Take a Picture - Filter
Posted On: Friday - May 5th 2017 4:34PM MST
In Topics: Music
From late 1999 came this great rock song by a band named "Filter". As a late adopter, I first heard this song only about 10 years back, liked it a lot immediately, then promptly forget about it until I heard it again and made an effort to look it up.
Take a Picture from Filter's 2nd album Title of Record:
No comments - Click here to start thread
1986 Illegal Amnesty - Ronald Reagan's regrets.
Posted On: Friday - May 5th 2017 8:57AM MST
In Topics: Immigration Stupidity History Dead/Ex- Presidents
(At least in the words of his former attorney general, Ed Meese)
As suggested in a recent previous post on the 1986 amnesty, we will post the entire piece of writing from the Conservative Heritage Times, because that site doesn't seem to exist anymore (though there is a blogspot site with that name that is not what I would think it should be), so no link. Here is the full text, or at least all that Allan Wall's VDare article had in it:
According to Ronald Reagan himself, as told to his trusted long-time friend and U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese, the biggest mistake of his presidency was signing the 1986 amnesty for what turned out to be more than half the five million illegal immigrants in the country. Reagan was uncomfortable with the amnesty but was persuaded by some of the leaders of his own party (still living) that it would only affect a small number of illegal immigrants and would assure that Congress would follow through with more vigorous enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. The misnamed Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 was touted by its supporters as “comprehensive immigration reform” that would grant amnesty only to a few long-settled immigrants and strengthen border security and internal immigration enforcement against employers who were hiring illegal immigrants.Ronald Reagan`s Biggest Mistake – According to Reagan Himself, (Conservative Heritage Times, January 2nd, 2012)
Internal enforcement was critical to Reagan. He knew that the real key to stopping illegal immigration was to cut off the job magnet at the employment place. He was also honest enough to call what he believed would only be a small amnesty by its real name—amnesty. He did not try to deceive the American people into thinking it was not really an amnesty, a deception much in vogue with many politicians today.
There are various accounts of how many amnesties were expected with passage of the 1986 amnesty. Figures range from 300,000 (Gingrich, who voted for it) to about 2.1 million. Some reasonable estimates center around 1.2 million. The actual result was 2.7 million. Close to one third of the amnesties given were based on document fraud.
For the first six months after the amnesty there was a modest fall in illegal immigration, but within 12 months illegal immigration was breaking all previous records, rising to 800,000 per year. Friends and relatives of the newly legalized immigrants began to pour into the United States. They were followed by more illegal job seekers who saw continued opportunities for more amnesties. In fact, the 1986 amnesty resulted in six more amnesties from 1994 to 2000, awarding legal status to another 3.0 million illegal immigrants. By 1997, the number of illegal immigrants in the country was already back up to the 5.0 million in the U.S. before the 1986 amnesty. Amnesty has proved to be a slippery slope. Amnesties beget more amnesties and more illegal immigrants. Can you imagine the consequences of amnesty for the 11 million or more illegals now in the United States?
There were 5.0 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. in 1986 because we had allowed cheap-labor special interests to dominate immigration policy to the point of non-enforcement. We had become lax on border security and had ceased to enforce immigration laws at the workplace. Lack of enforcement at the workplace was by far the more important of the two chief causes of illegal immigration, as it is today.
Reagan thought he was trading a small amnesty for all-important workplace enforcement and increased border security. But once the amnesty was done and multiplying far beyond expectations, the special interests went to work at killing enforcement at the employment place. The chief culprits were the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and large agriculture corporations that lobbied Congress into backing off enforcement.
According to a 1997 report by the Center for Immigration Studies, the cost of amnesty for 2.7 million illegal immigrants had accumulated to $156.7 billion (in 1986 dollars!) by 1997. The net cost after $78 billion in tax collections was $78.7 billion dollars. This amounts to a subsidy per amnestied illegal of $29,148 in 1986 dollars, which is an important indirect subsidy for the employers of illegal workers. But U.S. workers paid the highest price. The 1986 amnesty displaced 1,872,000 American workers over the next decade. This and downward pressure on American wages are not adequately accounted for in the report. In fact, downward pressure on U.S. worker income may be the largest cost to the American economy of amnesty and excess immigration levels.
Only 36 percent of the 1986 amnesty recipients spoke English well, and only 28 percent of those over age 24 had graduated from high school.
Recently the liberal media has been pushing its pro-amnesty agenda by painting a false picture of Reagan on immigration and amnesty. Reagan saw that illegal immigration was becoming a big problem and wanted to stop it. He was persuaded to allow a relatively small amnesty as a bargaining chip to strengthen border security, and more importantly, workplace enforcement. Reagan wanted to fine employers $3,000 to $10,000 for each illegal immigrant deliberately hired. Congress betrayed him on the enforcement measures and probably the extent and eventual costs of the amnesty. Blindness to likely consequences and costs of social legislation seems to be an inherent characteristic of liberal politicians of both major parties. One of the great shortcomings of progressives is their inability to progress to step 2 or 3 in thinking through the logical consequences of legislation. They have an unshakeable faith in the wisdom of the latest poll of uninformed voters. Reagan should have known better than to trust the happy-clappy liberals and servants of the big dollar lobbyists. He made a big mistake, but he admitted it.
Ronald Reagan was not comfortable with amnesty. He was pro-enforcement, and he admitted to Edwin Meese that the biggest mistake of his presidency was to sign the 1986 amnesty. We should learn from the wisdom Reagan gained by bitter experience. Any amnesty is a slippery slope to national economic and social disaster.
No comments - Click here to start thread
Donald Trump's number one fan is not happy ... lucky for him, it's not Annie Wilkes
Posted On: Thursday - May 4th 2017 5:27PM MST
In Topics: Movies Trump Pundits
from Steven King's Misery.
Ann Coulter has a much better bedside manner, and is infinitely better looking, but even she's getting pissed at this possibly worthless guy we put a lot of hope on.
In her latest writing, Trump's number one fan explains how bad the budget deal is regarding immigration, the number one existential concern. Entitled "On The Budget, It’s SWAMP PEOPLE: 47; TRUMP: 0", this article again says it better than we could.
If this is the budget deal we get when Republicans control the House, the Senate and the presidency, there’s no point in ever voting for a Republican again.
Not only is there no funding for a wall, but—thanks to the deft negotiating skills of House Speaker Paul Ryan—the bill actually prohibits money from being spent on a wall.
Sure Trump's only allies are the American public. A good leader could get the people to act, though. There is much he can do solely as the Commander-in-Chief, now that those powers have been so broadened by all of the warmongering predecessors. We have an invasion going on. Be the Commander-in-Chief!
This isn’t new information. We knew Washington Republicans were useless. That’s why we elected such a comically improbable president as Donald J. Trump.
The deal was that we were getting the Hollywood version of a New York businessman: an uncouth, incurious rube—who would be ruthless in getting whatever he wanted.
In addition to being the only candidate for president in either party taking America’s side on trade, immigration, jobs and crime, what set Trump apart was his promise that we would finally win.
Remember? There would be so much winning, we were going to get “sick and tired of winning,” and beg him, “Please, please, we can’t win anymore. … It’s too much. It’s not fair to everybody else.”
We’re not winning. We’re losing, and we’re losing on the central promise of Trump’s campaign.
Here's a taste of Annie Wilkes, the "number one fan", who may be just what we need to set this guy straight and counteract the deep state or whatever just plain stupidity or cowardice has been hobbling this guy (no, I didn't want to show the hobbling scene from the movie)
No comments - Click here to start thread
Doraville - the Atlanta Rhythm Section
Posted On: Wednesday - May 3rd 2017 7:38PM MST
In Topics: Music Southern rock
Back 4 months ago, we featured this song, "Sky High" by the Atlanta Rhythm Section. Here is one the best songs from the band, Doraville:
"Doraville,
touch of country in the city.
Doraville.
It ain't much, but it's home.
Friends of mine
say I oughta move to New York.
New York's fine,
but it ain't Doraville."
Yeah, pretty sure the neighborhood has changed since the song was written in the '70's, and knowing Atlanta, not for the better.
Core line-up of the band during their prime years (early '70's to early '80's):
Barry Bailey - lead guitar
Dean Daughtry - keyboards, vocals
Paul Goddard - bass
James B. Cobb, Jr. - guitar, backing vocals
Ronni Hammond - vocals
(youtube didn't have the Doraville cut off of the same live album Are you Ready? that Sky High is on. Those cheap youtube bastids!)
No comments - Click here to start thread
The 1986 Reagan-signed Illegal Alien Amnesty
Posted On: Wednesday - May 3rd 2017 7:21PM MST
In Topics: Immigration Stupidity History Dead/Ex- Presidents
(Look at the evil elder Bush in the background. What a let-down he was!)
This post is appearing tonight, as the earlier post was about actors, and it reminded me to write about the 1986 illegal alien amnesty. Ronald Reagan, who was president then, did start out as an actor. Somehow, through a mystery of fate(?)when he was fairly young, he obtained some common sense and smart views about politics. Before he was US president ('81 - '88), and even for a decade before he was governor of California (mid-1960's) Ronnie was a fighter against Communism. He was no slouch in the writing department either, and a reading of his writings for his radio addresses back in the day makes any modern politician look like Beavis in comparison. OK, that was an exaggeration, more like Butthead.
OK, let's get something straight - Congress, both the House of Reps. and the Senate, together make laws, and the president can sign them or not. If not he can be overwritten by a much larger yes vote - 2/3 of the House AND 2/3 of the Senate.
The abomination called the Simpson-Mazzoli bill after its sponsors, was signed by President Reagan to finish making it into a law. He didn't write the bill. The phrase "Reagan Amnesty" has been used ever since, possibly just for convenience, but you don't all the other large botched-up POS bills being named after presidents, with the exception of "Obamacare".
PeakStupidity has a great respect for Ronald Reagan. Though we aren't ready for him to be a saint, exactly, as there are too many for the calendar already, we sure wouldn't mind possibly bumping out one of the more progressive saints for him. I doubt we will see that until this present Commie so-called "Pope" has voluntarily or forcefully (even better) been De-Poped with extreme prejudice. As to the subject, Mr. Reagan's name has been seriously de-smirched by that amnesty of 3,000,000 or so illegal Mexicans, the amount that were living in America in the mid-1980's (as opposed to the admittedly rectal-extraction based value of 25 to 40 million here now).
President Reagan's problem can be summed up simply - he was too trusting. Now, he was not naive enough to trust the Soviet Russians, as he had spent many years learning about the evils of Communism. However, he WAS naive enough to trust his opposition politicians in the US Congress. That caused him 2 big mistakes, one of which was the 1986 amnesty. There was a deal made, that this one-time (haha) amnesty would be done, but then real border security and enforcement of law against illegal alien employers would be implemented. From VDare, the best source on any of this stuff:
According to Ronald Reagan himself, as told to his trusted long-time friend and U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese, the biggest mistake of his presidency was signing the 1986 amnesty for what turned out to be more than half the five million illegal immigrants in the country. Reagan was uncomfortable with the amnesty but was persuaded by some of the leaders of his own party (still living) that it would only affect a small number of illegal immigrants and would assure that Congress would follow through with more vigorous enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. The misnamed Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 was touted by its supporters as “comprehensive immigration reform” that would grant amnesty only to a few long-settled immigrants and strengthen border security and internal immigration enforcement against employers who were hiring illegal immigrants.This quoted-by-VDare information, discussed in the article linked to here again is from an article that was in Conservative Heritage Times in January of 2012 (but the link in VDare returns nothing now). The entire part quoted in the VDare article by Allan Wall is so interesting, it may be another post coming.
Internal enforcement was critical to Reagan. He knew that the real key to stopping illegal immigration was to cut off the job magnet at the employment place. He was also honest enough to call what he believed would only be a small amnesty by its real name—amnesty. He did not try to deceive the American people into thinking it was not really an amnesty, a deception much in vogue with many politicians today.
From a site called "On The Issues", while trying to get a few more details, I saw:
Rising levels of illegal immigration [led to] the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). It provided amnesty for 3 million illegal immigrants, in return for increased border security and penalties for companies "knowingly" hiring illegal immigrants. Aside from creating the H-2A visa for seasonal employment, IRCA failed to create new avenues for legal immigration. The combination of amnesty and inadequate avenues for legal immigration exacerbated the problem of illegal immigration.No, no slant there, right, and, well, there is no link here - PeakStupidity will write about morons, but WE! WILL! NOT! LINK! TO! MORONS!
Yeah, we should have let more in legally to avoid their coming in illegally. How about having controlled the border back in late 1986, right after this bill was signed, per the deal?!
Who would have thought that the Congress would have reneged on a deal with Ronald Reagan? He naivety cost our country a lot in this case, but he grew up in a much different era, back when congressmen were honest and upstandi... no, I just can't ...
No comments - Click here to start thread
Shark scientist (in the movies) comes out slightly conservative...
Posted On: Wednesday - May 3rd 2017 7:14AM MST
In Topics: Humor Movies Media Stupidity
... hilarity ensues? No, not really hilarity, it's just that our title line here sounds like a "The Onion" headline, which, as most of us know, are getting impossible to tell apart from reality.
A few months back PeakStupidity featured a post about "Bono" (not his real name) something-or-other and the great sound of the band U2. Our point was, their great music (only great due to the guitar of "The Edge" (also not his real name)) has absolutely nothing to do with any special knowledge or intelligence on Bono's part about what's wrong with the world. Here's the post: Bono, you'd be serving up
The same truth, that these artists have no special insight into humanity or society, and probably a bit less than your average Joe 12-pack (inflation!), can be applied to actors in Hollywood also. In fact, I'd give musicians a little more credit just for the talent, and stage actors some kudos too, though still with no credit for additional smarts involving politics. The Hollywood ones, well, you just have to be good looking, and not even that sometimes. I thought long ago that these people had to memorize the whole script, until I understood how things were split up into scenes and so forth. They live in a rich and isolated world of their own, yet many of them, present post with an exception, spout out all kind of crap about the rest of us.
OK probably most conservatives and especially readers here already know that, so that's not something new to read. What to do about this continual bombardment of their bombastic bullshit is another story? There are talks of boycotts of movies by the stupidest of these actors. That doesn't concern me very much as I DON'T LIKE almost all new movies, so I haven't been to the theater, with the exception of seeing "Angry Birds" in about 9 years - hard to do a boycott if you don't partake to begin with. It's all good though, but sometimes you've just got to separate the movies that you like from these commie actors' behavior. Enjoy what you like, but don't support the media that touts all the BS from the actors. It would all go away were everyone to ignore it.
Finally, I am coming to something related to the post title... see there are a few conservative ones, your Clint Eastwoods, Jon Voit (the actor, not the periodontist), etc. Probably, in Hollywood, they don't mind a few of these conservatives, as they can brag about it during party invites and all: "Yeah, fancy whore-derbs, heated pool, they'll be a collection of vases from the poontang dynasty, quaaludes, fine sensimilla, and a couple of "conservatives ..." "What?" "Con - serv - a - tives!" "No, they're not from the poontang dynasty, that's the vases... just be there or be square; you'll have a blast, baby!"
After reading the "Eat mor Shark" post of last week, a reader mentioned, because he was irked by not remembering one of the main actors' name (the fishing boat captain, Quint) in "Jaws!", Richard Dreyfuss. He was Mr. know-it-all-scientist Matt Hooper in the movie. Apparently, Dreyfuss, though dissing President Trump earlier, at least is supporting free speech. Fancy that, an actor FOR free speech, and he declared this while talking to Tucker Carlson, no less. I need a miracle (like this) every day!
"He's either very very smart or very very dumb.", says Captain Quint. If he's not talking about the shark, but the typical Hollywood actor, we can safely narrow it down to the latter.
Comments (2)
Housing prices, along with general Stupidity levels, going SKY HIGH!
Posted On: Tuesday - May 2nd 2017 8:39PM MST
In Topics: Music
This is in a separate post, as the previous one, about the new housing bubbles was getting too long. Things are going SKY HIGH, so here is a 2nd song with that name. The previous "Sky High" was a very obscure, but great song off of the live "Are you Ready?" album by the Atlanta Rhythm Section.
Here, also from the 1970's but I believe a coupla years earlier, is the band Jigsaw with a more pop song also called "Sky High". It's a great catchy tune that may bring back memories from 4 decades back. I never have heard a single other song by these guys.
No comments - Click here to start thread
Selling out the country - Aussie and Canook style
Posted On: Tuesday - May 2nd 2017 8:24PM MST
In Topics: Immigration Stupidity Global Financial Stupidity China
Back in a previous post, entitled Warren Buffett, crony capitalist, selling out the country, literally., PeakStupidity commented on a Warren Buffett (a.k.a. the "Orifice of Omaha") company that specifically sells real estate to foreign buyers. Now, Steve Sailer has a blog post on unz.com describing an article in the NY Times (again Sailer is our designated reader on all this) about the situation in the few big Australian cities, "The End of the Australian Dream".
ZeroHedge has been all over any housing bubble business for years now, as it goes along with their usual financial gloom-and-doom reporting. While Sailer and his commenters mull over the Australian sell-out, ZH had an article today, "The Vancouver Housing Bubble Is Back, And It's (Almost) Bigger Than Ever" to match. As much as I have touted ZeroHedge, they do tend to emphasize the doom side of all financial matters. Usually the writers are correct in principle, but the doom doesn't always happen when expected, which is why I laugh at the headline, or the "...it's back" part anyway. That bubble, for Vancouver, BC, Canada, was supposedly in the popping stage per other articles recently, but it's not "back"; the other articles, possibly written by other writers were premature, let's just say.
There is this huge influx of large chunks of money from China (can't say Chinese money, as these are US, Aussie, or Canadian dollars returning that have been accumulated via sales of anything and everything to our English-speaking countries) into these housing markets, in the US consisting of the West coast cities, but still quite a bit in medium-sized cities too (most places with a university). This money is not always, but usually non-fairly-earned money from Chinese men that are corrupt officials who make $600/month or something on paper, but a ton of bribe money in addition. They want to get their money out to a safe place where it could not be re-confiscated, even upon an arrest. It's not always this extreme, as with China pegging their currency, any inflation here (much larger than the numbers our Feral Gov't flaps it's gums about) causes inflation over there. The Chinese people, like anyone, would like to put their earnings into something tangible, and real estate in China can be a bigger gamble due to capricious gov't that can and has changed the rules willy-nilly.
Whatever the reasons, this big money bids up real estate prices in all these cities, Melbourne, Sidney, and what-have-you down under, Los Angeles, San Francisco (the entire bay area), and Seattle here, and Vancouver, Toronto,now Calgary, up there. For young couples or families in these places, the "Insert-English-Speaking-Country-Here Dream" is unobtainable, without taking a huge gamble. An interesting thing is that the Chinese like gambling quite a bit, so besides just an investment vehicle, the properties bought by them are probably an entertainment too, as the bidding-up gets crazy.
Here's the much bigger problem than just the housing problems themselves for these cities and the nations that contain them: It's one thing to have a few foreigners who eventually will fit in nicely and learn the customs eventually, or at least their kids will. This does not work when the numbers are large, however, and the Chinese (dot-Indian also) numbers can get as high as people will let them. A full 'nother Australia-size population of Chinese buyers could move in and that would be only a 2-3% dent in the population of China - easily made up, though it need not be, by a few horny Chinamen and women. Canada is about the same size in population, so ditto.
Why do the foreign buyers like the English-speaking lands to begin with? Well, the rule-of-law (quickly dissipating at this point, but still existent) is something that protects their bug-out investments, but the clean environments, the friendlier and mostly more-trustworthy population are things they can really appreciate. This could work for them and us, as written above, for small numbers. Guess what, once you have a large crowd of foreigners, the country becomes the same one they left in most ways. The people make the nation, that's what it comes down to.
Left China because of all the corruption, did you? Why do you bring the same attitudes and ways with you? (We've seen this with internal migration within America already - hey, former New Jersey or Massachusetts guy, quit telling us about how you came down South for the lower taxes, but then going to the school board meetings complaining about what your kid's missing down here, asshole - or Masshole, respectively!)
Lastly, a quick anecdote. A girl named Shanghai Connie came to the San Francisco bay area 5 years back from, you guessed it, Shanghai, China. When she called with the news of her arrival, she complained that there were just "too many foreigners here". "You're in America", we told her, "what do you expect?" "No, I mean too many foreigners, from China, India, all over the place!"
No comments - Click here to start thread
Univ. of California sells out to foreigners ....
Posted On: Monday - May 1st 2017 6:15PM MST
In Topics: University California
... even if you do want to get into a mortgage-sized debt after 4 or 5 years of "education". Just 4 days back, PeakStupidity featured a post on the "University Bubble", the rest of which appears under the University topic key.
Our recommendation has been to steer your kids away from college and into some type of trade or business unless he CAN become an engineer, computer type, scientist or some such, just based on the wasted investment that can no longer be easily paid on-the-go (by money earned just during summers, weekends, etc.). It now amounts to a mortgage-sized debt that will be owed, unless you, the parents are fairly well off, and most majors really won't help the kid get any better job. Most of the decent jobs for which any major would have done, in the past, just to prove one could get through an ordeal (say, 4 years of course-work (cause IQ tests were basically outlawed for selecting employees way back - bing "Griggs vs. Duke power)) are not there. The other jobs won't pay any or much more that one would have gotten without the 4 years of debt accumulation.
With all that said, many families figure the name of a good school is what it takes for their kid(s) to get ahead. There's some merit to that, whatever the major (mostly it's about meeting the right people, not the learning - the whole "it's not what you know, it's who you blow" thing). Well, California's leaders of the institutions of "higher learning" are just making that harder too.
Here you are, with a family that may have paid large taxes to the state for decades, or have relatives that have donated to the schools, and the big named ones, Berkeley and UCLA, along with others, are just importing foreigners to pay the higher tuition to get this piece of paper that used to mean a lot. A week-old article on VDare by Brenda Walker, a real Californian who writes about all things Californian in relation to the bad quality-of-life effects of massive uncontrolled immigration into that state, is University of California Hid $175 Million in Secret Funds, According to Auditor. Most of the story is not about just the corruption by Janet Napolitano, one nasty bitch for which we'd all be better off never hearing from again. It's about the selling out of spots to the prestigious UC colleges to out-of-state, but more-so out-of-country students, for the big bucks. These elites of California could not give a damn about the natives of their state, no matter how bright and promising, the same as our national elites don't care what happens to native Americans.
In the graphs below, the pie-charts don't look that bad, even the 2015 one, but keep in mind 2 things:
A) They show percentages for the current student body, not incoming freshman, as the line graphs below do.
B) The pie charts are for all schools in the UC system, while the line graphs, looking much worse, are for the prestigious ones (well, not sure about Santa Cruz - that's just about surfing and weed, isn't it
About the only plus-side to this is that these imported kids are not normally the student snowflake types, but, hey, one can learn a lot over 4 years. The "antifa" and other assorted collections of idiots are usually not comprised of these high-paying foreign students either, as the foreign kids may still be under the strange impression that there is rule-of-law in America still and they could be deported. Hahahaaa! cough, cough... wait a minute... hahahaaa! They just want the piece of paper that used to mean a highly-paid successful career back in China or back in Saudi Arabia (well, in the case of the latter, they really don't actually do the work over there, but can hang the paper on the wall and forget their accurate feelings of being a waste of space on the planet). Boy are they all in for a surprise. Thanks for the money, suckers - we got Janet Napolitano a large collection of dildos from the poontang dynasty and we're gonna build a slow-speed bullet train with the rest of it.
Oh, real Californians, pay your damn taxes and shut up - we're your leaders!
No comments - Click here to start thread
Alllman Brothers - Blue Sky
Posted On: Saturday - April 29th 2017 9:23PM MST
In Topics: Music Southern rock
Though I can't put anyone above Jerry Garcia as far as lead guitar playing, the duel lead guitar part by Dwayne Allman and Dicky Betts here on "Blue Sky", from "Eat a Peach" is right on up there with the best guitar leads of all time.
Lots more posting "will occur" next week,with more free time coming.
Comments (2)
Topic Key "cntrl-left" - giving credit where (hopefully) credit is due.
Posted On: Thursday - April 27th 2017 5:49PM MST
In Topics: Pundits alt-right/MAGA ctrl-left
I saw this first in a Takimag article last week by Steve Sailer, entitled Hogwash 101 with additional comments (takimag has many hundreds already) here on unz.com.
We'll make it quick. Sailer seems to have invented the term "cntrl-left" to match the existing "alt-right" term. I just think it's damn brilliant. There's the computer keyboard metaphor, of course, with the "cntrl" (control) key being an important key, moreso than the "alt" one even, unless you are a serious windows guy (the good ones I've seen barely touch the mouse - it's too damn slow for them).
The word "control" is what makes this term great, as that is really what the left is all about and always has been. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, all of them, nothing but horrible examples of the cntrl-left in action.
That was a really nice one, Steve Sailer, and Peak Stupidiy wishes we had thought of it first - that's what makes him a real pundit and overall smart guy, though we DO NOT WORSHIP HIM. We'll spread this term around as much as possible for a lowly blog like ourselves.
No comments - Click here to start thread
Bubblicious, bubbles upon bubbles at the University
Posted On: Thursday - April 27th 2017 5:19PM MST
In Topics: University Global Financial Stupidity
The subject of the huge amount of debt involved in university student loans outstanding (and to come) has been discussed in 5 or so posts under the University topic key, starting here. Now, from Zerohedge, we read Baby Boomers Borrowed $100BN In Student Loans For Their Children And Now Defaults Are Soaring.
This article describes loans to parents of college students made when the Feral Gov't backed stuff hits a limit (there is a limit? Glad to know that, at least.) Right now, the $100,000,000,000 involved is just 7% or so of the student debt money, but hey, you've gotta start somewhere, right? This part of the Zerohedge article (the wider italics being Zerohedge, and narrower italics are their quote of the Wall Street Journal describing the "Parent Plus" program. Be aware that the stupidity has induced vomiting in the young, old and feeble:
When it comes to federally subsidized student loans the underwriting standards put even the no-income, no-doc mortgages of 2005 to shame. Just take the case of Sherry McPherson as an example. Per the WSJ, McPherson was able to secure $100,000 in student loans for her son and herself to attend a trade school despite "her shaky credit and unemployment." Adding insult to injury, for taxpayers at least, McPherson has already refinanced her loans into one of Obama's "income-driven plans" which "sets her payments at zero while she is unemployed."
Sherry McPherson took out Parent Plus debt in 2006 so her son could enroll in a seven-month certificate program at a Seattle for-profit school that teaches commercial diving. She was an unemployed single mother with thousands of dollars in credit-card debt, a car loan and a subprime credit score. She had just retired from the Army after suffering an injury in Iraq.
The school, the Divers Institute of Technology, told Ms. McPherson she needed to borrow nearly $16,000 to cover remaining tuition after her son maxed out on undergraduate federal loans, she recalls.
Ms. McPherson, now 50, remembers telling the school’s financial-aid administrator she wouldn’t be approved because of her shaky credit and unemployment.
“She looked at me and said, ‘Look, all we need is your Social Security number,’ ” recalls Ms. McPherson. “They approved me in three minutes.
She hasn’t worked since, partly because she attended college and graduate school herself. Her Parent Plus balance has more than doubled. Combined with her own student loans, she now owes more than $100,000 to the federal government.
Ms. McPherson has refinanced into an income-driven plan, which sets her payments at zero while she is unemployed.
Oh, 11% of the "parent plus" borrowers have not made a payment within a year. That is pretty far along the road of complete default, not just delinquency. Those are the people who will respond to "Where's the money?" with "Don't worry, you'll get it when I get it". How do you feel about this, taxpayers?
One last thing good about this particular ZH article, is that it's low on the metaphors. Tyler Durden (yeah, right!) doesn't even use the term "bubble", though I do; it beats an article a few days back saying that this part of the bubble was just the tip of the iceberg. Hey, what is it, a bubble or an iceberg, dude? "Well, it's an iceberg with a big bubble of climate emissions inside it! Watch the fuck out!"
No comments - Click here to start thread
Truth as lies, and lies as truth. Where've we read about this before?
Posted On: Tuesday - April 25th 2017 8:13PM MST
In Topics: Lefty MegaStupidity TV, aka Gov't Media ctrl-left Orwellian Stupidity
I just spent the better part of 1/2 hour trying not to fall asleep while reading through the book of Revelation trying unsuccessfully to find a passage that describes how at the end times, the liars will be seen as speakers of truth and vice versa. It goes something like that, and it's not in this book, and I cannot keep track of how many beasts are coming down with how many eyes and horns and so forth. (That's the part that was putting me to sleep.) It doesn't sound at all pleasant, but I guess it's something we've gotta power through. I'd appreciate, though, a comment below to help me find the right passage in the Bible, as I can't think of a good text string to search for.
Why? Well, it started with this article on the unz site by John Derbyshire on Bill O'Rielly's being kicked off Fox News. It was not interesting to me, not due to Derbyshire's writing, but just because I am off all TV, and who cares? However some commenters mentioned Tucker Carlson as O'Reilly's replacement, and I've liked his short segments that I've seen on youtube (3 of them have been written about here on PeakStupidity, 1, 2 , and 3). You know how web-surfing goes, and I ended up watching as much as I could of the video below, which is an interview with another "antifa" nutcase. I guess Carlson gets paid the big bucks mainly for his restraint in just freaking out on-air about the complete distortion of the truth that comes from these people.
That's where Revelation or maybe another book on a prophet of the end times comes in. Is this the stuff they were prophesying about? It's not just the one lady, as you're gonna have your nutcases here and there even in the best of times. It's not just her fellow radicals on the campuses all over that turn lies into truth and truth into lies. There are people behind all this stuff, your Soros's and such. What are their motives? This lady may be as stupid as she seems, though I'm not really sure. The elite people with the big money that push this are not - it's pure evil, I think, at the upper-management level of this bullshit.
Oh, this lady teaches middle school, BTW. You'd better check what district if you have kids in the 11-14 age range. Homeschooling for the win!
Comments (3)
Wish we were back in 1984?
Posted On: Monday - April 24th 2017 11:30AM MST
In Topics: Political Correctness Pundits Orwellian Stupidity
Following is the introductory paragraph of a great article on VDare.com written by a recent law school graduate named John Reid, Supreme Court Precedent Says Berkeley Must Let Ann Speak–And Protect Her From Antifa, Too!:
In the mid-1960s, left-wing University of California Berkeley students refused to abide by the administration’s restrictions against campus political activism, launching the so-called Free Speech Movement, which is widely credited for sparking campus radicalism across the country. Alameda Deputy County District Attorney Ed Meese prosecuted the students, and Ronald Reagan made their lawlessness a top campaign issue in his successful 1966 California gubernatorial election. Subsequently Reagan became President and Meese became his Attorney General—and the campus radicals took over universities from the top down. With their cultural power consolidated, free speech no longer serves the Left, and the birthplace of the “Free Speech Movement” is doing its best to keep Ann Coulter from speaking.It's just interesting to compare the goings-on at the very same place to within 100 YARDS, during the time Ronald Reagan was governor of California to right at 50 years later, as the antifa (what the fuck kind of term is that - very gay sounding) vs. free speech advocates are battling it out now. Back in the 1960's the free speech advocates were the "good guys" as being a commie/socialist lefty against the establishment was seen as good. As seen in the picture at the top of the VDare article, Governor Reagan had tear gas sprayed on the crowd from a chopper (looks like one of those old "Jolly Green Giants"). Now, the free speech advocates are the "bad guys", as they are conservative right-leaning people who are against the establishment. See, that is bad nowadays, as the establishment are the "good guys" because they are the commie/socialists, see? No? Yeah, quite confusing, that.
About the specific rules being made by the University of California - Berserkely administration, Mr. Reid writes:
For the sake of argument, let’s take Berkeley’s claim that they are primarily concerned about student safety at face value. No one honestly believes Coulter will prompt her supporters to violence. Rather, everyone correctly assumes that Antifa activists will try to shut down her speech violently like they did to Milo and others. No one besides Antifa are violently attacking political speeches in Berkeley (or in the rest of the country) and they only do it to the Right.He then, as a lawyer would, brings up court rulings and such to explain why the UC Admins. behavior is completely wrong. First of all, these people are out for their cause of shutting down anyone who speaks truth about immigration and any conservative issue for that matter. They don't want this truth to be heard, and they will not listen to any logical arguments against their behavior. They can't win that way, so they don't play that game. Forget arguing with these people!
Thus, any regulations based on public safety effectively become censorship aimed solely at the Right, by granting the Antifa a “heckler’s veto.”
Secondly, one really does not need the lawyerly arguments to see how positively Orwellian these antifa a-holes are.
Let's digress one paragraph. Where does the "Orwellian" come in, and what about "1984", you ask? The Englishman George Orwell wrote the novel "1984" back in the late 1940's as a warning against an overpowering oppressive tyrannical state, something American is close to now. The globalists want this whole deal globalized, to match the book, I guess. I didn't know when I read it in 1978 that it was supposed to be an instruction manual, but that's how the left and a big part of the modern "conservatives" apparently saw it.
Where the Berserkely "antifa" people get completely Orwellian is not just the completely obvious lies that they are not against free speech. They are, or Miss Coulter, and that Milo guy and other conservatives would have been able to give talks to the people that want to hear it, and these commies could have stayed at the coffee shops drinking frapachinos instead of hopefully getting their heads bashed in. This is the Orwellian part you will hear on the college campuses: "The university is concerned with the safety of the students. Because, possibly if this Coulter lady gives a talk, some of our students, who are in no way obligated to show up and listen, may come and try to beat the crap out of the speaker and the audience. That is unsafe, so we can't allow Miss Coulter to put the safety of our students in jeopardy.".
Yes, and talking about things we don't think people should hear is not free speech. People we beat up on are the ones that cause violence. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. You've read it before in the book. Now you can see it in person.
One thing is different from the story in Mr. Orwell's "1984" however. The good guys in Oceana did not have AR-15's with Nikon 12x scopes. Big Brother, you magnificent bastard, we've read your book!
No comments - Click here to start thread
"Conservatives" punting on health care? (That's the left's evil plan in action)
Posted On: Monday - April 24th 2017 3:42AM MST
In Topics: Liberty/Libertarianism US Feral Government alt-right/MAGA
Though it hasn't been written about much in particular over the last week or so the Obamacare health
Now, there is not enough space on the server to go through the complete ruination of what was long ago a free market, over the many years, but especially since the passing of that "affordable", chuckle, "care act". (Here and here are 2 PeakStupidity posts leading to great Ann Coulter columns on this, anyway.) This post is another in what may be quite a few that urge the conservatives to just listen and take some advice from the libertarians and constitutionalists. I can see an essay coming about this, but also another one urging vice versa, for the libertarians to take advice from the conservatives.
What I'm slowly getting at is that I've read lately lots of editorials and such from the alt-right and conservatives in general saying we shouldn't worry our heads about this health care thing, and even agreeing with government health care! People just have such short memories, or else small imaginations, to not remember when things were more free, or at least, for young people, imagine free markets. It's very annoying to read this stuff from otherwise intelligent people.
I understand the point that the fix to this healthcare mess is not as urgent as other things President Trump was voted in to accomplish, the primary of which is the southern border and US sovereignty. I agree, first things first. Also, there is no doubt that fixing the mess caused by 60-odd years of Feral Governement interference in the health care market cannot occur easily, i.e., with a lot of financial pain and unfairness in the interim. However, to just throw up ones hands, saying, let's give up on this - seems like we'll just be like England and Canada with the government in control is entirely un-American.
Even if they don't care about free markets in principle, what the alt-right especially should think about is this: What's going on in government-controlled health care is more re-distribution of mostly white working people's money to others, just as is done with most government programs. This health care business is BIG money, though. As much as the white male gets screwed in job prospects, education, and welfare scams, do you alt-right conservatives just want to bend over even farther? If we had constitutional government, NONE of this screwing over of the white man in particular could take place. Work with us constitutionalists a little bit, conservatives!
I think the lefties are seeing their best wet dreams come into fruition as the conservatives punt on this important loss of freedom, 15% of the whole economy, I've read, and that percentage will keep growing with our present demographics, or at least until the financial crash that is coming.
No comments - Click here to start thread
Eat mor shark!
Posted On: Saturday - April 22nd 2017 5:44PM MST
In Topics: Humor Treehuggers
This is probably not related to any post written since the beginning of Peak Stupidity, but, what the hey?
After talking and thinking about eating good fish for dinner, the subject of shark meat came up. Fish steaks, just meat cut transversely, just seem tasty than fillets, which are pieces of the meat cut longitudinally. Maybe it's just because the fish steaks I've had had been grilled on the barbecue - very tasty stuff.
Shark meat is supposed to be good too, and most fish meat is good FOR YOU, much the better. The thing about sharks is, at least the big ones, is that they like to eat us too, every bloody chance they get. You young 'uns, having not seen the movie "Jaws", maybe don't think this is any big deal. Have, you ever heard the expression "We're gonna' need a bigger [whatever]"? Well, that's from "Jaws", people, and those big sharks are scary bastards, at least according to Constable Brody and the scientist Richard Dreyfuss.
I think that the more sharks we eat the less chance we have of getting partially or wholly eaten by them. It only stands to reason. Now, your environmentalists will go off about interfering with the food chain and all that. I personally want to be completely out of the food chain. We should just have the whole food chain on our menus. I want out, and let these animals worry about the damn food chain. The same goes for mosquitoes. Yeah, yeah, the birds eat 'em, so if we get rid of them what will they eat. I'm sure they can find something more tasty, as they obviously are not really enamored with the taste of mosquitoes, or there wouldn't be so damn many around.
We need to find a good way to eat mosquitoes, in fact. Most people have had entirely enough of their nonsense, and it's time to find a good cooking method, probably involving deep-frying, as anything deep fried tastes good. Shark steaks with a side of fried skeeters! Now that's what I'm talking about!
Comments (1)
Racist babies, what're ya' gonna do?
Posted On: Saturday - April 22nd 2017 4:28PM MST
In Topics: Websites Race/Genetics
Jim Goad is one of the main writers for the website Takimag. Peakstupidity does not have it on the blogroll mainly just because the site is kind of cumbersome (must be lots of scripts runnin), and it has locked up my computer before. The commenters there are very well educated, but the threads usually go on for 300-600 comments - takes a while to read. Maybe I'll put it on the blogroll soon. Anyhoo, besides Steve Sailer, who writes an article a week there, but can be found mostly on VDare and unz.com, Mr. Goad is the best writer on this conservative site, where the subjects are decay of society, race relations, and the immigration invasion (both here and in European countries).
In The Original Sin of Our Times, an article about a Canadian study (also discussed here by Steve Sailer) that purports to prove that babies are basically racist by 6 months old, I guess as early as an psychological testing has any meaning. I'm not arguing with their results, but the spin in the academic paper is that we need to fix this. Perhaps, being loyal to and having more trust in, your own "tribe", so to speak is built into us, just as it is in other animals, for damn good evolutionary reasons.
Jim Goad:
But the natural-born instinct for “group survival”—at least when manifested among whites—has been twisted into a mental pathology of the highest order, the Original Sin of our times. In other words, the anti-racist and decidedly anti-scientific activists “have meddled with the primal forces of nature,” and it won’t end well for them, because nature is far more powerful than ten billion fanatical ideologues could ever hope to be in their most savagely totalitarian dreams.I would say I couldn't say this better myself, but if you are a regular reader, you man remember that I have. PeakStupidity's line was "IT'S NOT NICE TO FOOL MOTHER NATURE!" (that goes for life in general, in addition to margarine, BTW) ;-}
Jim Goad concludes:
It’s time to begin aggressively pushing the perfectly rational notion that humans possess a tribal instinct that is every bit as natural and strong as the sex drive. Aphorisms such as “birds of a feather flock together” and “blood is thicker than water” did not originate from some deluded, inadequate sociopath brimming with hatred and fear, but from careful observation of how nature operates.
So what do we do with all these racist babies? Leave them and their brains alone, and start working to fix your own deluded noggins.
Let me set the record straight that this blogger said nothing racist up through 20 months old, when I was a toddler and no longer a baby at all. Of course, girls start earlier.
No comments - Click here to start thread
Collective Soul - some modern music (1990's, anyone)
Posted On: Wednesday - April 19th 2017 7:57PM MST
In Topics: Music
Just to prove music hadn't gone completely down the tubes until the late 1990's, here is a song called "December" by Collective Soul. During the times this Atlanta band was big, I was already past the point of trying to remember song names, and band members. I just know that I have 3 great CD's by these guys. What a great sound!
I'd figured the song's name was "Baby, just spit me out", but the lyrics don't matter, as I've been saying over and over!
No comments - Click here to start thread
Battle of Berzerkely
Posted On: Wednesday - April 19th 2017 7:38PM MST
In Topics: Lefty MegaStupidity University Trump
James Kirkpatrick is one of the best writers at VDare and he writes The Battle(s) Of Berkeley–Someone Is Going To Get Killed. Where Is Trump?
If President Trump comes through with most of his promises on immigration and American sovereignty, as we stated in this post, the rest of his flaking out can be forgiven. One would hope that he could get his Attorney General, Mr. Jeff Sessions, to get involved in prosecuting some of the hard-left rioting crowd, but it'd probably be more fun if they get they're heads bashed by some of the patriotic Americans at these "battles" anyway.
I really wish this stuff had been going on during my college days. I'd have liked to be part of this, on the right side, of course, and I'm not saying that just due to the visage of Miss Lauren Southern in the picture below.
Were this a serious battle, like in real wartime, women like this would be way in the back, as it should be. You wouldn't see the cute smiling faces were this to get truly serious as a war.
....This is what I couldn't have said better myself, which is why I like reading this guy, James Kirkpatrick.
Of course, the “whole Trump administration” doesn’t seem to care too much about what is happening one way or the other. Even Attorney General Jeff Sessions, though he is taking action on immigration, has not cracked down on “antifascist” or extreme leftist groups around the country who openly declare their intention to attack Trump supporters. There has been no effort to secure free speech on campus by withholding federal funding from universities who deny the First Amendment.
And far from standing with his populist supporters, President Trump is reportedly on the verge of dismissing Breitbart head Steve Bannon, which threatens to sever his link with his populist base.
But the new movement that is emerging is not dependent on Trump himself. Indeed, Trump is merely a symptom of the larger counter-revolution against a hostile elite which thinks it has the right to control what Americans are allowed to think, say and vote for.
Americans increasingly recognize the totalitarian Left for what it is. And the Beltway Right and Donald Trump himself can either back up those who are willing to fight for America’s First Amendment rights or they will simply be left behind.
No comments - Click here to start thread
Warren Buffett, crony capitalist, selling out the country, literally.
Posted On: Wednesday - April 19th 2017 6:55PM MST
In Topics: Globalists China Economics
"When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope we use." Joseph Stalin, probably lifted by him from Karl Marx.
Stalin didn't know squat-all about real capitalism, or he could have converted the USSR out of it's decrepit state of tried-and-true-failure Communism to rival the US. It's too bad our country has mostly forgotten what true capitalism is about, except at the level of small business, which gets daily hammerings by the crony capitalists that work with our Feral Government.
So, "When we hang the crony capitalists they will sell us the rope we use." There, FIFY, Dead Uncle Joe. (carry on; continue to rot in hell.) Zerohedge reports on exactly this phenomenon as Warren Buffet markets American real estate to foreigners on a large scale. This tends to price Americans out of many primo areas of the country, especially the west coast cities.
From the article, "Warren Buffett Now Selling US Houses To Chinese Oligarchs",
As Bloomberg reports, HomeServices has been expanding under Buffett by opening new locations, forming a 2012 venture to expand licensing operations and then working to capitalize on demand from non-U.S. buyers. The unit hired Realogy’s Peter Turtzo in 2015 to push into international markets and recruited Mitchell Lewis from Christie’s International Real Estate in September to build operations in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
As a result, on April 17 Buffett's HomeServices announced an agreement to advertise its U.S. homes on Juwai.com, which attracts about 2 million visitors a month. The portal hosts sites on both sides of China’s “great firewall,” meaning consumers can access the information inside the nation from more than 400 cities and also from more than 160 other countries, according to a statement Monday.
“The Chinese have overtaken all nationalities besides Americans as the leading buyers of property in the U.S.,” Gino Blefari, chief executive officer of Irvine, California-based Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices, said in the statement. The Juwai.com accord and other efforts overseas “make it much easier for Chinese real estate buyers to find and shop our property listings.”
It stands to reason that when one runs out of prospective domestic buyers, the next logical step is to approach those who have been engaging in unprecedented money laundering on a global scale in the form of "real estate purchases" which are nothing more than parking funds offshore (and far away from China's banks) while leaving the newly purchased house unoccupied.
What a scumbag this Warren Buffett is! Didn't it used to be that even the biggest railroad barons and the oil tycoons still cared about Americans, were proudly American, and weren't in their business to sell out the country?
I do have some slightly personal knowledge of the Chinese money laundering described in the following paragraph. No matter how supposedly capitalist China is said to be, the hardest working people there are usually not the ones that end up with the big bucks. It's the corrupt government officials (all levels and types of governments) that make, say, $600/month salary, that somehow have enough money to buy a house in Huntington Beach, Cali, and some left over to pay exorbitant tuition at a university for their kid, to obtain a worthless piece of paper (they don't know this last part yet) and to establish a foothold for this bugout-o-China location.
It was not immediately clear if and how Berkshire assures that the funds used by wealthy Chinese buyers are not of the "hot money" variety, meant to be parked away from China's perilous financial system and in the process raising prevailing prices to nosebleed levels in any given MSA, as has been the case in recent years with both the Vancouver and, more recently, Toronto housing markets. As a reminder, the US National Association of Realtors remains exempt from Anti Money-Laundering provisions, quite happy to take the money of any and every global buyer, regardless of where the funding came from.Zerohedge keeps up with these stories very well.
Oh, please don't confuse this scumbag Buffett with another Buffett, hopefully unrelated. One could only wish that Warren Buffett were wasting away in Margaritaville, searching for his lost shaker of salt instead of a new way to sell out his country.
No comments - Click here to start thread