Monday, July 03, 2017

Liberal advocates genocide

No mystery where the racism is to be found these days

“White supremacy” is the new liberal rage.  Like “global warming” and “”misogyny,” it exists everywhere, in all places, at all times, but only they can see it.

And now they have a plan to fight  it — by aborting all white babies.

Nicole Valentine, writing in “Medusa” magazine, claims American society is hopelessly racist, and the only way to solve it is through the wholesale elimination of “white family units.”

“America’s fascination with the white family unit has gone hand-in-hand with the historical proliferation of white supremacy,” says Valentine, who uses the term “white supremacy” an obsessive 17 times in a short article, but produces zero examples of an institutional belief in the debunked theory that one race is superior than the other.

So how do racists like Valentine plan to fight perceived racism?  With actual, blood-soaked racism.

“White women: it is time to do your part! Your white children reinforce the white supremacist society that benefits you. If you claim to be progressive, and yet willingly birth white children by your own choice, you are a hypocrite,” claims Valentine. “White women should be encouraged to abort their white children, and to use their freed-up time and resources to assist women of color who have no other choice but to raise their children.”

Apparently as confused as she is obsessive and racist, Valentine claims the very notion of abortion itself is racist.

“It is critical to understand that the appeal to abortions being ‘Constitutional’ reinforces white supremacy. There is no way around it. The Constitution was drafted and signed by white men, for white men…Constitutionality is often synonymous with ‘exclusively beneficial to the white race,'” Valentine rambles, adding “the notion of ‘choice’ in abortion is inherently white supremacist and ableist.”

Instead of suggesting that Planned Parenthood be shut down for deliberately targeting minority neighborhoods and disproportionately aborting black babies, Valentine believes the group, founded on explicit racism, is her ally.

“Women of color simply do not have the absolute choice when it comes to their bodies. It is time to stop pretending that they stand on equal footing with white women, when it has been proven that the embedded systems of white supremacy do not act impartially to all women,” claims Valentine. “Because white supremacy prevents women of color from their freedom to choose, we must level the playing field by other means.”

By “other means,” she means killing all white babies.

Let’s hope Valentine gets the counseling and racial sensitivity training she needs.


UPDATE:  It occurs to me that the above may be some warped Leftist's idea of satire


More Dishonest “Poverty” Research that Doesn’t Measure Poverty

I periodically share data showing that living standards are higher in the United States than in Europe.

My goal isn’t to be jingoistic. Instead, I’m warning readers that we won’t be as prosperous if we copy out tax-and-spend friends on the other side of the Atlantic (just like I try to draw certain conclusions when showing how many low-tax jurisdictions have higher levels of economic output than the United States).

I’m sometimes asked, though, how America can be doing better than Europe when we have more poverty.

And when I ask them why they thinks that’s the case, they will point to sources such as this study from the German-based Institute of Labor Economics. Here’s some attention-grabbing data from the report.

The United States has the highest poverty rate both overall and among households with an employed person, but it stands farther away from the other countries on its in-work poverty rate than its overall poverty rate. The contrast between the US and three other English-speaking countries — Australia, Ireland, and the United Kingdom — is particularly striking. Compared to those three nations, the United States has an overall poverty rate only a little higher but an in-work poverty rate that is much higher.
And here’s the main chart from the study, with the United States as the bottom. It appears that there twice as much poverty in the USA as there is in a stagnant economy like France.

There even appears to be more poverty in America than there is in Spain and Italy, both of which are so economically shaky that they required bailouts during the recent fiscal/financial crisis.

Sounds horrible, right?

Yes, it does sound really bad. However, it’s total nonsense. Because what you read in the excerpt and see in the graph has nothing to do with poverty.

Instead, it’s a measure of income distribution.

And, if you read carefully, the study actually admits there’s a bait-and-switch.

The…approach to measuring poverty is a “relative” one, with the poverty line set at 60 or 50 percent of the median income.
Think about what this means. A country where everyone is impoverished will have zero or close-to-zero poverty because everyone is at the median income. But as I’ve explained before, a very wealthy society can have lots of “poverty” if some people are a lot richer than others.

And since the United States is much richer than other nations, this means an American household with $35,000 of income can be poor, even though they wouldn’t count as poor if they earned that much elsewhere.

This is like grading on a rigged curve. And if you read the fine print of the IZA study, you’ll see that the “poverty” threshold for a four-person household magically jumps by $16,260.

For a household of four (two adults, two children) the difference between the official US threshold and the 60-percent-of-median threshold amounts to more than $16,000 ($24,000 versus $40,260). This means that the size of the working poor population in America according to the official poverty measure is significantly lower than the size obtained in studies using a relative threshold.

In other words, you can calculate a much higher poverty rate if you include people who aren’t poor.

By the way, since the IZA report acknowledges this bait-and-switch approach, I guess one would have to say that the study technically is honest.

But it’s still misleading because most people aren’t going to read the fine print.  Instead, they’ll see the main chart showing higher “poverty” and assume that there is a much higher percentage of actual poor people in the United States.

Moreover, some people may understand that there’s a bait-and-switch and simply want to help fool additional people.

And I’m guessing that this is exactly what the authors and the IZA staff expected and wanted. And if that’s the case, then the study is deliberately misleading, even if not technically dishonest.

I’ll close by stating that I don’t mind if folks on the left want to argue that market-based societies are somehow unfair because some people are richer than others. And it’s also fine for them to argue that we should be willing sacrifice some of our national prosperity to achieve more after-the-fact equality of income.

But I’d like for them to be upfront about their agenda and not hide behind dodgy data manipulation.

P.S.When you do apples-to-apples comparisons of the United States with the best-performing economies of Europe, you find that the poor tend to be at the same level, but every other group is better off in America.

SOURCE (See the original for links)


The left's health-care rhetoric is unhinged

by Jeff Jacoby

The left's most popular "argument" against replacing Obamacare is the slander that Republicans want to kill people.

REMEMBER HOW liberal politicians promised to tone down the partisan rhetoric after a heavily armed Bernie Sanders fan opened fire on GOP lawmakers taking batting practice on June 14? Remember how they signed on to a "pledge of civility?" Remember how they said they would use the near-massacre as a jolt that "brings us together"?

You don't remember? Apparently they don't either. For no sooner had Senate Republicans released their proposed health-insurance bill last week than Democrats were once again dialing the hate speech up to 11.

Before Representative Steve Scalise was even out of intensive care, Democrats were back to calling his party and its legislation not just "heartless" and "evil," but downright homicidal. Sanders, in a tweet he later deleted, charged Republicans with "trying to pass a bill that could kill up to 27,000" in order to "give tax cuts to the wealthy."

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, in her usual caustic style, said the legislation amounts to "blood money" and that "people will die" if it is enacted. Hillary Clinton added to the slander: "If Republicans pass this bill, they're the death party."

So much for dialing back the unhinged rhetoric.

The toxic contempt that so many prominent voices on the left bring to the public discourse is by now wearily familiar. In 2009 Sarah Palin was disdained for claiming that Obamacare would empower "death panels." Yet liberals and Democrats in 2017 not only insist ad nauseam that Republicans want to kill people, they won't stop saying such things even after one of their own tries to perpetrate a massacre.

I've no doubt that many of those playing the death card sincerely believe that rolling back Obamacare will keep thousands of Americans from getting lifesaving medical treatment. Human beings have a great capacity for convincing themselves that their opinions and prejudices are obvious truths — particularly when they have a strong political incentive to believe it.

In my view, the keening on the left about how the GOP bills will strike people dead is sheer hysteria. For years, it has been a familiar liberal claim that if conservative policies prevail — on health care, on fossil fuels, on welfare reform, on abortion rights, on the Second Amendment, even on rent control — more people will die. The dire warnings about rewriting Obamacare are just more of the same.

Something no advocates of Obamacare saw coming: Mortality rates in the United States are up

But for the sake of argument, let's take the claim at face value. If changing Obamacare is a prescription for higher death rates, that must mean enacting Obamacare led to lower death rates.

Only — it didn't.

When Barack Obama came to office, mortality rates in the United States had been declining for decades. By the time he left the White House, deaths were on the rise. According to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), America's overall death rate rose by 1.2 percent in 2015 (the most recent year for which data is available). It marked the first significant increase in death rates since 1999, and it was broad-based:

"Increases occurred among white men and women as well as black men," The Wall Street Journal reported. "Death rates rose for eight of the top 10 leading causes of death," including respiratory diseases, injuries, Alzheimer's, diabetes, kidney disease, and suicide. Most ominous was the increase in deaths from heart disease, which is the nation's leading killer.

As a result of the climbing death rate, US life expectancy shrank — something that hadn't happened since the early 1990s, when AIDS and homicide were cutting down tens of thousands of lives each year.

It isn't clear why Americans are dying at higher rates. But this much is plain: In the aggregate, the Affordable Care Act hasn't kept more people alive. So lawmakers who supported the law should be accused of sending more Americans to their graves, right? Defenders of Obamacare should be smeared as "heartless" and "evil" and the "death party." Shouldn't they?

Of course they shouldn't. Obamacare is a grievously flawed government program, and its implementation has coincided with higher death rates. But it would be vile to scream "Killers!" at the Democrats who passed Obamacare. It is no less vile to scream it at the Republicans who want to repeal it.



For more blog postings from me, see  TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH,  POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated),  a Coral reef compendium and an IQ compendium. (Both updated as news items come in).  GUN WATCH is now mainly put together by Dean Weingarten. I also put up occasional updates on my Personal blog and each day I gather together my most substantial current writings on THE PSYCHOLOGIST.

Email me  here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or  here (Pictorial) or  here  (Personal)


No comments: