The mavens of both the Democrat Party and the Republican Party rely of the stupidity of the gullible American voter to cause him or her to continue to be too distracted with conservative this or liberal that to worry about or inquire into the only thing that matters: This ...
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
At no point did the Democrats in the White House -- "Hillary's team," let's face it -- do anything or suggest anything realistic to fix the fact that for the last 8 years during which liberals have been cheering and doing liberal things, they have been paying for all of it -- all of it -- with the national credit card, the National Debt.
And so now, even at the present moment, the National Debt, in the box on the upper left, is rocketing skyward faster and faster, and shows no signs of abating -- while liberal Democrats blow more and more money on enormously expensive Obamacare, and fight to allow big hairy transgender males with their big hairy smelly bodies into ladies' rooms with little girls, and while Republicans fall all over themselves trying to explain the next piece of nonsense burbling out of Mr. Trump's brain.
People wonder, "Why isn't the economy getting better?"
The simple answer: It can't. Why not?
Because of the interest we have to pay on the National Debt.
Monday, September 5, 2016
Sunday, July 24, 2016
ARE MINORITIES REALLY MORE LIKELY TO BE MURDERED BY POLICE ?
This is the kind of politically-incorrect article which makes it impossible for me to ever run for public office again ...
When someone's iPhone catches yet another white police officer shooting and killing yet another black person, so long as the black person does not have a sniper rifle trained on police heads, does that, per se, justify nationwide riots and protests?
Or, should blacks be shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Why aren't you whites rioting or protesting? You have more grounds!"?
For purposes of this piece, I hereby affirm that there is terrible prejudice in our society against minorities, especially against blacks. It is so inimical and pervasive that even blacks frequently feel driven to cooperate with, and engage in behavior cooperating with, that prejudice. I've seen race prejudice against blacks by blacks in action. It is disgusting. Denying race prejudice against blacks in our country is the act of an idiot. Denying it is immoral.
However, I have also seen racially prejudiced actions by minorities, including by blacks, against whites. Denying it is the act of an idiot. Denying it is immoral.
And, of course, I have also seen courageous acts of selfless love by blacks toward whites. Denying it is the act of an idiot. Denying it is immoral.
When someone's iPhone catches yet another white police officer shooting and killing yet another black person, so long as the black person does not have a sniper rifle trained on police heads, does that, per se, justify nationwide riots and protests?
Or, should blacks be shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Why aren't you whites rioting or protesting? You have more grounds!"?
For purposes of this piece, I hereby affirm that there is terrible prejudice in our society against minorities, especially against blacks. It is so inimical and pervasive that even blacks frequently feel driven to cooperate with, and engage in behavior cooperating with, that prejudice. I've seen race prejudice against blacks by blacks in action. It is disgusting. Denying race prejudice against blacks in our country is the act of an idiot. Denying it is immoral.
However, I have also seen racially prejudiced actions by minorities, including by blacks, against whites. Denying it is the act of an idiot. Denying it is immoral.
And, of course, I have also seen courageous acts of selfless love by blacks toward whites. Denying it is the act of an idiot. Denying it is immoral.
Okay, so, hopefully, readers can see where I am initially going here. In other words, I want to check if black hate toward whites in response to murders by police of blacks is, on balance, justified, or should blacks be singing praise of police for what, on balance, amounts to restraint by police when it comes to murdering minorities, especially blacks, in the extremely limited sense that the figures suggest that police make a conscientious effort to murder fewer blacks encountered by them than whites encountered by them, per capita!!!!!!!
Once again, I affirm the following ...
For purposes of this piece, I hereby affirm that there is terrible prejudice in our society against minorities, especially against blacks. It is so inimical and pervasive that even blacks frequently feel driven to cooperate with, and engage in behavior cooperating with, that prejudice. I've seen race prejudice in action. It is disgusting. Denying it is the act of an idiot. Denying it is immoral.
However, I have also seen racially prejudiced actions by minorities, including blacks, against whites. Denying it is the act of an idiot. Denying it is immoral.
And, of course, I have also seen courageous acts of selfless love by blacks toward whites. Denying it is the act of an idiot. Denying it is immoral.
Okay?
So, this blog article examines, "Is the evidence there to justify the riots and protests against police?"
A lot of blacks and white liberals will avoid doing the emotional work which such an analysis entails by blowing-off it, and me, as "obviously prejudiced," or "obviously deranged." They'd rather argue with their assumptions, than think.
But -- come on -- do better than that.
The FBI collects the statistics.
As one would expect, in a country where 62% of the people are non-Asian, non-Hispanic, non-black whites, the raw stats say that the cops murder more whites than blacks.
But, of course, a moron knows that such a statistic is not, per se, significant.
Suppose a country has 11,000,000 white citizens and 10 black citizens, and one year later 11 whites have been murdered by police, but 10 blacks have been murdered by the same police.
Technically, one could argue that "the whites had it worst," but would that be true?
No! Of course not! Statistically, in such a society, being black is a death sentence! Blacks, in such a society, have it much, much, much worse.
And so, the Mavens of Openmindedness at the Washington Post, when they looked at this issue, made an adjustment to the FBI's figures ...
But, could it be that the Washington Post has not adjusted the figures in its analysis enough?
Let me repeat that question: Could it be that the Washington Post has not adjusted the figures in its analysis enough?
To put it another way, Despite the Washington Post's adjustment, are figures still lying and liars still figuring, in their analysis?
One of the things which happens in society is that poverty drives crime.
And, poverty drives drug use which also drives crime.
When I was in the Philadelphia DA's Office, years ago, from 1978 to 1981, what did I see?
What I saw was much, much, much more crime, per capita, per square mile, and per hour, in poor black neighborhoods as in white neighborhoods in Philadelphia -- about 8 times as much, when I read a police call count in the early 1980s.
The reason is simple and obvious: Again, poverty drives crime.
And, poverty drives drug use which also drives crime.
The crime drives raw police / suspect contact frequency -- more crime is seen by police, and more calls for assistance go out to police, in ghetto neighborhoods.
Did the Washington Post adjust for that?
No.
What happens when we adjust for that?
Essentially, the numbers reverse themselves. In addition to it becoming more clear why Washington Post editors don't park their cars in ghetto neighborhoods, there is an odd, suspicious appearance that, per encounter, police are somewhat more likely to murder whites than blacks, as you weight the figures to reflect police calls and stops.
The bottom line: Suddenly, it becomes unclear that there is really a problem.
I'm not saying, "The statistics say that there is no race prejudice."
I'm not saying, "The statistics say that that white cops don't murder unarmed blacks."
I'm saying, "The statistics seem to require a conclusion that per police call or police stop, in America police are really more likely to murder whites than they are to murder blacks."
However, I have also seen racially prejudiced actions by minorities, including blacks, against whites. Denying it is the act of an idiot. Denying it is immoral.
And, of course, I have also seen courageous acts of selfless love by blacks toward whites. Denying it is the act of an idiot. Denying it is immoral.
Okay?
So, this blog article examines, "Is the evidence there to justify the riots and protests against police?"
A lot of blacks and white liberals will avoid doing the emotional work which such an analysis entails by blowing-off it, and me, as "obviously prejudiced," or "obviously deranged." They'd rather argue with their assumptions, than think.
But -- come on -- do better than that.
The FBI collects the statistics.
As one would expect, in a country where 62% of the people are non-Asian, non-Hispanic, non-black whites, the raw stats say that the cops murder more whites than blacks.
But, of course, a moron knows that such a statistic is not, per se, significant.
Suppose a country has 11,000,000 white citizens and 10 black citizens, and one year later 11 whites have been murdered by police, but 10 blacks have been murdered by the same police.
Technically, one could argue that "the whites had it worst," but would that be true?
No! Of course not! Statistically, in such a society, being black is a death sentence! Blacks, in such a society, have it much, much, much worse.
And so, the Mavens of Openmindedness at the Washington Post, when they looked at this issue, made an adjustment to the FBI's figures ...
According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The Post noted in a new analysis published last week, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.
U.S. police officers have shot and killed the exact same number of unarmed white people as they have unarmed black people: 50 each. But because the white population is approximately five times larger than the black population, that means unarmed black Americans were five times as likely as unarmed white Americans to be shot and killed by a police officer.
That seems like a correct adjustment -- like that liberals should all conclude, "Hey! Look! The protestors are correct! Let's all stop listening to the other side and go home!" Right?But, could it be that the Washington Post has not adjusted the figures in its analysis enough?
Let me repeat that question: Could it be that the Washington Post has not adjusted the figures in its analysis enough?
To put it another way, Despite the Washington Post's adjustment, are figures still lying and liars still figuring, in their analysis?
One of the things which happens in society is that poverty drives crime.
And, poverty drives drug use which also drives crime.
When I was in the Philadelphia DA's Office, years ago, from 1978 to 1981, what did I see?
What I saw was much, much, much more crime, per capita, per square mile, and per hour, in poor black neighborhoods as in white neighborhoods in Philadelphia -- about 8 times as much, when I read a police call count in the early 1980s.
The reason is simple and obvious: Again, poverty drives crime.
And, poverty drives drug use which also drives crime.
The crime drives raw police / suspect contact frequency -- more crime is seen by police, and more calls for assistance go out to police, in ghetto neighborhoods.
Did the Washington Post adjust for that?
No.
What happens when we adjust for that?
Essentially, the numbers reverse themselves. In addition to it becoming more clear why Washington Post editors don't park their cars in ghetto neighborhoods, there is an odd, suspicious appearance that, per encounter, police are somewhat more likely to murder whites than blacks, as you weight the figures to reflect police calls and stops.
The bottom line: Suddenly, it becomes unclear that there is really a problem.
I'm not saying, "The statistics say that there is no race prejudice."
I'm not saying, "The statistics say that that white cops don't murder unarmed blacks."
I'm saying, "The statistics seem to require a conclusion that per police call or police stop, in America police are really more likely to murder whites than they are to murder blacks."
Thursday, May 26, 2016
TRANSSSEXUAL BATHROOM ACCESS ? [WARNING: ROUGH LANGUAGE!]
I have gotten into a lot of trouble with The Church and with conservatives with my position on transsexuals -- sympathetic!
Transsexuals aren't just "perverts" who made bad choices, or adults who used to be children whose minds were bent by sexually- or physically-abusive parents.
Read their autobiographies. Something simple clearly goes "kablooey" in their mother's womb which results in irreversibly-imprinted psycho-sexual misdevelopment, so that the newborn's self-perceived gender is in a state of permanent total war with the physical reality -- a kind of physical male permanently-and-unchangeably "glued" to physiologically-based female orientation in psychology, or a kind of physical female permanently-and-unchangeably "glued" to a physiologically-based male orientation in psychology. The permanent state of internal mental and emotional rebellion and war is utterly exhausting. Their personal perception -- and the objectively best description -- of what is going on is that they are a man trapped in a woman's body or a woman trapped in a man's body.
"A good whuppin'" won't straighten things out.
Disciplined Christian thinking won't straighten thing out.
To its eternal credit, the Roman Catholic Church has taken the enlightened position on applications for "sexual reassignment." After careful review to protect against self-deception by Catholics standing in line for reassignment surgery, the Church will indeed advise Catholic victims of the transsexual dysfunction, in appropriate circumstances, that sexual reassignment is moral.
The logic of the approval is ultimately essentially the same as the logic of the Pauline Privilege Divorce or the Petrine Privilege Divorce in Catholic Christianity (approved by Paul and Peter, respectively) -- personal spiritual peace with God must prevail.
Christians who deny the existence of naturally-occurring sexual deviation, because of deeply-seated desire to "keep sex and sexual morality simple," will be outraged at that position, but I nonetheless have concluded that it is the moral one.
The Catholic Church's position also makes theological sense. The stain of Original sin not only corrupts man, but also nature itself. Thus, one would expect the physiological basis for sexual self identification to be dysfunctionally corrupted at least some of the time.
Also, note well, Christian, note well: Gays want their psycho-sexual divergence ratified, so that they remain unlike "heteros." On the other hand, in essence, honest transsexuals want their state of divergence cured.
To the best of my knowledge, there is a moral duty of celibacy after sexual reassignment -- those reassigned to become males don't as a result of reassignment suddenly have a moral right to "boink" a beloved female; those reassigned to become females don't as a result of reassignment suddenly have a moral right to be "boinked" by an interested male.
But, the Church actually recognizes a moral right to reassignment itself, for the sake of a peaceful relationship with God.
The Church's position, therefore, tends to outrage everyone -- so-called "liberals" and so-called "conservatives."
HOWEVER ...
There is a reason why I say "so-called" in referring to "liberals."
Historically, and also in politics today, so-called "liberals" -- including a lot of liberals in the Catholic clergy -- have an extremely strong tendency to "go Nazi."
And so, for years, I have been saying that "a substantial percentage of liberals are really Nazis. They think that they are 'enlightened,' but they aren't. Many are just a not-very-distinct variety of really stupid Nazi." I noticed the extremely strong comparison between the "liberals" of the French Revolution and the Nazis of Nazi Germany when I was earning my degree in Politics at St. Joe's University in the 1970s.
On the subject of transsexuality, look at what super-liberal Obama and his liberal friends are trying to do as I write this ...
At first, when I heard about the Obama Adminstration's efforts to open bathrooms to transsexuals, I stupidly thought, "Huh! That's interesting!," because I foolishly believed that the Obama Administration was somehow working for the rights of transsexuals that have already had reassignment surgery.
Oh, how stupid I was! In fact, the gravamen of the federal effort is to entitle people who haven't had reassignment surgery to go into the bathrooms not conforming to their physical gender.
Let me put it to you this way ...
In effect, as far as I know -- though the Obama Administration and lying liberals would hem-and-haw on this restatement of their position to try to lie their way out of a difficulty presented by their idiot position -- the Obama Administration wants to entitle full grown, hairy, heavily-muscled transsexuals with penises and with big sweaty scrotums carrying big testicles, who haven't had reassignment surgery, to join your little daughters in the ladies' rooms during intermission at the public school musicals.
Remember those Nazi propaganda posters portraying fictional fat, hairy Jewish men victimizing helpless blonde Gentile girls? In effect, the Obama Administration is trying to actually achieve an equivalent result using transsexuals instead of fictional Jews, in public bathrooms!
As far as I can see, that is exactly why a growing number of states are viewing "liberal" Democrats as really stupid, misguided, vile Nazis!
My wife and I used to babysit a wonderful, gentle little girl, years ago, who because she was this little tiny, innocent, gentle kindred spirit, I kind of mentally and emotionally "daughterized."
I used to take her to museums during babysitting sessions -- the usual for our area, the Franklin Institute, the Academy of Natural Sciences, and the University of Pennsylvania Museum, my "second home."
At the U of P Museum, as we were leaving on the ground floor the little girl said, "I have to use the facilities before we go."
The upper floors were already closed, so we were stuck with the rest rooms on the ground floor.
There was one problem -- the Ladies Room at the U of P on that floor was being renovated.
To solve this problem for the little girl, I (1) left the little girl with a security guard a few feet from the Mens Room door; (2) called into the Mens Room; (3) received no answer; (4) went in, and saw that there were no other people there; (5) checked the stalls to make sure that all toilets there were "squeaky clean," (6) wiped-down the toilet farthest from the door -- the least used one, presumably -- with ammonia cleaner which I had brought in our back-pack with rags (because MRSA was big, then), and then, after having the security guard temporarily ban use of the rest room to any males, I told the little girl that we would allow no men into the bathroom while she was in there, and shout into the bathroom every half-minute or so so that she did not have abandonment worries in a strange place.
During her use of a toilet, a man tried to get in, but I and the security guard barred him, and he understood when I explained the situation to him.
A woman insisted on going in, and reassured the little girl by name, on advice by me, when she did.
Under the rule changes which Herr Super Liberal Obama is dictatorially shoving down the nation's throat, a 6'4" heavily-muscled transsexual with hairy arms and legs and a big penis and testicles hanging down between his legs would, under the temporary reassignment of the rest room to use by women, only, as far as my JD allows me to see, have a full federal right to push past the security guard and me, with his size, his smells, his big male genitals, his loud coughing and throat clearing, and go in and pee into a toilet right next to the little girl's stall, scaring the living daylights out of that little girl, sitting helplessly on a toilet with her pants and panties down at her ankles, because in the transsexual's mind the transsexual is a woman.
Sorry, "liberals." That's "over the edge," for me. President Obama and the "liberal" Democrats who blindly support him are dead wrong this time. They are "being Nazi" toward America's most precious gift from God -- because, well, hey!, "liberals" know better than God, right?
So, you lose.
Transsexuals aren't just "perverts" who made bad choices, or adults who used to be children whose minds were bent by sexually- or physically-abusive parents.
Read their autobiographies. Something simple clearly goes "kablooey" in their mother's womb which results in irreversibly-imprinted psycho-sexual misdevelopment, so that the newborn's self-perceived gender is in a state of permanent total war with the physical reality -- a kind of physical male permanently-and-unchangeably "glued" to physiologically-based female orientation in psychology, or a kind of physical female permanently-and-unchangeably "glued" to a physiologically-based male orientation in psychology. The permanent state of internal mental and emotional rebellion and war is utterly exhausting. Their personal perception -- and the objectively best description -- of what is going on is that they are a man trapped in a woman's body or a woman trapped in a man's body.
"A good whuppin'" won't straighten things out.
Disciplined Christian thinking won't straighten thing out.
To its eternal credit, the Roman Catholic Church has taken the enlightened position on applications for "sexual reassignment." After careful review to protect against self-deception by Catholics standing in line for reassignment surgery, the Church will indeed advise Catholic victims of the transsexual dysfunction, in appropriate circumstances, that sexual reassignment is moral.
The logic of the approval is ultimately essentially the same as the logic of the Pauline Privilege Divorce or the Petrine Privilege Divorce in Catholic Christianity (approved by Paul and Peter, respectively) -- personal spiritual peace with God must prevail.
Christians who deny the existence of naturally-occurring sexual deviation, because of deeply-seated desire to "keep sex and sexual morality simple," will be outraged at that position, but I nonetheless have concluded that it is the moral one.
The Catholic Church's position also makes theological sense. The stain of Original sin not only corrupts man, but also nature itself. Thus, one would expect the physiological basis for sexual self identification to be dysfunctionally corrupted at least some of the time.
Also, note well, Christian, note well: Gays want their psycho-sexual divergence ratified, so that they remain unlike "heteros." On the other hand, in essence, honest transsexuals want their state of divergence cured.
To the best of my knowledge, there is a moral duty of celibacy after sexual reassignment -- those reassigned to become males don't as a result of reassignment suddenly have a moral right to "boink" a beloved female; those reassigned to become females don't as a result of reassignment suddenly have a moral right to be "boinked" by an interested male.
But, the Church actually recognizes a moral right to reassignment itself, for the sake of a peaceful relationship with God.
The Church's position, therefore, tends to outrage everyone -- so-called "liberals" and so-called "conservatives."
HOWEVER ...
There is a reason why I say "so-called" in referring to "liberals."
Historically, and also in politics today, so-called "liberals" -- including a lot of liberals in the Catholic clergy -- have an extremely strong tendency to "go Nazi."
And so, for years, I have been saying that "a substantial percentage of liberals are really Nazis. They think that they are 'enlightened,' but they aren't. Many are just a not-very-distinct variety of really stupid Nazi." I noticed the extremely strong comparison between the "liberals" of the French Revolution and the Nazis of Nazi Germany when I was earning my degree in Politics at St. Joe's University in the 1970s.
On the subject of transsexuality, look at what super-liberal Obama and his liberal friends are trying to do as I write this ...
At first, when I heard about the Obama Adminstration's efforts to open bathrooms to transsexuals, I stupidly thought, "Huh! That's interesting!," because I foolishly believed that the Obama Administration was somehow working for the rights of transsexuals that have already had reassignment surgery.
Oh, how stupid I was! In fact, the gravamen of the federal effort is to entitle people who haven't had reassignment surgery to go into the bathrooms not conforming to their physical gender.
Let me put it to you this way ...
In effect, as far as I know -- though the Obama Administration and lying liberals would hem-and-haw on this restatement of their position to try to lie their way out of a difficulty presented by their idiot position -- the Obama Administration wants to entitle full grown, hairy, heavily-muscled transsexuals with penises and with big sweaty scrotums carrying big testicles, who haven't had reassignment surgery, to join your little daughters in the ladies' rooms during intermission at the public school musicals.
Remember those Nazi propaganda posters portraying fictional fat, hairy Jewish men victimizing helpless blonde Gentile girls? In effect, the Obama Administration is trying to actually achieve an equivalent result using transsexuals instead of fictional Jews, in public bathrooms!
As far as I can see, that is exactly why a growing number of states are viewing "liberal" Democrats as really stupid, misguided, vile Nazis!
My wife and I used to babysit a wonderful, gentle little girl, years ago, who because she was this little tiny, innocent, gentle kindred spirit, I kind of mentally and emotionally "daughterized."
I used to take her to museums during babysitting sessions -- the usual for our area, the Franklin Institute, the Academy of Natural Sciences, and the University of Pennsylvania Museum, my "second home."
At the U of P Museum, as we were leaving on the ground floor the little girl said, "I have to use the facilities before we go."
The upper floors were already closed, so we were stuck with the rest rooms on the ground floor.
There was one problem -- the Ladies Room at the U of P on that floor was being renovated.
To solve this problem for the little girl, I (1) left the little girl with a security guard a few feet from the Mens Room door; (2) called into the Mens Room; (3) received no answer; (4) went in, and saw that there were no other people there; (5) checked the stalls to make sure that all toilets there were "squeaky clean," (6) wiped-down the toilet farthest from the door -- the least used one, presumably -- with ammonia cleaner which I had brought in our back-pack with rags (because MRSA was big, then), and then, after having the security guard temporarily ban use of the rest room to any males, I told the little girl that we would allow no men into the bathroom while she was in there, and shout into the bathroom every half-minute or so so that she did not have abandonment worries in a strange place.
During her use of a toilet, a man tried to get in, but I and the security guard barred him, and he understood when I explained the situation to him.
A woman insisted on going in, and reassured the little girl by name, on advice by me, when she did.
Under the rule changes which Herr Super Liberal Obama is dictatorially shoving down the nation's throat, a 6'4" heavily-muscled transsexual with hairy arms and legs and a big penis and testicles hanging down between his legs would, under the temporary reassignment of the rest room to use by women, only, as far as my JD allows me to see, have a full federal right to push past the security guard and me, with his size, his smells, his big male genitals, his loud coughing and throat clearing, and go in and pee into a toilet right next to the little girl's stall, scaring the living daylights out of that little girl, sitting helplessly on a toilet with her pants and panties down at her ankles, because in the transsexual's mind the transsexual is a woman.
Sorry, "liberals." That's "over the edge," for me. President Obama and the "liberal" Democrats who blindly support him are dead wrong this time. They are "being Nazi" toward America's most precious gift from God -- because, well, hey!, "liberals" know better than God, right?
So, you lose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)