The Interwebs brings word that a middle school teacher has been hauled off to the nuthouse before he could cause any harm to children.

He’s a man with many names, and the books he has written have raised the concerns of the Dorchester County Board of Education and the Dorchester County Sheriff’s Office.

Early last week the school board was alerted that one of its eighth grade language arts teachers at Mace’s Lane Middle School had several aliases.  Police said that under those names, he wrote two fictional books about the largest school shooting in the country’s history set in the future.  Now, Patrick McLaw is placed on leave.

Dr. K.S. Voltaer is better known by some in Dorchester County as Patrick McLaw, or even Patrick Beale.  Not only was he a teacher at Mace’s Lane Middle School in Cambridge, but according to Dorchester Sheriff James Phillips, McLaw is also the author of two books: “The Insurrectionist” and its sequel, “Lillith’s Heir.”

Those books are what caught the attention of police and school board officials in Dorchester County.  “The Insurrectionist” is about two school shootings set in the future, the largest in the country’s history.

Phillips said McLaw was taken in for an emergency medical evaluation. The sheriff would not disclose where McLaw is now, but he did say that he is not on the Eastern Shore. The same day that McLaw was taken in for an evaluation, police swept Mace’s Lane Middle School for bombs and guns, coming up empty.

The Atlantic, from where I got this story, has this to say about the report.

Imagine that—a novelist who didn’t store bombs and guns at the school at which he taught. How improbable! Especially considering that he uses an “alias,” which is apparently the law-enforcement term for “nom de plume.” (Here is the Amazon page for The Insurrectionist, by the way. Please note that the book was published in 2011, before McLaw was hired.)

According to an equally credulous and breathless report in the Star-Democrat, which is published in Easton, Md., the combined efforts of multiple law-enforcement agencies have made area children safe from fiction. Sheriff Phillips told the newspaper that, in addition to a K-9 sweep of the school (!), investigators also raided McLaw’s home. “The residence of the teacher in Wicomico County was searched by personnel,” Phillips said, with no weapons found. “A further check of Maryland State Police databases also proved to be negative as to any weapons registered to him. McLaw was suspended by the Dorchester County Board of Education pending an investigation and is no longer in the area. He is currently at a location known to law enforcement and does not currently have the ability to travel anywhere.”

I’ve tried to reach the sheriff, so far unsuccessfully, to learn whether McLaw’s “inability to travel anywhere” means that he is under arrest. It is somewhat amazing that local news reports on this case don’t make clear whether McLaw is under arrest, and if so, on what charge. It is equally astonishing that the reporters on this story don’t seem to have used the words “First Amendment” in their questioning of law-enforcement officials, and also astonishing they don’t question the Soviet-sounding practice of ordering an apparently sane person who has been deemed unacceptable by state authorities to undergo a psychological evaluation.

It would be useful to know if McLaw is under investigation for behavior other than writing two novels—and perhaps he will be shown to be a miscreant of some sort—but so far, there is no indication that he is guilty of anything other than having an imagination, although on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, as news reports make clear, his imagination is considered an active threat.

The problem with the militarization of the cops, along with the proliferation of laws, is it erodes the trust between the citizens. The cops marching around in their Star Wars outfits, in addition to looking ridiculous, make people feel like prisoners. When you give these ridiculous blockheads carte blanche to hassle the people, everyone assumes the worst when the cops are involved. A lot of suburbanites still shrug and assume it is just the poor getting jammed up, but it is happening everywhere. Dorchester County is as far away from the hood as you can get.

There could very well be much more going on here than has been reported. You would like to think there has to be some evidence before the cops can drag a man off to the nuthouse. But that’s the thing. There has been so much of this crap going on there’s no reason to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. When “swatting” is an everyday occurrence now, it is safe to assume everyone has figured out what’s going on with the cops.

I know I come off as anti-cop and maybe I am, but I don’t think so. There has to be a balance for ordered liberty to work. Too much order and you get the chaos of tyranny. Too much liberty and you get the chaos of the mob. Stories like this one look like a strange blend of mob rule (fear of the weirdo) and law-abusing cops who think they are game keepers. What should have been a meeting between the man and his supervisor to make sure his side job was not a bigger problem is suddenly the run up to One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.

I saw this story on ESPN. The explanation of the rap lingo is hilarious to me.

Just call him Kenny Trill.

Many, including Johnny Manziel himself, started calling new Texas A&M quarterback Kenny Hill by the nickname Kenny Football after his record-setting 511-yard passing game in an upset of South Carolina last week.

But the sophomore quarterback says that’s Manziel’s thing — and he prefers Kenny Trill.

Though trill is a word to describe a vibratory sound, that’s not what it means in rap culture. It’s a hybrid of true and real and has long been used by Texas rapper Bun B, who calls himself Bun B Trill OG.

Hill says scores of people have approached him for pictures. They won’t get them: Hill says coach Kevin Sumlin told him not to take them because “Johnny got in so much trouble over pictures.”

I looked up Bun B and found this on Wiki:

Bernard Freeman (born March 19, 1973) professionally known by his stage name Bun B, is an American rapper and was one half of the southern rap duo UGK (UnderGround Kingz). He is also a guest lecturer at Rice University, located in Houston, Texas. He released his third official solo album, Trill OG, on August 3, 2010, which received a 5 Mic “Classic” rating in The Source magazine – the first album in over five years to receive the honor.

I bet you’re curious about what professor Bun B is teaching. Me too:

At the start of the Spring 2011 semester, Bun B joined the faculty of Rice University as a Distinguished Lecturer. He taught a course in the School of the Humanities on Hip-Hop and Religion. Into 2013 Bun B continues to teach the course twice a week.

Tuition at Rice is $38,000 per year.

One of the great benefits of old age is accepting the fact we never learn from our mistakes. Those of us who do learn are not important enough to matter. All the important people have the memory of a kitten. Thus we see stories like this over and over, despite allegedly having learned our lesson.

Drawn in thick marker along the map of upstate New York, the line snaked down the Niagara River and zigzagged east to outline a swath of Buffalo and its surrounding neighborhoods.

But one area of the city — neighborhoods in east Buffalo, where more than 75 percent of the city’s African-American population lives — was explicitly excluded, cut off from access to mortgage credit.

That map, ringed by a line, is at the center of a sweeping investigation by the New York attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, into whether banks are “redlining” — deliberately choking off mortgage lending to predominantly minority communities — people briefed on the matter said.

The investigation was expected to reach its first target as early as Tuesday, the people said, with Mr. Schneiderman’s office taking aim at Evans Bank, a regional lender whose business in the Buffalo area dates to 1920, accusing it of denying mortgages to African-Americans regardless of their credit.

The case, expected to accuse Evans Bank of violating the Fair Housing Act — a federal law intended to ensure equal access to credit — is a harbinger of other lawsuits that could be brought against some of the nation’s largest banks, several people briefed on the investigations said.

We nearly blew up civilization with insane lending rules in the last decade. That stampede to the cliff’s edge began with lawsuits claiming the banks were not lending to black people. Here we are again, doing the same thing expecting a different result.

In the suit, expected to be filed in state court, prosecutors were to outline how, since 2009, Evans Bancorp has created a map that defined the “trade area,” places in the Buffalo metropolitan region where the bank would make mortgages and other loans. The bank, prosecutors contend, deliberately excised much of Buffalo’s East Side.

Rival banks, the authorities said, lent to neighborhoods on the East Side at a far higher rate than Evans Bank, suggesting that the lending patterns did not stem from a dearth of willing minority borrowers.

If the bank actually had a map with a red line around the black neighborhoods, then they deserve what they get. That’s just stupid. If they simply refused to market to poor neighborhoods based on credit bureau reports, then that’s their business. The fact that the other banks were charging “far higher rates” says this bank is not interested in high risk lending. That’s why banks charge high rates. The risk is high. That’s news to the NYTimes, but not to people with an IQ above room temperature.

That unequal access to credit, the authorities say, threatens to exacerbate the country’s yawning wealth gap. Part of the problem is that the foreclosure crisis disproportionately affected black and Hispanic communities, wiping out billions of dollars of housing wealth, federal mortgage data shows.

Mortgage lending is critical, the authorities say, to bolster homeownership — a cornerstone of upward mobility — in minority communities still trying to dig out from the recession. Denied access to credit, state and federal authorities warn, minority communities are helpless to address problems like boarded-up homes, foreclosures and blight that have long ravaged neighborhoods.

When I see stuff like this, I often wonder if the writer is mildly retarded. People with high default rates should not be getting loans. The reason is they have no money. That’s why they defaulted on the loans.

As far as those boarded up homes, that’s the fault of the same “authorities” whining about inequality. Those homes should be condemned and bulldozed. But, the rich guys who own them give generously to those authorities complaining about the wealth gap. Alternatively, the homes can be condemned and taken by eminent domain and then sold off to developers. But then the prices would go up and the poor would be moved out so the children of rich white liberals can live in crime free hipster-villes.

In the 1970′s, Nixon began to win over southern whites to the GOP by appealing to middle-class, suburban voters. The Left called the “Southern Strategy” racist because that’s what they do, but it was really just a strong defense of normal, middle-class values. In the face of the liberal onslaught on normalcy, those southern whites out in the burbs started to reconsider their long relationship with the Democrat Party. The Left squealed about “code words” and racism, as they just assume all whites in the South are racists. The fact is those early converts to the GOP were the southern whites looking to close the books on segregation and racial strife.

This argument carried on through the 80′s as the transformation of the South from Democrat to Republican was completed. If you know your Faulkner, Nixon converted the Compsons, while Reagan brought over the Snopes clan.

In fairness, race did play a role. After the 60′s, urban blacks rioting and looting became the face of disorder, the great enemy of the suburban burghers who fled the city for the suburbs. In the 1970′s, many of those people living in suburbia were there because their city neighborhoods collapsed in the 1960′s. The liberal enthusiasm for mayhem was amplified when they backed groups like the Panthers and the Nation of Islam. Nixon’s appeals to law and order naturally carried with them the image of the black rioter. He did not have to mention any of this. It was simply understood.

The thing about the Left is they tend to go craziest when applying their faults to their enemies. No one has cynically used race as a political weapon like the American Left. LBJ built his career long before the Civil Rights Movement on the back of race. He would appeal to blacks for votes and then use that support to lever support from the Texas elite. His cynical use of race as President still casts a shadow over the nation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was as much about funneling tax money into the Democratic Party as anything else. It also made blacks a reliable voting black that the party could take for granted.

Steve Sailer links to and comments upon a story in the NYTimes about how the Left is trying to use the Ferguson riot as a get out the vote tool. It says something about our times when the Times can report on something like this without bothering to notice the evil of it. The banality of the report is what’s shocking.

With their Senate majority imperiled, Democrats are trying to mobilize African-Americans outraged by the shooting in Ferguson, Mo., to help them retain control of at least one chamber of Congress for President Obama’s final two years in office.

In black churches and on black talk radio, African-American civic leaders have begun invoking the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, along with conservative calls to impeach Mr. Obama, as they urge black voters to channel their anger by voting Democratic in the midterm elections, in which minority turnout is typically lower.

“Ferguson has made it crystal clear to the African-American community and others that we’ve got to go to the polls,” said Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia and a civil-rights leader. “You participate and vote, and you can have some control over what happens to your child and your country.”

The push is an attempt to counter Republicans’ many advantages in this year’s races, including polls that show Republican voters are much more engaged in the elections at this point — an important predictor of turnout.

What the Left is doing is encouraging blacks to riot. Think about that for a second. Appealing to voters on the basis of civil order can be racist, but it is not racist in itself. Order is what you must have in a civil and sane society. The Left is turning this on its head and telling their constituents that only through mayhem can they attain a civil and sane society. “Burn baby, burn” is fine when you’re sacking the village. It’s madness when it is your village.

Mr. Lewis is headlining efforts to mobilize black voters in several states with competitive Senate races, including Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina. The drive is being organized by the Congressional Black Caucus, in coordination with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Other steps, such as recruiting N.B.A. players to help register more African-Americans, are also underway.

Anyone who has read and understands Invisible Man will be reminded of the scene where the narrator examines the paper doll Clifton is selling. The Sambo doll is a metaphor for the life of the narrator and for blacks in America, maybe even the world. Kwame Nkrumah was a fan of the book and the metaphor. Specifically, whites manipulate blacks in the same way a puppeteer manipulates the puppet. The point is to entertain the patrons of the puppeteer. Mr. Lewis has volunteered to be the puppet for this latest drive by SWPL-ville to keep their enemies at bay.

While Democrats always seek to increase African-American turnout, that they are taking such aggressive steps to rally their most loyal constituency reflects the increasingly difficult landscape they face. In recent weeks, seats in Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire, once expected to tilt toward the Democrats, have become more competitive. Mr. Obama’s approval rating has tumbled below 40 percent in states with some of the most competitive races, and Republicans already seem assured to win at least three of the six seats they need to take back the Senate.

And the terrain is tricky: Many of the states where the black vote could be most crucial are also those where Mr. Obama is deeply unpopular among many white voters. So Democratic senators in places like Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina must distance themselves from the nation’s first African-American president while trying to motivate the black voters who are his most loyal constituents.

One of the fascinating things about the Left is the urge to commit suicide. In the 1990′s, they looked at the Clinton model and rejected it. The Clinton model was an old fashioned blend of agrarian populism and high brow elitism. Clinton could mix it up with the ruling class, but also hang out with the servant class. Reagan had this same quality, but without the seedy grubbiness we got with the Clintons. Bubba was a dirtbag who cleaned up well. Reagan was an aristocrat with the common touch.

The Left hated this and worked to destroy it, even as it put the GOP in the majority from 1994 through 2006. Obama was dumb luck. His team was great at running two campaigns, but they got lucky with the perfect candidate for the moment. Hillary would have won in 2008, but would have lost in 2012. She would have been a better president than Obama, but she lacks the unique appeal of Obama. Obama motivated the black vote in ways no one else will do and he got the SWPL vote out writing checks.

The thing is, the Obama approach works once. It’s why his vote fell off in 2012. You can only be the first black President one time. You can only be the Progressive Messiah once. It’s not that the coalition that supported Obama is temporary. It’s that its natural size is not enough to win elections. Without some way to get these people infuriated enough to vote in bulk, it is a loser hand. 2010 was a GOP blowout, despite the fact even the most loyal Republican thinks the party is run by idiots. 2014 is looking like another blowout, even though the GOP is just a little more popular than cancer.

The sporting press and liberal America is in mourning today. Gay gay person Gay Gayington was cut by the Rams.

Michael Sam, who is seeking to become the NFL’s first openly gay player, was passed over by 31 teams Sunday just one day after being cut by St. Louis, USA Today reported.

The rookie defensive end cleared waivers and is now free to try and sign with the Rams’ practice squad.

Sam was cut by St. Louis on Saturday as the Rams tried to get their roster down to 53 players for the first game of the season.

Sam thanked the Rams on Saturday for the opportunity and said he would continue to try and land a position on an NFL team.

I thought all along that it was a bad move by his agent to turn Michael Sam into a gay action hero. The NFL is a heartless racket where tiny differences in talent can make the difference between success and failure. Coaches are paranoid control freaks because of it. Anything that distracts from their focus and the team’s focus on the tasks at hand is rooted out of the organization. They have no choice. Otherwise they get fired. Jeff Fischer knows the pressure was on to make a spot for Sam, but he has to win and Sam is an extra he does not need. End of story.

On the other hand, no team will roll the dice on a marginal rookie because the lunatics in the press will not stop yapping about the gay stuff. That’s the thing about life in the NFL. High draft picks get a longer leash than late picks, but there’s not a lot of patience with any of the rookies. Once a guy proves he can help you win, then it swings the other way. The NFL will tolerate a child molester who can help a team win. Right now, Sam is not a guy that can help a team win so the media circus following him around is a major liability.

But, the press corp is wearing black armbands anyway.

One of my fascinations is why it is people believe things. Belief is a vital part of human existence. In fact, you can’t have human society without the human trait of belief. It allows for the building of cultural institution, which are the storehouse of human knowledge.

The natural tendency of humans to accept, on faith, what is told to them by their parents, other adults and even their peers is what allows us to advance in a material sense. If everything your parents told you, for example, had to be proved to you before you would accept it, humans would not have got past hunter gatherer.

Biology explains the why to a certain extent, but not the what.Norse mythology developed over a long period of time, probably a 1000 years before the runic alphabet. Throughout human settlement, there is a similarity of belief. You have a pantheon of gods, creation myths, codes, explanations of the natural world and so on.It’s easy to see why these people believed in this stuff, but it is hard to figure why they settled on this specific stuff. Yet, they did and did so just about everywhere.

In modern times, belief is most on display when it comes to politics and culture. For example, Liberals believe the Red Team is evil. So much so, they oppose everything the Red Team supports. Liberals believe Christians and Southerners are evil too. That’s why they refuse to go to Chick-fil-A and WalMart. I knew moonbat women who were visibly spooked by images of Sarah Palin.

You see some of this on the Right, but it is less clear. Lots of non-Liberals watch ESPN and 60 minutes, despite the fact these outfits are run by lunatics. Still, you have a lot of non-Liberals convinced the GOP is the only answer, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary.Americans outside the liberal hive tend to be into conventional religions so maybe that’s why their political intensity is much lower.

Anyway, I saw this posted on MR  and saved it for later use. It got me thinking about the topic. This bit from Thomas Sowell is what got my attention:

Sincerity is so central to the unconstrained vision that it is not readily conceded to adversaries, who are often depicted as apologists, if not venal. It is not uncommon in this tradition to find references to their adversaries’ “real” reasons, which must be “unmasked.” Even where sincerity is conceded to adversaries, it is often accompanied by references to those adversaries’ “blindness,” “prejudice,” or narrow inability to transcend the status quo. Within the unconstrained vision, sincerity is a great concession to make, while those with the constrained vision can more readily make that concession, since it means so much less to them. Nor need adversaries be depicted as stupid by those with the constrained vision, for they conceive of the social process as so complex that it is easy, even for wise and moral individuals, to be mistaken — and dangerously so. They ‘may do the worst of things without being the worst of man,’ according to Burke. (pg 59-60)

This is why I prefer to look at our political tribes in terms of religion, rather than conscious philosophical outlook. What Sowell sees as a ranking of character traits, I see as in-group/out-group signaling. The hive minded always assign the worst imaginable traits to those outside the hive or anyone they see as a threat. Paul Krugman’s hive puts purity of faith above all us, therefore those outside the hive lack faith or sincerity.

It’s why the concept of indifference is alien to the Left. Everyone is either inside or outside.We’ve all probably had that weird conversation with a lunatic about something like homosexual marriage. Shrugging your shoulders and saying you don’t care is not enough. You have to be either for or against. In the old days abortion was this subject. You could easily have lost friends over it. On more than a few occasions I just walked out of the room when the subject came up. Being rude was better than being an apostate.

For the hive minded, people are not just wrong; they are a mortal threat because they oppose that which gives the adherent a reason to exist. Early Greek generals started to figure this out while observing how their men fought differently on their home turf than on the road. Additionally, Greeks fighting other Greeks could feel empathy for their enemies when they saw how they defended their lands and families.

The remedy to this was to find ways to convince the fighters that the enemy was evil in some way that made them undeserving of sympathy. Plunder was simply not enough to motivate men to kill their neighbors. The solution developed over time was small unit training to build loyalty within the ranks. When the men saw one another as blood brothers, those opposed were blood enemies. It is why trench socialism is still a part of Progressive proselytizing, despite their own social chauvinism.

I think what Sowell views as sincerity, rather, an obsession with sincerity, is actually an obsession with piety. Inside the hive, public displays of piety are critical to reinforcing one’s place in the hive. Those who fail in their devotions are, in effect, personally rejecting the group. Pretending to be pious, but secretly rejecting the group is of crime because it undermines the very foundation of the group. Therefore, assigning this quality to the enemies of the group is not a lot different than ancient soldiers hurling curses at their enemy before battle. It reinforces reasons for the group and motivates the adherents to make war on their enemies.

I was traveling over the long weekend. It is always good to see old friends, even when it is not so good to see old friends. As you get older, some of your friends get weird for periods and some get really boring for a while. Kids tend to make people boring, but when their kids grow up makes some people get weird. Women often go a little bonkers when their kids outgrow them. Men get weird when the gray hair begins to arrive. Still, it is always good to catch up with old friends, even when they are going through a weird or boring phase.

Travel, of course, has its own rewards. America has not been completely homogenized so there’s plenty of weirdness still left in her. New England, for example, retains its quirky Yankee flavor. Even within New England, there is a lot of diversity still. Boston is not Connecticut. Rhode Island is different from New Hampshire and Maine. Mass media has driven a lot of old weird America into extinction, but a lot of it is still around. This map from American Nations does explain a lot.

Anyway, when you travel to see friends you have not seen in a while it can bring some odd surprises. I’ve let my beard grow over the last month. I have no good reason or it. I just felt like it. If extreme beard growing is the new trend, then I figure I can let my beard grow if I want. Over the weekend, I had at least four people ask me what I use to dye my beard. I don’t dye anything and I have a little grey so that should be obvious. Come to find out, men are now dying their beards and even their whole head. One of my friends is now getting his head dyed on a regular basis.

I asked him about it and he said it bugged him so he figured he would give it a shot. I’m guessing his wife talked him into it. Women have been getting dye jobs forever. The guys getting the beards done are doing it for the same reason and they were casual about it. Maybe it is a Boston thing or just a trend I am just learning about now. Out of curiosity I walked through the hair care section of the local market today and they had a lot of various treatments for gray hair. That suggests I’m the last guy to hear about it.

Now that I have, I can’t imagine ever dying anything. It seems like a lot of work. On the other hand, if it really bugs you I guess it is worth the effort. I’m very conscious of my weight so I torture myself daily to keep the scale happy. Vanity works on all of us differently. I see a lot of old guys huffing and puffing just like me so maybe there are lots of guys at the hair salon getting their beard dyed. It does mean I can no longer mock the young for getting beard transplants and shaving their chests…

Also on the travel agenda was the Tom Petty show at Fenway Park. I have been to Fenway Park for Sox games more times than I can count. I never saw Petty in concert and I did not know what I was missing. He does a great show and Fenway is a great venue for a concert, if you have field seats. I’m not a huge Tom Petty fan, but I highly recommend his show. These old touring pros really know how to do these things.

I wonder if the rock concert is going to be a thing of the past once these guys die off. Starting in the 80’s and 90’s, bands that can play instruments in public have given way to dance shows with lip-syncing and piped in music. A few years ago I saw Madonna on TV doing a show for something and she looked ridiculous. Tom Petty can still play and sing and not look foolish. A fifty year old woman in a cat suit dancing around to her old club tunes is not something you want to see. It’s hard to imagine Justin Beiber touring in his fifties…

One of the things I never get over about New England is the provincialism. Everywhere has some of it, but New England is unique in this regard. I was talking to a woman at the show who wondered where in the south I lived. I was a puzzled and she said she could detect a southern accent. As far as I know, I have no accent, but to the locals, that is an accent. She has a brother living in Tennessee or Kentucky and wanted to talk about the south for what she thought was an authentic southerner.

That’s something you don’t run into elsewhere. Outside of New England, people have a decent understanding of New England. Most of it is gleaned from pop culture. Boston is a trendy place. On the other hand, the typical Yankee still thinks the south is dotted with plantations and fighting the civil rights movement. They think California is a version of Beach Blanket Bingo and the Midwest is just a vase unpopulated zone. The woman I was speaking with was incredulous when I told her life is better for black people in the Old Confederacy than in the north…

On the way home, I passed a group of bikers, member of the Wheels of Soul MC. I’ve always had an interest in gangs and motorcycle gangs in particular. There’s a lot to learn about the human animal from studying criminals. WOSMC is a unique group in the 1%’er world because they are multi-racial. I thought the Feds had put most of them in jail so I looked them up when I got home. The fact that they have a website is pretty funny, when you think about it.

The show Sons of Anarchy has popularized the motorcycle gang again. Hollywood glamorizes crimes and criminals, but that’s to be expected. The reality of life in one of these groups is not good TV. The typical biker is an 85 IQ, randomly violent and completely unpredictable. They live hand to mouth because they usually can’t hold regular jobs. That means they make money in drugs, hookers, strippers, stolen goods and so on. Selling crank retail in the parking lot of a strip club is not going to result in a lot of income. It also makes bad TV.

The message on the membership page of the WOS site reads:

If you are 18 years of age or older, male and own a motorcycle with a minimum displacement of 750cc, you may have what it takes to begin the journey to becoming a Wheels Of Soul Nation, MC member. We have chapters in every region of the United States and representatives who will be happy to discuss your options with you. The Wheels Of Soul Nation, MC is not structured to facilitate all applicant’s success in becoming a member. Our lifestyle is not recommended for everyone. Though it has it’s rewards, The Wheels Of Soul Nation, MC is not about being rewarded….it’s about brotherhood.

That’s the weird thing about bikers. They are the rare criminal organization that is honest with itself. Mobsters used to think they were doing good for the community. Heroin dealers in the 70’s carried on like they were local chieftains. Modern street gangs have no sense of self. Bikers know they are bad people and criminals. They put a lot of effort into making sure new members get this fact and they work hard to screen out people who can’t cope with being outside society. I must admit that I admire that aspect of biker life.

Bikers are the people who put the lie to much of libertarians. Organized barbarians are always a threat to civilization. A group of 500 bikers can hold a city hostage unless the cops get to do things the libertarians hate. RICO has been the main weapon to bring down biker gangs and the Mafia. Surveillance and deal making has been most effective with bikers. Getting them on video doing crimes is then used to get them to roll on their associates, often using the information to extort confessions from other  members. Sometimes civilized people have to do bad things to protect civilization from barbarians. Too bad we have never figured out how to do the same against fanatics…

This post has already been linked to 1053 times!

As I wrote in another post, I think the Ted Talks site will keep me supplied with material for years to come. The attraction is the shallowness that is weirdly masquerading as high brow intellectualism. It’s a post-modern version of the old Three Stooges bit Swingin’ the Alphabet. Well, if it were on purpose. Lampooning high culture can be quite clever, when it is done on purpose. The TED Talk crowd is doing it by accident. This one on inequality is funny to me for some reason.

The great inequality of income and wealth in the world, and within the United States, is deeply troubling. It seems, even to many of us who benefit from this inequality, that something should be done to reduce or eliminate it. But why should we think this? What are the strongest reasons for trying to bring about greater equality of income and wealth?

One obvious reason for redistributing resources from the rich to the poor is simply that this is a way of making the poor better off. In his TED Talk on “effective altruism,” Peter Singer advances powerful reasons of this kind for voluntary redistribution: Many people in the world are poor, and the improvement in their lives that richer people can bring about by giving money is enormous by comparison with the small sacrifice that this would involve.

How much you want to bet that T. M. Scanlon, the guy responsible for those lines, gives next to nothing to charity? The people most troubled about the poor tend to do the least for the poor. That’s unfair of me, I know, but I’m not a nice person. As to his query, that answer has been supplied a million times in a million places. Lefty gets comfortably set in the upper middle-class and then starts to feel guilty. Lacking any sense of self-awareness, they declare it a “deeply troubling” social problem, which means more laws and more taxes on the rest of us.

Amazingly, the idea that there may be a reason why some people have nothing and others have extra is never mentioned in these disquisitions on inequality. I see poor people every day. I can give a lot of reasons for it. I’ve been to some dirt poor countries. In five minutes I can point out a dozen reasons why they are poor. Giving these people money is not solving anything. Once again, the people who are most concerned about poverty know the least about poor people.

Further along, the reasons he gives for wanting to force you to do something about inequality (as long as it does not cost him time or money) are interesting.

1. Economic inequality can give wealthier people an unacceptable degree of control over the lives of others.

If wealth is very unevenly distributed in a society, wealthy people often end up in control of many aspects of the lives of poorer citizens: over where and how they can work, what they can buy, and in general what their lives will be like. As an example, ownership of a public media outlet, such as a newspaper or a television channel, can give control over how others in the society view themselves and their lives, and how they understand their society.

Where has this ever been otherwise? Name a newspaper of any size owned by poor people. Name a poor person owned TV station. How about a government staffed with hobos? Under every imagined form of government in human history, the rulers have been in charge of the ruled. That’s why they are called rulers. They also have more stuff, more food and power over the lives of the ruled.

2. Economic inequality can undermine the fairness of political institutions.

If those who hold political offices must depend on large contributions for their campaigns, they will be more responsive to the interests and demands of wealthy contributors, and those who are not rich will not be fairly represented.

Steve Sailer likes to point out that liberals forget they have been in charge for close to a century. For forty years in America we have had laws against rich people making big contributions to office holders. In that time the influence of the rich has grown so much that government pretty much caters to them exclusively. Europe has seen a similar results. Maybe that’s a clue?

3. Economic inequality undermines the fairness of the economic system itself.

Economic inequality makes it difficult, if not impossible, to create equality of opportunity. Income inequality means that some children will enter the workforce much better prepared than others. And people with few assets find it harder to access the first small steps to larger opportunities, such as a loan to start a business or pay for an advanced degree.

Again, when has this ever been otherwise? The various Marxist schemes that professor Scanlon prefers have produced exactly this result. In fact, they were exaggerated under communism.

4. Workers, as participants in a scheme of cooperation that produces national income, have a claim to a fair share of what they have helped to produce.

What constitutes a fair share is of course controversial. One answer is provided by John Rawls’ Difference Principle, according to which inequalities in wealth and income are permissible if and only if these inequalities could not be reduced without worsening the position of those who are worst-off. You don’t have to accept this exact principle, though, in order to believe that if an economy is producing an increasing level of goods and services, then all those who participate in producing these benefits — workers as well as others — should share in the result.

But what did they produce? In my neighborhood, there are households that have not produced anything but mayhem for generations. In some of our more vibrant neighborhoods, there are three generations of some households in the same state prison. How about the guy who sells meth for a living? He may not be a burden on the state, as far welfare and prison costs, but he is burden on society. What’s his share?

The trouble with these disquisitions on inequality is not that they are mere sentimentality. The trouble is the sentiment is imaginary. No one really believes inequality is a problem, save for maybe a few bitter Marxists in your local state college faculty lounge. These are those old rancid hippies who have posters of Che Guevara on their office wall. No, the people who prattle on about inequality simply wish to replace the current inequalities that don’t favor them with a new set that do favor them.

You’ll note that the people convulsed by Piketty’s book are the managerial classes. These are the maidservants and coat holders for the ruling elite. A guy like T. M. Scanlon looks at a Mitt Romney and wonders how this boob got to be a billionaire. An Elizabeth Warren, making calls to beg for campaign cash wonders why she, a Harvard professor, should be begging these rich bastards for money. The credentialed members of the managerial class want more power and thus they complain about inequality.

I’ve been calling American Liberalism a cult for a long time. I get some grief for it from normal people, because they think I’m engaging in name calling. There’s some truth to it. The word cult has some baggage. We typically think of cults having a leader, a person who is worshiped. That leader is more than a little nuts and eventually leads his followers to a Jonestown like end. Of course, this the point at which right thinking people begin to see I’m probably right about these people. The messianic nature of American Liberalism is not always obvious, but it’s right there if look hard at the Left.

Modern times and the trendiness of the Left means their various beliefs burst forth for a while and then recede into the background, only to come around again with a new marketing pitch. State rationed health care is a good example. The American Left has been dreaming of it since they discovered Bismark. Every ten years or so they have a new way to pitch having their cult decide how much and how often you get medical treatment.

The cultish properties of American Progressives is clear in the story of ObamaCare. It was supposed to be the final step into the Eden of free health care for all. The rank and file members of the Cult of Modern Liberalism were convinced that a fountain of unlimited health care was hidden away somewhere, maybe next to the golden plates Joseph Smith found out west. If they could slay the evil insurance monsters that guard it, the people would be free to dip their cups into it and get all the health care they desired – free! They used different words, but that was the sales pitch and they truly believed it. They still do.

Then reality, that thing that does not go away when you stop believing in it, came roaring into the room. Millions saw their policies canceled. I’m on my third cancellation. Rates went up and the public went crazy. As was described in When Prophecy Fails, the Left was at first stunned into silence. The disconfirmation was soul crushing. Instead of Eden, the result was chaos. Then, the faithful rallied and they are now ready to proselytize once again.

You’re looking at the biggest story involving the federal budget and a crucial one for the future of the American economy. Every year for the last six years in a row, the Congressional Budget Office has reduced its estimate for how much the federal government will need to spend on Medicare in coming years. The latest reduction came in a report from the budget office on Wednesday morning.

The changes are big. The difference between the current estimate for Medicare’s 2019 budget and the estimate for the 2019 budget four years ago is about $95 billion. That sum is greater than the government is expected to spend that year on unemployment insurance, welfare and Amtrak — combined. It’s equal to about one-fifth of the expected Pentagon budget in 2019. Widely discussed policy changes, like raising the estate tax, would generate just a tiny fraction of the budget savings relative to the recent changes in Medicare’s spending estimates.

In more concrete terms, the reduced estimates mean that the federal government’s long-term budget deficit is considerably less severe than commonly thought just a few years ago. The country still faces a projected deficit in future decades, thanks mostly to the retirement of the baby boomers and the high cost of medical care, but it is not likely to require the level of fiscal pain that many assumed several years ago.

The reduced estimates are also an indication of what’s happening in the overall health care system. Even as more people are getting access to health insurance, the costs of caring for individual patients is growing at a super-slow rate. That means that health care, which has eaten into salary gains for years and driven up debt and bankruptcies, may be starting to stabilize as a share of national spending.

You see? The prophesies were true! The prophesies were true! The Great Pumpkin will bring free health care for all!

Keep in my that this what “data driven journalism” really means. It is the old time religion sprinkled with statistics. To the faithful, “data” are a topping, like jimmies on an ice cream sundae. The “data” presented here are both fanciful and useless. The threat to Medicare is not cost per patient. The threat is the number of patients when the Boomer retirement is in full bloom. Driving the cost per patient down a few bucks is nothing when the number of patients is growing geometrically.

But, that’s how it goes in a cult. They need to believe and so they will always believe. It took 100 million corpses and 150 years for Communism to finally die. In my youth, American lefties would say that communism was never really tried and that Bolshevism was not true Marxism. I don’t think they were ever convinced to drop it. The Left just decided to go with Cultural Marxism, figuring the economics would take care of itself.

This post has already been linked to 1276 times!

I’m thinking TED Talks will provide me endless material for this blog. It is a fountain of post-modern weirdness. There’s a creepy feelies quality to these things. It really is Mercerism, just without the empathy boxes. This one has the bonus of transitive victim-hood. That’s where a beautiful person gets to wear the crown of victim-hood, without actually being a victim. They just feel for the victims enough that they can feel as if they are a victim too.

Now, I’ve spent the last 27 years of my life in India, lived in three small towns, two major cities, and I’ve had several experiences. When I was seven, a private tutor who used to come home to teach me mathematics molested me. He would put his hand up my skirt. He put his hand up my skirt and told me he knew how to make me feel good. At 17, a boy from my high school circulated an email detailing all the sexually aggressive things he could do to me because I didn’t pay attention to him. At 19, I helped a friend whose parents had forcefully married her to an older man escape an abusive marriage. At 21, when my friend and I were walking down the road one afternoon, a man pulled down his pants and masturbated in front of us. We called people for help, and nobody came. At 25, when I was walking home one evening, two men on a motorcycle attacked me. I spent two nights in the hospital recovering from trauma and injuries.

Other than her tutor coping a feel and getting mugged as an adult, this woman may as well have seen all of these things on youtube. In a few cases, she just read about the events. Getting beat up is no fun, but hardly the end of the world. I was beaten with a bat once. I could not see for a week. Can I give a TED Talk?

So throughout my life, I’ve seen women — family, friends, colleagues — live through these experiences, and they seldom talk about it. So in simple words, life in India is not easy. But today I’m not going to talk to you about this fear. I’m going to talk to you about an interesting path of learning that this fear took me on.

My sense is these Ted Talk things are aimed at middle aged moonbat women. I have this image of matrons with dangle earrings and lots of scarves sitting enraptured as the speaker emotes about the topic. The word “experience” is popular with old hens for some reason. They also like “empower”  and “learning.” I see those words a lot, usually not meaning what normal people think they mean. This sentence later in her pitch is a good example.

But I was soon to learn that this was not all. As empowered as I felt with the new liberty that this citizen journalism channel gave me, I found myself in an unfamiliar situation.

I fear I may hurt myself trying to unriddle that sentence. Strangely, it reminds me of the time I tried cocaine. I felt powerful and free and then in an unfamiliar situation too!

Towards the end, she delivers this sentence.

Don’t get me wrong, the challenges that women will face in telling their stories is real, but we need to start pursuing and trying to identify mediums to participate in our system and not just pursue the media blindly.

I now get the image of heads exploding in the audience. What in the hell does that mean? She may as well be speaking in tongues.

That’s the thing with the post-modern lingo in these speeches. The words are just there to titillate the listener. One of my favorite examples is the word passion. Moonbat women I know always have passion for stuff. “I’m passionate for breast cancer.” “I’m a passionate advocate for woman’s rights.” The word “advocate” is another magic word. I once made the mistake of telling a moonbat friend that Hitler was a passionate advocate too. I love that gag, but she’s still pissed at me for it.

The weird thing with this talk is that the woman giving it is getting all the credit for being a sympathetic victim, without actually being a victim. She’s blending gravity altering self-absorption with exploitation of the true victims to make herself rich and famous. When you strip away the gooey emotionalism, there’s a grubbiness to it. It’s a modern take on the old fashioned faith healer. The only thing missing here is the passing of the hat.

This post has already been linked to 1180 times!