A lack of consequences has consequences

A policeman observes the effects of legal inequality in the name of sexual equality:

[A]s a former criminal investigator and street officer I have observed the deadly effects of feminism on women. Many women feel that they are entitled to browbeat, berate, and abuse men without consequences. By rule of law they would be right. By law of nature they often only realize their folly too late. Again and again I have seen this. The couple that has 5 or 10 domestic disturbance calls then one final call.

These aren’t the “burning bed” women. Those women don’t call the police. When that abuse comes to light it is usually a third party that makes the call. The most common is the dysfunctional couple that argue to a fever pitch until the guy has had enough. Often he will try to leave for awhile and she tries to block his exit, as she has not felt adequately satisfied with his level of torment. He removes her from his path, and she calls when he is gone citing that he has attacked her and is out on the road. A very common occurance. On the occasions when we arrive to find both at the home the male will be relatively calm while the female is hysterical or playing hard on the victim card. With the “imminent fear” standard in place women have learned to exploit this feature of the domestic abuse law. I taught rookie officers how to properly make the woman tip her hand to see if she was really in fear. Simply enough, you casually isolate the two parties and tell her that he will not be arrested on this occasion. When they are faking it, the fear act dissolves and you see who the aggressor really is. Not only will she aggress against the male partner but also at the officers.

The present legal situation presents a vicious, downward spiral once a woman makes the unilateral decision that she is the head of the household. There is little point in lamenting the legal realities, as they are what they are and significant change is unlikely until after a) the ongoing economic contraction fundamentally alters the male-female dynamic, or b) Sharia is instituted as is now apparently on the table in places like Amsterdamistan, Londonistan and Oklahoma.

While primary blame must be attached to the woman declares herself queen, there is no shortage of it to be attached to the man who makes the decision, conscious or unconscious, to submit to her rule. Once that decision is made, the possibility of the downward spiral becomes omnipresent; while couples that involve sufficiently low-status men may never embark upon it, some form of negative outcome is nevertheless likely.

Now, it’s not necessary to overreact and decry all possibility of long-term relationships with women simply because the law is stacked in favor of them. That is the instinctive Gamma response and is no different than the way that they tend to exaggerate every Game concept to the point of parodic inutility. All that is really necessary to forestall the likelihood of this downward spiral is to make it clear that although there may be no legal or physical consequences for a woman’s abusive actions, there will be serious repercussions for the relationship. Once a man makes it clear that he would truly rather be dead or working in the bowels of a Patagonian coal mine than live his life being treated badly by the one person who is supposed to be his helpmeet, only a deeply neurotic or psychopathic woman is going to push the issue beyond a few tests to establish his credibility on the matter.

In summary, if you are a browbeaten, hen-pecked man, it is ultimately your fault because you have not only voluntarily chosen that woman, but to accept being treated that way by her as well. It’s not worth it. No real man will ever live that way, and furthermore, as the policeman suggests, you are unlikely to be doing either her or yourself a service with your silence endurance.

Republicans pay attention

That’s new. The Senate Majority Leader reverses course on earmarks:

I know the good that has come from the projects I have helped support throughout my state. I don’t apologize for them. But there is simply no doubt that the abuse of this practice has caused Americans to view it as a symbol of the waste and the out-of-control spending that every Republican in Washington is determined to fight. And unless people like me show the American people that we’re willing to follow through on small or even symbolic things, we risk losing them on our broader efforts to cut spending and rein in government.

That’s why today I am announcing that I will join the Republican Leadership in the House in support of a moratorium on earmarks in the 112th Congress.

McConnell is correct in saying that rejecting earmarks is only a symbolic gesture at this point given the current $1.6 trillion deficit and the madness of Helicopter Ben. But what he clearly failed to understand initially is that symbols matter because they are also signals. I am no less skeptical about the Republicans in power now than I was back in 2000, but it does show that they are at least paying a modicum of attention to what happened earlier this month.

Aztlan rising

Since demographics is destiny, Golden State separatism and an eventual war of self-determination is all but guaranteed now:

Latinos now make up a majority of California’s public school students, cracking the 50 percent barrier for the first time in the state’s history, according to data released Friday by the state Department of Education. Almost 50.4 percent of the state’s students in the 2009-10 school year identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino, up 1.36 percent from the previous year. In comparison, 27 percent of California’s 6.2 million students identified themselves as white, 9 percent as Asian and 7 percent as black. Students calling themselves Filipino, Pacific Islander, Native American or other total almost 7 percent.

The main reason for California to stay within the Union is its forthcoming bankruptcy and hope for a Federal bailout that is unlikely to be forthcoming. As more and more whites decide to leave Mexifornia and businesses flee the increasingly hostile state government, it is only a matter of time before historic Hispanic pride reasserts itself and the nascent Hispanic political power begins to flex its considerable demographic muscle. And given that the United States has been a primary advocate of a right to self-determination around the world since the Wilson administration, there will be little justification or national appetite to forcibly keep a bankrupt and mexicanized California within the Union.

Given how much evil has come out of white American California, from the endless filth of Hollywood to no-fault divorce, I can only wish the denizens of Aztlan much success in their eventual struggle for self-determination and a merger with Mexico.

WND column

National No-Fly Zone

Although they don’t realize it yet, the will of Americans is being tested by the federal agency known as the Transportation Security Administration. Not being content with forcing air passengers to leave their deadly nail clippers and water bottles at home, the TSA now wants them to submit to full-visual X-ray examination machines that are now being installed as standard security devices at airports around the nation.

Addendum: Beezle emails to report that my conclusions about the TSA’s Orwellian long-term intentions appear to be correct. If you have been feeling uneasy about having to be X-rayed by a Transportation Security Administration goon who can look under your clothes every time you fly, consider this: at least you can say no, and agree to be subjected to an old-fashioned full-body search. No opt-out for the latest in anti-terror technology though, with reports just out in Forbes Magazine and the Christian Science Monitor that the Homeland Security Department has purchased 500 mobile X-ray vans called ZBVs that can scan cars, trucks and homes without the drivers even knowing that they’re being zapped.

VPFL Week 9

98 Moundsview Meerkats (3-6-1)
54 Bane Sidhe (5-4-0)

89 Judean Rhyneauxs (5-4-0)
76 Meigs Marauders (4-5-0)

84 Greenfield Grizzlies (3-5-1)
44 Blackmouth Banksters (6-3-0)

68 Valders Quixotes (7-2-0)
52 Winston Reverends (4-5-0)

53 MS Swamp Spartans (3-5-1)
42 RR Redbeards (4-4-1)

Sometimes you have a bad season because you just don’t have the horses or you make poor decisions about whom to start. Well, I didn’t have the horses – had only one player worth keeping after some desperate roster shuffling in a futile attempt to win the first-round playoff game last year – and I drafted not one, but two worthless top ten-rated running backs with my second and third pick. Then I left Arian Foster on the bench when he had his huge 29-point day against the Colts. And yet, this has actually been one of my best roster-shuffling jobs I’ve ever done; after that awful draft, I made what have turned out to be some really good pickups and have put up only three less points than the VPFL leaders. And yet somehow, I’m still FOUR AND ONE-HALF GAMES BEHIND with the worst record in the league.

The clueless incompetent

One of the hallmarks of the incompetent individual is that he doesn’t realize his own incompetence; he tends to significantly overrate his own capabilities. In his piece entitled “American Narcissus“, Jonathan Last provides an interesting quote taken from a New Yorker article about Obama/Soetoro/Soebarkah:

Obama said that he liked being surrounded by people who expressed strong opinions, but he also said, “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.” After Obama’s first debate with McCain, on September 26th, [campaign political director Patrick] Gaspard sent him an e-mail. “You are more clutch than Michael Jordan,” he wrote. Obama replied, “Just give me the ball.”

We are informed that Valerie Jarret thinks Obama has never really been challenged intellectually and he has been bored to death his whole life. But that doesn’t indicate what she believes it does, that he’s extraordinarily intelligent. It actually tends to indicate that his intelligence is only moderately above average and he has been permitted to skate completely unchallenged by those around him his entire life. Malcolm Gladwell asserts that expertise of the highest level can only be developed by thousands of hours of practice; while the assertion is, like so many of Gladwell’s other ideas, almost surely incorrect, it must be admitted that Obama possesses an exceptional expertise in selling himself to the gullible. This is not only something he has spent his entire life doing, it appears to be the only thing he actually knows how to do.

No wonder the man is so bored. Even as president, he’s still doing exactly the same thing he was doing as a pompous law student. And the combination of his clueless narcissim with his incompetence is what makes his presidency and its inevitable fallout so damned entertaining.

Et tu, Brauchli?

My track record of political predictions is, admittedly, less than perfectly reliable. But I would encourage you to keep two things in mind. First, I make my predictions very far in advance of most opinion writers. Second, even when I am wrong, the results usually show that I correctly anticipated the general trend. For example, I was wrong about Hillary winning the 2008 Democratic nomination, but recall that I said she would win it back when the consensus was that she would stay in the Senate.

So, this unexpected editorial from the Washington Post is therefore rather interesting in light of my supposedly crazy prediction that Obama is not going to be the Democratic nominee in 2012.

This is a critical moment for the country. From the faltering economy to the burdensome deficit to our foreign policy struggles, America is suffering a widespread sense of crisis and anxiety about the future. Under these circumstances, Obama has the opportunity to seize the high ground and the imagination of the nation once again, and to galvanize the public for the hard decisions that must be made. The only way he can do so, though, is by putting national interests ahead of personal or political ones.

To that end, we believe Obama should announce immediately that he will not be a candidate for reelection in 2012…. We do not come to this conclusion lightly. But it is clear, we believe, that the president has largely lost the consent of the governed.

He certainly has. And if he’s lost the white independents, he’s lost the unemployed youth, he’s lost the Washington Post, and he’s losing the New York Times, how can he possibly expect to beat the Lizard Queen when she shows her true colors? His only hope is to turn on the banks and ride the wave of popular discontent, but given the number of Goldmanites he’s appointed, I assume he’ll look for a golden parachute instead.

UPDATE: Whispers from Washington: “I’m not claiming to know anyone important, just a bunch of old denizens of DC. Mostly they’re mid-level retired military who’ve found themselves a cozy life (that means $100Gs plus and their pensions) in the bureaucracy. Other “Ilk” will probably confirm what’s being said. I’ve been hearing for six months that Obama is erratic, irrational, and paranoid (he may have reason for that last one). It’s rumored the Democratic Leadership and the press have been covering this up since the night he was elected (something happened that night and there’s lots of different stories) but he’s gotten much worse. Every word he utters is canned and without a trace of spontaneity and this is being attributed to his use Anti-depressants… and worse.

Last week I heard that the NYTs (not the WP) was going to do an editorial asking him not to run in 2012. Running off to Diwali after the huge defeat was seen as the last straw. Apparently he’s not met with anyone from the Democratic party since the election debacle and refused to until this coming week. This has allowed Pelosi and her crew to make a move. A reasonable head of the Democratic party, Obama in this case, should have stopped that. But he didn’t to say the least. He left the party twisting in the winds of fate…. The most fantastic charge of all is that Joe Fucking Biden stays as far away from Obie as possible (and not the other way around as I’ve always assumed). Less surprising is Biden has brought up the 25th amendment. Not surprising in the sense that Biden wants to be prez and will never be elected.”

Initial impressions of The Moral Landscape

I tend to do a lot of light reading while I travel, but amidst gorging on a cornucopia of PG Wodehouse novels I also managed to bookmark my way through Sam Harris’s latest book, The Moral Landscape. It was every bit as disjointed, illogical, and rife with incompetent and incoherent arguments as his first two books would lead one to expect. It was also disturbingly petty in parts; I don’t think he has any idea how bad his quixotic public jihad against Francis Collins has made him look in the scientific community. Despite the plethora of reflexive anti-religious cheap shots, the book is actually much more an attack on the greater part of the secular scientific community, (especially Jonathan Haidt and Scott Atran), than it is on the theistic community. While the Nobel laureate’s minor scientific achievements do tend to render one of Sam’s core arguments laughable, that doesn’t suffice to account for his decision to devote nearly an entire chapter of a five-chapter book to a completely irrelevant attack on single individual.

Here is one example of classic Harrisian illogic of the sort that litters the book from a recent Wired interview:

WIRED: [H]asn’t religion made some people behave more morally?

HARRIS: The problem is that religion tends to give people bad reasons to be good. Is it better to alleviate famine in Africa because you think Jesus Christ is watching and deciding whether to reward you with an eternity of happiness after death? Or is it better to do that because you actually care about the suffering of your fellow human beings?

First, note that Harris doesn’t answer the question, except to implicitly accept it. Second, observe that he fails to make the rational response that a) it doesn’t matter why you do something, the morality is primarily to be found in the act, not the intention, and b) there is no reason to believe that the two motivations are mutually exclusive, in fact, there is substantial evidence to indicate that the two usually coincide. It’s a false and irrelevant dichotomy. And third, you really can’t understand the degree to which this response demonstrates Harris’s inimitable incoherence if you haven’t read his section declaring himself to be a consequentialist. Apparently he is that rare breed of consequentialist who doesn’t care about the consequences.

Sam is to be congratulated, however, for being a man about the disappointing results of his neurological research. I helped him refine a few of the religious questions for the fMRI experiments he discusses, and as it turned out, his hypothesis that there would be an observable difference in brain activity when contemplating factual beliefs versus religious beliefs was incorrect. This was Sam’s conclusion: “Our study was designed to elicit the same responses from the two groups on nonreligious stimuli (e.g., “Eagles really exist”) and opposite responses on religious stimuli (e.g., “Angels really exist”). The fact that we obtained essentially the same result for belief in both devout Christians and nonbelievers, on both categories of content, argues strongly that the difference between belief and disbelief is the same, regardless of what is being thought about.”

What Sam neglects to mention is that it also indicates that there is no difference between the two categories of belief, thus removing from his potential arsenal what he had hoped would be a substantive scientific argument in his war on faith. If he had been able to show there was an observable material difference between the two types of belief, he would have used that to make a case for the superiority of one over the other; I surmise that was the primary motivation for the experiment. However, his experiments did produce some interesting results, including the fact that it appears to give atheists a sense of pleasure to deny religious statements. So, ironically, Sam Harris would appear to have produced the first scientific evidence in support of my hypothesis that it is often the assholery that causes the atheism rather than the other way around. On which note, I would be remiss indeed if I did not quote to the following comment from the appendix:

“Given my experience as a critic of religion, I must say that it has been quite disconcerting to see the caricature of the overeducated, atheistic moral nihilist regularly appearing in my inbox and on the blogs. I sincerely hope that people like Rick Warren have not been paying attention.”
– Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape, Chapter 1 Note 2

Anyhow, I don’t intend this to be either a review or a critique of the book, I merely intended to pose a question to those of you who are interested in this subject. How would you like me to review The Moral Landscape, in an overall summary, a chapter-by-chapter deconstruction, a thematic critique, or a simple list of the erroneous arguments I noted in the course of reading the book. I can tell you right now that I’m not going to write an entire bloody book as I did with TIA; the book doesn’t even begin to justify that sort of time and effort. I’m not a big fan of the chapter-by-chapter approach since most people who use it make the mistake of anticipatory criticism since they don’t read the whole book before jumping in, but in this case that wouldn’t apply since I have read the entire book as well as the notes. On the other hand, the book is only five chapters and the chapters don’t really stick to coherent themes, so it may not make sense anyhow.

Heh

WHAT WORRIES ME IS THAT THEY’VE CODE-NAMED IT “CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN:” Quantitative Easing 2 Sets Sail Friday: Central bank’s latest $600 billion plan gets going with first round of Treasury purchases.

Now THAT is amusing. Of course, you really have to know your Stross to understand why….

Mailvox: true owners

BG queries about who actually owns the home:

I am a recent convert to your blog. I enjoy your unconventional, but unfailingly thoughtful, opinions.

Here is something for you to ponder. Assume that the evidence shows that the putative owner of a mortgage is not the actual owner of the mortgage, due to improper transfer procedures in the securitization process, such as a failure to properly endorse and record the necessary transfer documents. The implications for foreclosures may be profound, as you and others have indicated.

But think about this from a different point of view for a minujte. Wouldn’t this logic imply that a nondefaulting homeowner, who has been making all of the payments on his home, has in fact not been paying the proper person? Could the true owner of the mortgage sue the homeowner for not making payments to the true owner? The true owner might want to do this because the banks, servicers and other intermediaries might soon all be broke due to the foreclosure problem.

It does imply that the wrong party has been paid, in fact, this is exactly why multiple banks have been foreclosing on some houses. The problem is that in the case of a broken line of mortgage transference, it is not only difficult to ascertain the true holder of the debt, but in many cases the connection of the debt to the title is cancelled by virtue of the note proving the claim being destroyed in the process of the transfer. In such cases, the debt may still be owed to the “true owner”, but it is no longer secured by the home.

So, to answer the rest of BG’s questions, yes, the true owner of the debt can sue the homeowner but is very unlikely to because he has no claim on the house. The reason it makes no sense for the true debt-holder to sue the homeowner is that a bankruptcy filing on the part of the homeowner will discharge that debt without relinquishing the house.