Thursday, January 31, 2013

Theory on the Rise of Police Pay + Benefits

To serve and protect. The police cars of America usually have this slogan slapped on their side. It wasn't always the case. Hollywood still loves a good dirty cop movie or storyline for one of the many police procedurals on television. Do we ever hear about a ring of dirty cops anymore? Coppers on the take is an old cliche, but it isn't like police corruption is a problem. Looking at crime, whatever happened to organized crime? It isn't a major problem in the news media. Sure cities have gang problems, but it's not like the Gambino crime family's noontide. Mexico is a problem for gangs and drug trafficking, but why should we bother with that when we can focus on the middle east some more. The problem cited most consistently about the police is now pay and promised benefits. No more big mafia style families. No more police corruption investigations, but we have a problem with police wages and benefits. If we want to continue our war on drugs the way it is and have a clean police force (or minimally dirty), then we will have to pay the police nice wages and provide good benefits.

America from the days of prohibition to the major RICO prosecutions of the '80s had an organized crime problem that the government fought in any way, shape or form. The FBI hammered away at the gangsters for years. President Kennedy sent his brother after the mob in the 1960s, which is ironic considering the sources of help he received to win in '60. Bobby Kennedy was so zealous going after the mob that some mobsters joked that they had killed the wrong Kennedy. Organized crime was attacked with RICO, which is an awfully cute way to go after an organization one wants to take down. Applying the crime of one mobster to the men up the chain was a nice way to slap drug charges on old bosses who received kickbacks, protection or just 'employed' guys who were dealing on the side. They couldn't move massive quantities of alcohol or drugs alone.

The odd parallel track with organized crime's rise and then dismantling was the focus on police corruption best exemplified by Frank Serpico and the NYPD. It shouldn't be a surprise that in tandem with Kennedy's attacks on the mafia that cities went after dirty cops. The infrastructure of protection and bribery was dismantled. The Knapp Commission determined how deep and wide the corruption went. In the '70s, the city also entered a huge fiscal crisis and had to layoff tons of cops. It is a nice two step process: wipe away corrupt cops you know are dirty and then fire a bunch of cops due to financial reasons but just in case they were dirty, well now they are gone. Clean up cops, fire tons of cops, and then NYC becomes hell hole. NYC's descent into the evil yet sexy Disneyland that people envision after watching "Cruising", "The Warriors" or reading "Ladies and Gentlemen the Bronx is Burning" is during the aftermath of the cop clean up and massive layoffs.

Police hiring, aggressive police tactics, and community watch programs help, but nothing speaks to a human like money. The cities needed to pull in citizens. They could only do that with a police presence far above the '70s and '80s presence. Large cities like NYC would only rebound if they hired cops and paid them enough to prevent the possibility of corruption. Pay a rookie cop high enough that the marginal dollars he would receive on the take is not worth the probability of IA on his ass and a prison sentence. As an officer rises up the ranks, he moves further from the action (opposite of firemen). Keep a young cop clean for as long as possible with the knowledge that he'll get nice pay and benefits being good.

Problem with the drug trade now is that it is everywhere. We need clean cops everywhere, not just big cities. Being incredibly harsh with criminals could deter crime as happens in Asia, but there is no way the progressves will allow that. Too many of their voters would shriek. The left still whines about Reagan's reform so that criminals have to serve at least 75% of their federal sentence. Reforming the war on drugs could make changes, but has either party made a move to do so when in power? We have had presidents who smoked weed and did coke, yet not a word from Clinton, W or Obama on changing our drug laws or even just rescheduling marijuana. Municipalities will run into problems if they have to cutback on cop benefits while continuing our failed drug policies. We may have to cut spending elsewhere on those nice social programs that do good. Many cities have a lot of plates spinning, while they all have that rotting section that the police constantly keeps in order, and if the cheap credit goes, they will be forced to make tough decisions, maybe a plate falls and breaks.

People talk about paying the police enough in third world countries to prevent corruption like it cannot apply to the USA. It does. We're just quiet about causes for our well paid cops. Like all policy ideas in our cheap credit era, this has gone too far. Borrowing at low rates, cities could layer benefits and pay on police union members whether a corruption risk or not, and as a way to buy votes. Union negotiators could use collective bargaining agreement victories from one city to the next, creating a feedback loop. Small towns and counties got in on the act, and it has become a shame across our nation. Mass state troopers receiving triple pay to be security when a manhole cover gets replaced? Please. Police secretaries do not need to retire at 55 with a $100K a year pension, neither do police chiefs. None of them need the cadillac health plans that they receive on the taxpayer dime. They don't need it, but it just might be that we need them to receive those benefits to prevent widespread corruption. We don't have the will to deal with our social decay or the strength to combat our decadence that is the root of many of our problems. We'd rather pay cops just a bit more each year to make sure they keep our streets safe for us (stop laughing) instead of working with the area outfit and keeping the streets safe for them.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Democrats Botch US Senate Elections, Too

Ghost of Dick Clark: "Next topic on 'The $25,000 Political Pyramid': the US Senate"

Cokie Roberts: "Todd Akin, Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell, the idiots in Montana and North Dakota"

Me: "People who lost elections... People ripped by the media solely because of their party...Wait! Bad GOP candidates who lost winnable elections!"

Ghost of Dick Clark: "Correct!!!!"

The GOP has thrown away a half dozen US senate seats in the '10 and '12 election cycles. Some losses are due to the media double standard when it comes to gaffes and some are due to odd primary races. Todd Akin won a three way race with Democrat help, and if not for a bad choice of words, would have won. Angle won another three way race with strong Tea Party support, when Tarkanian was the better choice. O'Donnell was a Tea Party darling who was a bit of a TP flavor of the month. The brilliance behind the Mark Kirk and Scott Brown elections is matched by the stupidity of the losses previously listed. Stupidity crosses political lines, and the Democrats have pissed away Senate seats. The reasons can be the same: poor primary fight, no strategy or simply poor long term vision. Few instances of this are as fresh in my mind as the US Senate election cycles in Maine of '94 and '96. With a mind towards the long term and not just in the moment, Mainers would be talking about the independent senator Angus King joining the senior US Senator, and Democrat, Tom Andrews.

Maine is a bit of a weird case in American politics. In the last 25 years, it has had two term governors that have been Democrat, Republican and Independent, US senators that are Dem, GOP and Independent, House reps from both parties, two female senators (both GOP), and statewide elections where third party candidates (not named Angus King) have garnered more than 30% of the vote. The state turned from reliably Republican to safely Democrat in presidential elections recently. A pet theory is that retired Massachusetts + New York couples have infiltrated Maine as well as the complete Shire like bubble that Mainers (whitest + greyest state in the Union) live in where they have no clue how the rest of the dangerous world works (yes, like hobbits). There are national trends at play as well, and it is with great luck on the GOP's side that the Democrats completely blew the US Senate elections of the mid '90s.

At the start of the '90s, Maine had two very popular an well regarded senators in George Mitchell (D) and Bill Cohen (R). Senator Mitchell announced his retirement in 1994. The GOP looked set to run Olympia Snowe, who was a moderate republican "Mainah" that had served in Congress for a while. She also was the GOP's bench. They had no on else besides Gov. McKernan, but his popularity had dipped after some campaign misrepresentations from 1990 came out. The Dems could use retread Joe Brennan who had lost a close election in 1990 for governor. He declined to run. Instead he ran for governor again in a three way race versus Angus King (eventual winner) and Susan Collins (who finished a distant 3rd). Mitchell pressured a two term Congressman named Tom Andrews to run against Snowe for his seat. Andrews was young, articulate and a rising figure.


Andrews was also a great guy. He was a Mainer who looked out for Mainers with an eye on the big picture. I knew him as a kid all the way up to my teenage years. He had a prosthetic leg. I didn't believe him when he explained his disability, so he told me to take a pen, a stapler, anything in the room and whack his leg. He faked pain, which scared me, but then had me knock on it with a champagne cork for the rest of the afternoon at the party. That, and the champagne, made the other adults laugh. After that, when he came to my house or a relative's house and knew I was there, he'd take his leg off, drape it around his shoulders, walk up to the door to freak me out, and then say something like, "Who wants to play some football?". Andrews was hesitant to run, but when a former Senate Majority Leader asks you to run to save his seat, you do it. Andrews did not have the brand recognition of Snowe, was a bit too liberal for Maine in '94, and had voted for closing an air force base in northern Maine (ouch). It was also the '94 Contract with America wave election. Snowe crushed Andrews. Andrews old seat even flipped to the GOP. Brennan lost a close race to King (35% to 34%) but bested Susan Collins by 11%. Dirty secret of Brennan's '94 campaign was that he was drinking (wait, that's bad), rumor was that he was drinking. He came to my middle school as a promotional bit. In Alex P. Keaton mode, and because I had met him before so I wasn't intimidated, I asked him the only question he managed to take. He rambled on, never answering me, and he left all of us confused at how dumb and tired he looked. The stupidity of the Democrats was that they pushed a not quite ready candidate (Andrews) to run for a seat versus a very good opponent. The Dems did not think long term. They should have conceded that race. The US Senate election of 1996 would explain why.

When Bill Cohen took the Secretary of Defense job from Bill Clinton, the Democrats thought they had a good set up. Clinton had coattails in '96, the GOP had nobody, and Clinton was coming to Maine for a campaign speech to boost all candidates. Who did the Democrats run? Joe Brennan. He won a primary versus a divided field. Even though he was old news, the Dems' hopes were high. After all, Collins had finished 11 percentage points behind him two years earlier in a GOP wave year. Voters questioned her Mainah roots, too. What could go wrong? Brennan lost. Collins has been the junior US Senator ever since, destroying even her toughest challenger (long time Rep. Tom Allen). The Democrats in '94 couldn't see that Snowe and the election climate were decidedly in the GOP's favor. Holding Andrews back, they could have had a three term congressman with more name recognition (and two more years after the Loring closure issue) running for the senate during a presidential election year with President Clinton's coattails.

One seat can make a difference. Imagine W's first term from a domestic policy standpoint after the Jeffords defection if Maine has Tom Andrews instead of Susan Collins. Does that one seat make a filibuster proof US senate of 2009-2011 pass a much more socialist health care overhaul? The long term effects of one screw up can still be felt today. If the GOP leadership and pundit class want to blame anyone for problems with political gridlock or dealing with an odd negotiator (President Obama), they can start with themselves. The most glaring recent examples are on the GOP side of the aisle (Florida in 2010 for Dems), but this cuts both ways. A simple reshuffling of senate candidates at different times in a small, hick state might be all that separates us from that great progressive dream of socialized medicine. That is hyperbolic, but it grants Maine importance for two elections than the state normally merits. It does reinforce that state party infrastructure matters. Change starts at the ground level, and the right needs to focus on selection, presentation and packaging. What the GOP needs to understand, which informed voters understand, is that their margin for error due to the media and low information voters is a lot lower than for Democrats. They need to choose wisely, unify and show up if they want to win.

Monday, January 28, 2013

Delusions of American Women - Boudoir Photography

How pathetic are American men? They aren't excelling at college. They aren't manning up and marrying women like they used to. They can't hold jobs, they can't provide, they continuously oppress women even if the law is set up to classify any comment as an unwanted and unwarranted sexual comment that creates an environment of uncomfortability needing a financial settlement. They are sacks of privileged shit.

At least they aren't paying high costs for a studio fee and posing in boudoir shoots. This one is in Topeka, KS, but I found one in Maine. I use rural Maine as a guide. If something has reached there it has permeated American society. There's a studio having a boudoir special, $195. I cruised photos of other 'studios' as well as watched the gallery of the gals from Topeka. How fucking empty are the empowering photo shoots? Yes, the media used the phrase empowering. NY Mag does not approve. One media outlet says it can spice up middle aged sex lives (Cialis + online couple's porn isn't enough), because men are visual and want to see their ladies jazzed up. That's funny, most the photos in galleries I went through had young women, and I sincerely doubt that a middle aged married man's fantasy is his wife tarted up (try a drunk Sienna Miller who's been a bad bad girl).  Same motifs, same poses, same hair, same tattoos, same chunkyness if chunky or fakery if fake. The narcissism and empty soul sydrome of Sex and the City wannabes have reached the ladies of our remote areas. They desperately want to be considered sexy. They want to think that in this age of ubiquitous pornography that they might be fappable. Why do you think there are so many self shooter nudes online? It's not because they think they are hot. Young women are some of the most insecure women about their bodies. Whether legitimately cute or chunkerific, these women take the photos and post them? They want to be fappable. They want to think they are sexy. They have no idea of inner-self worth. How do you feel about me, never how do I feel about myself?

Keep making fun of middle aged or older men staring in the mirror and thinking they are still attractive or that they are still desired by many women. They've lived a life. They want to think they still have it or consider themselves still hot to their immediate social circle. Their delusion might be terrible, but they have an excuse, they truly are past peak. Many of these self shooters and boudoir sex carnival show prize kittens are of true sex kitten age. They don't measure up while in the prime of life. They never had it and never will, and they share that with everyone.

Movie Review: Unguarded - ESPN documentary

At the ESPN studios....

Douche One: "You know, The Fighter was a great flick. Why the hell didn't we do a 30 for 30 on Gatti-Ward, what the fuck can we do like that but not close enough to be called a rip off?"

Douche Two: "What about a documentary on Stephon Marbury? Just like Mickey Ward, he's a poor kid who had a skill, loved by NYC since a high school frosh who came back to play for the Knicks but flamed out. Like Ward, he had a bro 'make it' ahead of him but not get to the top, so the whole family needs him to make it. His ne'er-do-well friends were a major source of his problems. He's had tons of problems and is a poster child for the modern NBA damaged millionaire. It's the NBA, and since we own it, the NBA will give us game film to use!"

Bill Simmons: "I hate Starbury. He's also not gritty like Ward. Can't put my fingah on it, but he's not smaht enough to interview. Hey, how about this little known Celtic who was from Mass who had problems named Chris Herren! He's a Mass boy with problems who tried to do good. Let's do it!'

Unguarded is what you watch when you splice The Fighter with any promising basketball phenom who has trouble once they move up a level and are surrounded by the perks. This documentary is painfully cliche. If you remember '90s college basketball, you remember Herren. Specifically, you can recall his time at Fresno St. with Jerry Tarkanian, when the Shark tried to build a program with the Bulldogs. Herren was one of his reclamation projects. Herren's story of use and abuse seems to be in line with many other players in professional sports. Pretty sure that the documentary was made not because Simmons wanted a white Celtic as the spotlight, but that Herren and Bill Reynolds wrote a memoir about Herren's career the same year the documentary was made. It's not worth your time. Watch The Fighter instead. Same dysfunction, but better packaging and production.

I watched this with a former addict. My friend said, "He won't make it". This is knowing that Herren has been clean for three years. My friend's reasoning was that Herren has a controlled, focused tone in every conversation, as if he is repeating his lessons from rehab sessions. Herren's entire life is centered around his former addiction through the book, the counseling and the motivational speaking. That is a pessimistic look at it, but optimistic in the sense that a person can leave that period of addiction completely behind them. Any addict is going to have to battle their addiction, urges, impulses and demons for the rest of their lives. When does a recovering alcoholic or drug addict make it?

Friday, January 25, 2013

Scaling the Cliffs - Pointe du Hoc

The media can celebrate another victory in the fight for gender equality. The Pentagon is going to make some changes so women can serve in combat roles. As a volunteer force, this will allow women, who crave the thrill of combat, to fight on the front lines. Why worry about winning wars and conflicts when we can make aging feminists feel good? This is what a current world power does when they do not feel threatened by anyone. That is usually right before the fall. Does it mean a two tiered physical requirement structure? Most likely. Does it mean a fighting force with a lower physical capability? Most likely due to nature. If you doubt it, check out this link to Pointe du Hoc. This pic, specifically, as it is a simulation of what the Rangers scaled with the Nazis waiting for them. They also carried gear, wore chemically treated fatigues out of fear of German chemical weapons, and had spent the morning on ships rolling in the ocean.

 
I ask every progressive: in your gut, would you have wanted to send your grandmother or your grandfather up that ladder into the Nazi machine gun's field of fire to win?
 
I can just hear the cackling of one billion Chinese.
 
 
*Photo is in honor of my grandfathers who went through Normandy as well as my grampa's twin who scaled the damn cliffs at Pointe du Hoc.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

The Electoral College Fulcrum - California

It is round two of the pundits shouting that it is over for the GOP forever. The first round was in 2008. The pundits glossed over the Tea Party wave election of 2010 and trumpeted the slim 2012 Obama win + Senate holds by the Dems. At this point, the GOP has pissed away six or seven seats. No one mentioned that the GOP house only lost three seats. How did we get to where we are today with regards to national elections for president? The book Nixonland tried to paint the current state of politics as a product of Nixon's Southern Strategy, but that feels like projection of liberal race baiting for votes. On twitter, the Baseball Crank mentioned how the elections between '68-'88 were either GOP blowouts or close losses while elections between '92-2012 were either Dem blowouts or close losses. There is an easy reason for explaining the switch in election outcomes: California. Look up California's governorship history. You'll see more GOP governors (and years under governorship) since 1960 than Democrats (4 vs. 3, 31 of 52 years). It would be stupid to exclude the economic regulatory and taxation changes that made California a toxic site for business creation that sent middle class, white GOP voters to the Mountain states, but post-'88 California still had moments where it flirted with the GOP. It's not economics. The Democrats' social engineering changed California, and forever changed America's presidential elections.


The transformation was not an overnight process, and it involved all levels of government as well as cathedral input. The McCarthy-Nixon hard line, anti-communist rhetoric made Americans worry about communist fellow travelers in their midst and proved effective at the ballot box. The socialist prized prey, the USA + all its natural resource wealth, would have to wait because of those pesky American businessmen, Midwest populists, and that bastard Nixon. Eisenhower won back to back elections in the '50s, and the GOP slowly built an identity after their massacre during the FDR/Truman years. Along with the post-WW2 economic boom, some states subsidized their public universities like California and the ground was being laid for welfare programs. The backlash to welfare and government spending was building by the 1966 California election when Reagan came out of nowhere to beat incumbent Pat Brown. Brown wanted to face Reagan as he considered him easier to beat and a goof. After losing, Brown said (paraphrased), "I gave Californians a lot of free stuff and they booted me out?". Brown may have lost that battle, but his side won the war.


Pat Brown's programs never died, requiring tax hikes and funding forever which crush business creation. Once in office, Reagan had to raise taxes to cover Brown's programs, because he couldn't kill them due to the legislature. Brown's expansion of the California university programs made it possible to funnel more kids through the UC system, spreading socialist ideas to greater numbers of younger minds. Boomers entering colleges in the '60s definitely absorbed enough socialist ideas, as UC-Berkeley became a synonym for radical political activism. The media's love affair with free love helped spread relationship dysfunction, showing up in the rise of illegitimacy. I'm all for free love if people have to be accountable for their actions, but free love + the welfare state = millions of fatherless kids who eat because of taxpayer robbery. Weird how nearly free birth control, legalized abortions, and no shame premarital sex did not create a utopia for women but instead, a hell hole where men are averse to marriage, 3400 abortions happen daily, 41% of kids are born to single moms and women are relatively less happy compared to men than before the revolution. Free love! In 1969, Reagan signed into law the California divorce law reform. No fault divorce hit California, and the financial rewards were pretty rich for lower earning spouses (guess who?). California's alimony system combined with no fault divorce did wonders for female empowerment, as well as create new voters dependent on 'rights' (lifestyles) enforced by the state. Social change would come to California, preparing the future voting pool of single moms for the Democrats. The other future voting pool that would shape California and the USA was birthed at roughly the same time.


California also saw a drastic change in its complexion as the US passed an Immigration Reform bill in 1965 that loosened immigration rules for the first time in forty years. The US public was against this by wide margins but were conned into it as LBJ and other politicians said it would not alter the cultural make up of America. The US has never recovered. The problem with the bill is linked to the expansion of the UC system and welfare programs at the federal level, which California padded and loosened for illegals through the years. If the immigration program was abused or poorly administered, a physical way to deal with it would be strict enforcement of laws and deportation. During the post-WW2 economic boom, Mexican immigration engulfed the American Southwest. In 1954, Eisenhower executed "Operation Wetback", and deported tens of thousands and influencing hundreds of thousands of Mexican illegals to leave the US. Enough time had passed from 1954 to 1984 (when the Mexican immigration was noticed nationwide) that performing an operation like "Operation Wetback" would be politically impossible. The media would paint it as racist, and the university system would have influenced just enough voters that they would agree it was racist, therefore evil, and vote it down or against candidates promising strict enforcement. California voted for Pete Wilson who promised tougher treatment of illegals, but the waves of immigration and anchor babies would eventually turn the tide. How could Californians battle immigration if the federal authorities would not enforce the rules and claimed it part of their rights? Even today, Alabama deported illegals and was pressured on it, while Indiana couldn't get a similar bill in the works without the media bringing up Indiana's 1920s KKK past. California is the key though due to their unique border, richer benefits for illegals and good living + economic opportunity for Mexican immigrants.


The California chess match had its checkmate move in the mid-80s. I cited 1984 above because after Reagan's re-election, the GOP made a blunder that sealed the deal. The amnesty of 1986 opened a Pandora's box. Instead of performing a clear out like Eisenhower did, the GOP first submitted a bill, which Reagan signed into law, that provided amnesty and set off the California Mexican baby boom and more immigration. Maybe it was for votes? Didn't work for the GOP with Hispanics in '88. Maybe it was for more cheap labor for elites? I'm open to that idea. Maybe it was because US elites considered low income Mexicans easier to control than unruly low class whites (meth) and blacks (crack)? I believe this. What it did start was a reaction by California voters and future Gov. Wilson to curb benefits for illegals. It also created the precedent that the US amnesty (forgive) law breakers rather than punish them. The transition within a nation from Roman virtues to Christian virtues is fully on display there. No national leader talks of an Eisenhower type program, but instead always bring up paths to citizenship. It also enabled the switch that shapes our elections today.


The GOP's big wins and close losses from '52-'88 were caused by the alliance of Northern + Western business interests with Dixiecrats. The students for a democratic society even cited this alliance as a reason to infiltrate and change the Democrats. The anchor to the GOP's success was California. The GOP carried California in all of those elections except the LBJ-Goldwater "JFK the Martyr" election of '64. Since 1992, the GOP has not carried California poorly timed as California's electoral vote total has increased. This tracks well with the thought that '92-'12 has seen big Democrat wins or tight Democrat losses. It was not just losing 40 EVs that hurt the GOP, but losing 40 plus the EV growth over time (CA now worth 55 EVs). The extra 15 EVs are a juicy swing state like Virginia or a set of smaller ones like New Hampshire, Iowa and Nevada. When a Democrat runs for president, they can count on 237 EVs in the bank. It makes getting to an EV majority much easier. California not being purple means fewer resources devoted to CA by both sides, and less defense required for the Democrats because their core is bigger. With the drift of the white vote more and more towards the GOP, how hard would it be for a Democrat to win the presidency if they started with 182 core EVs and had to win a purple California (with a functioning GOP party infrastructure) that was 80% white? Look at the California exit polls for 2004. The social engineering at universities and welfare benefits might twist enough white voters the Democrat way, but it'd be close. The important part would be Democrats spending millions in California that it could not devote to swing states.


I do not think the GOP is 'done'. I do think that it might be getting close if they can't figure out how to unlock the "Big 10" area from Democrat control due to demographic changes with the rise of single moms, children of single moms and Hispanics as pieces of the voting population. As Nate Silver bemoans the lack of elastic voters, he should admit that minorities just aren't elastic. Gone are the days when a Republican could win California. The Governator was a RINO who won on celebrity name power + ballot name placement, and Meg "$100 million Spent" Whitman couldn't beat Jerry Brown in the 2010 Tea Party wave. The switch occurred with the radical change to California from a widespread bastion of economic activity and a white voter supermajority to a nearly Hispanic majority state with rising income inequality. California's switch from red to purple to blue tipped the electoral college scales heavily in the Democrats favor, creating the national election strategies that we see today. The GOP can look back at the changes and know that the men in the mirror made it happen. St. Reagan signed into law many of the items that created this environment. Regardless of the GOP's ability to win the presidency again, there is too much 'awful' baked into our cake and far too much money owed for there not to be a big break and a radical change to our system. To borrow from the authors of "The Fourth Turning", each time the US enters a crisis phase, it leaves as an entirely different entity. Now is no different.

*Note: No one mentions this, but the immigration reform of '65 also created the weird situation in the US where 10% of all black people were actually born in Africa.
**Note: Gov. Wilson ran against Bob Dole, but his primary campaign died young.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Two Predictions For Women, Sex + Entertainment

Oh gosh the SWPL women are excited! Downton Abbey is back on Masterpiece!!!!! A soap opera plus a period piece without any minorities that they have to pretend to like, OMG!!!!!!! Jesting aside, Downton gets big thumbs up from the non-SWPL viewers I know. Can we see anything in the near future that may show up on HBO, the movie theaters or even an e-book that they can say they love having as an e-book so no one will know they read it but they broadcast that on their Faceborg feed? The seeds are there, but here's two predictions, vagina centric, for the entertainment world and sex.

1. There will be a book, tv show or movie that will be an erotic Victorian era period piece. If the SWPLs are jumping on the Victorian era thing, TIME mag is citing steampunk as a possible fad, and Downton Abbey is rocking the tv screens, at the same time that 50 Shades dominates book sales, this will happen. Of course, I have a movie or book idea outlined.

2. The 'new thing' that will spread wide in 7-10 years for women under 30 will be S&M. While black guys have been shown as the cool guy in Hollywood for decades, the interracial romance was slower to develop. Purely anecdotal, but it seemd 10-15 years ago, it was the cool, new thing that hit the mainstream to date a black guy. This was more frequent than girls having a girlfriend or hooking up with female friends. MTV and other media outlets geared towards youngsters pushed the lesbian, bisexual and experimentation thing through the mid-90s up to today. The having a girlfriend or declaring bisexuality openly seems to be the cool, new thing mainstream now. If 50 Shades has sold millions and the piggyback media is discussing the idea of adding some soft S&M to spice up one's sex life, some level of S&M will be the cool, new thing for young women that goes mainstream.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

The Left's Strategic Retreat on Nature vs. Nurture

Science has an interesting way of destroying human constructed beliefs. The former antagonist was the Catholic Church, which had its own science squad to check along with the developments in Europe. The new religion, progressivism, has many scientists on the payroll who can manipulate behavioral studies to fit whatever message they want (ex: John Money + gender). The major pillar of their belief system is the tabula rasa (blank slate) default brain setting for humans. This is that wonderful contradiction where evolution happens everywhere except the human brain. They believe that a human brain can be crafted so that any baby given the right environment, stimulation and care (nurture) can grow up to be a heart surgeon. The human genome decoding and scientific work have revealed some interesting finds. The finds reveal lots of genetic links to diseases and tends to support the nature over nurture argument (Futurepundit spotlights many). The left is pretty clever. They have already begun their fallback, and are laying the groundwork for the next phase of the battle.

Nature vs. nurture is a huge debate because the core belief of progressives that with enough tinkering, society can perfect a human. The nurture pushers also can blame non-personal reasons for individuals and entire groups' failures. This excuses away dysfunction of many of the left's voters, provides the cause for funding of social workers, and can be used as a bludgeon for bringing up old, long dead systems (slavery, colonialism, the Spanish conquering Mexico) as an excuse for dysfunction 150 years later. From a materialistic and Marxist approach, the idea that people are just malleable cogs in a machine fits nicely. Considering current voting coalitions, this is incredibly important to the left of many Western nations as the assorted lefts usually have a patchwork of different racial and religious groups. Admitting that there are differences would probably cause a rift in that tapestry because why would one group ever let another part of the group be in charge if they were somehow found to be on average genetically inferior in some way? It moves from power on down to everything else. This is why the recent genetic studies have hammered the left, but they are crafty and have a plan in place that the media is already pushing: epigenetics + in utero environment.

The left is distressed by the growing mountain of genetic evidence that genes and different genetic combinations give rise to certain behaviors. An important thing about this retreat is that the left is admitting that genes are science and have validity, but here's their twist: it's predisposed, not predetermination and "please give us a sliver of hope in continuing our nurture charade by accepting phantom concept of epigenetics and environmental factors on gene expression". My twist right back to them is, giving someone a positive nurturing environment makes them predisposed to good behavior, not predetermined. They never let the blade swing back on them. The cathedral knows they are cornered on this genetic bit so they rolled out a Time article in 2010 on epigenetics titled "Why Your DNA is Not Your Destiny", the NY Times in '12 tried to explain that black kids scored lower than whites due to their moms not talking to them as much before age four, a marxist documentary in '12 stressed epigenetics (Zeitgeist) and the environment as an excuse for every social dysfunction. We're seeing lead pop up as an excuse for different levels of social dysfunction now. The professors in Zeitgeist used as authorities are at Harvard, Stanford etc. so even if they can't sway you, they'll sway enough future decision makers. They mention people having the genes, but they only get expressed if exposed to trauma, which can be in utero. Are we just going to have pregnant women and children under age 4 in luxury hotels? At some point, the madness has to stop and we just have to admit that people are different. The left has their defensive tools as they retreat for the next stage of the nature vs. nurture policy debate, and they also have some offensive weapons.

If you can't beat them, smear them. The Dailykos ran a little piece on human biodiversity (HBD) being racist. Weirdest part was the author citing that the HBD case had strong evidence, but it was still racist. Nice addendum to his column was how he typed that blank slaters were uncivil and had no argument while HBDers had a civil approach and good argument. It was still racist. He had to stress that it was racist, even if there was no proof of it being racist, because he had to signal to anyone on the fence that to believe in HBD or agree with HBD speakers is to be racist yourself. The worst thing you can call a white person is racist, so this is a potent tool. The left knows people have a general grasp on genes and DNA. The research showing a lot of things people notice but never mention (for fear of being a racist) to be true is building, and would make the left look stupid and protectors of a false god. To stop this, they must call the threat racist and scare anyone from associating or granting it credibility. Call it racist, call it extreme, call it fringe, but do not let average Americans consider it. Let me ask liberals one question: what is more racist: 1. saying there are built in differences for people that get amplified by their culture or 2. theories used by the NY Times that state that black/hispanic parents suck at raising their kids? I'd rather be accused of having genetic issues rather than be called a shitty parent (and by cultural differences -> race) because my kids don't do well at math. Calling it racist is akin to slapping a scarlet letter on it, and when done in print, it does not offer a chance for a retort.

I'm a believer in behavior being part nature and part nurture. If forced to state a split, 2/3  nature vs. 1/3 nurture. Sailer had a funny entry on the epigenetics stupidity in the fall. As I wrote in the alcoholism blog entry last week, external factors and childhood environment have some effect on people to make some decisions. I do think having two parents around has a big effect on children's life outcomes. I won't deny nurture's effect, but I'm not investing trillions into fighting battles with minimal effect. This argument will continue as long as our current political system continues. The left has too much to lose in policy decision making and too many clients and good soldiers to not fight genetic research at every turn. The tiny admission that these genetic studies have validity is a defeat for them. They will not let the other side win without drawing blood and laying down groundworks to slow down process.

Monday, January 21, 2013

Last Night of the Patriots' Dynasty

Sometime in the next 5 years, a sportswriter from the Boston media will publish "The Last Night of the Patriots' Dynasty". It might be titled differently, but the book will be an NFL version of Buster Olney's great "The Last Night of the Yankee Dynasty". Olney used the 2001 and 2003 World Series defeats to explain how the Yankee dynasty that had won multiple titles in a few years had changed significantly to be competitive but lose in World Series. The Patriots have been going through the Yankee process for years now, and one writer will capture it. Using inside sources, hours of interviews and a timeline of front office decisions, they will write a great book. I won't read it because it is pretty easy to see how the Patriots suffered a similar fate as the Yankees.

Let's review the similarities of their rise and success....

Yankees + Patriots
 Coach Identified with team that players love - Joe Torre/Bill Belicheck
 Young, "clutch", and handsome superstar who wins early - Derek Jeter/Tom Brady
Both teams won championships with core built through player development
Built success on specific competitive advantage - Yankees' pitching/Pats' Defense
Had 'closer' in tight situations that no team could match - Mariano Rivera/Adam Vinatieri
Home Field Advantage in playoffs - Yankee Mystique/January in Foxboro
Added pieces to add to advantage - Yanks traded for Clemens/ Pats grabbed Washington + Harrison
They always seemed to get the 'lucky' bounce or call just when they needed it (understatement).
 
 
I might add that a big difference is the deeply homoerotic nature of the Patriot fan embrace of Tom Brady compared to the benign love of Derek "The Captain" Jeter. That is not the end, and it is why some writer will pop out a great book on the Patriots' descent. It's not a descent, just like the Yankees did not fall, but neither team wins titles with that horseshoe shoved up their rear like they once did. How many games did the Pats or Yanks win during their streaks that they had no business winning due to something 'weird'? Both teams made the playoffs consistently after their runs, but the magic was gone. It was not the same. The mystique had worn off. How did it happen?
 
Similarities of their 'falls'....
 
Yankees + Patriots
 
Coaching becomes different - Torre waffles on retirement/Spygate for the Pats
Build team through free agency - Yanks sign every star over 30/Pats splurge on Roosevelt Colvin + go after older guys after Dillon experiment
Add player counter to what team 'stands' for - A-Rod/Randy Moss
Few if any stars developed internally - Yanks had Cano/Pats have had too many failures to list
Lose touch with competitive advantage - Bullpen gets shaky + pitching gets older/Pats forget to play defense as original defensive pro bowlers get old, leave + retire
Offseason woes - Annual Yankee FA splurge/Pats annually trade 1st rd pick + let good veterans go
Change identity - Yanks become team of all stars/Pats go from great D to great O
The Horror - Yanks blow 3-0 lead in ALCS to Red Sox/Pats blow 15 pt lead to Indy in AFC
 The Doubt - Is Jeter/Brady really that 'clutch'?
Home Field Advantage Gone - Lose do or dies at Yankee Stadium/Pats lose to anyone at home now
Team Goes Corporate - Have you seen the new Yankee Stadium?/Pats ruin tailgating by building money trap
 
 
If the author were to follow the Olney model, what two games would he use? We have now entered a time where the Patriots lose in the playoffs as favorite on an annual basis. There are so many games to choose from, but there are two which the author could use as anchors as they weave through different problems that caused other losses. The two are the Super Bowl losses to the Giants. Even if the Pats' identity was already significantly down the super offense road and veterans were long gone, that first loss tot eh Giants was an amazing upset that would not have happened to the Pats of old. Hell, the Pats had continuously pulled wins out of their asses that season to start 18-0. The second Super Bowl loss was an upset, but enough people doubted the Pats after several years of trip ups versus good defenses. There is a symmetry that is just too perfect not to use.
 
The story isn't over for the Pats yet. Brady is 35, and Belicheck + Brady could stay in place for 3-5 more years. Thing is, fans now know when Brady isn't sharp in a game compared to old days, and Belicheck has been outcoached on occasion. Still, this book may never be written if the Pats win one more title. I feel it will be written. Brady is now older Brady, they only had a running game for one year with Dillon, and the defense is a mess. The NFL adapts quickly, and it seems quality defenses know what to do against the Pats now. The Pats's defense also can't get the stops or turnovers when they need them unlike their old days when it "just happened". Another damning change, the entire defense has one pro bowler (Wilfork) compared to the old days when the defensive line had 2 (Wilfork, Washington, Warren or Seymour), as did the linebacker corps, and the defensive secondary. These are not the same Pats. The only people left still believing it are the diehards (started cheering in 2002) on my Faceborg feed. Yankees' fans know the syndrome because they lived it. Happy Patriots Schadenfreude day!


Saturday, January 19, 2013

The Right Can Learn From Liberal Abuse of the 14th Amendment

Much has been discussed on Sunday political talk shows about the 2nd amendment recently. The Daily Show has even pitched in for propaganda purposes to say that things have changed, the constitution is old, and muskets aren't the same as AK-47s. The NRA has held firm. They should. Reverse roles on an over 200 year old law that liberals hold to fast, and we all know they would be proclaiming their love of the constitution and the founding fathers. It is smart to hold firm on the 2nd amendment. Many conservatives have caught onto how liberals only defend or attack something when it suits them. The liberal, Humpty Dumpty mindset of a law means what I mean it to mean when I mean it has changed our society in a horrendous fashion, poisoning our political and legal process. A perfect example of liberal malfeasance is how they have used the 14th amendment to fit whatever argument they have to change laws to craft the liberal society we live in today. The right should pay attention to the past and stick to their guns.

The 14th amendment was designed to deal specifically with the outcome of the Civil War and Emancipation. Because the legislature never anticipated the odd legal challenges of the 20th century, they did not limit the scope of the law by using specific language. They didn't anticipate marxism's rise. They had no clue a cathedral of liberals would rise up and manipulate the system to create classes to suit their aims in a system of universal suffrage. Liberals have abused the 14th amendment for uses it was not intended to address, yet they turn around and say the 2nd amendment was not for citizens to own whatever gun they wanted, only muskets of the late 18th century. Liberals always want to have it both ways, and no one mentions this two faced behavior in the media because the media agrees with them.

The 14th amendment was used to overrule state laws that were put in place to foster positive civilization and encourage moral behavior. Many states had laws that gave illegitimate children lesser rights to money, inheritance or state support. Liberal activist lawyers took up the fight, and used the 14th amendment to overturn these laws (crafted by state legislatures per their right) for the march of the progressive system. The first use of 14th for bastard rights was for inheritance was Levy v. Louisiana in 1968, which started the illegitimacy law tsunami. Supreme Court used the 14th amendment and Levy as prior case precedent for allowing bastards to receive paternal financial support like legit kids. A follow on effect of that decision was that newly created government welfare programs (LBJ's Great Society had just started) had to be available for poor illegitimate children not just poor children in lower income, married households. The incredibly important consequence of that decision was that there was no disincentive to having a child out of wedlock anymore. The US illegitimacy rate went from 5% to 41% (multiple variables at play) since this decision. People respond to economics and money, so requiring dads pay for bastard children as well as the government has removed all negative, financial consequences to having illegitimate kids. The 14th amendment also allows corporations to be sued and taxed as legal entities. Liberals may whine about corporate personhood, but it's the only way they can shake them down and confiscate a share of profits legally.

Rehnquist summarizes the danger of writing laws as liberals will use them as they see fit at the time for any argument. Rehunquist was upset that the 14th amendment was intended to specifically apply to the issue of freed slaves and the post-Civil War legal issues stemming from emancipation and reconstruction, but had become a "sonic screwdriver" for liberals to use where and when they see fit. His take on the 14th amendment might as well apply to any law for a leftist:

"Unfortunately, more than a century of decisions under this Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment have produced .... a syndrome wherein this Court seems to regard the Equal Protection Clause as a cat-o'-nine-tails to be kept in the judicial closet as a threat to legislatures which may, in the view of the judiciary, get out of hand and pass 'arbitrary', 'illogical,' or 'unreasonable' laws. Except in the area of the law in which the Framers obviously meant it to apply—classifications based on race or on national origin, the first cousin of race—the Court's decisions can fairly be described as an endless tinkering with legislative judgments, a series of conclusions unsupported by any central guiding principle."
 
Funny how the 14th amendment didn't protect unborn children in Roe v. Wade. Funny how in all of the illegitimate children decisions, no equal protection thought was given for a father's right to deny support if they didn't want the child or to have a say in keeping a child rather than aborting it. The only thing that matters in these cases being picked up by liberal, activist lawyers and decided one way by liberal, activist judges is to help their side's proxy partner win. Lawyers get paid handsomely and a coalition voting bloc member gets a benefit to help for their bad decision.

This attitude, already on display in 1968, is behind Nixon's move to appoint 'strict constructionist' judges. The explosion of crime created Nixon's "Law and Order" slogan, which fit into this as well. His nomination of Rehnquist reflected that approach. Nixon was smart enough to see how the liberals rarely stick to their word. How fast does liberal opinion change? Hollywood just gave an ex-president a standing ovation at the Golden Globes only 16 years after he signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (over 100 Dems voted for it). When a law is written, activists will push and pull to argue how it can be used for their benefit. Eventually, judges long steeped in that academic setting and those arguments will decide on important cases, using laws here or there that suit their side's argument at the time. Just as in all past liberal victories (Rhodesia, Libya, Egypt, family law, welfare), the win at the moment counts, and no thought is ever given to the consequences or to returning to the old ways. It's the law! The right should adopt this approach to the 2nd amendment. Not one inch. Not one gun.

Friday, January 18, 2013

Women's Liberation Fueled Alcoholism

Social critics say we live in a totalitarian therapeutic state. Many common folks know we live in a victim culture. We are awash in pharmaceutical drugs that replicate the effects of illegal drugs. It's an ugly web of problems, therapies and pills to make you 'normal' again. Oh no, you're not an addict. You are a victim of abuse, stress, pressure, etc., and you have a disease. It happened to you. The bottle just repeatedly called your name. The coke was just running towards your nose. I'm not going to be a hard ass on addiction. Besides every Intervention episode ever produced, I know enough recovering addicts and alcoholics to see the pattern of what a terrible trauma can lead to later in life. The damage that parents can do whether before birth by not planning ahead or during a child's formative years through abuse is huge and a core problem within our negative society. We will never really reduce the problem of drug abuse and alcoholism until we address those core causes, and our welfare, therapy state has too much invested not just in their voting coalition but in their employment to address those issues. Consulting 101: why fix what you can prolong? Instead, we will get articles (here, here, NPR douches here) that dance around the cause of our problems because one side doesn't want to talk about their hand in creating them.

A recent talk with a long term recovering alcoholic revealed the changes in addiction and alcoholism that have happened in the country that some news articles discuss, but the PC code of silence prevents proper discussion. While it is anecdotal evidence, my alcoholic relative has attended meetings almost daily for 20 years in various regions of the country. His observations on the changes in the last 20 years:

1. Meetings went from 90-10 male-female to 60-40 female-male. Changes nature of meetings.
2. Few people in AA now are purely alcoholics. Many are either narcotics and alcohol or they went from narcotics to alcohol.
3. Teachers flood AA meetings in the summer.
4. Nurses are much more common now in AA meetings and veterans less common.
5. All men who come in from Narcotics Anonymous say that they eventually sucked dick for drugs.

We laughed about the nurses and teachers because they handle everyone's kids. We also laughed about the men sucking dick for hard drugs because it is a cliche old enough to have been a joke in "Half Baked" roughly 15 years ago. The parts that we discussed at length were the NA-AA connection and the gender change. My uncle blamed the depressive nature of so many prescription drugs now leading the addicts to eventually drop the narcotics for another depressant (alcohol) and just continue their addictive habits. For them, it is first destroying the physical craving and then the mental obsession of doing the drug, which can be dragged out if you have a similar acting substitute. Interesting to hear from someone who has dealt with alcoholism for two decades.

When we got talking about the increase in the number of women in AA meetings, I asked a bunch of questions. Answers were as expected especially with his Archie Bunker personality. Women love AA as its a don't judge zone, everyone else there is a fuck up too, ladies get to tell a sob story, women bond through sharing their experiences (especially bad experiences), and there's free coffee. The causes of their alcoholism sound as if written by manosphere writers: single moms, women entering the workforce and not coping with work stress, and for older women at AA meetings, the initial joy of divorce wore off leading to loneliness. Sure, men can have similar circumstances, but as my uncle said, it is the rare man that cites those reasons. Those reasons appear to be uniquely female as the reasons they themselves give for abusing alcohol.

Those reasons are the unexpected fruits of women's liberation and the post-68 changes in social norms and family law. Women's relative happiness is down compared to men since the '70s. While they are achieving more at work and college, they are unhappy, marrying less, raising kids alone and drinking more. One article that mentions the rise in alcoholic women contorts itself to say that more women in the workforce means greater access to alcohol. Quote: ""The gender gap is narrowing, and this may have a lot to do with the numbers of women entering the work force," he says. This financial independence increases their access to alcohol." (emphasis mine). Poor women don't drink? Beer and wine have been legal since the '30s and might be the cheapest drugs for coping on the block, so I call shenanigans on access as a new problem. The writer couldn't admit that women entering the workforce, especially in higher pressure jobs which they had not formerly worked in great numbers (if at all), overloaded their built through evolution stress tolerance system. The writers can't admit that all of the choices given to women through the post-68 social changes have removed whatever guidelines or norms for a life path. No woman can have it all. At some point, a woman will have to sacrifice some facet of her life to get something else. A hard charging female worker might have corporate success only to find her kids resent her when she retires at 65 if she has kids at all. A good worker bee might have sacrificed a chance at moving up in management because she had 3 kids and took time off to raise them. We should be telling young women that no one has it all. If they do, they are lying.

Some of these women in AA now might be in AA because they feel they aren't living up to a false ideal that feminist marketing has pushed since 1968. If the media-entertainment complex wanted to do something positive for women, they would write a show called "The Good Wife" about a stay at home mom who puts her family life first as a good wife and mom but has no career. The media would not softly criticize women for 'opting out' and wasting their college degrees, but proclaim it as a positive example of women choosing on their own to take that path (NY Times article here, Forbes here). The Time article contains plenty of phrases expressing contempt. Television characters could have more kids, and the family with more than 1 child would not be comic relief. These would be traditional representations of women's roles, therefore they cannot be glorified. This isn't what the progressive cathedral wants. They want you to have no intimate relationships and connections except with the state. One state to raise you in day care, educate you at school, feed you, employ you (if you choose), house you, provide for you if you make a mistake, and eventually take care of you in old age. One state to rule them all.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Ayn Rand Understood the Cathedral

Ayn Rand deserves some praise, but not for what most people praise her for writing. Throughout college, many friends would rave about Atlas Shrugged. About 5 years after graduation, I broke down and bought it. Fortunately, the book had a printing error, double printing 100 pages, so I could return it and wipe my hands clean. Atlas Shrugged was awful. The Fountainhead was excellent (review here). In tandem with Roark, driving the Fountainhead's story is the evil character of Ellsworth Toohey. Looking at Ellsworth's tactics, his style, his choices and his occupation, Rand seems to have understood the true drive for power of the communists and how they would do it in the US. Rand saw where power lay. Toohey is her warning because she saw Toohey's around her at the high levels. Now we're inundated with mini-Tooheys on Faceborg feeds. Rand understood the cathedral before it had a name.
 
Ellsworth Toohey is, for lack of a better phrase, a deceptive, shifty dick who uses people for gain. He attended Harvard, worked in academia steering people's careers as well as being a critic, and loved having influence. His drive is for power to rule over others. Nothing else. His rant to Keating near the end of the book, fully revealing his evil motivations, could apply to many cathedral foot soldiers today. He rarely performs a direct assault on a target, using auxiliary forces and flanking attacks instead. He plays the long game. He pulls down the stand out, mocks and rips the successful individual, elevates the ugly and creates useless little councils for things. Of all the jobs in the world, he is a columnist, column named "One Small Voice", with a contract in the biggest newspaper chain in the country that allows him to write whatever he wants. Toohey is well educated, smart, has a job as a thinker and tastemaker molding opinion through the media, hates the power of the individual and is obsessed with gaining power. Toohey sounds like a bishop in Moldbug's cathedral.
 
Rand cited Harold Laski as a prime inspiration for Toohey's character. Laski was a Jewish British Marxist who was a Labour MP. He studied at Oxford, taught at elite universities, wrote for "The New Republic", and was hooked up with the Frankfurt school. He cultivated students to send out into the world to implement his schemes. He was a guy behind the guy behind the guy, pulling strings and nudging public figures. Rand had lived through the Bolshevik Revolution. Her family fled red Russia. She hung in the intellectual circles. With first hand experience, she saw how the commies took control. With direct contact, she heard how the socialist worms acted at the higher levels of Western academia. The Fountainhead was published in 1943, which was a decade after FDR's first election. For her odd behavior and flaws, Rand saw the natural human inclination to defer to an authority even if the authority is murky in competence or legitimacy. Rand saw the cathedral forming and tried to warn people.
 
Of all the occupations in the world, Rand has the antagonist be a journalist. Toohey eschews richer surroundings and more obvious signs of power for his role as a writer. He lacks a soul and wants to destroy other men's souls. Toohey understands that what he has with shaping public opinion is power. His contract, allowing him to write anything, is an allusion to our freedom of the press with its unchallenged power in the USA. Toohey finds young talents through his network of university contacts and the intelligentsia to staff his councils and to trumpet in his columns. Toohey uses his lame, do-nothing councils much the same way that the modern left uses the SPLC. If a play, building or book deviates from his desired message, he can nudge the council to condemn it. Normal people might not even know of the council's existence or of it's pathetic membership, but Toohey could cite the "Council of American Builders" as an authority denouncing the play or book. Toohey could have been a politician or contrasting architect to battle with Roark, but he is a journalist.
 
Even though Moldbug explained the cathedral sixty years after Fountainhead was released, Ayn Rand understood the concept. If Rand lived today, she would buy the cathedral concept in totality. Rand's Toohey is the terrible face to the cathedral. It is not an obviously dark or evil face, raping and killing those who disagree. It is the soulless, bland face of the glasses wearing intellectual, stripping indivual's of their cherished loves, gods and beliefs. The heart to the cathedral that will forever divert talented young Americans to its machinery is the thirst for power, status and control. Rand understood this as well, sending Toohey to a new job at another paper where he starts the long process of manipulation all over again. The cathedral will always find Tooheys to staff the government agencies, NGOs, newspapers and universities. You cannot stop the cathedral by reforming it; you must destroy it.

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Why the Rise of MILF Porn?

If you are over 25 but under 35, you occupy a weird spot in the American male porn viewing public. You are old enough to remember when finding a Playboy magazine was like Indy finding the Ark of the Covenant, but you're young enough to consider daily viewing of internet porn as normal. You remember when porn had plots that created sexual situations. You understand the importance of just seeing a sex scene on a tube site, and you remember when 30 second videos took 10 minutes to download on your campus' T3 connection. You recall when porn actress genitalia grooming was a mixed bag, but you expect to see waxed now all of the time. What seems to annoy you is the constant MILF themed porn sites or scenes on streaming sites. They do not use MILFs. No one your age wants to see MILFs, and the illusion that they are MILFs is absurd beyond standard porn suspension of disbelief. MILFs have carved out a chunk of the marketed and pushed material not because you want it, but because it reflects your reality. Porn doesn't always reflect what you want, but it might reflect what is around you.

In a prior post on cuckold porn, I mentioned non-utopian and utopian viewers. There are the viewers actively seeking out that specific scenario (utopian) and those oblivious to the set up just looking for the performer (non-utopian). MILFs aren't really a utopian ideal, but in our negative society single moms have been elevated to new heights compared to former ages. Joking with friends, I used to think MILF porn was negotiated by porn actresses so that they could take a few years off and then come back in a whole new category (like the DH for career extension). I spent five years without a home computer, relying on Cinemax for any adult entertainment. When I returned to online porn, I found it flooded with MILF porn (2007). Who wanted this, how were 31 year olds MILFs, why is Julia Ann (nsfw) still in porn, who wants to see moms fucking, and what the hell happened to simple plots? Porn reflects the audience.


 She just got a new outfit from the Jaclyn Smith Collection. She's hungry for you.

One of the most famous pornos of the '70s (and of all time) was "Debbie Does Dallas". Porn in the '70s was declared legal and expanding, but still geared towards men who couldn't get laid. Viewers willing to buy the videos or go to theaters in public on a regular basis were losers in the post-pill/pre-HIV/pre-obesity epidemic Golden Age of Sex. Debbie Does Dallas is about young, nubile girls earning money by banging older men in the hopes that Debbie can get to Texas to try out for the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders. The sex builds until the big payoff of Debbie, in Dallas Cowboy cheerleader gear, banging the middle aged owner of the sporting goods store. Yes, the loser who couldn't get the cheerleader as a young man, manages to have her approaching him for wild sex. Of course, the film hooked the audience because it reflected their reality of being a schlub with their real desire for the cheerleader type who always rejects them, but maybe, just maybe with enough money, you can have her.

By throwing out the storylines of porn of old, the gonzo style flicks have to do a quick set up with the setting as well as the pairing. The pairing of the performers is the cue for the message to the audience. Non-utopian viewers don't care, and make up a good chunk of viewers. They just want to see a specific performer. The utopian viewers are watching for the subtext as well as the performers. Just like the triumph of the sporting goods store owner banging Debbie the cheerleader in the end, modern consumers are drawn to pairings that speak to them. How many guys do you know who say they 'don't waste time' watching girl-girl scenes? No projection in those scenes. To criticize manosphere commenters again, it's not that the scenes are filmed because viewers want to see representations of their moms being whores, but they are filmed for men who would be playing the role of protagonist in the scene. There are older porn viewers now with greater comfort using the Internet, so a scene with a 40 year old Julia Ann is appealing to your 45 year old uncle or maybe your 50 year old dad who watched her tour US strip clubs as 1/2 of Blondage in the '90s.

 Your dad would hit it.
MILF porn is maybe what some guys want (I realize some women watch MILF porn projecting into the MILF's role). A slice of men like older women. Some men have that Oedipal fear yet excitement of their moms being whores. Considering the times, this would mean young Boomer and older Gen X moms, who had over 40% divorce rates. I'd say that anxious temptation of viewing is a reality for some men. There are the men who watch a 40-something for that 'what a whore' vibe. There are also guys who might have dated a girl who had a hot mom (everyone has once). Interracial MILF porn seems to have female performers who actually could be MILFs due to their age (40+), not a "phony MILF" instance. Next time you're at a Blues or BBQ festival, look around. Middle aged black guys seem to date cast off, middle aged white women with a rough look to them. I'll give those guys credit; those white women are usually thinner than the average white woman you see with a young black guy. Viewers get the 'this can be reality for you' message not from the build up of the story like in Debbie Does Dallas, but in the performer pairing.

It still doesn't quite cover that weird situation of late 20-something porn performers portraying MILFs in scenes. Some of them even joke about it on their twitter or tumblr accounts where they 'play' college girls one day and MILFs the next. This phony MILF syndrome makes perfect sense if you consider the sexual marketplace of today. We like to mock chubby single moms or single moms with high standards still dating fast and furious, but there are a decent number of thin, attractive single moms out there (divorced or never married). It's our society. Manosphere sites like to mock the betas who marry these women and form families inclusive of the bastard child. I wouldn't do it, but many do, and some are successful, positive role models for the formerly fatherless children. Attractive single moms are a reality, and there are plenty of men out there who fantasize about the 28 year old single mom in customer service. I've worked with four women who were these types of MILFs. I'd never set those single moms up with friends for a relationship, but I guarantee that my friends would fuck them. This is the reality of the dating world. On any given friday night, how many single moms rock the nightclubs? In a perfect world, these women never would have had these kids or remained married, and they'd be sexy, single women with higher value. These phony MILF scenes are phony from the standpoint of who the term MILF really was meant for, but no company is going to market porn as "Single Mom Hunters" instead of "MILF Hunters". It's a matter of language to disguise the unpleasantness around us. It's a rather damning indictment of modern society when even the porn industry uses selective language. The sexual marketplace losers that the pairings 'speak to' listen to that siren song that the young, single mom in their sphere of contact is just dying to fuck them.

As I say whenever discussing modern pornography, the videos and scenes reflect the desires and funhouse mirror the reality of the audience. Porn used to be bad or basic stories that created pauses for sexual hijinks. Due to the ease of watching, the audience has expanded a bit. Due to the rising number of unattached men, the audience has changed. Due to changes in the sexual marketplace, the situations and objects of desire have changed. Any idiot can look at all of the scenes involving yoga classes, notice that they are WF-WM performer combos (some WM-AsianW), and connect the dots as to what audience, thoughts and desires are being tapped there. Shucks, I wonder what "Deep Throat" was telling viewers where a gal has her clitoris  located at the back of her throat and can only achieve orgasm when deep throating a man? Workplace themed movies now regularly include scenes with the bitchy or incompetent female boss who bangs the lowly male worker. It's no longer only the horny, cute secretary like porn's days of old. Times change. Porn changes with it. MILF porn, like cuckold porn, does serve that tiny audience of guys with mommy issues or are attracted to older women. If a tube site survey could be performed on all viewers, the vast majority of men watching don't care and nothing registers (non-utopian viewers) or for the majority of other viewers, those young, horny single moms are the gals they are stuck interacting with in the sexual marketplace.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

No More Archie Bunkers, No more Alex P. Keatons

Modern network television is a sea of sludge. The networks are dominated by precedural shows and soap operas for dramas, reality tv sucks, and sitcoms are pretty weak or infused with gay men just dying to get married and adopt kids. The real action is on cable or premium cable, but those shows are few in number. The Sopranos truly changed the game, but the networks never figured out how to replicate the formula. Beyond the shows, is there an iconic television character? Is there a character that represents the times or a specific type of person of the times with broad enough appeal? As we have become a more diverse nation in all regards, cultural cohesion has virtually disappeared. Television ratings have decreased for the top rated shows of each decade as more channels pop up and interests fragment. It is harder for a specific character to reach critical mass to be the man of the times. It's also because television can't allow a character to become a man representing sizable block of the nation and be a positive protagonist. It does not fit the narrative, and they are afraid a counter liberal character would give any screen time to the opposing team's ideas. Television would rather push the narrative rather than create a character that truly resonates with the mass audience.


Television sucks is a common refrain. People dislike reality garbage yet enough folks still watch it to make it profitable for networks. Outside of a handful of AMC/HBO/Showtime shows, there are few big characters that people latch onto and love or love to hate. Part of it is crappy storytelling, but a major part of it is the choice of television producers and networks to use their shows as vehicles for molding public opinion rather than entertaining people. There is an audience dying for good characters and plots. If there wasn't, classic shows from the '70s and '80s wouldn't be available on Netflix and Amazon Prime. In 2010, the 8th episode of the 11th season of CSI ("Fracked") centered on a death that involved natural gas fracking (victim was a black farmer, hahaha). The fracking was killing and poisoning the old couple. They also had the anti-tea party season opener that starred Justin Bieber. Right before the 2010 midterm elections. What the hell happened to investigating two or three murders per episode? CSI now was crusading against natural gas drilling. This is why CSI had their lead character leave the show, and ratings didn't drop. It was a procedural, and while a crime fighting CSI might be conservative and anti-underclass and anti-criminals in real life, the writers couldn't flesh it out onscreen. God forbid fans love a hard nosed, right wing detective. God forbid Hollywood have another Archie Bunker or Alex P. Keaton on its hands.


Television is a heavy hand for guiding social norms and mores as well as shaping a debate. Television networks have long known this, but recently have become more extreme with how they present issues and what issues they discuss. It has been going on for a lot longer, the issues have just become more odd and minute. Watch episodes of All In the Family and Family Ties. Both shows were giant, family oriented sitcoms of their respective decades. All in the Family drips in liberal dogma right from episode one. Family Ties constantly pushes liberal beliefs into any storyline. Those shows, created by Norman Lear and Gary David Goldberg (gosh, what do they have in common?), both intended to have a straight, white male antagonist that would be the 'other side' to dialogue for fleshing out political or social debates. Archie Bunker and Alex P. Keaton were suppose to be the bad guys. Instead, they became the characters audiences loved. Audiences ate it up to the point where the writers had to restructure the shows to focus on those two characters. It had to burn Hollywood that audiences identified and loved (as well as loved to hate) the characters they meant to lampoon the enemy. The other thing those characters allowed was for people to refer to themselves, their friends or family memebrs as an "Archie Bunker" or "Alex P. Keaton" and have a positive connotation to it. Why couldn't Hollywood have written in a George W. Bush fanboy into a sitcom who loved Reagan as well durign W's eight years in office? That is not allowed anymore, unh unh, the enemy must always be evil.


Television producers are so left leaning that they can't allow a main character to be center-right or right wing out fo fear they would unleash another Bunker or Keaton. If anyone entertains right wing thoughts on a consistent basis on television, it is a minor character that they can use as a prop to mock and joke on for a scene. "The New Normal" might have a shot with that conservative grandma, but would they really let her say the "we all know it to be true but no one can say it in public" negative things about gays? It got a full season pick up, but with ratings in the 3s, it will get cancelled. Maybe they should unleash grandma and boost ratings? Television cannot humanize the other side or even let the other side's views be out there not in a cartoonish villain way. This would lead to success. As the Sailer percentage of voting bloc share graph for Romney showed, he garnered a large chunk of some really large voting groups (white men, married whites, married white women, old folks). Scripted television could learn a lot from FoxNews. Not the way it produces news or its style, just that it exists. Murdoch is intelligent and went after an underserved market. If every news outfit leans left, no one is leaning right, and he can have a monopoly on right leaning viewers. That is the key to his ratings success: he's the only game in town for right wing viewers. This will not happen though, and TV will churn out more characters that represent smaller niches of the nation in a form of coalition of victims bingo (black transgendered blind person in a wheelchair, bingo!). No character will capture the mood or culture. A non-existent character might be the best representative of all.

Monday, January 14, 2013

It's Still Mostly Sex Tourism

Once you have a great experience in a foreign country, you get bit by that travel bug. There's a city or country you never got around to seeing or one you only heard of from others. That becomes your next target. Travel, and being a traveller not a tourist, is exciting and fun. The travel for women concept is out there in the game community. It's a small subset of the Game community, but it's an interesting one because it's the male rejection of modern American society in action. I love to know what makes people tick, and it is steak when you read their travel "logs". Spending two or three months out of the USA roaming the planet might be fantastic and can be enriching. Reading game blogs or forums, planning a two week trip to Brazil, and then trying to have as much sex as possible in that foreign country is sex tourism. Oh sure, I'll read your forum entries professing a desire for life enrichment, but I'll look at posting history and see that your goal is not viewing art treasures but where can someone of your build/height/skin color/hair color/eye color get laid the best? Roosh is a very entertaining writer (Taki essay on him) with a good business model and a knack for thin slicing his way to interesting social commentary. He's doing good work trying to get his readers to improve themselves or deprogram them from accepting modern society. Roosh is the exception; you are the norm. You are not Roosh. You're a sex tourist. Here's another wake up call: you're not even using game, you're just being an American.

Read Roosh's posts carefully, and you'll see how normal American game works or 'beta' male game works in a vast majority of countries. In some nations you need social circle or friendship entry points, and that is not possible with your limited time in that country, so you need to hit up countries that rely on the first two. Review the first two: standard game or 'beta' male game (both are regular for you the Game community member). Basically, all you have to do is be your normal American self. Why does this work?

1. You're playing for the New York Yankees - By being an American, you are a representative of the ruling power in the world. This gets you status. This whole alpha thing really should be split between actual hard alpha qualities and soft alpha behavior. By going to lesser countries, you have jumped multiple spots up the hard alpha status ladder just by being American. Think of that OKCupid study where they found Asian and Hispanic women choose white men with greater exclusivity than white women; lower social status women seek out who is in charge, has money and has power. Foreigners will project confidence and strength on you that you never knew you had, but they think you do since you're from the USA. We rule for now, but this is definitely not as potent as it was in past decades.

2. You're now exotic - If you're a white guy in America, you're never allowed to be exotic (same applies to black guys who only run in black social circles and so on). You're just vanilla you. In a foreign country, even the UK, you are exotic. As foreigners repeatedly told me, "you Americans never sound like you're wrong" and "christ, you guys are confident". The foreigners will also compare your style of speech to Brits, and believe me, we may not sound as educated, but we sound a hell of a lot more manly and fun. There are plenty of girls who want to fuck a Yank just to bang a Yank while others automatically say no way (like any exotic appeal it works both ways). Annoyed when American girls swoon for fug Brit guys because of the accent? This is you over there. I used to wear my cargo pants in europe as a billboard for "Fuck me, I'm American". You're the different, new thing; so use it wisely.

3. The girls are more feminine + play the role of girl better than American girls - Ever notice Roosh always mentions how feminine the women are in countries he visits? Many modern, Western women are fucked up by a recent plague called media marketed feminism. This wasn't always the case. They are trying to reject a role that was pretty standard for thousands of years; this is not about legal protection + voting rights, I'm focused on actual behavior. "Look at me I can drink with the boys, yell and be a sarcastic ballbusting loudmouth". When you go to another country (maybe not western european nations), the girls act like women, so you can act like a man... and be rewarded. No complex set of rules. Be a man. This only reinforces you acting more and more like a normal man. Like most things related to masculinity, you'll feel better about yourself, exude confidence and women will pick up on it and react positively to that creating a virtuous cycle of masculinity. Even when you're 'beta', which would be just *awful* in the states, you get rewarded because girls are not feminist programmed consumers yet. You get to act just like your grandfather in 1945 and get laid. You get to act natural.

4. You are a potential ticket to salvation - Deny it all you want, but any foreign girl who has a relationship (not a ONS) with an American has immigration in the back of her mind. Every single one thinks about it at some point. Some of these countries have college educated women signing up for mail order bride programs, so you think they aren't considering this while spending weeks with you? Think Carrie Bradshaw getting Big. You can set her up, even if you are just middle class in the USA; it's a huge step up. Earning 35K annually puts you in the global 1%. If you are spending a couple weeks in her country on your dime, it flashes a huge sign that you got bucks.

If you can't get laid with that wind at your back, just fucking hang yourself. What the guys who travel for several weeks of sex and populate some of those forums are doing is jumping the ladder and trying to reduce their effort to snag a pretty girl. They aren't writing the great American novel. They are micro-sampling the culture. They're a sex tourist dressing it up in different clothes. "But I'm looking for a feminine, thin woman who appreciates me" and "Marriage is for chumps". Let me not leave out the, "What country is good for bruthas?" refrain. America has an obesity problem, but we still have a lot of fine women. You may have to work at your game. You may have to improve your economic situation in life. You might have to look in areas you don't normally consider (church). No shit, marriage is a raw deal legally if you divorce, but it works for many men out there. Has anyone ever spun the tables and asked a Game blog commenter, "How come you're not alpha enough to have an attractive woman completely in love with you to the point where she'll never leave?". That's what a lot of the multiple options, bedding dozens, etc. are implying: they are so alpha, women just can't resist them. Doesn't everyone have a couple friends doing this in a metro area in the US right now? Look around, there's tons of shitty men to match up with the shitty women of America. Lifetime commitment takes some effort, so does game. Running to a foreign country for a couple weeks of banging makes you a lazy sex tourist.

I'm reaching a bit here, but this feels like the flight reaction of the fight or flight choice when faced with the current problematic situation as men in modern American society. It's tough with the shrinking number of attractive, thin women with nice personalities. Fight is using game to get what you want, get the woman you want, and make something of your life for economic comfort and security. Flight is jumping to other countries for a few weeks each year to bang some honeys. Ferdinand Bardamu likened it to a vampire's existence. I dislike the fat chicks all around us. I have huge problems with the way our economic, education, and legal systems are set up, but I'm working within it and trying to change it. Not everyone can just stand still and be a rich king with an adoring, slender wife who will raise their children. Escaping to foreign locations is waiving the white flag and giving up. You can't hack it in the big leagues, so skip on down to AAA. You're not Roosh. You're not even one of the good posters in the forum that might have legit stories. You live vicariously though his posts and scout out the best country for you to visit for your two week sex romp.

Friday, January 11, 2013

A Year as an NFL Season Ticket Holder

The NFL is the dominant sports entertainment product in the United States. Football has surpassed baseball as America's game, and the NFL has surpassed college football for national attention and prestige. Last spring, I saw a billboard advertisement about available Colts season tickets. I called up from work. A day later, I was a season ticket holder. It was a fun batch of games to watch since the home team won 7 of 8 games. It was also a fun season for people watching and providing ammunition for commentary on modern America.
10. Sight lines are fantastic in new, megastadiums but alas, the athletes can't hear you from the upper deck when you shout specifically at them. I'll never get this need to specifically target a player with a taunt as if the player could hear you. It's not like sitting in the 10th row of an NBA or MLB game or right behind the bench on the 50 yard line at football games. These foolish fans are hundreds of feet away in a loud stadium. The shouts seem more for other fans to hear. Once again, let's bring the experience back to focusing on you, the garden variety narcissist in section 645.
9. Women make up more stadium attending fans that I expected. Might be a regional thing as there seemed to be more at Colts games than the many Patriots games I attended. The NFL has made an effort to add female fans in the last decade, and it appears to have worked. The women usually sport a jersey but forget to suck in their gut for all four quarters. What is the sense of buying a tight babydoll jersey if you forget to suck in your gut? The babydoll cut will accentuate your gut. Some of these women are cuties, but a vast majority aren't. There were 4 cute women under age 40 in my section at the 8 games I attended. If women want to know where to find single guys, go to an NFL game. The male-female ratio is positive, and if a girl is cute, she's lightyears ahead of most female fans. A group of 4 single girls should split season tickets and signal as much as possible that they are single. I'd recommend this highly to single women who just hit 30. Don't compete with 21-24 year olds in a night club; compete with chubby or middle aged women at an NFL game.
8. The stadium is always selling you something. Huxley would be nodding his head and saying 'told you so' if he spent an hour at a game. I usually came home with a headache, and after a 1st time fan came to a game with me, she noticed the non-stop ads, loud noise and flashing lights; she thinks that's the reason for my headaches, not the slight strain on my neck to turn my head. Any space that could flash an ad does so, and all stoppages in play are filled with ads on the jumbotrons, small screens and banner screens. This is on top of print ads everywhere for everything from checking accounts to trucks to nachos.
7. Fans are mostly NASCAR whites, middle and upper middle class whites, and then some minorities. Hipsters and SWPLs are virtually nonexistent numbers, but it is Indianapolis. The NFL is +/- 60% black for players but the stadium packing fans are 85% white (low estimate). My section was nearly all white, and that was in a cheaper section to buy tickets. It's easy to see this watching a Detroit Lions home game where the 90% black city isn't 90% black in the stadium. I saw a few Hispanic families and random Asian fans (like a Hollywood show, the only minorities are black). Black fans usually came in duos, and all but one duo were not season ticket holders since I only saw the duos at one game each. The duos, in descending order of incidence, were: 2 black buddies, middle aged black couple on date, black male w/overweight white woman, young black couple on date. I didn't see any wedding bands on the bruthas sitting near me, and virtually no black children at games even if the Jumbotron would find two at the game and put them on the Jumbotron for the 'fan dance' sequences (not to reinforce stereotypes). Paul Kersey might overdo it with focusing on sports at his site, but it's important sadly due to the way sports have become central to many Americans' lives.
6. Cheerleaders are there because we need sex with our violence. We just can't have violence on its own, we need a side dish of sex. They looked better than in past seasons, but these aren't the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders. The dancing stinks as they generally repeat the same 4 counts of 8 for a song. I didn't catch that, the lifelong dancer I brought to a game did. I could have done the choreography though as it's basic hip-hop music video choreography. They do have two sponsors which are a tanning lotion and some other beauty product. You are ALWAYS being sold something. As the Colts experienced the emotional "Chuck Strong" campaign, two cheerleaders, one a leukemia survivor herself, had their heads shaved due to a fundraiser that hit targets. Fans went nuts; Colts won the game.
5. TV timeouts are awful. They kill the flow of the game. They are wretched, artificial creations of consumerism. Most fans at home would gladly trade a "first down line is sponsored by" or a small corporate logo in the corner of the TV screen if the games had fewer TV timeouts. This is far worse with the NBA because the NBA has a steady pace of play, but it also sucks at NFL games (especially at outdoor stadiums).
4. ACDC must mint gold from NFL stadium PA use royalties. Those songs are constantly used by NFL teams (Pats overuse "Thunderstruck", Colts overuse "Hells Bells"). The Colts' stadium music director mixed bad hip-hop and rap with bad rock like "Down with the Sickness" by Disturbed. My section laughed at the music most of the time. I do think the proles react to it. They must have some prole focus group to ask what songs go best with specific situations. Kick-offs do not go well with the intro to "Down with the Sickness".
3. Going to a game must destroy a lot of delusional high school jock's egos. Never forget that all of these guys are genetic oddities (even the "hard workers"). These men are 200-300 lbs and run faster than you ever did. Game speed is much more impressive in person than on TV. I respect the linemen in the NFL immensely, and their combination of speed and strength is amazing to watch live. Linemen are also guaranteed to get hit each play. Add in the intelligence of most NFL offensive linemen, and it's quite the genetic freak that makes it to the NFL (even D1 at the NCAA level). It's a shame and kind of sick that their average lifespan is 52.
2. Being sober at a competitive game helps you realize just how easy it must have been for Romans to cheer on the gladiators. Two thousand years of 'civilization' hasn't changed much. People love big hits, and the cries for murder in the 3rd and 4th quarter have a bit more oomf behind them as the booze flows through fans' veins. Between these games and exposure to MMA, Rollerball might just be around the corner.
1. Football fans are much smarter about strategy than in the past. Let's all clap for the Madden video game franchise lifting the Football IQ of fans. A bunch of the fans I would talk to around me actually knew the difference between the Cover 2 run by Dungy + Caldwell for years vs. a Cover 1 or Cover 3. Are many fans still idiotic and low information fans? Yes. There is no limit on human ignorance. I will never understand fans who are buying $100 jerseys, spending thousands of dollars on season tickets and still not knowing basics of the game.