Fake Nerds Rejoice

A feature of modern times is the fake nerd. That’s the guy who dresses and talks like he was a geeky kid growing up and now busies himself with science and math. The TV show Big Bang Theory plays on this. In reality these fake nerds are almost always toting liberal arts degrees of the soft kind, like sociology or psychology. These people are brought onto news chat programs to repeat conventional wisdom, but salt their language with statistics or references to science.

Sports TV has been infested with the fake nerds. Pablo Torre on ESPN is the prime example. He majored in journalism, yet pretends to be a math guy on TV. It is a fair bet he cannot do basic math with any degree of confidence, but there he is every day pretending to be a stat-nerd on TV. These guys cherry-pick language and concepts from stat-heavy sites that analyze trends. They don’t understand the math behind them, but they don’t have to, as their job is to play a role, like an actor.

The good news for the fake nerds is their rabbi is back in business. Nate Silver’s racket is back up and running with the help of ESPN. Silver is a bright guy, for sure, but he is an ideologue and that gets the best of him. He’s a lot like Richard Lewontin, who was undeniably smart, but consumed with ideology. So much so it led him to lie about his work and do so brazenly. That’s not to say Silver is a liar, but it shows the risk of allowing an ideologue to assume the role of empiricist.

The application of statistics to human activity seems like a fool’s errand. Sports is a great example. Using advanced metrics has not helped gamblers. It may have helped some gamblers for a short time, but gambling is not just a math puzzle. Games of chance rely on human fallibility. That’s true of sports. The key to winning at sports gambling, for example, is to find the game outside the 90%. That means the possible outcomes within the 90% probability are not going to be winners for the gambler. You need the upsets and unexpected blowouts.

That said, the new religion of economics is legitimizing the use of statistics to public policy, because it opens the debate to corruption. Instead of focusing on desired ends, the focus is on process. The statistics make people think the outcomes are ordained and that what matters is how you get there. It’s why economics often looks a lot like tarot card reading. That assumption the future is written is never said, but it is often assumed, so process is all that matters.

It is a bit ironic. The last time this sort of materialist zeal got a purchase with the public was in the 19th century with Taylorism. That was the application of engineering to the work place to eliminate waste. Sounds a lot like what the new religion means by efficiency. Taylorism eventually gave us The Efficiency Movement. Progressives “such as Herbert Croly, Charles R. van Hise and Richard Ely sought to improve governmental performance by training experts in public service comparable to those in Germany, notably at the Universities of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Schools of business administration set up management programs oriented toward efficiency.”

Herbert Hoover was a big fan of this. Contrary to Progressive mythology, he was not a small government conservative. Like Nixon, he accepted the main arguments of the Left. He just picked the wrong party and, it turns out, the wrong time to be President. The point being that the last time our elites had a religious zeal for a new science of efficiency, promising to bring heaven on earth, they almost destroyed civilization. For that reason I wish Nate Silver and his fellow monks nothing but the worst.

Me & LED

I’m fond of saying that government makes liars and weasels of the citizenry. A good example is the light bulb. Like everyone reading this, I have used incandescent bulbs by default for my whole life. Modern hipsters insist on calling them “Edisons.” The young guy who sold me the fancy new LED bulbs the other day seemed proud of himself when he had the chance to say “Edisons” with confidence of someone who is sure he is about to bring a new believer into his cult.

Anyway, I got talked into trying an LED the other day, so I decided to go to the local light bulb emporium. These stores are popping up all over. I guess that means we have joined the future in the same way small towns used to celebrate getting a McDonald’s. Right out of the chute you know we are headed to a bad place when you can build a nationwide retail chain around batteries and light bulbs. Then again The Christmas Tree Shops are built around a single holiday.

The store is not big and probably exists mostly on batteries. We have all sort or weird battery needs these days. I asked the kid for the LED bulbs and he took me to the display and started in on the sales pitch. While he was talking I’m looking at the price of these things. Looking at $19.99 for a light bulb is a bit of an eye-opener. I then hear the guy say something about the LED bulb producing the same amount of light as a much higher watt incandescent bulb.

At that point I started focusing again, realizing that it takes a good sales pitch to sell a $20 light bulb. He’s telling me about lumens and watts, while I’m thinking about physics.  A watt is equal to the amount of energy in 1 ampere of current flowing at 1 volt. A lumen has something to do with the amount of light visible to humans. It was one of those moments when I wish I had retained more of my physics training. It’s a safe bet the retail clerk really has no idea what any of this means.

I’m thinking about the lumens, trying to remember if there was a conversion to watts when he says, “The real benefit of the LED is that it will last 40 years.” I’m 48 so that means the bulb will still be going strong when I’m 88 or dead. I look at the kid and say, “So I can leave these bulbs in my will?” He just looks at me, probably trying to wrap his mind around the idea of his light bulbs lasting longer than my life. When you’re young, death is a foreign concept. I just give him the stony face to see what he will do.

Eventually, he just says, “I guess you could. I never really thought of that.” I take some pleasure in the knowledge he will now be thinking about that the next time an old person comes in the shop. When he gets ready to tell some old guy that the bulb will last forty years, but the old guy may not make it forty months. It underscores the ridiculousness of selling something people still think of as disposable, on the argument that it will last two generations.

Of course, no one thought about putting light bulbs in their will, unless they were a vindictive jerk. For close to a century now light bulbs cost a few pennies and you threw them away when you moved. The typical house may have a dozen or more bulbs. The total cost of all of them less than this one LED he was holding. Never have I heard someone complain about the bulbs in their house. Sure, you have to spend money on an outside spot light or those weird little bulbs in a dining room fixture.

Like everyone else to this point, I’ve never needed a professional consultation on my home lighting. At most, you spend time with an electrician on how best to wires the house or an outside area, so you can get proper lighting. That’s a different matter than getting professional advice on where to place the lamp. Government has created a whole class of people, who make a living helping people do what generations took for granted. We live in the age of make-work.

That’s not the end of it. The reason we’re now including our lighting choices in our wills is corporate titans figured this was a good way to monetize their country’s green obsession. In this case, “Big Bulb” got Congress to ban the cheap alternative so we will be forced to spend a mortgage payment to replace the light bulbs in the house. Phillips and GE are not even lubing up before they monetize us. It is just a full on prison rape with light bulbs. Yeah capitalism!

I know, these bulbs will save me money. I can do math. Looking at my electric bill, I fail to see how the energy savings is worth investigating. If I lived in a stadium or an arena, I could see it. The only real savings I can see is the replacement. Let’s pretend the guy at the battery store was right. My “Edisons” will cost about $20 until my death. That’s about the same as the LED. Since we know the LED will not last that long, I’m losing on that score. In fairness, the LED’s will get cheaper so the math will get better over time.

Here’s the math that matters. Big Bulb was making about 10% profit on bulbs before the green lunatics got involved. That’s about a penny per bulb when you consider the manufactured cost. If they have the same margins on the LED, they are making 100 times that per bulb. The bulb-person ration will not change anytime soon. Initially people will be buying these expensive bulbs in the same volume as the normal bulbs. Big Bulb gets to see their profit soar for a couple of years.

What are the odds that Big Bulb will go out of business in a few years after all of our bulbs are replaced with these lifetime bulbs? After all, if everyone goes to these new bulbs that last forever, how long before bulb sales collapse? That’s where you know the longevity argument is bogus. The LED will last longer, for sure, but the smart people at Big Bulb did the math and they know their new bulbs will not so long as to make the bulb business irrelevant.

The topper is the bulbs I bought are not all that great. Maybe it is just a matter of getting used to it, but my bedroom now looks like a film school scene. The area immediately around the lamps is brighter and whiter. Everywhere else is in shadows. Maybe I got bad bulbs, but for $20 a pop, well, I expected more. Forty bucks is not what it used to be, but it is lunch for the week. Thanks to the helping hand of government, I spent $40 to get monetized and I sleep in a film noir movie.

Paul Krugman: A Bigot

The Progressives insist that the only people capable of bigotry are white and those that can be lumped in with them when convenient. The bigotry of white people can only be directed at non-white people. The pale face is the forever villain, in the morality play that is multiculturalism. Words like “diversity” and “pluralism” don’t really mean what they appear to mean. Instead, they are code for anti-white. It’s why the Left find it perfectly reasonable to exclude the white people from a diversity event.

South Puget Sound Community College says it was a mistake for an employee group to invite only people of color to a diversity “happy hour.”

The group that sent out the email last week apologized the next day and canceled the event, said Kellie Purce Braseth, dean of college relations.

The college believes the best way to celebrate and discuss diversity is to include everyone, Braseth told KING (http://bit.ly/1qvHzjW ).

“If you want to come you should be able to come; that just makes a richer conversation,” she said.

The invitation to all 300 staffers said the “Staff, Faculty and Administrators of Color” encouraged employees to reply to the invitation to find out the confidential date and time of what was being called a “happy hour” to “build support and community” for people of color.

The invite made it clear white people were not welcome.

“If you want to create space for white folks to meet and work on racism, white supremacy, and white privilege to better our campus community and yourselves, please feel free to do just that,” the email read.

Karama Blackhorn, program coordinator for the school’s Diversity and Equity Center, helped write the invitation.

It could have been worded differently, but she maintains the staff members of color would have a more honest discussion about race without white employees.

Explicitly talking about race “can be a really difficult conversation for a lot of people,” Blackhorn said.

Now, diversity meetings are about as fun as spending a week in an asylum, so most people would not be offended by this sort of thing. As long as this stuff is voluntary, these people can be whatever type of bigot floats their boat. That’s the thing though, they are bigots. They hold negative opinions about specific people based on what they see as differences of opinion. They naturally root for and support their side against the side they see holding an opinion or belief that most threatens their authority.

For example, Paul Krugman is a bigot and a flamboyant one. He seems to have some mental health issues, but he could simply be a fanatic. The bug-eyed look and drooling sneer are very creepy. Maybe he thinks that serial killer stare is handsome or maybe what you see is what you get. Either way, he has the look of someone who is struggling to keep it all together. His latest screed offers a good example of the left-wing bigotry.

So it’s comical, in a way, to see Mr. Ryan trying to explain away some recent remarks in which he attributed persistent poverty to a “culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working.” He was, he says, simply being “inarticulate.” How could anyone suggest that it was a racial dog-whistle? Why, he even cited the work of serious scholars — people like Charles Murray, most famous for arguing that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. Oh, wait.

Just to be clear, there’s no evidence that Mr. Ryan is personally a racist, and his dog-whistle may not even have been deliberate. But it doesn’t matter. He said what he said because that’s the kind of thing conservatives say to each other all the time. And why do they say such things? Because American conservatism is still, after all these years, largely driven by claims that liberals are taking away your hard-earned money and giving it to Those People.

There you have it. The bigot just assumes “those people” all think as he imagines because, you know, it is how those people are. Again, there is nothing intrinsically immoral about bigotry. It can be immoral, but not necessarily so. In a modern state like America, having a ruling class that hates the people over whom they rule, because the subjects hold the wrong opinions, is a problem. At some point, one side or both decide they cannot live with the morality of the other and hell quickly follows.

I hate When This Happens

You go out for a long weekend and come home to a house full of plumpers.

A comedian under the impression he had rented out his posh Chelsea pad to a man with family in town for a wedding returned home to a wild orgy, he said.

Ari Teman, 31, claimed he left his apartment keys with David Carter, 32, on Friday night and stepped out for dinner before leaving town.

When he returned to the building to grab his luggage, a rowdy sex party featuring “Big Beautiful Women” was in the process of being shut down by building management.

“This was just so bizarre,” said Teman, who had rented his apartment via the Web site Airbnb.
“The worst part of the Internet right there was in my apartment.”

“There were all sorts of people walking out of my apartment and people coming in from the back yard. It was a huge mess.”

Teman said his apartment was trashed by a group of nearly nude, overweight people. After the shindig was broken up, Carter was a nervous wreck in the lobby, Teman says.

“This guy had a look of horror on his face,” Teman said. “He didn’t expect to see me for a few days. He said, ‘They shut us down, man, they’re shutting it down.’ ”

Carter, however, claims he just had a small, quiet get-together and that Teman was overreacting.

“I had six people, friends and family,” Carter told The Post. “He is making a big to-do because he is being evicted.”

Carter posted on Airbnb that he wanted a place for his in-laws to stay while they were in town for a wedding, Teman claims.

“He had a verified account and he seemed legit,” Teman said. “He had three positive reviews and so I approved the deal.”

When Teman later searched Carter’s phone number on the Internet, he found the raunchy soiree involving plus-sized women advertised online as “Turn Up Part 2: The Pantie Raid.”

One person even blasted out Teman’s Seventh Avenue address in a tweet for an “XXX FREAK FEST.”

Carter denied he had anything to do with the ad.

A web ad that was displaying information on the alleged orgy.

“There was no address on the advertisement and I had nothing to with it,” he said.

The professional comedian called police, but no charges were filed. He now claims he wants to move.

“I just don’t want to touch anything in there,” he said. “I threw sheets all over everything.”

Carter claimed that a little partying never hurt anyone.

One of the reasons to be skeptical of economists is right here in the story. People are liars and unreliable. Economics has as an axiom that in the aggregate, people are honest. Simple observation and 5,000 years of history says otherwise. It is similar to the complaint about crowd-sourcing. You see it in the story. One person is dumb and foolish, but we’re supposed to believe that a million morons are smart and wise, just by the magic of numbers. Similarly, a million liars is not making for an honest market.

Preemptive Strike Against The Race Charge

Kevin Williamson is not an honest person. At least he is not an honest writer, which does not make him extraordinary. Honestly in professional writing is a sure way to become an amateur writer. Publications like National Review are hoping to persuade people to a particular position. They are most concerned with rich people, who give them money for writing the things rich people like reading. As a result, the writers there are forced to make up nonsense like this.

A lefty friend once asked me whether I thought I held any subconsciously racist opinions. One should always be on the lookout for one’s own intellectual and moral defects, so I’ve been thinking about it, and I have a possible candidate: As I suggest in my NRO piece today, “Asian-American” seems to me to be an obviously nonsensical category, because it includes people of origins ranging from Pakistani to Japanese. But “African-American” has never seemed immediately nonsensical to me in the same way. This may be because I know a little bit more about Asia than I do about Africa, or it may be because Indians and Koreans strike my white American eye as obviously and visibly different in a way that is not true of members of many African groups. It should go without saying that I detest racism, and it is also the case that racial and ethnic feeling, even of the benign, St. Patrick’s Day variety, seems to me atavistic and primitive. My self-analysis here is not meant to be taken as normative, but rather an examination of the semi-subconscious impressions of what I believe to be a fairly typical middle-class white guy from Texas.

The new religion has made race awareness into mortal moral sin. if you notice anything about racial or ethnic differences, even the most innocuous things, you will be marked as a racist, and no one wants that. The ridiculous bit of squid ink in the first paragraph is a good example. It is absurd to think that Kevin Williamson is losing any sleep over his “subconscious racism.” In fact, even people who are dedicated anti-racists are not worrying about their subconscious racism. It’s just an act.

While I don’t buy the race-as-a-social-construct position entirely, there is a great deal of cultural specificity to racial perception. Surely I am not the only white American guy in the history of the world to meet a Somali or an Ethiopian and have his brain simultaneously register “black” and “not black.” And I believe that that is the real psychological fault line for white Americans: not white vs. not-white but black vs. not-black. Ethiopia, Wikipedia informs me, recognizes more than 80 different ethnic groups on its census and, for whatever reason, members of some of those groups only push some of the buttons of perception associated in my particular brain with “black.” I think it probably says something about the culture that at some level my mind really wants to make that distinction in absolute terms. We all know that Barack Obama has one black parent and one white parent, but my impression is that people generally look at him and see black, rather than biracial.

This is akin to saying “I don’t buy this gravity-as-a-social-construct position entirely” while tossing a ball into the air. In fact, the concept of the “social construct” is really just hand waving. The term was invented by people who no longer wanted to deal with facts and reason. Regardless, race is real.There is a reason we can use a mouth swab and tell the origin of your ancestors. In some cases, their origin can be plotted on a map with great accuracy. This says race and ethnicity are in your DNA.

The fundamental fact, I think, is that when a white American sees a black American, he sees history, and that history looms far more significantly over black Americans than it does over Hispanics or Asian immigrants or other minority groups. Conservatives see that history and generally don’t want to think about it; progressives see that history and want to use it for their own political ends. And I don’t have the imaginative capacity to guess what the view looks like from the black perspective. In that sense, it’s hard for me to believe that black-white relations in the United States will ever be normalized, as much as I wish it were otherwise. The fact that “black” exists in my internal taxonomy as a unitary and exclusive category — even though at some rational level I know better — suggests to me that while “Asian” maybe be only a geographic term in the American political mind, “African” is a very different kind of term, one that has more to do with realities on this continent than realities in Africa.

This is the least ridiculous portion of the post. He is right that people with a long history with one another tend to remember that long history with one another. This is true in the same way that people who have evolved here on earth tend to look like us. Armenians and Turks will forever have opinions about one another that outsiders will never fully appreciate, because of their long history together. The same is true of Jews and Europeans, but not true of Jews and Samoans.

Of course, the whole post is made up nonsense. It is an effort to inoculate himself against future changes of bad think. He’s not the smartest guy in the world, but he is a not a dullard, so he sure knows the truth about race and biology. Instead of writing that, he makes up this stuff that no doubt makes the donors happy and lets his masters on the Left know he is not having unapproved thoughts. The fact that this stuff never works is not what’s important. he thinks it works and that’s what counts.

Why The West Is Losing

This column is interesting. First off, Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics. Why was he commissioned by the New York Times to ruminate on foreign policy? That’s not his area of expertise, even if we want to pretend that economics is an area of expertise. His credentials don’t add authority to his analysis and they don’t suggest his analysis is based in anything ore than his own ruminations. If he was a professor of game theory, then it would maybe make some sense.

Now, Cowen is a smart guy, who has many interesting things to say, so maybe he gets some leeway. Still, it used to be that no one would ask an economist to discuss anything outside of economics and even that was a very narrow topic. Today, the local economist feels free to poke his nose into everything. They are the court magicians and the local soothsayer. Serious men consult them to divine the will of the gods. Maybe they should be required to dress like Gandalf.

In another era, religious leaders routinely commented on the morality of public policy, including foreign policy. Today that role is filled by members of the local economics faculty. The reason is the morality of Christianity has been replaced by a new materialist morality among the ruling classes. It is why passing a Byzantine health care bill was treated as a moral triumph. An economist somewhere said it would add wealth to the nation and there can be no higher good than increasing the GDP.

The flaw in this is that the benefits of public policy often lie well over the horizon, while the costs are often right now. Of course, the reverse is often true. The benefits of debt creation, for example, are immediate, while the long term costs are passed onto future generations. The result is a form of short term thinking about public policy that veers into the myopic. In America, the “live for the moment” morality has produced a nation of amnesiacs incapable of remembering yesterday or contemplating tomorrow.

In foreign policy, this new morality is at the heart of our troubles with Russia. The Russian elite reject the materialism of the West. They look at the Crimea as a part of their cultural history and a part of their patrimony. It is a part of what they hope will be their shadow, in which future generations will stand. That changes their cost-benefit analysis. Putin is willing to sacrifice now, for what he assumes will be a legacy passed onto his people. The West cannot understand such reasoning.

The other thing is just how deeply our elites are marinated in cultural nihilism. Top to bottom they think culture is witchcraft from a bygone era. Their extreme egalitarianism leads them to assume all people are the same. Everyone wants what we want, loves what we love and hates what we hate. In domestic policy we see this all the time. Education starts with the assumption that everyone can be above average, as Bush hilariously claimed. Diversity demands that no one notice the diversity of man.

In the competition with Putin, the West’s inability to see his motives through his eyes is leading to one error after another. John Kerry throws a temper tantrum thinking it will have the same effect it has when he does not get seated on time at the club. Instead Putin sees a weak, feckless man who is no threat to him. In Obama, he probably sees a guileless provincial surrounded by equally inept courtiers. The fact that Obama and his people cannot imagine that being the case means we have informational disequilibrium.

Consider this from the Cowen post:

A more reassuring kind of deterrence has to do with the response of Russian markets to the crisis. Russia is a far more globalized economy than it was during the Soviet era. On the first market day after the Crimean takeover, the reaction was a plunging ruble, and a decline in the Russian stock market of more than 10 percent. Russia’s central bank raised interest rates to 7 percent from 5.5 percent to protect the ruble’s value. Such market reactions penalize Russian decision makers, who also know that a broader conflict would endanger Russia’s oil and gas revenue, which makes up about 70 percent of its export income.

In this case, market forces provide a relatively safe form of deterrence. Unlike governmental sanctions, market-led penalties limit the risk of direct political retaliation, making it harder for the Russian government to turn falling market prices into a story of victimization by outside powers.

The underlying assumption is that Putin wants what we want. He and his people love what we love, hate what we hate and see themselves as citizens of the world, just like Tyler Cowen! Maybe the folks running Russia put a high price on having swank Miami condos and houses in Switzerland. It is just as likely they love their country, their forebears and their own place in the Russian time-line more than those trinkets. The elites int he west are no longer able to understand such thinking.

Send In The Trannies!

It used to be that the counter to the homosexual marriage was it would lead to every pervert and nutjob demanding special treatment too. After all, the point of defining anything is about setting limits. The difference between an apple and an orange is not open for debate. The difference between two guys playing house and your aunt and uncle raising a family is obvious. The former is a fruitless transaction that serves no social purpose, while the latter is about creating children.

Removing the biology renders the term and the institution meaningless unless you can come up with some new limiting definition. Since the whole point of the effort is to destroy the institution, there will be no new definition of marriage. The goal is to destroy the white middle-class by destroying white middle-class institution. The whole point of homosexual marriage is open the flood gates to all of the other freaks and weirdos, demanding the right to occupy the space of the white middle-class.

Right on cue, the parade of degenerates is on it s way.

An independent commission led by a former U.S. surgeon general has concluded there “is no compelling medical reason” for the U.S. armed forces to prohibit transgender Americans from serving and that President Barack Obama could lift the decades-old ban without approval from Congress, according to a report being released Thursday.

The report said Department of Defense regulations designed to keep transgender people from joining or remaining in the military on the grounds of psychological and physical unfitness are based on outdated beliefs that require thousands of current service members either to leave the service or to forego the medical procedures and other changes that could align their bodies and gender identities.

“We determined not only that there is no compelling medical reason for the ban, but also that the ban itself is an expensive, damaging and unfair barrier to health care access for the approximately 15,450 transgender personnel who serve currently in the active, Guard and reserve components,” said the commission led by Dr. Joycelyn Elders, who served as surgeon general during Bill Clinton’s first term as president, and Rear Adm. Alan Steinman, a former chief health and safety director for the Coast Guard.

Now, Joycelyn Elders has been pushing perversity for a long time. According to Wiki, she has a masters in biochemistry, but one should assume that was the result of other factors than intelligence. Regardless, even if her credentials are legitimate, she is still unqualified to discuss this issue. It’s not about science. it is about public morality and the fitness of the military. The absurd claim that there are 15,000 trannies in the service is going to get passed around as fact, even though the source is a nut.

The panel, convened by a think tank at San Francisco State University, said the ban has existed for several decades and apparently was derived in part from the psychiatric establishment’s consensus, since revised, that gender identity issues amounted to a mental disorder.

People come in two sexes. Yes, there are extremely rare cases of people with peculiar genetic defects that lead to them having both male and female sex organs or an extra X chromosome. That’s not what were’ talking about here. These are men, it’s always men, who think they are something they are not. if they though they were invisible or giant bunny rabbits, no one would question their mental fitness. Yet, in this newly created exception, we’re supposed to believe it is normal?

The ban also appears based on the assumption that providing hormone treatment and sex reassignment surgeries would be too difficult, disruptive and expensive. But the commission rejected those notions as inconsistent with modern medical practice and the scope of health care services routinely provided to non-transgender military personnel.

I’ll just note that the press swallows this nonsense down whole. If Liberty University had a commission that issued a report calling trannies perverts in need of psychiatric help, the media would be leading a boycott and protest rally in Lynchburg. Fruitcake University drags in an old black hustler to promote liberal agit-prop and they treat it like the Sermon on the Mount. Regardless, the parade of perverts will be in your town soon, leering at your kids, daring you to say something. Welcome to the new normal.

Why Democracy Fails

Sheila Jackson Lee is not retarded or missing a chromosome. She is just not terribly bright. The reason she is in Congress, however, is the voters of her district are mostly to the left of her on the bell curve. According to Wikipedia, her district is 40% black, 35% Hispanic and 20% white. According to this site, her district is one of the youngest. It ranks 18th in number of children under 5 and 30th in residents under 30. It seems odd that it would have so many babies, yet a declining population of adults. Hmmmm….

The answer is it is home to the Third Ward, a section of downtown Houston. The Third Ward is known as one of the most dangerous neighborhoods on the planet. According to this, you have a 1-in-13 chance of being a crime victim there. Getting a decent murder rate for the area is tough, but news reports claim a murder rate three times the rest of the city, which is 12 so that means over 30. It is hard to know for sure, but we know enough to say it is a hyper-violent place.

The general picture to keep in mind is of a poor urban ghetto filled with violent drug dealers and their underclass partners. You’re not getting a lot of high IQ strivers coming from that district. The median IQ of her district is below 85. It is the old line about the one eyed man being king of the blind. Jackson Lee is a moron by normal standards, but in her district, she’s the smart fraction. In Detroit, a smart fraction with IQ’s in the 90’s resulted in the Haiti-fication of what was once America’s richest city.


It is easy to pick on Lee and the people of her district, but it is the central defect of democracy. No matter how much you spend on education, half of the population is going to be below average. More than half, much more than half in fact, is average or below average in intelligence. The magical thinking of democracy is that one dumb person cannot be trusted to make decisions. A million dumb people will collectively act like a single smart person. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

The people of Lee’s district should not be voting on anything of significance. They are simply too dumb to be trusted. Some could be trusted with the vote. Certainly some own property, run a business and conduct themselves as responsible citizens. Most struggle to keep up with the basics of living. A fair number are unable to understand much more than a child. Why would anyone think it wise to let such people vote? Yet, this is the logic of democracy. It is an appeal to the lowest common denominator.

The Trouble With Mel

This is an interesting story. Mel Gibson got in trouble for, among other things, claiming that the Jews run Hollywood. The Jews who run Hollywood did not like Mel saying they run Hollywood, so they have banned him from Hollywood. Gibson is now called an anti-Semite because the Jews who run Hollywood don’t like him. It used to be than an anti-Semite was someone who hated Jews, but now it is someone who is hated by the Jews, which is why Mel Gibson in on the blacklist.

Now, the Jews who run Hollywood and the Jews who run the media, claim that Gibson is blackballed because he is bad for business.  I suspect most people don’t care about what Gibson thinks about anything. Danny Glover, for example, is a raging bigot and paranoid lunatic. Susan Sarandon is probably a schizophrenic. Her former paramour is a communist. Who is worse? A Holocaust denier or a guy in favor of murdering people with whom he disagrees?

No one really knows if Gibson is toxic with the public. He could be. Perhaps the public will not embrace a crazy, drunken anti-Semite. Worse, they could hold it against the studio that hires him or the actors who work with him. There are a lot of unknowns and for any business, unknowns are scary. Even so, the real issue here is the Jews running Hollywood can’t bring themselves to forgive Gibson. These are a people whose holy book is mostly a list of past enemies, so Mel will be waiting a long time.

Atheists Are Terrible People

This story is yet another example of why atheists are terrible people. If Christianity folded up shop tomorrow, they would re-invent it, just so they could cause problems for the Christians.

A humanist advocacy group has filed a federal lawsuit to remove a cross-shaped World War I memorial in Prince George’s County, alleging the display violates the First Amendment.

The American Humanist Association says it does not object to the fact that the Bladensburg Cross memorializes soldiers, but rather the placement of the Christian symbol on property owned by a government agency, The Daily Record reported.

“We are certainly recommending coming up with a monument inclusive of all religious groups,” said Monica Miller, a lawyer with the association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center.

In 2012, the group sent a letter to the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission demanding that the cross be removed from the war memorial. The group said it would have no objection if the cross was on private land, MyFoxDC.com reported.

John Moss, the town’s administrator, said the Bladensburg Cross is not endorsing any faith.

“The cross memorializes our veterans,” he told The Daily Record. “It was never meant to be a religious icon.”

The 40-foot-tall concrete memorial was erected in 1925 by the American Legion to commemorate the 49 men of Prince George’s County who died during World War I.

Look, I’m not a religious guy. The last time I was in church was a couple of years ago for a friend’s ordination. Before that was probably Christmas mass at the insistence of friends, but when that was I don’t recall. Left to my own, I’m not going to church or thinking much about the existence of God. I’m an empirically minded guy which means I don’t dwell on what I can never possibly know. I’m not much of a joiner either so church is not offering much to a guy like me.

Religion does, however, bring joy and happiness to tens of millions of my fellow citizens, so if they want to put up crosses all over the country, good for them. Their expression of their faith is not harming anyone. In fact, I think America was probably better run when most people attended services. It kept the cultural rot at bay and it kept the lunatics under control. An aggressively Christian population would probably be a good antidote to Progressivism, as long as the women are not permitted to vote.

This monument has been up since 1925. No one complained since 1925. Then this collection of dick heads comes along and forces the public to spend tax money to defend normalcy. Here’s the staff list of the Anti-Humanist Society. If you have a chance to make their life a living hell in some way, please take it. With any luck, all of them will come down with an excruciating disease.

Anyway, you’ll notice they steer clear of Jews and Muslims. The former runs the country and has plenty of resources to crush these people. The latter has no qualms about killing for the faith. You can be sure the “humanists” will not be posting Mohamed cartoons on their web page. Christians have foolishly forgotten their roots and let themselves get pushed around by these people. My advice to Christianity is get back to your roots. Kill a few humanists the old fashioned way and the rest will run for cover.