadership has been. For those who are unawares, I am a Garveyite. Marcus and Amy repeatedly and forcefully told black folks that they needed to get their act together and do for self. What was "do for self"? Do for self is what every other group on the planet does. It is living together in communities that you control economically and politically. It is valuing your culture and people. It is passing traditions and knowledge onto the next generation. It is not being exploited by others.

A cursory look at African history will show that the start of the "great stagnation and devolution" of the African starts roughly with the Jihads in West Africa which allowed the slave trade to flourish in that area of the world. Similar issues were in play in central Africa among the Ngola with different groups warring with each other and selling their captors whome they, even today, didn't even recognize as better allies and kin than material for barter. But those issues are not the point of this post.

Since the so called emancipation of African nations from colonialism there have been innumerable coups, counter-coups and general bullshit. All this warfare, that continues to this day, and a total lack of unity of purpose and direction (not necessarily of thought) by the so called leadership has left a number of resolvable issues STILL plaguing Africa. The above video highlights one of them.

While so called "rebels" in Africa exploit their natural resources to purchase arms, the people they give their money and resources to build state of the art hospitals and orderly societies where their women can complain about "first world problems". Meanwhile all these "rebels" have managed to do is continue to make life miserable for the people I assume they are liberating. Hell, the other day I was reading an article on one of the countries and between the two blocks of buildings was a dirt road with garbage strewn along the gutters on each side. No, let me rephrase, garbage about two feet or so extending from the sidewalk.

Question: What the hell is that about?

Why is it that a country with so many unemployed men, has streets so filthy? You want to tell me that the folks living there are so accepting of filth lining the streets that it hasn't occurred to anyone to clean it? Even if there is no money, do it for fucking barter! All those businesses supposedly operating on that block could not band together to afford to pay some enterprising folks to keep the street clean? Really?

Don't even get me started on the apparent "necessity" of getting the Chinese to build roads. You'd think that as long as concrete and asphalt has been known about that these countries could manage to make them without outside intervention.

Anyway back to the video. Recently I criticized the defense of Cecile Kyenge's appointment to the Italian cabinet as being incredibly short sighted because Italy did not need her, but people in her native land did.

I've seen video of European doctors who visit various places in Africa to do what is considered routine eye surgery. I am annoyed that while these folks are doing that work, Africans apparently cannot help themselves to run to various European countries to gift them with their skills. I suppose I'm the only person annoyed by this. I suppose I'm the only person who thinks that Kyenge's service to the people of the Congo as a doctor is more important than "diversifying" the Italian cabinet. But what do I know?

Given that, how ironic was it that the doctor delivering the white woman's baby is black?

I nearly fell out my sofa laughing when I saw that because it was SUCH a counterpoint to the scene on the right. There is a black woman walking (who knows how far) by herself to some location to give birth, ALONE whereas the white woman in "the west" has not only her husband but a black man to attend to her every need.

That video is so emblematic of the multi-fold failures of the collective black leadership .

Let me end this by asking a hypothetical set of questions:

1) If tomorrow those persons classified as white were to disappear from the planet what would go missing? A large portion of global finance (for better or worse). Most governments would shut down. 4/5ths of all vehicle manufacturing. The vast majority of advanced scientific study stopped. Many schools would simply shut down (including many in non-white areas). One could honestly say that aside from the missing population, there would be major worldwide disruptions in commerce, etc.

2) Similarly, what if tomorrow all persons classified as Asian were to disappear from the planet? The US would go broke. No, really, China and Japan alone have so much money invested in the US that for them to no longer exist would kill the US economy. Not only that, since much production of the world's goods are done in Asian countries, say goodbye to all that cheap clothes and electronic goods. Say goodbye to Honda and Toyota too. Oh yeah, Asians happen to be some of the top programmers in the world so there's that too. But lets not underestimate the loss of manufacturing output. All you need to do is look at the things in your home and office to know what that would do.

3) Lastly, imagine if every person classified as black were to disappear tomorrow: What would be totally disrupted? Nannies? Fast food workers? Rappers? Name me a major industry, governing body or human endeavor that does not involve entertainment or art that would have a massive disruption if Black people were to exit the earth en mass. There is nothing and I mean nothing manufactured in an African country that is consumed globally. Even the oil is refined elsewhere. No cars, no trucks. No solar panels. No clothing (well I do have ONE shirt made in Kenya). No electronics. There is a possible exception of food, which dessert Arab countries have been buying up land to produce. Oh, I did forget something. If all persons classified as black were to disappear tomorrow then in many metropolitan areas in the US, violent crime would drop anywhere from 60 to 90 percent. That would impact the employment of police and corrections officers as there would be far less crime to prevent and inmates to watch over which would devastate the economies of Fed Pen Towns(tm).

This takes us back to Garvey. Garvey told us that we would need to control businesses in our communities and countries. Failure to do so would leave Africans at the mercy of those who had done so. But the idea that won the day among Africans was that it was better to "diversify" white spaces than to strengthen our own. So we fight over Affirmative Action at various schools rather than how to get more black folks to attend a Tuskegee or a Howard. We complain about the lack of black professors at so and so HWCU (Historically White Colleges and Universities) and complain about low wages at Tuskegee, the same place they didn't go to and won't send their kids to, thereby depriving those institutions of funds that would pay those higher wages they want.

So this attitude has given us the video above. Black folks suffering massive brain drain and white folks continuing to reap the benefits of a cultural orthodoxy that places a higher value in diversity than their own group well being. And it is ONLY Africans that suffer from this nonsense. Asians stick together, Latinos do the same (mainly for their non-black members). But apparently I'm one of the few who are bothered by all that.

So if you're new to this blog and read this far, congrats. Now go back and watch the video again and see what I see.