Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Book Review - The Power and the Glory

It is sad to watch the Mexicanization of the Southwest. It's not a reversion to its original status. That was Spanish in flavor, and had very few people within its borders. Civilization found its way there through science, infrastructure and engineering, and a bipartisan effort opened the floodgates. Can we at least talk about Mexico? If we cannot discuss the cartels and dysfunction, reading up on the past may be nice. Those "natural conservatives" with their Catholicism can be read in Graham Greene's The Power and the Glory. Can religion inspire and still have mystery even if human? Yes, read this book and get a taste for faith, ritual and community.

This novel, by a Catholic convert, is set in Mexico during the 1930s when the Catholic Church was being repressed by the government. Not modern prog complaints about oppression. This was true blue, "stop services, secularize or kill priests, destroy the altars" type repression. The story follows a little priest on the run, trying to make his way out of the state. His journey is complicated by his status as a priest, and the duty that comes with it. The beauty of that is no matter his failings as a man, he still feels honor bound to perform his duties and rituals for his oppressed flock. Despite the state's best efforts, the people will not let go of the rituals. The priest's appearance means he can take confession, can baptize children and can make simple bread the body of Christ. You lollygagged for years to get your kid baptized and "picked" a church? These people were waiting for him to feel whole. Not so much him, but waiting for a man of God endowed with the proper powers. The people in Mexico are true believers, and they need this man's power to feel they are living properly. These are artificial powers given to a man with flaws, but the people still all believe. There are sacrifices, a Judas figure, a makeshift family, near misses, escapes, and in the end, a hint of resurrection.

Mexico's attack on the Church is a memory hole era for progressive history. You are not going to believe this, but after a revolution, a bunch of commies created a constitution that explicitly attacked the Church and its power. Note the mandatory, secular education system the constitution mandates. I have to love how even Wikipedia says the constitution influenced the Soviets and the Weimar constitution. Nothing says success like those two nations. Of course they would go after the Church, and this dragged on for decades, with a peak in the Maximato era. It’s the same playbook, just a different nation. "Destroy all non-prog groupings that create bonds and social power not through prog approved channels". Oh wait, the Mexican leadership was fascist, so they were not "communist" just a different branch of leftist focused on state power. The Church survived, which Greene did not know in the '30s, but we know now. It is cliche but this book drills the point home that a Church is not the beauty of its cathedrals, but the faith within the hearts and souls that build those temples to God.

Ayn Rand made Ellsworth Toohey, the ultimate cathedral press subversive agent, but Greene does a great job with the embodiment of the prog government official. The lieutenant is a great stand in for the standard issue modern commie. He is a true believer spitting out programmed language. He is a commissar more than a military man. He wants to give the same gifts to the people as the Church but without the hypocrisy and corruption, arf arf, prog talk, blah blah. If you consider the book set in the 1930s, he would have been a child during the revolution, and a first generation dipped in commie indoctrination. The envy at the heart of much progressive politics is evident in his lines. He anger at the church so pitch perfect for the anti-church forces of 2015. The core of these leftists never changes, it just finds a new, ever leftward item to latch onto. Breaking progressives and leftists entire belief system to “Fuck you dad”, and where appropriate on a macro level “Fuck you God”, is embodied in the Lieutenant. This is even more interesting as Greene would spend the '60s awkwardly apologizing for or supporting Castro and MI6 traitor Kim Philby. Greene's lieutenant is a misguided true believer, possibly, and Greene may have viewed Castro and Philby in a similar manner.

The politics of the book should not take you away from noticing the beauty of the book. This is not Blood Meridian, but the beauty of the language used for setting the scene and describing Mexico is excellent. I am a small town guy, so I loved reading about the small town people, the familiarity and reality of the rural people. There is joy in the simple and small, and beauty in the rustic. There is a way Green does not condescend to reveal their world, and it is in showing the loyalty, the shared experience, and the faith that these people have. You can understand their tough lives, but not pity them. The honor and pride they feel in experiencing mass is clearly expressed, and if anything, it helps us 21st century readers see that mass and Christ is not about you. It is about serving Him, honoring Him, and experiencing it within your community. When you have nothing, you still can have that community experience and those rituals. All cultures have priests of some sort, and as the progressive attack on religion ratchets up in America, we must remember it is not just the priest that makes the experience and community, but it is the community of believers. The priest, for all his faults, becomes the momentary anchor for each town he visits. Greene works this well, draws you in, and gets you invested on that little priest making it to safety.

Greene weaves different story lines and characters into the narrative with purpose. The doubting Thomas young boy, rolling his eyes at his mom's religious stories, has a purpose to the book, and closes the book with the act that lets you know the faith will outlast the regime. The priest has his run ins and escapes from the regime's clutches, but the story is bigger than him, even if it is his life that we the reader become wrapped up in. There is only one ending though, and you can feel it. Redemption, martyrdom, resurrection and destiny are all steady features in Catholic thought. What are the miracles that make a saint? What makes someone holy versus another? This story lays it out there for debate and to clear a path. A flawed priest for a flawed people read by flawed readers. You know how it will end, and you want the spiritual journey within the priest to reach finality. After wrestling with his faith, duty and soul, can he be ready for the next step? As laid out on these pages, I hope we can all have as fulfilling a journey no matter the audience, and no matter the ending.

Monday, March 30, 2015

Missing the Hillary-Libya Boat

Friday afternoon, there was the news release that Hillary Clinton’s private email server was wiped clean. This could be a cover lie like the IRS losing all of Lois Lerner’s emails meant to delay inquiries. The possibility that she destroyed government property when under subpoena by Congress is much more interesting. One can see her cover coming, “I didn’t break the law per se. The emails were destroyed because all of them were handed over to State.” Okay, well where are they State Department? The media will most likely play this like every Obama-DOJ misdeed since 2009, with soft censorship and looking the other way. The right will lick their lips hoping to submarine Hillary with emails, all the while missing the chance to discuss the big torpedo, Libya, and our system in general.

Hillary Clinton will have a slightly better resume than Obama in 2008 because she served as Secretary of State for four years, but she comes with the baggage of low charisma, “the Clintons”, being elderly, head “injuries” and some other items. Forget the technicality pushing of emails, and look at her time as Secretary of State. Good discussion of her acts would poke good holes in her record either way. One, if she says policy was controlled by the White House, she is revealed as a PR hire for the Sec of State slot. This makes those four years look even worse. If she does not use that excuse, just look at that resume. There is the failed reset with Russia, mishandling of the exit from Iraq, the Afghanistan quagmire and Libya. It is a murderer’s row for mishaps and epic fails. This is her resume. That is all, and recycled economic ideas.

The Libya sponsored overthrow is fun to examine because the media has already pushed the idea of HRC being one of three ladies who pushed the humanitarian revolution in Libya on President Obama. The before and after would be a great damning indictment of the entire way we perform foreign policy, and what are our “goals”. I distinctly dislike the use of the term “neocon” often thrown around the alt right, and prefer David Stockman’s “War Party”. Our military industrial complex (and now military technological complex), donates to both sides of the aisle, and works with politicians of the humanitarian persuasion and the US muscle persuasion. It is a blend of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Before and after with Libya is horrific in virtually every regard and measure. They cannot even export oil with regularity, and come on, isn’t that what the Middle East is about? This is why HRC’s emails would be wonderful to have. The Pentagon has leaked she was a bit off kilter in pushing war there when diplomatic negotiations were ongoing, so what else is there? Who else was pushing her to push this? Where does the real power lay to push our government officials along?

To take a contrarian view, what if the entire set up is for the media to destroy Clinton and slide in the more reliably leftist candidate for president? Clintons will make deals for themselves, and not the left. Bill Clinton spent the '96 political season signing whatever the GOP congress slid in front of him to kneecap Bob Dole. It worked. Maybe the power interests that truly control the left know they have a headless horseman voting coalition that will win with anyone at the top in presidential years, so they want a more trustworthy lefty in charge. HRC does not look good in this, and each time she steps in front of a microphone defending herself and fielding questions on the fly, it is an opportunity for her to look *old* shaken, *old* confused, *old* and wobbly. Not 3am material. This is the HDTV election era. Vox and other harder lefty press organs are already begging for Al Gore and Liz Warren. 

We will get the trumped up concerns from Fox and other center-right publications about Hillary’s email shenanigans as a knock on her behavior, implying a character unfit for the president. They will avoid the idea that someone so gung-ho for overthrowing Gadaffy should not be anywhere near the Oval Office. Yes, this is the left’s great hope for 2016, but the right aligned or friendly media, while limited, can look beyond erased emails to consider the bigger picture. If people who supported the Iraq invasion can be disqualified, something similar should happen with the foreign policy team of 2009-today. If these politicians are reluctant fighters and shucks, do things they do not want to, who or what are the interests whispering into their ears? Evaluate the system. We will not get that though. Neoliberalism loves globalization for the free flow of capital and goods. Each trade deal and each factory built in a foreign country becomes a reason to care about who is running that county. Pull more countries into the core and one now has more countries to be responsible for and nudge in the proper direction.

Sunday, March 29, 2015

Our Media Cannot Cover Long Stories

Being the regime's propaganda wing, it is easy to poke fun at them and skewer them for their leftist bent. Every move to the Overton Window is to the left, and the media is constantly pushing the edge of reasonable. The Narrative has become so obvious that even the normies are catching on, and the Internet provides some pushback. Awareness that the media is stoking a low level, 4 sided race war is catching on. This criticism could be fixed by replacing people within the media infrastructure. A problem unspoken is the actual infrastructure and mechanics of the media. Lost in the criticism of our media's political bias problem is that the media is horrible with long, slow stories.

This is a bit of a chicken and egg problem as American attention spans have decreased to eight seconds today. This is down from 13 seconds in 2000, and much longer in decades long gone. Is this a function of the media itself? Most likely. Watch different trailers for "The Wizard of Oz" and watch how many cuts there are in each trailer depending on the decade. The older the trailer, the fewer cuts. Americans have most likely been conditioned in this manner as attention spans dropping that quickly is not a function of genetics. Are the news outlets just creating product that meets an ADD customer base's demands? True, but they do not have to cater to our worst traits.

Forcing news media to be a profit center is a problem, too. Many news media entities have cut back their field force, print decided to compete with television over sizzle and not entrench as long form and deep analysis, and the Internet has made everyone drive for "first!!!". The consolidation of media is a product of the cheap money era as six firms control 90% of media properties. The incestuous nature of media is heightened when one consider Viacom was a spin-off of CBS. The government gladly protects us from monopoly, but no one ever fusses about oligopolies. They are all ideologically related entities, with even Murdoch's network of properties keep in line with the big ideas, so final goals from a propaganda standpoint are in sync. The problem for them becomes who rakes in the most cash.

The drive for clicks has turned most Internet media properties into clickbait sites. This will push sensationalism, tantalizing headlines for empty stories and sex appeal for clicks. It does not have to be this way because even within the clickbait culture one could see how you could make a writer a long story assignment employee. Colin Gorenstein, assistant editor of Internet and viral content at Salon, spends his life covering the Jon Stewart beat and other pop culture things that always frame the right as dumb and bad. There is nothing Internet or viral about the pieces of pop culture from NBC and Comedy Central he turns into political point scoring. Re-assign him on a long, slow story, and he can become the Fukushima guy or financial crisis wreckage guy? Not as much money in it? All clickbait now. Guys like Gorenstein probably spend extra on the hookers they abuse to make up for feeling horrible about their careers (wait, that's a lefty stereotype of evil, white businessmen), so why not give them something real to cover and a shot at a Pulitzer? Gorenstein is an example, because there is the Neil Degrasse Tyson clickbait curator, the chickbait curator, and on and on.

Our media is fantastic at propaganda and generating emotion, especially when molding voters. An editor at Newsweek in 2004 said the media would be worth possibly 15 points for the Kerry-Edwards ticket. They accomplish this by the bombarding of the audience from virtually all angles and outlets with coordinated messages. Their power is immense for how quickly they can gin up the masses into hating ISIS, then drop that idea entirely, get them to hate a domestic opponent meant to be a bad guy (Chris Christie for example), and jump from subject to subject. Now they are most likely wrong on these subjects and proven to either falsify "facts" or edit things to massage the public, but the media never suffers consequences (Zimmerman, UVA call your lawyers). This falls short when topics are more complex and involve far more items than "A helps/hurts B". The media will cover a terrible car crash perfectly, and that subject is suited for their over the top yellow print skills. How American infrastructure policy created messy commutes and why it is crumbling is kryptonite for them. This is where their talents fail us, and where we need a proper media the most.

Examples of these types of long, slow topics are Fukushima, the financial crisis and new great depression and Libya. The Fukushima nuclear reactor problem was all over the news when it first happened but discarded once the immediate danger of meltdown was averted. Dumb Germans decided to shut down their nukes in response to never let a global crisis go to waste, but where was the follow up? This accident had a longer reach for consequences and effects. Is everything settled? Did the Japanese lie to everyone immediately after the issue and are they lying about anything now? What dangers are there to the Japanese shore, the western edge of the Pacific or even the greater Pacific? I do not know. It was a calamity that got junked pretty quickly. The argument cannot be that it would have few viewers. I've seen nightly news ratings; they cannot go much lower. Resources could be devoted to this.

Dismissing this as a Japanese story has some merit. For an American centric story, what of the American financial crisis or Libya? George Packer's 2013 book The Unwinding is an interesting oral history of sorts about the changes in America, but really handles the financial crisis and great recession well. First, our media cannot call this a Depression because a Democrat is in charge, but that is not my point. Packer weaves tales of normal people facing decline and economic shock well. He also includes snippets about big money celebrities and figures who are living a world apart. People forget the '30s had the Depression and experienced a high water mark for luxury automobiles. The media covered the shock of 2008 well, politics has it covering up the stagnation, but we cannot get follow ups on why no Wall Streeters have gone to jail, why no structural reform has taken place, why the biggest banks are still in place and not broken up, and why we are doomed to repeat 2008 again. The media takes a moment for what is politically useful to the Narrative, but does not waste even 3 minutes at the end of a nightly newscast to day after day document the new normal. I like to focus on the long anti-dollar moves because a change in the dollar's status could create a huge drop in living standards quickly. This is virtually off the map in the mainstream media.

Libya might even be worse because the moronic Fox News has not figured out they could use Libya as a whole to submarine Hillary Clinton. Forget Benghazi you idiots for one second, and just look around at Libya today. That nation disintegrated and is in anarchy now. Politics prevents the mainstream media from pointing out Libya's descent into chaos because it hurts their team, but where is the weekly update on what is going on there? A constant stream of reports on Libya would have put 90% of Americans against any Syrian shenanigans. Benghazi emails are small potatoes compared to the simple question, "Why did we go there in the first place?" From that question begins debates of use of force, how the US State department manipulated everyone, Gadaffy Libya vs. post-Gadaffy Libya, limits to intervention, Empire and everything else. Could people see American foreign policy for what it is and quicker with those debates? Yes. Might change enlistment rates from those flyover states.

The media is sovereign, and if not, the most powerful piece of the puzzle. Regardless, they are the regime's outlet so they must run PR for them. They protect who they want to because they have the ultimate weapon and Constitutional protection. These long, slow stories are the bigger stories that spotlighting, debating and discussing would lead to a better analysis of our overall system and possible changes. We do not get this. We avoid a politician erasing four years of emails after a Congressional subpoena because in the same week some Midwestern governor signed a bill that can be framed as so horrible and mean to gays. The media has their motivation... Get mad at that. Don't get mad at our next puppet. We need you to support her. She does what we want, and pushes our needs, and pay no attention to the smoldering ruins of what we wanted in North Africa. Libya, why would we bring that up? "We came, we saw, he died." End of story... Move along...

Thursday, March 26, 2015

Don't Put The Dogsitter on a Pedestal

I have a friend who calls once a week. He was a good college friend who has become a great friend despite living far apart. Football season is text season, where our texting is like a 140 character limit color commentary for games. Other than that our phone calls revolve around sports, history, books, geopolitics and women. Last month, he brought up those annoying but wonderfully buxom Snorg Tees models on the web. His favorite was the brunette that will need a breast reduction in a few years when her back starts to give. We laughed about the idea of getting into modeling and the work you get is “use your jugs to sell snarky, nerd shirts”. As he put it, “Whatever happens to these women?”

Mark's Favorite
They get pedastalized by the thirsty men of the Internet out there. It’s like being famous to 15 minutes worth of people. These guys are not pathetic like Tumblr guys who buy things off the Amazon wish lists of Tumblr girls that post nudes. They are your regular guy who digs a model and maybe gets weird about it. Guys, men, please, remember they look great in front of the camera, and yes, there are plenty of women out there that look like them, but they might just be a dog sitter, or a housesitter, or a babysitter. Yes, that house sitter was the redhead Snorg Tees girl. Redhead sexiness is inversely correlated to the number of freckles they have. If you don't recall her quirky ad pics on Zero Hedge, these may jolt your memory.

Key to sexy gingers is no freckles

So quirky and nerdy, look at that nerd shirt!

Weird. I have not seen her anywhere else since. Must just be house sitting in the Miami area. With how pale she is, she must use SPF 100 to not burst into flames.

Pretty girl when not wearing nerd shirts

Don't care if they're real, they look spectacular

This is my blog, of course I'd have all angles covered.

Have a great weekend.

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Be a Pot Friendly Banker to Corner a Market

Colorado is seeing plenty of marijuana sell through the new legal dispensaries. The media trumpets all the money pouring into the schools. See kids, sin taxes and condoning drugs are okay as along as the money is doled out by the progressive government for schools. Someone has to make sure the weed stores are meeting government approved rules and regulations. Tough thing for the stores are the banking handcuffs they are in per the federal government and the stigma of doing business with these stores. In an age where monopolies yield huge earnings, someone should corner the weed banking market.

Right now legal weed stores have limited banking options. The banks that operate in multiple states want to stay away because of the crossing state lines and incurring federal wrath. Other banks are just nervous because of the old stigma of doing business with “those kind of people”. Some stores have found small credit unions that will work with them. The state of Colorado tried to help by setting up a pot bank co-op, but the feds never came through with approval. The stores have tons of cash for their transactions so the cash management becomes an issue. Banks give a fake concern over the extra problem of handling such large amounts of cash. It is a fake concern because on a weekly basis, it’s no more cash than what an armed guard could take care of with a truck. The real concern is the Feds shutting it all down. What do the stores do now for payments and bigger transactions? They use certified checks and money orders for everything. Every single vendor, whether goods supplier or services vendor, they have they use a certified check or money order. My company passed on doing business with them due to this.

The longer Colorado goes without any major crime flare up, the longer the stores stay in operation and have no “THEY SOLD IT TO KIDS” headlines, the more concrete the stores existence will be. The Feds could end this all quickly, sure, but without a massive media campaign about its dangers, they will look awful. It would be hard to raid stores as well as the left is pushing marijuana legalization virtually everywhere. Why? It’s a get out the vote scheme for battleground states. It also is a nice soothing thing for the peasants as they get screwed over more and more. The viability of the pot stores is there, so why not corner the market and open a compliant bank that is heavy of the pot store business? One could build an in-state monopoly and mint a fortune.

There is a problem with every safeguard we put in for banks that started way back in the 1930s. Glass-Steagall was nice for separating banking (or so would FDR's financial backers have me believe), but I am talking about the FDIC. Once everyone knew their deposits were covered by government insurance, the individual customer had nothing to chase but yields for savings and rates for loans. The ideas of a bank’s stability, trustworthiness and history as a factor in the competition for customers were thrown out the window. Banks did not have to compete on intangibles, so they had to be cutthroat on the hard numbers. Follow this through, and of course bigger banks were going to gobble up smaller banks due to cost advantages they enjoyed and to pick up market share before the other big guy. This is why we are where we are and why the big banks dove head first into derivatives, but that is the subject for another post.

By dealing with a tougher industry that everyone else is shying away from, a bank could suddenly have a moat for their business. Their underwriters on loans could charge these weed stores higher rates. They can play hardball with these stores on fees and other items, all the while playing normal bank to their other customers. No money laundering required, these stores just need simple business services and easy records for tax purposes. This is why it is staggering that no small, Colorado bank has made the leap to try to do this. Bank consolidation has probably eliminated many small Colorado banks, but still, why not start one up? A bank would not have to turn weed stores into 90% of their clientele, but even a 50% number would allow for fatter profit margins. There would be higher costs to doing business due to the security precautions for dealing with all of that cash, plus there is the regulatory risk.

This is America, and I am shocked no one has tried this. Maybe we have sucked all the entrepreneurial spirit out of competent people by making them so scared of the Litigation Hostage System. Countless financial service firms will focus on specific industries that others do not touch or are cautious about because of this same phenomenon. Some insurance firms turn attorneys, doctors or even municipalities into 15%-40% of their business because no one else wants to deal with them. Several years back, Sun Life bought a bloc of physician only insurance business from a firm that solely dealt with doctors. Sun Life had no expertise with medical risk, and wanted to grow their doctor bloc but were afraid of a slow growth plan hurting their overall bloc. By buying the bloc, they suddenly picked up expertise in dealing with physicians so they could then organically grow that sector. Now marijuana legislation will pick up steam with the help of the progressive steamroller. Build up your little bank that specializes in weed stores. You will make plenty of money. When the day comes where the Feds re-schedule marijuana, JPMorganChase will come knocking on your door with an attractive offer to buy your book of business.

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

The Modern World, Boomers and Hockey

When an athlete writes a book, it can be horrendous. Even when the book is written by someone else, it can read like a twelve year old decided to sit down and tell you their life. Considering modern athletes, this might not be far from the truth. I recently read one sports memoir due to a recommendation of a reformed and rehabbed alcoholic, and it reminded me of another great sports book due to its specific sport: hockey. These books are a bit dated as the athlete-writers were playing decades ago, but if anything, they are great windows into the massive change in our post-'68 culture and the monetization of sports. These are sports guy books, but check out The Game by Ken Dryden and Crossing the Line by Derek Sanderson.

The Game was written by Ken Dryden as he retired from playing goalie for the Montreal Canadiens. It is the best book written by an athlete. Dryden is also one of the few athletes to be the best at his position and one of the best ever and also an Ivy Leaguer with a law degree, which might explain the book's quality. Dryden does a good job of explaining the road grind, simple "being a goalie" during a game, money, the media, what hockey means to Canadians and what it takes to win. A couple of things stand out. The Summit Series was a special event orchestrated by the Canadians and Soviets for a series of friendlies. It was best against best, and with Canada's creation of hockey as a sport, tons of national pride was on the line. Dryden builds up the significance by discussing growing up in Canada where hockey is "the game". Nothing else comes close. It is weird to think of national pride being wrapped up in a game, but it makes the players' behavior during the series have much more meaning. 


Dryden's other great bit was on endorsements and the media. Dryden did one endorsement and did not like it. He did not do others. He also mentions how easy it is to manipulate the media to earn a reputation and sway coverage. Mention a couple books you've read and they think you're a scholar. Mention doing some charity work, and they'll say you've got a great heart. Little tidbits to reporters could mold the entire sports' view of you for a lifetime. His one giant miss is at the end; he does not see how player salaries and revenues can keep rising for the sport. Dryden realized what flim-flam professional sports was/is, but he did not see how marketing could tap into the national identity and obsession of hockey to build it bigger. Television, especially cable television, and Gretzky changed everything. The Game is a good read.

The book I recently finished, which reminded me of The Game, was Crossing the Line by Derek Sanderson. This is not as well written. Is Sanderson a colorful character who is entertaining as hell? Yes. This reads like your buddy from high school making the NHL. Sanderson is also a recovering alcoholic. He pulls no punches and does not blame his childhood, parents or anything else. He is honest about his drinking, drugging and being an all around douchebag that threw away a career. Sanderson eventually gets to his rock bottom. He goes the Christian route for recovery, so there is a thread of Christianity throughout the book. Similar to Dryden's book, Sanderson explains how hockey means so much to Canadians. It is thoroughly weird. This is beyond Brazil and soccer since they did not invent it, nor is it England and soccer since England has other passions and once ruled the world. Canada's identity seems to be two items: "not America" and "hockey". 


Sanderson's great nugget though is on the changes in broader society showing up on the team. Sanderson started with the Bruins in '68. He was different than the older guys. Gone were the crew cut, blazer wearing, professional look of players. Sanderson brought "style". It was change but Sanderson never stops to ask if it was good. His horrific journey was the outcome of that change and the ascendancy of the sex and drug infused culture of the post-'68 West. His teammate, and legend, Bobby Orr was two years younger than him but played by the rules and dressed appropriately. You can guess who saves who later in life. Sanderson is a Boomer through and through, so while he is a wild child, NHL original, he is just another Boomer who screwed a lot of people but hey, he's cleaned up and okay now. All is forgiven, right? I was funny, right? It is an entertaining, easy read. It is good for an airplane flight and layover in an airport terminal.

Besides Orr, these two athlete-authors, Dryden and Sanderson, are two Boomers. They both came from two parent homes. They both had parents who encouraged their hockey careers from an early stage. They both played on championship teams and enjoyed great success. Sanderson made serious bank as did Dryden, but Sanderson gave into the temptations around him at every turn. Dryden did not. This is something those Boomers who have wrecked their loved ones lives or even just burdened them do not understand. It is great when someone cleans up, but why did you have to do it in the first place? In Sanderson, and many others', instance, why did you have to throw away second and third chances? Why could you not think beyond yourself? As much as the Boomers dislike the "Me Generation" label, it fits so well. Genes do come into play, but so does the broader framework of society. Like hockey, you set up the rules with penalties, goals, and zones. Our permissiveness and liberalization might have been okay for people with amazing self control and discipline, but it is not for everyone. We see this everywhere. Even the people who embody the negative consequences of the great unraveling are blind to it. Like many other Boomers, Sanderson could never admit that he was miserable because he was free.

Monday, March 23, 2015

Carving an Exit - Apply NYC Co-op Rules Elsewhere

"Honey, the neighborhoods in Avon are a mix of newer construction and some older neighborhoods with good finishing touches."

"What about the schools?"

"It's a closer commute for you, and we can get more for our dollar."

>Checks website< "Schools are 90% white, mix of everything else for the remainder. Ha! Almost as many Asian-white mixed kids as black-white. Maybe this will work."

"No private schools. See! Let's do it."

"You forgot one last check... the NY Times 2010 census maps with race filters on and 2010 to 2000 comparison percentages."

"Dammit!"

"You almost talked me into that one."

Seriously, for being a race of horrible, evil backwoods morons who appropriate everything, whites sure do attract non-whites to their schools. In Indianapolis, the devolution has been: "Well the IPS schools went bad, but we can escape to Lawrence and Washington Township schools. Oh well, now Lawrence is bad, and my kids might not graduate from North Central in Washington Township, but there is always Fishers. Oooh yeah, let's move to Fishers for the good schools!" Blacks will always always follow, no matter how often the newspapers invoke the legacy of the Klan in Indiana. How could you stop this? How does New York City stop it? Start treating your developments like housing co-ops, and craft your suburb or exurb appropriately to defend your territory.

This sounds like going overboard, brah, why go to such a length? Because housing developments in our current era have a giant, exploitable hole. We live in the democratization of credit era. Your home that you bought in 1990 with an 8.5% mortgage, 20% down payment and strict underwriting rules can be bought with a 4% mortgage, 0% down and anything goes. Forget federal rules for housing diversity, the simple use of credit and the ever lowering of underwriting standards broke down any barrier money may have formed. One would need an incredibly tight market like an island (hmm, Manhattan is an island), harassing cops, maybe a history of racist, tough whites and zoning laws like those used liberally by blue states to keep the tide at bay. You have to practically have an area that is 50% above the media average home in your state to create a super zip. Homeowner association fees are partly a protection against this, but leverage just makes it a slightly higher hurdle to jump.

I use Indiana as a backdrop since it is where I live, but I already know Fishers will have problems within 25 years unless they find a way to jack up housing prices and block apartment building development. Carmel should be okay since it is so expensive in relation, but you never can be sure. Fishers growth is all in the last 20 years, with an order of magnitude population jump from 1995 to 2005. Fishers development was haywire with developments thrown up non-stop with strip malls to follow. This was developer heaven as all they had to buy was buy up farmland with easy money and promise "good schools, safe schools, 2400 square feet for less than Marion County". This is churn and burn work. Put the development up fast, sell the lots, and move on to the next one with cheap money. This is not for longevity.

A longer term view would go the co-op route. Co-ops in New York City are notoriously picky about who moves into their buildings. They pick you. You buy in. They can set the requirements they want. They do not have to give reasons for declining you. President Nixon was rejected by a co-op. It could be an easy switch to move the legal and contractual mechanics of a an apartment building to a development. The key is an owner who would incorporate and be invested for the long haul. The potential buyers would have to be invested for the community for a long term time horizon, not simple "home is an investment" thinking. This is why this co-op idea would be a winner though as the suburbs and family living are suited for the long term.

People wanting to buy for the school system, safe neighborhood and for their children's future are the kind of people you could talk into this idea. People might decry the lack of individuality one may have with their home per whatever rules, but look around you fools at the Edward Scissorhands suburbs you are in. People do buy into HOA developments often, so this is just taking another step. The time to start this idea would be an exurb or suburb in the making. Not an "on the boom" now location. It must be the "next" one people will flee to, because you'd have to get in with the small town's council to set this up, and to set this up with every other developer that shows plans for that town. One would have to pitch it to the natives and old timers of that community. A pitch could even be, "do you want your town strip malled and overgrown only to be destroyed by the dark tide that follows?"

One would have to be cautious and careful with this, but if the oddity that is the co-op declination system can work in NYC, it should work elsewhere. There will always be complaints, but give enough realtors incentives (cash in envelopes), and they will steer the wrong home buyers to other areas. One could even conjure up the weirdest conspiracy theories because certain, ahem, communities are prone to believing the wildest urban legends. Keep acceptance numbers slightly below regional demographic representation, a few donations to the UNCF and there will always be plausible deniability. That deniability is key because if the sovereign media did take a flashlight to your system, wouldn't they have to evaluate and scrutinize the long standing tradition of co-ops in NYC? Copying NYC behavior might as well be a deflector shield because they cannot have their precious system changed. The USG system is failing, start carving enclaves from within.

Sunday, March 22, 2015

Carving an Exit - A Thede Union

The search now is for exit. We realize our voice is meaningless because our donations are not in the millions, so exit is what we seek. Not just the few who read this but widespread. I run into more and more people, Gen-X and Millenials who want to unplug. Not go off the grid, but they want to be able to escape the broken down circus that is America. It is the old Howard Beale desire from Network of just leave me alone. These are not dummies nor are they totally traditional anti-poz fighters. It is a circle of people just aware that all is not right in America as Weimerica grows uglier by the month. How do you give someone an exit? Here is my wonky idea at an attempt. 


A Thede Union


I have not figured out a name, and what I am dreaming up I do not think has a name. I will leave that to the marketing department. Please pick this idea apart. Only through constructive criticism can an odd idea be made better. What I envision is this: a nonprofit charity crossed with an REIT crossed with a union crossed with a universal basic income (UBI). 

Mechanics of the idea is a pool of capital used for real estate investment to generate income. Nothing flashy, simply seeking decent cap-ex rates of return. Primary concern is on safety of capital, not reaching for yield. Now an REIT has shares one purchases to receive disbursements and the distributions must be 90% of the earnings. Our version of REIT distributions would be sent to Thede Union members. By being a nonprofit charity, we could dodge a taxation issue for the organization as well as "hide" motives. Every year, the members get their UBI. Basically this is a charity with massive real estate holdings that distributes proceeds to it's members who are designated as recipients of charity. 

Our thede. Not their thede. Strict enforcement of who is let in. I envision the covenants that go into co-ops in NYC or possibly setting it up like annual, renewable grants. Signing up for the thede union is not simple signing the paperwork, one must read it and live it. Like any union, their are duties one would have to satisfy to receive benefits. Hell, if some union members wanted to make an election in December not to receive their UBI but to reinvest it into the charity, we could do that. Think of the thede. How often do parents complain about "safe" things for entertainment for their kids? Couldn't some thede members curate or create thede reinforcing books, essays and whatnot for consumption by others in the thede. How many in the thede homeschool? Could you provide home schooling materials, essays, research, whatnot that we could distribute for use by the thede or even for "non-whig history". I am talking small numbers, so why not consider the non-financial support for a thede member expecting a child? Can you cook? We could figure out what we need and call upon different thede members like the Godfather. Could we bump thede members additional UBI if they do things we consider positive, like having a kid, marriage, work within the group or even outside the group? I'm brainstorming here, but consider the idea of building a society that is quasi-outside society. 

Nancy Pelosi once said something that touches on why this Thede Union UBI could build outside while destroying the current system. Nancy Pelosi gave a rationale for health care reform of (paraphrased), "think of how many more artists we could have without worry of health care". Now conservakin made fun of the frozen faced witch, but she was getting at kernel of truth in the modern trap. How many Americans work a job they don't want or are improperly used because they need health care? Pelosi could have rephrased it to, "No one should have to work a crummy job they don't want just for health care," and a lot of people would have clapped, nodded their heads, andagreed. She used the artist thing because that's the SWPLs dream. A UBI works similar for our thede in a few ways. "No one should have to work a sh*tty job just to exist in a safe space in crumbling America." I'm just going to number a bunch of ways I could see this helping.. 

1. Even if it is small, it could supplement or cover child care if you went that route.
2. If a woman wanted to take years off to stay home with the kids, the UBI gives a cushion for the financial calculation part of that decision. "Gee honey we save by not paying for day care and the UBI makes up for some of my lost income!"
3. If the UBI was even 5K per year, what does the gap between having a BA and not having a BA shrink down to? Maybe more people go into trades rather than college if they know they'll get an extra 5K a year and NOT have college debt. Added bonus is fewer people go into the college indoctrination system. We could keep our thede away from progressive poisoning. Starve the university dragon to death.
4. This would kind of act like insurance in the event of unpersoning by the SJWs. it isn't going to make up for a 100K salary, but a blue collar worker making 20-35K annually would have some security with a 5K annual UBI.
5. This UBI allows for people to rearrange their work schedules. What if 20 hours a week to The Man is all you want as you build a life outside the system. Stop chasing shekels! Life is more than economics. "I am not a number, I am a free man!"
6. Live in a great area that has crummy schools because the apartment buildings 3 miles away that are stuffed with the underclass and UN refugees? I bet that 5K UBI would help tremendously for making a decision on should we stay and go private schools or should we sell and bug out.
7. If you were starting a business, you could operate at a slight loss because the UBI would subsidize you.


Does it end there? No it doesn't have to. The current regime's system has created a mess of things, and we can find loopholes to build around it. Here's something that the homosexuals have helped us with in this instance that they never intended. The gays and their straight enablers have barked up a storm for marriage. Well, this is because they did not realize how a government marriage is all they were getting. What does a government marriage get you? You would be shocked to find out how many health care, financial and other institutions are open to domestic partners and other beneficiary designations. What does government marriage get you gays? It gets you access to family court. Gays now go through that ringer. What if the Thede Union had provisions for its married members? What if a marriage of thede members getting a UBI had some financial disincentives for the ones who break the covenant? What if you could avoid government marriage, get married in the Thede Union for the UBI bonus, and a divorce wouldn't have government meddling since it was not a government marriage. You would subject your divorce assessment to the Thede arbitration unit. This wouldn't be insanity. The current system is insanity, and everyone but whorrible women know it is broken (deliberate misspelling). We do not have to have a perfect system, but we could easily divide property in a reasonable fashion appealing to many. You can still get the frivolous divorce, but you now do not get your UBI anymore. I hear our Thede has some lawyers, and their services to the Union would be a part of collecting their UBI. An actual easier leap would be to set up a Thede bank outside the FDIC/Federal Reserve system along Austrian lines or at a minimum a Thede life insurance policy so no one would be unable to pay for a proper burial. Let's stick to just the UBI though for this idea before I go off too far.

Our Thede actually has a really good core basis for setting this up. You'd be shocked how much the real estate bubble missed red states and flyover country. The cathedral's eye would not be as aware of quiet, small moves. I would not limit this purely to turning a REIT based on rental properties, but it'd be a base, but what about Timber land holdings? Farmland is a different matter, and I'd avoid. You could use a little leverage at the near zero rates to expand the base quickly. The red state zones offer great ROI for starting up, plus the leech possibilities on the current system. Instead of the parasites sucking out money from us, which will happen regardless, why not explicitly target real estate holdings that have section 8 tenants? The transfer of wealth would be from all US taxpayers, Asian-Oil-FED lending to our Thede through the conduit of section 8. The underclass becomes a financial conduit for our Thede Union. Bwahaha, maniacal laughter as we find a way to use the underclass against the system for our group. That is roughly what McDonald's is now, so why not do it for us? 

Now the world is still going to go on around you. You will interact with it and live your life. We're just trying to divorce you from the addiction of the monthly paycheck to stay in their system. If the progs have spent decades now destroying any institution that could create competing bonds like the family, the churchs, the private clubs, then why not create a competing bond that is more aligned with our thede's interest so it takes care of the asabiyah issue while providing a bit of financial replacement for their system. Here is another item why I walk down the charity route. President Nixon and Daniel Patrick Moynihan saw the value of a UBI. Part of it was reducing costs and sending a higher percentage of every government dollar to the recipient. Another part of it was doing away with the corrosive social workers who did more to enable the underclass or push borderline people into the underclass to secure their jobs. How separate from the underclass are the middle to upper middle class donors from it? This is like the old mutual aid societies of yore.


This is a changing piece to charity in society. Scale has allowed charity to be removed from church and community to large corporations that are umbrellas for the wide reaching social workers. That divide mentality has only grown, and now how do you fell about charities? They are all pozzed. Every single "Day of Caring" that my company does with the United Way turns off a few volunteers from ever donating money again. Once you see who is getting it or where it is going, you get a bit disturbed. My division moved away from toys at Christmas for the needy to simply food drives. If I can set it up as a real estate holding CHARITY that acts like a union, suddenly those of the thede who might feel the drive to give to those less fortunate have an outlet. It is an outlet that would be tax free to the IRS. It is an outlet that they would know their money is going to their people. Once again, using the system's loopholes to build a program to help people get outside their system.

Part of this dawned on me while researching Nixon's UBI attempt. Another part was learning the money mechanics of a mega-non-denominational church in Indiana. The foundation of their funding was a core of five, wealthy families. That is all. The church grew rapidly and into a massive community. The physical structure was giant, and they had a lot of programs for their community. The church borrowed money, thinking more and bigger would placate their egos honor God. Didn't work out, and now they are reshuffling things and going through a massive transition. It dawned on me. Why the hell didn't those five families keep things simple and small, but consider massive charitable outreach to their church members to help them along, especially after the financial crisis? Jesus wants big screen plasmas with the sing along words scrolling, not charity to your neighbor. Why not be a security net to help their community through that time and hopefully stay on the straight and narrow? It got me thinking: why the hell doesn't someone figure out how to do this?

I know this sounds a bit odd and pie in the sky, but so is hoping for secession. I am trying to think differently for an exit. You only lost your time or might have strained your eyes rolling them at the idea if you made it this far. I am trying to find an economic escape, which is basically all that is holding the US together, with a ethnic component relating to the thede. This all goes back to my view that Christianity provided an exit and some voice for Roman subjects from the dying, corrupt empire. The early Church carved out enclaves for people by providing them basic food, some care and a sense of community and voice within their community that they could not find in Rome. It offered a chance to build something worthy of their hopes as well as picking good parts of their past. Christian patches sprouted within the Empire early on, and built a viable community that could not only survive but swallow the dying Empire. In the end, the foundations of said patchwork formed what sprouted across Europe. I'm not saying this is a huge idea that could rebuild Western Civilization. I'm not that ambitious with this as I know the parts that build it but have not figured out exactly what it is. I'm just trying to find you an exit. 

Thursday, March 19, 2015

Promise and Reality of Immigration

Immigration in two pictures.

Sexy enough for any man to want, wearing a cowboy hat because she wants to assimilate, and the beach beckons us all on the Golden Coast.
The Promise

Santa Muerte, an even odder Catholicism than the Irish, and not really caring about assimilating because the television told them not to bother.

Reality

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Documentary Review - Fed Up

What are the SWPLs watching on Netflix? It’s now a matter of time at any SWPL party before someone brings up the “d” word: documentary. I will admit the Hogocaust scene in a food documentary had me spooked out for weeks, and I will honor the pigs that die in gas chambers by eating bacon. I am not going to go full SWPL, and build a party small talk persona around watching one life changing documentary. My wife saw a preview for “Fed Up”, and was intrigued by the idea. It was one of those documentaries on food and obesity. Would it go the whole way and lay much of the problem at government policies? Sort of, but the quality production values are the cue that no way will deeper problems be touched.

The documentary is narrated by Katie Couric and has interviewees like Michael Bloomberg and Bill Clinton. There is no way that a documentary with that star power is upsetting the apple cart. This documentary does tackle some obvious villains like food industry lobbyists, capitalism and grrr, bought off, corrupt physicians. My God! Sugar is the big villain here, which is a good thing. The documentary follows three teens who are obese and their struggles. A fat white guy who has two thin siblings. A fat white girl who looks like she has a deeper disorder since her face looks like she is in pain and misshapen, and a fat black kid with the voice of a 60 year old man. We’re not told the whole story about them or shown it because something seems up. There’s just a few too many steps one could take that the documentary will not do. This is standard Narrative talk with a focus on sugar being the bad guy.

One problem they dance around is carbohydrates. The doc mentions how guidelines were manipulated to not talk about scaling back eating, but I was alive in the ‘80s and ‘90s and remember the “reduce red meat” propaganda. Beef lobbyists fought that one but lost. If the documentary wants to say the government did not recommend that or set the tone, okay, but we know the media did, and well, it's more proof that the media is sovereign. The film has a speaker who states that the carbs in cereal get turned right into sugar by the digestive system yet the documentary does not them follow the line for the major shift in dietary guidelines starting in the ‘80s. They show the food pyramid but do not fill it in because if they did, they’d show you a diet based on more and more carbs. Those fat teens dieting looked to be scarfing down carb heavy foods on film. Sure, it is “healthy” to normies who buy the standard dietary narrative. This documentary had Gary Taubes as an interviewee, yet did not let him hammer home the point on fat and protein that he is being vindicated on with new research. This film is not going there because the progressive blessed food guidelines would be shown as a sham, and then, what else that they say is a sham?

Some other problems that the documentary would never ever touch are our national mental crack up, scale and our political system. We cannot touch on the emptiness of modern life in drug documentaries, did anyone think this one would tackle it with food? I've spoken to gastric bypass patients, and their descriptions of the dessert they miss the most sound like a heroin addict describing the rush. The sheer scale of “America” the entity makes these kinds of problems practically unsolvable. The documentary kept harping on how big food chains and fast food has entered our school systems. Well, what kind of tight budgeting are school systems facing and who is going to be the low cost provider? Keep ratcheting up school spending elsewhere and there will be less for food. How weird is the importance of schools providing food? Did the documentary want to avoid the free lunch explosion in America? The problem of lobbyists and fiddling with national policy and guidelines is from the government getting into farming policy with FDR. Money only fiddles with government because government messes with the economy. Agricultural policy is what it is because people once needed the votes, and now the system can be used for looting and graft.

Is this documentary just another “Big Food is Big Evil” documentary? Yes. Humans have little agency, advertising destroys their decision making ability and this film follows the Supersize Me format of treating people as automatons who have no power. Katie Couric, Bill Clinton and Mike Bloomberg are not going to be involved in a probing documentary. Clinton even does his sad eyes, bite the lip, "I'm sorry" face when asked about '90s food policy. This is just enough to get people mad at Big Food and create an external villain, "sugar". There is something weird with one family eating the same but not everyone gets puffed out fat. Why not explore any genetic reason? Why not wonder if there is a biochemistry reaction to food that differs? Is there something in the food? While this documentary mentions multiple items, it really focuses on sugar as the bad guy we need to eliminate. "Attack sugar and it all gets better!" sounds like a retread of "Get rid of fat!". Our global obesity problem is a multivariable problem. No one solution will fit. Even if we had the solution or fixes, would our system allow them? While this documentary is a nice one to watch, it is frustrating for the two steps it takes rather than the ten steps it could.

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

The Far Left Isn't Setting Up a Michelle in 2016 Run

After the really weird press conference Hillary Clinton gave over her emails, more has come out. It is fun to hear the contradictions and whatnot, because cui bono? The rest of the left's drawer for 2016 is roadkill. The left right now is a headless horseman where they have the votes but no guiding figure ready to assume the mantle of leader. Vice President Biden thinks he can do it, but I am unsure. My money is on Senator Warren being "drafted" or Mike Bloomberg making a go of it. Word has come out that Obama svengali Val Jarrett was behind the email revelation. The Obamas and their interests must be behind this and it must be for a Michelle Obama run in 2016. No, no this is not the desired goal.

To give those thinkers some consideration, it makes sense to think this for a few reasons. The left's version of politician recruitment has become like the university system's affirmative action box checklist crossed with Hollywood marketing. Michelle Obama (Michelle) would be a minority and a woman for the presidency. She also has over a decade of publicity and name recognition. It is the shared Obama brand, similar to what Hillary is doing now. It would also secure that black turnout, which was the secret success behind Ohio and Florida in 2012. It will not happen. The few remaining elastic voters might call this a bridge too far, and the left would not want to risk a congressional and presidential wipeout as Ruth Ginsburg keeps getting closer to death.

Okay, but what about running for the Illinois US Senate seat in 2016 that looks to be a shoe in? This has more credence, but is highly unlikely. The Illinois state party would love this because it would help turnout and all races down ticket. The Democrat's Senate attack groups would not have to spend much money in Illinois and could focus their efforts on Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and the two races that will be the most fiercely fought over: New Hampshire and Nevada. It will not happen though, and the Dems will beat Senator Kirk with Bill Foster or Tammy Duckworth (most likely Duckworth).

Why wouldn't she run though? She does not really want it. She loves the glamour, money and trappings of power the White House has given them, and the post-Oval Office life will keep the monetary gravy train going. She will still have celebrity and influence afterwards, and who knows, Oprah is old. Maybe Michelle can take Oprah's spot in black culture. Perfect job for her. The other bit is that Barack Obama would most likely dissuade her from running. They can enjoy their riches without having to deal with DC. For all the talk of moving back to Hawaii, do not be surprised to see them move to New York.

The left is not going to willingly screw this up, so they will protect Hillary. This is Team Obama pettiness. Like all politicians, the cathedral will junk them and move onto pumping the new savior. Forget that the last one failed. This little email fracas will act just like Occupy Wall Street did. Remember when Obama's poll numbers were in the high 30s, and the left was thinking Hillary could primary him? When OWS folded like a tent, the media used it as it being Obama's primary (stop laughing). This can be the same a full year before the machine gets in motion. The left needs to secure the presidency and take back the Senate because of the Supreme Court. Sure, a Democrat replacing a dead or retired Justice Scalia, Kennedy or Thomas would be fantastic in the eyes of the media, but can you imagine the fake, media made constitutional crisis if President Walker was suddenly able to replace Justice Ginsburg with a 50-50 Senate? They will not let this happen.

Monday, March 16, 2015

Iran's Amazing Work

When writing yesterday on the weird, perfect window for Israel to strike Iran that is right now, I tipped my hat to Iran's work on the international stage. While I do not support their goals, I have praised the weird and masterful job the Iranians have pulled manipulating the good old USG. They have spent over 35 years on rogue nation footing, 15 years on an axis of evil and countless years demonized as the Middle East baddie #1, yet they are on the doorstep to a nuclear agreement that looks to be in their favor. I do think they have a nuclear program that has a goal of weapons. Sorry if it were just about energy, they would come clean and use only thorium. Part of the American problem is geopolitics, part is domestic politics and part is the likely capabilities of Iran's program now. Still, what a job by the Iranians.

America's Middle East strategy is what exactly? Anyone have an idea? Is it to reshape the map entirely? Are we trying to help our long time allies? is it just about pipelines and the petrodollar? I do not think anyone could say right now. Even more pathetic, we seem to be playing up to the Shia and disrespecting our Sunni allies. We have made our Zionist and petrodollar imperial bed, and we must lie in it. This outreach to Iran might make sense if we did not know our two biggest allies in the region, Israel and the Saudis, are incredibly mad and very attractive potential clients for Russia and China. Is USG trying to snag Iran as a blue empire client but forgetting the years they have been working with Russia and China? Does it come down to dragging a new big piece into the dollar system? Difference between Iran and the US, their mullahs run the show and just interchange front men. Our system has the State Dept at war with the Pentagon with their respective blue and red empires, and the party who sits in the White House makes a difference.

Our domestic politics plays into their hands. We have a lame duck president, looking for any item to tack onto his legacy. USG just reached out to the Castros. Because our political situation is so broken, bought and dysfunctional, focus and effort that could be spent on anything domestically is not going to happen as everything is dead on arrival. Obama and his cronies need this more than the Iranians do. The Iranians have been describing his team as desperate to get a deal done. This is despite Iranians having war games where they attack large naval vessels. This is a problem of limited term, democratic representative government. Short termism.

One thing I have found interesting recently is the weird turn of events where the left is treating this possible deal like the greatest thing in the history of negotiations that they will accept no matter what. The "#47Traitors" hashtag that was either organic or astroturf is comical to watch. It reveals the behavior on both sides have devolved to simple tribal affiliation. This is the same left that in 2002-2003 when Bush and company got the Iraq war going were crying, "Go after Iran, not Iraq", and crying that the Iranians had an active nuclear program unlike Saddam. The left spouting off on the rather weird GOP letter to Iran gives the Iranians cover they could never have expected looking at American opinion polls re: Iran since 2000. What a gift to the Iranian regime. What an indictment of our system.

These weak negotiations and the amazing work by the Iranians in the face of everything is incredible. Looking at the Wisconsin Project's data, Iran has kept capabilities at a level where they can assemble an actual bomb in short order but have not actually made a bomb. Smart play. The Wisconsin Project was not founded by an Israeli boot licker. These negotiations and agreements after the failed green revolution are more to make a situation as best as possible for the reality of Iran's capabilities. The Iranian nuke program is a fait accompli that the USG is trying to sell as palatable for the American public. Iran has played the hard to get hot chick for so long that they have fended off previous calls for bombing them whether American or Israeli. It looks like it will work for them. I just hope for the interests of America that the hard to get pretty girl at the bar is not just the work of smoke and club lighting.

Sunday, March 15, 2015

The Current Weird Perfect Window for Israel to Strike Iran

Before digging into this idea, I will preface this post with some statements to get the knee-jerk thinkers taken care of. I do not like nuclear proliferation especially in the age of 4th generation warfare. I do think Iran has a nuke program, and not just for energy, which is in their regime's interest. I do think Iran has played "the game" incredibly well. I do think Israel should be worried. I do think if they want to do something about it, they should. I do not think the US should help them. This is pure speculation from an amateur, but the time and circumstances feel set up for an Israeli strike on Iran's nuke facilities.

Here is how oil fits into everything. The economic recovery or slumpcovery handled $100/barrel oil for years after the '08 crash. The Saudis are the big culprit for the drop in oil as they keep pumping to hurt their opponents and get Assad out of Syria. It also hurts Iran, and it also sets the Israelis up well. With oil around $45-60/barrel, any major brouhaha in the Middle East would push oil prices back up to $80-100/barrel. What is a conflict there worth to oil's cost? A jump that high is a nearly 100% increase, and it just goes back to levels the economy handled just 6-9 months ago.

Yes, the big news last month was an accusation that the Obama administration said they would shoot Israeli jets out of the sky years ago if Israelis went after Iran's facilities. This is a repeat of a prior accusation from 2011-2012. The Obama admin also was accused of begging Netanyahu to not bomb Iran in 2012. These snakes deserve each other. The great thing about all of that public leaking, the Israelis can use Saudi airspace. It is a longer flight and would require a mid-air refueling, but it would avoid US interference. The Saudis hate the Iranians, and per Wikileaks always seem to be "willing to fight the Iranians to the last American". Now the Saudis can use Israelis for that work.

All of these leaks and this public bickering is perfect cover for an Israeli strike. The Iranians have stated that any attack by Israel they will lay at the feet of the Americans. This is a nice threat. Iranians can respond to an Israeli strike in a myriad of ways to make the USG nervous. Of course, an American response would cripple their oil infrastructure and probably lead to internal chaos. It may be a bluff, but if it is not, why not spend months bickering back and forth publicly to create plausible deniability. A strike actual improves the American negotiating position by setting the nuke program back, and creating a better alternative for Iran. Imagine new negotiations where the US says, "Develop along this path with nukes, and we'll guarantee no new strikes by those bad Israeli." Obama and his Democrat cronies dissing Netanyahu on his American visit is perfect theater. The entire left might welcome a strike and subsequent spike in oil prices, so they could blame any economic decline on that external event and not their post-'08 policies as they look to '16. Whatever terrible deal Obama is desperate to sign will most likely spur the Saudis to get a bomb. Nick Land has noted the Janus like spread of nuclear weapons, and it applies here, but not solely in a religious manner. Saudis are Arabs, Iranians are Persians, so it is not only religious differences of Shia-Sunni but tribal, blood differences.

It puts the onus back on Iran. Say the Israelis strike, using Saudi airspace, and the US condemns the strike. What does Iran do? Does it really attack America for an Israeli action that the US publicly disavowed? Here are some alternatives. Iran could simply close off the Straits of Hormuz. Draw the US into the region and then cause an eyeball to eyeball moment, which the USG might not want to risk thousands of sailors lives over. Iran could attack Saudi oil infrastructure. If they knock Saudi platforms offline, a counterattack on Iranian oil infrastructure might be too much for oil markets to handle, and we'd see $140/barrel oil. Does the US risk it? If they do not, those security agreements for decades look phony now. Iran could take an even safer route. Use those missiles on oil tankers. Just destroying some oil tankers would wreck insurance costs for international shipping, cause ecological damage and make the USG ponder those choice matrices a bit longer.

This is the perfect time and set up. I previously thought winter 2008 was perfect for similar reasons. Talks with Iran have a deadline at the end of March, and a new moon is around March 20th. The USG knows what the deal is shaping up to look like, so Israeli friendly elements in USG can whisper back, "You're screwed". The same necons going beserk on Russia with that peculiar ethnic flavor still have a hand in what comes down to their co-ethnics being threatened by Iran. I have a hard time thinking they just screw over Israel, even if the American Jews are blue state Jews and Israelis are red state Jews (as an analogy). I put weight in this ethnic coordination despite how many signs show that the Blue Empire is willing to upset and possibly junk two Red Empire clients for a potential new client in Iran. The extra comedy being that Russia and China have laid groundwork in Iran for decades now, and get dibs on anything of importance. The old Twin Pillars Middle East strategy employed by Nixon and Kissinger was difficult, and there is no way those two skilled players would have wanted either of those players to be toying with nuclear weapons.

This is the problem of empire. We avoid President Washington's advice for avoiding entangling affairs in Europe for a while but since WW2 have jumped into the worst den of backstabbers in the world: the Middle East. That region deserves each other, their common misery and violence that seems to go on without end. I just do not want the regional fights to be nuclear armed. Does this happen? Most likely no. A secret about Jews: you have to be firm and have a spine with them, then they usually back off their silly threats and hysterics. A business trick they often try is this: "Oh you won't do this huge exception for a shitty case I want which will pay me dearly, well I'll just write it elsewhere, we never do anything I want, oy vey, boohoo, we could make money." A proper response is to detail every exception they've received, stand firm on how no one will make money but them and then tell them you can't close every deal. Another trick is: "I'm just going to resign if X continues/you don't fire X/I don't get my way." A proper response is to let them know it is okay if they resign, but to do it tomorrow. Even after laying out why the situation is right for Israel, I do not think Israel will strike on Iran because they are cowards who just desperately want the US to do it.

Thursday, March 12, 2015

Grantland Joins the Porn Normalization Push

Grantland has really turned the progressive insanity up a notch. They sent Rembert down to Selma, and he got to talk with the President. They signal whenever possible with movies and television shows. They also avoided commenting on Michelle Rodriguez’s comment on non-whties in white superhero roles, and what better way to hold the progressive line that to omit all discussion of something? As they were sending their fey little black kid down to Selma, they were also sending their good little feminist to the AVN awards in Vegas. It is a debacle of sex positive garbage that you would expect from Jezebel. The entire thing is another entry in the normalize porn for women campaign.

Lambert is Molly Lambert who normally criticizes Mad Men for not being 21st century progressive enough. Here she is selected to go to the AVN awards in Vegas. She makes the proper David Foster Wallace references since he started the “intelligentsia observes the porn degenerates” schtick by going to the AVN awards show roughly two decades ago. Lambert reveals she is a consumer of the industry and knows some things by growing up in the valley. There is the obvious "meet a new girl" routine, that quite frankly is getting cliché. See this new girl is empowered, independent, strong, choosing to do this, creative and oh look, she is reading a book. Reading a book, and not just a fun fiction book, is part of the SWPL sale of porn being okay. This time around it is “Hero With a Thousand Faces”. When they did an article on James Deen, it was Kayden Kross reading a David Foster Wallace book. They love to show pics of Sasha Grey holding serious books, but alas she is never seen reading them.

Lambert slips in that a decade ago Sasha Grey and someone else allowed SWPL styled girls to enter the scene. No, no they did not. First, Grey is an attractive girl with a very nice body. Second, you can go to any tube site right now and click on the top 100 girls. Lots of great bodies, plastic surgery, a few are gorgeous, but no, the slacker girl reading Bauhaus is not there. It’d be great if Lambert could even Google and link the article about how Grey was the last ditch effort by the agency that had her early in her career to compete against LA Direct Models, and they pushed Grey significantly to lure in more girls. The whole mainstream attempt for Grey is for that agency to show what they can do for a female to pull more into the agency. I loved how Lambert recounted her talk with a young starlet about psychology and talking about deep desires, and then let's it slide how quasi-incest stuff is a new trend. Pushing incest? No way. It's like media coordination between the news and entertainment wings again.

Lambert notes girls starting with softer stuff and moving to more extreme as a way of building the career or easing into it is a naïve one. Sex workers of all stripes want to do the least degrading stuff for the most money (studies of hookers have shown this). Plus, if they build a fan base, their “first” something becomes a selling point. Lambert says how like totally new girls don’t want to do that, and like why do studios always think chicks totally want softer more couples stuff and not raw, crazy stuff. Like OMG! Let’s just push more degeneracy faster please. If anyone is wondering, Lambert is partly part of the tribe of the Chosen Ones. Another odd thing is how Lambert will mention girls spend 2 years on average in the industry, so she must be cribbing off that guy who evaluated IAFD statistics for the average. But how does that match up with the other statistic that the average performer does 3 films and leaves? Why the two orders Colonel? Why not explore this? Why do they leave so quickly if it is so cool, safe, awesome and empowering? Did she bother to ask any old timer the wear and tear of doing anal in 1995 (fewer did it and for short 60-90 second segments at the end of scenes) vs. today (nearly all and for dozens of minutes in scenes)? No, let’s not investigate. This is PR for porn.

There is a section where she talks to disgusting agent Mark Spiegler and then old timer Paul Fishbein, who laments what has happened to the industry. The old timer is right that the money has drained away, and this is evident just from the AVNs moving off of the Strip and out to the Hard Rock. There is the discussion of tube sites and how they are bad. There is an anti-piracy group to protect the performers from the tube sites. Weird thing is, uhhh, tube sites are bad for the business but also tube sites are the business. Grrr it's a paradox. Lambert just chose not to dig deeper. Lambert did not mention that at the AVNs the biggest booths there were the two big tube site booths “Mindgeek” (which was Manwin, funded by Wall Street) and “Pornhub”, which is affiliated with Mindgeek. The old giants of the ‘90s Wicked and Vivid had a small booth and no booth respectively. Sure, some studios are still making good money, but how many? Production is down and big players are more consolidated. Mindgeek goes out and thinks of acquiring production groups, and they are the tube site operators. Hello! This might be bigger news to report than porn performers reading habits.

Here is the scoop on the tube sites. Keep in mind, as I said above, some of the biggest content generators are also running the biggest tube sites. Because bandwidth is cheap, those tube sites will always make money due to advertising even if they don’t get people to buy for HD streaming for clarity. Anyone can set one up and then run the risk of having videos be pulled. They probably won’t as long as the videos are older than 9 months. Studios still do searches on tube sites and look for newer content, and will have said content removed. Many of the non-content generator owned tube sites are working with the studios that are left and have a production basis where the studio is paid an amount per view or the tube site pays a flat fee to the studio for their scenes. Some tube sites have been going out and buying the rights to titles for $100-250 a pop. 

The other big tube site money maker: if you are on a tube site and the “banner ad” under the video goes to the studio’s website, the studio is using the tube site as their main affiliate. It might sound dumb for them to advertise on a tube site since tubes are free and cannibalize their business, but in reality, they funnel traffic to their product. You may never click on the ad, but some idiot will and that is a potential gold mine for that studio. A scene can be shot for as little as $3,000, have the raw recording turned over to the production studio for $5,000, and then it is edit, market and sell. They do not need many subscribers or buyers to turn a profit per scene. Do you really think the big studio that also owns the tube site is not making money when the scenes are that cheap to make? The money has left the industry and concentrated into fewer hands.

Lambert even throws out a question about a Netflix for porn. I used to think this was a billion dollar idea years ago, but not anymore. Why? Well Lambert admits to watching it, but does she keep up with technology? Right now a person can Chromecast from their laptop, iphone or tablet up to their 60 inch HD tv. They do it without a subscription, and the quality will be very good. Who in their right mind will pay for a monthly subscription? What goes unsaid in all the advances of technology is that every step of the way made it easier for people to get access to smut without revealing it. All barriers get removed. Look at the progression. Going to physical theater is worse than renting or buying a video which is worse than downloading files onto your computer which is worse than just tubing files on your device that you never have to download and save. Rollback any of the technology and use would drop.

But that is part of the secret to Lambert’s essay. This is a woman writing on the sports and pop culture site Grantland that has readers who probably skew male, and who would be more likely to click on the link for this article? Most likely men. What is the message here? “A woman likes porn is telling you the reader that the performers are happy, cheery people all trying to help the girls be happy, and it is super awesome. If you felt any guilt or shame in watching horribly degrading videos, don’t!” At least the SWPL who went to the AVN’s with James Deen was a bit more honest on the weird no boundaries thing at the AVNs. That writer started the Deen push, whom the media is using and Deen will go along with. Hey, he’s a good looking guy who is 5’7” maybe 130 lbs with a receding hairline but the media is always telling girls >cue violins< how much he cares about his performances >enter harps< wants to make movies about romance and >add piano< considers it an art he loves to craft. Weird how all the Jewish writers in the feminist sphere like this guy, almost like it is a coordinated campaign.

While Lambert mentions Wallace’s old essay on the AVNs, Wallace did write about it as if he were the only sane or normal person there. Lambert is writing as if these people are perfectly normal and fine. That is her pitch. That is the pitch that the feminists have to make now where they can yell about rape culture hysteria hourly on college campuses yet they must turn a blind eye or speak positively about porn because empowerment? Umm, if rape culture is a problem, wouldn’t never-ending free porn of whatever you want to see contribute to this rape culture problem you speak of? We know that is a sham. We know Lambert’s forced to play her role of SWPL investigating the oddballs. Here is the comedy for anyone who has read her reviews of television though. She is quick to tsk-tsk the old fashioned point of views expressed on Mad Men and preen in the mirror over her progressive behavior. Here, your average human from the Mad Men era, would look at her following, interviewing and cheering on filmed whores and their pimps as an enabler of vile degeneracy. Many of the truths we hold depend upon our point of view (thanks Obi-Wan). If you’re skeptical, below is a video (safe for work) where a long time and now retired porn star explains the difference between porn performers and hookers. Rationalization hamster turned to 11. Remember kids, porn is a good business with good, normal people.