Sunday, November 18, 2018

Mind the Gapped

The nation is so cowed by political correctness controversy isn't what it used to be.
When I heard a city councilman somewhere had used the phrase "master race" my morbid self rose to the clickbait, expecting to learn some poor soul went off-matrix and starting ranting about race and all that entails.

But no, it turns out "master race" is a phrase, like "nigger", that not only offends when used in earnest, it can't be uttered in context, and certainly not in jest.
Political correctness expanded beyond barring the (ever growing realm of) offensive to things that remind one of the offensive at some point. Now we can't even be trusted with our own language, uttering child-like constructs such as "the N-word". That this is the ineffable name of our time, like Yahweh, shows you who sits atop the hierarchy of grievance that is our quasi-religious order now.

Turns out the controversy was over a councilman making a joke about the concept of "master race" in front of a black woman, with whom he actually shared an affinity
 “I don’t want you to think I am picking on you because we are part of the master race,” Klemp told Penelton. “You have a gap in your teeth. We are part of the master race. Don’t you forget that.”
Klemp, chairman of the three-member commission, also has a gap in his teeth. Fellow commissioners Robert Holland and Doug Smith have also called for Klemp to leave.
We in the gap-toothed community were not consulted.

Saturday, November 17, 2018

Portland Report



This is local professional woman of color Alyssa Pariah speaking in downtown Portland today at a demonstration opposing a scheduled "#HimToo" rally in support of men falsely accused of sexual assault.

Subscribe to my YouTube channel.


Friday, November 16, 2018

Pozztown Dispatch

Earlier this week Portland voted down an ordinance restricting public demonstrations. The city has been the scene for serial warfare between Vancouver, Washington based (just over the river) Proud Boys affiliate Patriot Prayer, and antifa. Patriot Prayer stages a demonstration for a provocative (to the pozzed--"free speech" being one) cause and antifa show up--in increasingly organized and aggressive fashion.
The economic cost and embarrassment for the city has been substantial. I suspect somewhere a cop has got a new boat with all the overtime, another one is adding on to the house...
I don't blame them. It's thankless work.

The police chief offered the bill and the mayor supported it, in hopes of being rid of the Patriots.

The same left that turns up attempting to physically drive them out of town opposed the ordinance thinking, sensibly, that the same rule would then be turned upon them. It is notable the city wasn't looking to limit protests when it was just the locals throwing a tantrum over Trump's election and breaking stuff.

So, wasting no time, combatants announce it's on, for tomorrow:
Rival protests are planned Saturday in downtown Portland, which could draw several hundred people — and potential conflict — to a pair of parks near City Hall.

An offshoot of the right-wing group Patriot Prayer scheduled a #HimToo rally and their left-wing opponents plan to hold counter demonstrations.

The demonstrations once again provide an opportunity for rival political factions to confront each other in the center of the city, in this case only days after a failed attempt by Mayor Ted Wheeler to restrict violent protests that have become a fixture in Portland.
I'll try to be on hand and livestream it at my YouTube channel.

Wednesday, November 14, 2018

Six of one, half dozen of the other

Donald Trump has thrown in with criminal justice reform:
President Trump threw his support behind a substantial revision of the nation’s prison and sentencing laws on Wednesday, opening a potential path to enacting the most significant changes to the criminal justice system in a generation. 
The tentative legislative package, developed by a bipartisan group of senators and called the First Step Act, builds on a prison overhaul bill already passed overwhelmingly by the House by adding changes that would begin to unwind some of the tough-on-crime federal policies of the 1980s and 1990s that incarcerated African-American offenders at much higher rates than white offenders. 
Combining new funding for anti-recidivism programs, the expansion of early-release credits for prisoners and the reduction of certain mandatory minimum sentences, the compromise bill would help shape the experiences of tens of thousands of current inmates and future offenders. 
“In many respects, we’re getting very much tougher on the truly bad criminals — of which, unfortunately, there are many,” said Mr. Trump, flanked by Republican lawmakers and law enforcement officials. “But we’re treating people differently for different crimes. Some people got caught up in situations that were very bad.” 
Just before his firing Jeff Sessions was still pushing against reform.
The proposed law would in effect roll back the Clinton Administration's 1994 Crime Bill which locked up more criminals, or in the soft Orwellian language of the Current Year, "raised incarceration rates". There is no difference between the two, but the latter is bad.

In politics locking up criminals used to be a thing. Clinton was quaintly defending it as late as the 2016 presidential campaign, before having his ass handed to him by the Narrative and apologizing. Politicians now campaign on "reducing incarceration rates", where they once campaigned on "locking up criminals"--Trump being an exception, and all the more a disappointment now for climbing down. If the Left has its way, he'll be the last national candidate who dares advocating for locking up criminals, openly.

Recall police were being executed in the streets by radicalized Black Lives Matter supporters during the 2016 campaign as part of what Steve Sailer calls the "Late Obama Age Collapse."  No small part of Trump's appeal was his old-fashioned call for law and order in the face of BLM agitation, which is a kind of criminal advocacy.

The average white American hadn't necessarily experienced an increase in crime but he knew, in 2016 as he knows now, that the problem with criminal justice isn't its "racism". Trump appeared, as if on cue, to provide us with the opportunity to strike back.

This cave from Trump and Jeff Sessions' departure threaten his gains of the past two years in rolling back Obama era excess.
Jeff Sessions spoke uncompromisingly against reform while Attorney General and issued a memo on his way out limiting the pursuit and extent of consent decrees--seeking to preempt a return to Obama/Holder's political weaponization of them.

The bill, which would take more people out of prison and into halfway houses, reverts to Obama-era policy and is sold in part on its economics--it's cheaper to put someone in a halfway house than a cell (and an ankle bracelet for home detention is cheaper still) and the Bureau of Prisons ran a shortfall of 40 million last year.

Apparently under Sessions' authority convicts were serving out more of their sentences and spending less time in the bloated industry of halfway house contractors that rose to meet Obama-era demand.
Prisoner advocate the Marshall Project complained just last month:
In federal penitentiaries across the nation, prisoners eagerly awaiting a transfer to halfway houses say they are being told that they will have to wait weeks or months longer than they had anticipated because there is a shortage of beds at the transitional group homes. 
But that’s not true. According to inmates, halfway house staff and industry officials, scores of beds lie empty, with some estimates of at least 1,000 vacant spaces. They remain unused due to a series of decisions that have sharply reduced the number of prisoners sent to halfway houses. And home confinement, a federal arrangement similar to house arrest that allows prisoners to complete their sentences with minimal supervision, is being even more drastically curtailed. 
The Bureau of Prisons says it is curbing overspending of past years and streamlining operations, but that doesn’t make sense. Putting inmates in halfway houses or on home confinement is much cheaper than imprisonment. The federal government spent almost $36,300 a year to imprison an inmate, $4,000 more compared with the cost to place a person in a halfway house in 2017, according to the Federal Register. It costs $4,392 a year to monitor someone on home confinement, according to a 2016 report by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. 
The new law is being sold as a money-saver.
Abandoning transitional supervision aligns with Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ disputed opinion that reduced prison populations during the Obama administration are to blame for a small uptick in violent crime. As a senator from Alabama, Sessions led the charge two years ago against a bill to ease sentences, and as attorney general he has instructed prosecutors to be more aggressive in charging defendants.  
Steve Sailer attributes that "small uptick" to his "Late Obama Age" collapse thesis: BLM rioting and the subsequent retreat of police forces in affected municipalities led to increases in murder rates, citing its localization in places like Baltimore and Ferguson. Jeff Sessions has been blaming soft law enforcement leaving too many criminals on the street. Certainly the overall effect of the Obama administration was to keep as many criminals out of jail as possible while riling them up with demagogy about police brutality.
But his draconian ideas are undermining his own boss’ stated preference for early release and rehabilitation programs. President Donald Trump has endorsed the First Step Act, which would let prisoners earn significant time to finish their sentences in halfway houses or home confinement if they complete certain rehabilitation programs. The bill is awaiting a Senate vote. Trump has said that he would “overrule” Sessions if the attorney general tried to stymie efforts to reform the criminal justice system.
Criminal justice reform as envisioned by the new bill seeks to get people out of prison earlier and out of halfway houses and into home detention earlier. Predictable problems arise from putting convicts too early into transitional

This reversion to Obama-era policies will impact public safety.
Since the 1960s, halfway houses have provided federal prisoners a running start before release to find work, which has been shown to help people stay crime-free longer. A Pennsylvania state study found connections between higher rearrest rates and stints in halfway houses, while federal violations, violence and overdoses have contributed to poor public perception of the facilities. But prisoners and their advocates say moving into a transitional residence gives inmates an incentive to avoid trouble in prison and join rehabilitative programs. 
Under the Obama administration, the number of federal prisoners in halfway houses and other transitional programs boomed. The federal government required the privately-run residences to provide mental health and substance abuse treatment, and the Department of Justice also increased access to ankle monitors so more prisoners could finish sentences in their own homes. 
At the peak in 2015, more than 10,600 prisoners resided in federal halfway houses. The number of inmates in home confinement—4,600—was up more than a third from the year before. In all, one in 14 of the people under Bureau of Prisons supervision was living at home or in a halfway house.
If you fall victim to a crime take solace: the event is tangible evidence of lower incarceration rates!

Sunday, November 11, 2018

Life of Becky

The left's current campaign against white women for not voting as a leftist block (for policies hostile to them as white people) looks like just another Current Year escalation, but feminism and black civil rights have been in real conflict the whole time.

The suffragettes of course were progressive "racists" whose reputations are already being taken down just as the centennial of the 19th Amendment approaches--their statues are slated for removal before going up. They argued from a white supremacist point of view: giving the vote to a black man before giving it to a white woman was an outrage.

With the inclusion of sex as a protected category in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the creation of the initially weak Equal Employment Opportunity Commission began the transformation of the women's rights movement into one modeled entirely on black civil rights, treating sex as a class no different than race.

Including sex as a protected class was offered by Virginia Democrat and Rules Committee chairman Howard W. Smith as a sort of troll, thinking to sink it:
The Southerners’ plan was to delay a vote, in the hope that violent protests would lead to a white backlash. Smith promised to drag out hearings on the bill. But in January, 1964, he was threatened with a discharge petition—a measure, rarely used, to bring legislation out of committee against the wishes of the chairman—into releasing it for debate. It was during that debate that he introduced, on February 8, 1964, the sex amendment.

The amendment was a one-word addition, “sex,” to Title VII of the bill, which prohibited employers from discriminating on the basis of “race, color, religion, or national origin.” Opponents of Smith’s amendment, led by Emanuel Celler, of Brooklyn, the seventy-five-year-old chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and the bill’s floor leader, regarded it as either a prank intended to expose the limits of liberal egalitarianism or a poison pill that would make the bill more difficult to pass in the House, which had twelve female members, and impossible to pass in the Senate, which had two.

Opponents of civil-rights legislation had offered the sex amendment before. In 1950, Congress debated the resurrection of the Fair Employment Practices Committee, which had been created by Roosevelt to ban discrimination by government contractors, but which, after the war, under the leadership of Smith and Richard Russell, of Georgia, Congress had shut down. A Florida congressman, Dwight Rogers, proposed adding “sex” to the list of categories to be protected from discrimination. The House adopted the amendment, and the bill died in the Senate. 
If Smith’s amendment was a prank, it backfired. The House accepted it by a “teller” vote (that is, a head count) of 168 to 133. Most of the yeas were reported to have been Republicans and Southern Democrats. Johnson and Robert Kennedy were firm about minimizing changes to the bill after it reached the Senate, and although there were some alterations, the ban on discrimination by gender stayed in. On July 2nd, it became law.
Historians don't agree Smith was insincere in offering the amendment; he was a longtime confederate of radical suffragist Alice Paul and supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment. Hugh Davis Graham in "The Civil Rights Era":
The courtly Virginian, however, was also curiously sincere in his unlikely feminist egalitarianism. He had been a Congressional sponsor of the Equal Rights Amendment since as far back as 1945--almost as far back as he had been a scourge of [] FEPC. Ever since then he had maintained loose political ties with the National Women's Party...founded in 1913 in the suffragist campaign under the aggressive leadership of Alice Paul... 
..For forty years the NWP's campaign for the ERA was opposed by vintage Democrats like Eleanor Roosevelt and Emanuel Celler, largely because it threatened their proud legacy of progressive legislation to protect women in the workplace...
The ERA would have negated laws designed to protect women from exploitation in the workplace which included limiting the hours they can work (as Title VII has anyway). The "courtly" Judge Smith was also a friend of business. Virginia's textile mills employed a lot of women and were interested in anything that made it easier to employ them.

Granting women equal employment rights, as with the vote, had secondary effects on the racial dynamic, and Smith's amendment was defended by firebrand women's libber Martha Gritffiths in racial terms:
Martha W. Griffiths of Michigan, who was the first woman to join the House Ways and Means Committee, led the bipartisan and ideologically strange fight for the Smith Amendment. Griffiths was a warrior who took no prisoners; she declared that "a vote against this amendment today by a white man is a vote against his wife, or his widow, or his daughter, or his sister... 
...It would be incredible to me that white men would be willing to place white women at such a disadvantage," Griffiths said. Under the bill as reported, "you are going to have white men in one bracket, you are going to try to take colored men and colored women and give them equal employment rights, and down at the bottom of the list is going to be a white woman with no rights at all."
But the ancient, stubborn female rage we're seeing expressed through, among other things, the #metoo movement, was showing itself as well:
Katherine St George, a genteel Republican from Tuxedo Park, New York, hurled defiance in the teeth of her male colleagues: "We outlast you. We oultive you. We nag you to death. So why should we want special privileges?" "We want this crumb of equality," she said, "to correct something that goes back, frankly, to the dark ages."
We haven't even named the primordial rage we've unleashed with women's liberation. But it's real.
Her  Republican Colleague, Catherine May of Washington, was a less strident petitioner, yet quaintly echoed the sentiments of the NWP: "I hope we won't overlook the native-born American woman of Christian religion."
No. We'll just name her Becky and set loose the hounds.

Thursday, November 08, 2018

White Women Wantonly Whiting

Via Steve Sailer, the Twitter account for feminist advocacy group "Women's March":


"White women gonna white" appears to be a theme. From the organization's website:
We are outraged. We are organized. They forgot that 5 million women lit the world on fire two years ago. On January 19, 2019, we’re going to remind them when we flood the streets of Washington, D.C., and with sister marches in cities across the globe. Save the date: The #WomensWave is coming, and we’re sweeping the world forward with us.
Fire and flood. Sweeping the world forward on a wave of menopausal discharge. You can pretend to notice nothing (not noticing things is a Current Year survival skill we have all developed--without noticing) but the imagery is unavoidable.
I'm reminded of another unintentionally sinister slogan (sorry ladies, the logo is taken):


Cover the earth grrrls.

A google search for "white women" of course turns up more of the same. White women are letting the side down, perpetually:
Twitter: