The Motor City: A Microcosm Of South Africa

Crime, Human Accomplishment, Political Correctness, Race, Racism, South-Africa

Steven Malanga, the author of “Feral Detroit,” an only slightly politically incorrect City Journal tract, fails to mention the Other Method deployed in driving middle-class whites away: cruel, craven, targeted crime.

“Over the last half-century, [Detroit’s] population has shrunk by 50 percent, from about 1.8 million people to fewer than 900,000. Since 2000, the city has lost 35,000 residents. Detroit officials acknowledge that they see little prospect for a population turnaround soon. …”

“Though some blame Detroit’s population losses on larger economic forces, economists Edward Glaeser and Andrei Shleifer argue in a groundbreaking paper that the city’s problems are mostly self-inflicted. (The paper, called ‘The Curley Effect,’ gets its name from legendary Boston mayor James Curley, who favored Irish residents and pushed other groups out.) After winning election in 1973, Detroit’s first black mayor, Coleman Young, consolidated his power, driving white residents, who had voted against him, out of the city by withdrawing services from their neighborhoods. Eventually, Glaeser and Shleifer write, Detroit became ‘an overwhelmingly black city mired in poverty and social problems’—and shrinking fast.”

[SNIP]

In South Africa, the wanton acts at Wichita and Knoxville are a daily occurrence. And here’s a filthy little secret I discovered in researching my near-complete book, Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa: Whites are being culled in greater proportion to their numbers in the population. (Stay tuned)

The caliber of Anglo- and Afrikaner human capital lost to black crime is inestimable. An example is Brian Hahn, my husband’s (Ivy-League educated) mathematics professor at UCT. (“After completing his BSc in applied mathematics and physics and his BSc (Hons) in theoretical physics at UCT, he undertook a PhD on the optimisation of scattering amplitudes at the University of Cambridge.”)

There are hundreds of examples of true brilliance extinguished by barbarism. Other than untold sorrow, what are the financial costs of such losses?

The Hue of Hatred III

Crime, Justice, Law, Race, Racism

“It was brutal,” the mother of murdered anchorwoman Anne Pressly said. “Blood all over the walls; [I] could not recognize her.” Curtis Lavelle Vance crushed the face of the Little Rock, Ark., TV presenter beyond recognition. “Five days after the attack, Pressly’s brain stem ruptured and she died.”

As was already mentioned in “The Hue of Hatred II”:

The details of the crime indicate, very plainly, that the murderer wanted to obliterate his victim, make her exist no longer. The intention of the title is to point to the near-complete unidirectionality of violent crime—black on white—both in my new and former homelands.

Vance needs killing. If justice is served, he will get his just deserts.

What ObamaCare Will Mean for You— and What You Can Do About It Today

BAB's A List, Barack Obama, Communism, Free Markets, Government, Healthcare, Propaganda, Regulation, Socialism, Taxation, The State

By Robert James Bidinotto

Now that the House and Senate finally have completed work on their enormous health-care bills, we can see what the final provisions will be. Their differences are far less important than their similarities. Either bill will be a disaster for our economy—for our personal well-being, both financial and medical—for our precious rights and freedoms—and for the futures of our children and grandchildren.

Both bills are now coming up for crucial floor votes. Many in Congress are very nervous about what their votes will mean for their political careers.

This coming week is critical in the process of passing or defeating this legislation, once and for all. Now is the time that you can weigh in and make a real difference with your congressman and senators.

Here is what you need to know. Rather than overwhelm you with arcane details of each bill, it is more important that you understand in principle what ObamaCare will mean for you and your family.

ObamaCare will mean:

Outrageous Costs. At a time of exploding federal spending and budget deficits, both the House and Senate bills would add far more than a trillion dollars to the mind-boggling financial liabilities we taxpayers already face. Even the stated price tags of these bills are fraudulent products of statistical manipulations. One way they pretend to reduce costs is to remove a quarter-trillion dollars in doctor Medicare reimbursements from the bills, but instead add that gargantuan spending into separate legislation. Another way they pretend to balance the books (“deficit neutrality”) is to impose years of tax increases to fund these bills, before the outrageous spending actually kicks in. When it does, the “cost curve” in later decades will soar upward, and deficits will pile up by the billions. In addition, the bills would vastly expand the already-bankrupt Medicaid program; this would impose on state governments, which already face crushing budget crises, tens of billions of dollars in new taxing and spending commitments. You will ultimately pick up that tab, too.

Soaring Taxes. ObamaCare is not “insurance,” but a gigantic new entitlement scheme meant to “spread the wealth around.” To pay for this spending spree, both bills will drain our ailing private economy of hundreds of billions of dollars in higher taxes. These taxes will fall disproportionately upon the young and healthy: They will be forced to buy costly policies, thus expanding the “pool” of payers who will subsidize those older and sicker. Higher taxes also will fall heavily upon “the rich.” But these include the same entrepreneurs and employers whom we expect to create businesses and jobs to lift us out of the recession—and also the very doctors whom we expect to provide the medical services to the millions of new patients. The legislation also proposes hefty taxes on better private-insurance plans, which would penalize and undermine existing employer-employee benefits packages. These are just a few of the many new taxes and fees the bills would impose on us.

Perverse Incentives. ObamaCare would subsidize and greatly expand the demand for health care, while discouraging the supply of health care. It would create a gigantic new federal entitlement program that would add millions of new, taxpayer-subsidized claimants for health-insurance coverage. Then it would force insurers to accept all comers—regardless of any actuarial risk factors—and to provide them coverage that is far beyond what many people actually require. On the other side of the equation, ObamaCare will increase taxes on those private insurers (who now average only 2-3% profit margins), while expecting them somehow to pay all the new benefits. It will also increase taxes and fees on hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and the inventors of new medical devices—thus punishing those who create and provide medical treatments. Inevitably, this will deter many of them from developing or offering vital new medical treatments for patients, and it will even force some of them out of business.

Government rationing. When soaring demand for medical care overwhelms shrinking supply of providers, the only outcome would be government rationing of medical care—which has occurred in all socialized-medicine regimes.

Lost Individual Choice. All talk of adding “choice and competition” to the health-insurance market is a complete fraud. The bills do not free individuals to buy insurance across state lines—“choice and competition” that would actually reduce the cost of insurance. Instead, the bills propose a host of new mandates on private individuals, employers, and private insurers. Under penalty of fines or jail, individuals will be forced to buy costly coverage; employers will be forced to provide it and to comply with countless petty regulations; and doctors, hospitals, and private insurers will be forced to comply with a mountain of new government orders, requirements, restrictions, demands, and regulations. Compliance with all these ever-expanding governmental edicts will drive up the costs for physicians, hospitals, medicines, treatments, and private insurance premiums. Skyrocketing costs will force more and more people into the “public option.” Meanwhile, the bills would slash reimbursements to Medicare Advantage plans, killing a private-insurance option now exercised and enjoyed by one-fourth of all seniors.

Broken promises. In sum, the pending legislation will not cover all the uninsured; it will not add to freedom of choice for consumers; it will not be “deficit-neutral”; it will not “bend the cost curve downward”; it will not prevent illegal aliens from receiving taxpayer-subsidized medical care; it will not prevent government payments from funding controversial procedures such as abortions; and it will not allow people to “keep their current coverage.” All of these are the loud promises of ObamaCare’s advocates; all are demonstrable falsehoods.

Instead, ObamaCare will do only one thing, which was the overt objective of its proponents from the outset: put the federal government in charge of the delivery of all health care in America.

A single-payer, government-run program of socialized medicine is the stated objective of those who designed this legislative monstrosity—from President Obama, to the vast coalition of unions and advocacy groups, to the congressional leaders who drafted these bills. They explicitly intend to bankrupt the private-insurance marketplace, so that only the government option remains. Far from adding “choice and competition,” then, ObamaCare aims at imposing on us a government health-care monopoly.

But only if we allow it to happen. Because this power-grab still can be stopped.

Congress remains deeply divided over many provisions of this legislation. If it passes, it only will be by a handful of votes. That means we can defeat this monstrosity by changing just a few minds. Now—this week—is the time for you to raise your voice and put on the pressure.

To contact your congressman, by phone, mail, or email, go here:

http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

and contact your two senators by going here:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Tell them the following, preferably putting the ideas into your own words:

The House and Senate bills will not create “universal, affordable insurance.” They instead would create a gargantuan, unaffordable new federal entitlement program. They would further explode our soaring deficits; hugely increase tax burdens on our ailing economy; create perverse incentives that would expand the demand for medical services, while discouraging and punishing the suppliers of medical care; and deprive Americans of true choice and competition, by imposing an endless stream of new “mandates” on individuals and employers. This legislation would destroy existing private health-insurance plans, and ultimately destroy the quality and affordability of health care in America.

This legislation is so flawed and destructive in principle that it cannot be “fixed” or amended; it must be scrapped in its entirety. True health-care reform is necessary, but it must be based on our free-market system—such as:

• allowing individuals to purchase insurance from companies across state lines, and letting them take that coverage with them when they change jobs;
• letting individuals buy high-deductible, low-cost catastrophic coverage, by freeing insurers from laws that force them to offer only costly, state-mandated provisions in their policies;
• enacting tort reform, to eliminate the costly practice of “defensive medicine.”

Such reforms would expand coverage to millions of the uninsured, while actually reducing costs to employers, policy-holders, and individual taxpayers.

I feel so strongly about this, that I cannot consider you for re-election unless you vote against this legislation, in any shape or form.

* * *

Whether or not you have ever contacted a congressman or senator, now is the time to do it. This week may be the last time we can influence the outcome on this issue.

Your health, your financial well-being, and your nation’s future hang in the balance.

Please act today—then forward this message to your family, friends, and associates. If you are on Facebook, an annotated version of this can be found and linked out:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?created&&suggest&note_id=211096360608

Updated: Bring Back The Silent Steely Type

Celebrity, Feminism, Film, Gender, Hollywood, Pop-Culture, The Zeitgeist

Steve Sailer: “After the Tom Cruise generation of boyish, small, and energetic stars, it’s refreshing to see a Golden Age of Hollywoodish leading man like tall, dark, and handsome Jon Hamm, who plays creative director Don Draper as the strong, silent type” in “the cable period drama Mad Men.”

Too true, but bless Steve: In an article about “Mad Men” the series, this is one of the few mentions the MM get.

I’ve watched Mad Men a couple of times, mainly for the Draper character. He’s perfect. As is evident from his tender affair with a teacher, the viewer recently discovered that this complex character (now that’s a novelty) would probably not be quite such an incorrigible philanderer were his beautiful wife not so icy and hostile. Poverty, military service, and a marriage of necessity—these are all interesting facets revealed recently about the Draper character.

I watch it, when it doesn’t get too tedious, for the nostalgia the production triggers—nostalgia for the days when women had soothing, soft voices, spoke in complete sentences, and seemed so much smarter and refined than their modern-day, emancipated shrew sisters.

One more thing: The Cruise generation has been followed by a slew of androgynous, unisex actors supposedly in possession of the Y Chromosome. For example, Ryan Phillippe. Yuk. Unwatchable. Or Leonardo DiCaprio; a fair actor, but frightfully undeveloped physically. I hope Hamm makes a lot of films, thrillers, especially. Maybe a couple of new-generation “Dirty Harry” flicks.

Steve’s spot on: “the show relentlessly exposes the sexism of pre-feminism men like Don Draper, seemingly for today’s women to cluck over.”

MadMan_med

Update (Oct 31): Oh for heaven’s sake: “Perfect” to describe the Draper character is meant to compliment his dashing looks, manly demeanor, and complexity. There is a lot of good about him.

Asserted and assimilated by men in the Comments Section is the feminist truism whereby saying that a man would be a good husband if he only had a loving wife is an excuse for the man’s innate badness.

Given the profile of the average woman—leftist, whining, romance-reading, Oprah-watching idiot—it makes perfect sense to feel sorry for a lot of men.

I have only to watch couples purchasing homes on the “House and Garden” channel to marvel at why more men don’t stray. The average woman shopping for a home:

“The dog would love this yard. This yard is not large enough for the dog.” Here’s a fem checking over a $1.3 million home: “my couch will go well in this living room; no, I can’t fit that grand sofa I purchased at Target in here.”

And I’m saying to Sean: “The agent is kind of cute. She gets that you don’t purchase a home to accommodate your ugly old furniture. Or dog! He should go for her.”

It’s also possible that TV reflects the worst of America.

However, certain verbose individuals should take a cue or two from the silent steely type. Never shutting up; never censoring yourself—spewing forth with every infarct of a thought the misfiring brain produces: now that is bloody off-putting.

Draper does not talk a lot. My favorite people ration speech.

An exchange with writer Rob Stove produced these BAB memories/thoughts some time ago:

“When my daughter was seven-years old, her school assigned her the task of describing her parents. On her father, daddy’s darling heaped unrealistic praise (the tables have since turned. Excellent!). For her affection-starved mother, the little lady reserved a matter-of-fact appraisal. ‘My mother,’ she wrote in her girlie cursive, ‘is a quiet woman who speaks mainly when she has something to say.’ (Rob’s riposte: ‘if everyone rationed speech thus, the entire mainstream punditocracy would cease to exist.’ Amen.)”

Pinpointed by my perceptive chatterbox of a child, this economy explains the lack of gush in my writing. Cutting and slashing at a column are one of the best things a writer can do. That’s my advice to budding writers (or people who believe they are writers). Slash mercilessly.