Make Up Your Mind, Hillary

Hillary has given another interview at a tech conference in which she firmly places the blame on why she lost on everyone and everything but herself. It's ridiculous. Indeed, Hillary assured us that she took responsibility "for every choice" she made, "but that’s not why I lost.” Right, it's not me... it's everything else. So what is everything?

Here are some of the things Hillary blamed:

● Russian cyberattacks which somethingsomething and won the election!

● Trump conspired with 1,000 Russian "hackers" who "filled Facebook with lies." They "weaponized" internet lies. Oh, and she thinks it was the Trump people who showed the Russians how to do this:

“The Russians, in my opinion ... could not have known how best to weaponize that information unless they have been guided ... by Americans. I think it’s fair to ask, how did that actually influence the campaign, and how did they know what messages to deliver? Who told them? Who were they coordinating with, and colluding with?”

Right, because no dirty foreigner can understand Americans.

● The Democratic National Committee’s data operation was crap. She said they had no usable information, and the Republican technology was better.

"I get the nomination, I'm now the nominee of the Democratic Party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party. I mean, it was bankrupt; it was on the verge of insolvency; its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong."

● The letter former FBI Director James Comey sent to Congress about her private email server a week before the election cost her critical ground.

● The media covered the email scandal "as if it were Pearl Harbor."

● Sexism/misogyny

● And today, she added a new one: the “very broad assumption that I was going to win.” It's not clear how this caused her to lose, nor did she bother to mention that her entire campaign was about inevitability, but sure, why not. The fact people thought she would win is why she lost... for some reason.

So SSDD. She won't take any blame. It's all someone else's fault. It's the fault of broad social trends, a vast right-wing conspiracy with the Russians, and her allies (i.e. the FBI and the Media) actually investigating her crimes and not smearing Trump like they were supposed to.

And this is the woman the left wanted as President?

Smoke and Mirrors on Crime

I read an article the other day that really bothered me. It had to do with legislation meant to discourage attacks on cops and it really hit me that the left is playing a shell game. Observe.

The article in question was an AP article reporting that many states are adding laws to their books (or beefing theirs up) which make it an extra crime to commit a crime against a police officer. In other words, while the underlying crime is already illegal, these laws add an extra punishment if the victim of the crime is a police officer. The intent of laws like this is to raise the penalty for crimes against officers to make the world safer for the police by making criminals more likely to submit when confronted by the cops. Most states already have these laws but with this idea of a war on cops, these states are beefing them up.

Naturally, the left is outraged. Black Lives Matters types are whining that this is sending the signal that states want the cops to oppress them, and the article reflected that. It let these comments go without question. It never pointed out that these laws apply to things like assaults, not protesting, and that it's easy to avoid being punished by these laws by simply not committing the crimes. It also took as fact that there is an epidemic of white cops killing blacks, even as the article could only identify two examples -- the guy in Minnesota and Ferguson, Missouri. And it questioned whether there is a war on cops even as it mentioned the 21 ambushed in Dallas (while ignoring Tennessee, New York and other places) and the fact 143 cops were killed last year. So 2 dead blacks is an epidemic, 143 dead cops is doubtful it's anything.

More importantly, the article noted that: "Police deaths on the job have generally declined over the past four decades, from a recent high of 280 in 1974 to a low of 116 in 2013." Then it said that because of this, it was doubtful if these laws were needed or would help. But this is a shell game.

Starting in the 1970s, conservatives began fighting back against two decades of liberalism in the criminal justice system. Those laws were put into place and the crime rate fell. These laws included harsher sentences... harsher sentences for specific crimes... harsher sentences for crimes against officers... etc. And the more conservative laws got put in place, the more the crime rate fell. What the author does here is identify the falling crime rate without mentioning that conservative laws are the most likely cause for it. He then says that because the crime rate is already falling (apparently by magic), there's no evidence such laws are needed. Basically, he's ignoring cause and effect so he can claim that people proposing more of the cause are proposing something that has no effect.

It's a bit like dieting to lose weight, pretending that the weight you lost was just a natural trend of things, and then telling people who suggest more dieting that there is no basis to assume that dieting works.

And the more I thought about this, the more I realized that this has been the liberal coping strategy with criminal laws my entire life. When the crime rate was soaring under their laws, it was just a random thing. When it was falling under conservative laws, they ignored the blatantly obvious connection between conservative laws and lower crime. And now that the crime rate is so low, liberals argue against conservative laws on the basis that the crime rate is so magically low that we don't need them... the very laws that cause the crime rate to fall. This is intellectual fraud. And you see it here, where the author flat out ignores the connection between laws protecting cops and falling cop deaths and then turns around assumes that the beefing up of these laws will prove ineffective.

What's more, check this out. One of their "experts" said that these laws "reek of political pressure to do something symbolic as a way of expressing solidarity with police officers," as if that's a bad thing. She then says, "The problems that need to be solved are really problems on the ground. They're not gaps in the statute." Yet, when it comes to guns or rape or other causes they like, it doesn't matter how packed the statute already is... "somebody needs to do something!" and that something is more laws to make even more illegal what is already illegal.

So they think that extra laws do deter conduct, unless it's laws that protect cops.

Thoughts?

Answering Life's Burning Questions...

Did you miss me? Yeah, I have been on a little Italian holiday away from the constant hub and bub of life. Therefore, I have been out of the loop in the politi-sphere and most every other kind of 'spheres too. But just in case you think that I was just sitting around drinking fabulous wine on the piazza and eating every shape of pasta imaginable, let me dispel you have that little myth right now!

I was on a quest to answer one of life's great burning questions. And I am excited to report that I finally have the answer...

YES, THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA REALLY DOES LEAN!!!**

It was really wonderful disconnecting with reality for a couple of weeks. Everyone should do it! Though I must say, it seems that nothing changed while I have been on my political sabbatical. Just in case I missed something really important like, oh, I don't know...maybe something about Russians or aliens invading a la "Mars Attacks", let me know.

More on my trip later since I am still in the throws of jet lag, so feel free to catch me up.

**I suspect that it could be possible that it's not the Tower that leans, but the town. Who's to say there isn't just a conspiracy of perspective. Just sayin'.

Head Scratcher

So I'm really scratching my head about this terrorism thing. Not the terrorists... I understand them... but the left. What a messed up little group they are. Here are my thoughts and questions:

● As I mentioned in the comments earlier, I find it amazing that all these celebrities care now that one of their own has been victimized, when they saw prior attacks as mere political opportunities to lecture average Americans about tolerance.

● Have you noticed how little coverage there is right now of this terrorist event? All the leftist sites stopped talking about it and went back to their insipid obsession: Melina won't hold Trump's hand! He's going to get impeached people!! Yahoo's front page barely mentions it.

The MSM has shifted the discussion from the attack to attacking people they don't like who comment on the attack: "How dare fringe right winger X say ____!" Apparently, it's a bigger crime to the MSM to speak ill of people who kill children than it is to kill children. One bit of @fakeoutrage they've covered extensively is banished loser Milo Yan-(sp) accusing Grande of being pro-Islam and anti-American. Who exactly does Milo speak for? They've also spent a ton of time covering how sad and depressed poor Ariana is after this thing... while ignoring the families who lost someone. The New York Times is talking about how Ariana Grande, who sells her body for fame, is a feminist.

● If Ariana really cared, shouldn't she give the proceeds of the concert to the victims? Funny how that hasn't come up. I guess terrorism is horrible, but shouldn't stand in the way of profit. Maybe the government will take care of them.

● I have to tell you that I think the government(s) better get a handle on this. Looking at history, when people of one race/religion target people of another race/religion and the government doesn't seem to be able to stop it, a desire builds for revenge until it pops. At some point, one of these assholes is going to blow something up and some person or persons are going to go through Muslim neighborhoods slaughtering hundreds of Muslims.

Even worse would be if some educated dude had enough. See, the thing you don't realize is that our criminal justice system works because criminals are retards. They are too stupid to come up with anything grand or to pull it off. But kill the daughter of a scientist and you may find some Arab city smouldering in a nuclear glow or corpses piling up from a poison water supply. Not good... but that's how people stop things the government tells them can't be stopped.

Thoughts

The Whining Continues...

The left's meltdown continues...

● Waaah Trump!: So here's the progression on the coverage of Trump's trip...

(1) Trump is only going overseas to avoid being indicted... HE'S RUNNING AWAY!!!

(2) This trip is ruined before it begins because Trump has angered all Arabs -- Trump is too stupid to know what to do -- Trump criticized the wise Obama ergo he's a fool and doomed... HE'S GOING TO FAIL!!!

(3) Ha ha! Look at all these people on Twitter mocking him! HE'S AN EMBARRASSMENT!!!

(4) OMG Trump has insulted the Saudis in some way -- Melina has angered the Saudis by not wearing a headscarf and wearing pants/damn Trump for attacking Michelle Obama for not wearing a headscarf -- why is Ivanka even there, how embarrassing... THEY'RE MAKING US LOOK LIKE FOOLS!

(5) OMG Melina spoke to the Saudi's about "empowerment" what does that b**ch know about empowerment?... THIS IS EMBARRASSING!!!

(6) Ok, so Melina was a hit and is being revered for her fashion sense, but that's not what counts -- and Ivanka is being revered for some unknown reason by the whole population of Saudi Arabia, but that's not what counts... THIS DOESN'T MATTER!!! AND DIDN'T SHE DRESS ILLEGALLY? DOESN'T SHE RESPECT SAUDI LAW ON WOMEN?!!!

(7) Trump got an arms deal with the Saudis which will mean tens of thousands of high end us manufacturing deals and much closer ties with the Saudis versus Iran, but um, uh other presidents did this too so who cares -- oh and it's dangerous to do!... HE'S RECKLESS!!!

(8) Uh, so the Saudis are saying Trump has opened a new age in Arab and American relationships, but that's um... THIS DOESN'T MATTER!!!

(9) Melina and Ivanka lectured the Saudis on women's rights and got a massive commitment to fund women's empowerment around the globe, but that's uh... THIS DOESN'T MATTER!!!

(10) Uh, so the Saudis have agreed to start fighting Islamic extremism, something the State Department has been trying but failing at, but but but, um, the right used to say that the Saudis were behind global extremism!! THIS IS GOING TO FAIL AND IT'S ALL TRUMP's FAULT!!!

HuffPo actually opened their discussion of the trip with this:

President Donald Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia has been fraught with controversy, from a potentially-illegal $110 billion arms deal, to his shifting rhetoric on Islam, to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates’ massive donation to Ivanka Trump’s “women’s empowerment” fund.

There's nothing illegal with the arms sale. Who cares about the shifting rhetoric? The Saudis didn't. The donation is a good thing. And they've skipped mentioning the Saudi effort against extremism and their praise of the Trumps. How pathetic. What's more, the article is about how people are mocking Trump for touching a glowing orb. Think about that. They falsely dismiss the substance of what he's done, dismiss the statements of the hosts and make fun of him for being courteous. That's really pathetic. That pathologically evasive of inconvenient truth.

Then there's this:

● Imagine That: University of Missouri enrollment is down 35%. They are shocked. They knew there would be some fall out from the racial protests but they didn’t expect this. I suspect they saw it all wrong. They suspected leftists would be upset about the need to protest at all and that the leftists who looked elsewhere would be the drop in enrollment. That's why they caved in to them. But they had it backwards. The real problem was always with the majority who didn’t support the protests and who don’t like the idea of going to a school that caters to those fools... a much larger group who have no reason to go somewhere that f*cked up.

So the U of M is now promising to improve their image. My guess is they will go the wrong way with it and play up how diverse and repressive they are, and they won't understand why things don't get better.

● Pathetic: Some leftist assholes showed they lack the tolerance to deal with people with different views by walking out on Mike Pence. Just more proof the left is thin-skinned. Too bad they didn't wear stupid hats or the left might be calling this a movement. Maybe they should have worn poop emoji hats. Then they could be the Bowel Movement. Anyways, the only significance of this ill mannered intolerance is that it shows that the left would be acting no differently if Rubio or Pence or someone else had won. They aren't anti-Trump, they are anti-opposition. Don't forget that when you deal with them.

Thoughts?

A Delicate Flower After All...

The sports media world is aghast at the horribly sexist way Lavar Ball treated a female reporter. Have you no shame, sir! Too bad this is a false narrative.

Some background. Lavar Ball is an asshole. That is beyond dispute. The guy is a neverwas athlete who is exploiting the abilities of his son Lonzo Ball to try to make a buck and satiate his ego. Some of his more outrageous idiocy has included saying that his son would only work out for the Lakers and telling Boston not to draft him, telling Nike/Adidas/UnderAmore that his son wants a billion dollars for a shoe deal, saying he could have beaten Micheal Jordan in his prime, and excusing his son's failure to get too far in the NCAA tournament by blaming it on him being surrounded by "slow white guys." He's a racist, a fool, a jerk and probably an abusive father. I am not a fan.

Anyways, to exploit his son's 15 minutes of fame, he created his own shoe line for his family: The Big Baller Brand. This is a take off on their last name being Ball as well as the current popularity of the term "Baller" and the phrase "Balling." It might also be a penis joke, but not primarily. The problem is, he has priced the shoes way out of the market and has barely sold any.

So the other day, he appeared on a talk show where reportette/assistant eye candy Kristine Leahy tried to ask him about the sales of his shoes. He refused to answer, telling her to "stay in her lane" in a testy exchange. The butt-hurt network immediately sprang into action, declaring this "sexism!!" Soon, every single leftist sports journalist echoed this, with some even going so far as to call for him to be banned from television -- because leftists love to ban people. Must destroy those we don't like!

Here's the thing though. This is not sexism, not even close.

Indeed, let's test it. Is the phrase in any way gender specific? Nope. It can be said to either gender with the exact same meaning. It has no secret special meaning for women either. So how is it sexist? What's more, how is it even inappropriate? If he had said this to the male host instead of his eye candy, no one would have batted an eye. So how is this sexism?

Basically, the left has taken a statement with no gender content or applicability or intent and turned it into "sexism" because of the simple fact it was negative and it was said to a woman. Translation: it is sexist to be rude to a female journalist. That's mighty puritanical.

It gets better too. See, his statement was not unprovoked. Leahy has previously attacked Ball for his parenting skills and his relationship with his son. I wouldn't talk to her either after that. Further, she also said prior to the interview that "as a woman, [she] would never wear" his brand. So when she starts trying to ask him pointed questions about his sales, I would think "stay in your lane" is pretty valid response. She didn't stop either. She demanded to know why he wouldn't talk to her at which point she called the brand name sexist -- even though it is a common term used by men and women in pop culture -- and saying basically that women should not buy his clothing line. She then went on to complain that she "has a right to say what shirt I would or wouldn't wear," yet somehow thinks it's disrespectful for him to exercise his right not to talk to her. The butt-hurt network seems to have missed that he does have that right in their zeal to save this poor blameless damsel in distress from imagined sexism.

This really highlights the problem of the modern left. They have no principles. They squeal about sexism if you don't treat women just like men and then squeal about sexism if you do. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's the same thing with their views on every other one of their butt-hurt causes. No matter what you do when it comes to women, blacks, gays, Muslims, criminals, welfare types, single moms, illegals, etc., you are damned if you do and damned if you don't and they want to destroy you as a person either way. Basically, they are using any excuse to express hate.

This wasn't sexism. This wasn't even a controversial statement. She was biased and attacked him. He had a right to refuse to talk to her. The end. There is no story here. The fact the left wants this to be a story tells you all you need to know about how fair their complaints really are.

If you want to be seen as equal, stop demanding that we coddle you.

A Couple Thoughts Today

There hasn't been much news lately, between Trumpsanity getting a second wind on the interwebs these days and the obsession with not-news news. So here are some thoughts on what I see these days.

Thought One: My Trump fatigue is getting worse, but not in the way the left wants. There is so much insane anti-Trump stuff every day that I am honestly at a point where I can't take it anymore. I simply refuse to believe anything the left says anymore and I no longer care what Trump is accused of. I could know for a fact that he drinks the blood of children in the White House and I refuse to care. This is what happens when a million boys scream WOLF on continuous loop. I guess the left never read that one.

Thought Two: The anti-Trump stuff is the establishment thrashing about in a sort of death throw at the moment. It reminds me of a giant monster that is finally stabbed in the heart and then thrashes its tentacles all over the place in an overly dramatic death scene. Now I know why prior revolutions put these people up against the wall rather than simply trying to unseat them. It's also interesting to me how much of the conservative movement falls into this group.

Thought Three: If you want to now why Russia is a eunuch and China is a paper tiger, consider these two facts. Our defense budget is three times both of theirs combined. Trump is looking to increase the defense budget by about as much as Putin spends in total. Still seem scary? They shouldn't. In that kind of world, neither Russia nor China is actually prepared to take us on.

Thought Four: There is an interesting demographic history to the US. You can basically break our history up into periods when an invasion of immigrants or whatnot seemed to be poised to remake America, only to sputter out. Irish, Jews, Eastern Europeans all had their day. Prior to World War II, the Japanese were going to take the West Coast. After the Civil War and through reconstruction, Blacks were going to out breed whites for the title of majority. None of this panned out. The Japanese are probably the smallest Asian group in the US. Jews stopped having babies around 6% of the population. Black growth petered out at 11% today. Hispanic growth has all but stopped and will soon go backwards. They will likely peter out at 15%. The next group trying for the crown will be Chinese.

There are a butt load of Chinese who want to come here, but China is peaking right now and will soon start to shrink massively. They are 1.2% of the population and I suspect they never get about 3%. Indians will follow them, but they have the same problem. They are 1.2% as well and I doubt they get to 2%.

I think what this means is that it's a lot harder to change a country demographically than people think. And I think it means the Democrats made a huge mistake in relying on their supporters out-breeding whites.

Thought Five: Did you know the 80's are back? Pop music sounds remarkably stolen from the 1980s. Adidas track suits are in. Even some of the slang is back. How did this happen?

Liberal Voters Are Apparently Stupid

I saw an article today about how the Wisconsin voter ID law disenfranchised up to 300,000 morons. The article is worth a chuckle. Observe.

MILWAUKEE (AP) -- State Sen. Mary Lazich was adamant: The bill Republicans were about to push through the Wisconsin state Senate, requiring that voters present identification at the polls, would do no harm. "Not a single voter in this state will be disenfranchised by the ID law," Lazich promised.

Well, I spent five years looking for someone who got disenfranchised and I finally found one! IN YOUR FACE REPUBLICANS!!!

By one estimate, 300,000 eligible voters in the state lacked valid photo IDs heading into the election...

Wow, that's 10.7% of the total voters and it took you this long to find a single person to talk about? How pathetic are your journalistic skills douchebag? Oh and for the record, 700,000 more people voted after the law (2016) than before it (2012), a 75% increase. So how does it make sense that 300,000 people are missing?

... it is unknown how many people did not vote because they didn't have proper identification.

I thought it was 300,000, no?

But it is not hard to find the Navy veteran whose out-of-state driver's license did not suffice, or the dying woman whose license had expired, or the recent graduate whose student ID was deficient... (after a five year search)

Stop. The military veteran should have brought his military ID, like they do for all other things. That's how it's done an any soldier who doesn't realize that is an idiot. If the dying woman can vote, she can also go get her license. In fact, if Wisconsin is like every other state I've lived in, she could get it in the mail. And when has a student ID ever meant sh*t anywhere off campus except bars near the school. Try giving that to a cop when you get caught speeding. These are not legitimate gripes. These are idiots who have the ID they need and didn't bother to bring it.

In the end, Wisconsin's 10 Electoral College votes went to Republican Donald Trump, who defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton by roughly 22,000 votes. But the battle over voter ID laws continues.

See, Hillary would have won by 280,000 votes if all 300,000 not-really-missing votes had been counted.

Under the Wisconsin law, voters must present a driver's license, state ID, passport, military ID, naturalization papers or tribal ID to vote. A student ID is acceptable only if it has a signature and a two-year expiration date. Those who do not have their ID can cast a provisional ballot that will be counted only if they return with the proper ID within a few days of the election.

Sympathy switching to contempt. So you have to be a dipshit not to have the right documentation in the first place. Yep. And if you are such a dipshit, you can still come back a few days later to make sure your vote counts after they tell you what exactly to go get... documents you can get in half a day. Yep. How utterly stupid and/or lazy do you need to be for this to affect you?

Supporters have long argued such restrictions are needed to prevent voter fraud, while critics have decried the laws as undermining democracy and leading to the disenfranchisement of elderly and minority voters such as Harris.

Hmm. Are minorities really that dumb or are you using them condescendingly to make a fake point? And if they are... should they be voting anyways?

No Small Irony

For the past few weeks, most NFL analysts have been busy showing an astounding level of ignorance over the NFL draft. Seriously, these guys are so clueless that most should quietly disappear to their basements and put a football through their brains for the sake of honor... assuming they can even recognize the football. But now that the season of fawning over the physiques of big strong young men is over, it's time for them to return to politics. So we're back to Colin Kapernick.

Colin Kapernick remains unemployed. No surprise. And yet, liberal sportswriters are weeping into their keyboards about this "inexplicable situation." The thing is, it's not inexplicable at all... they caused it! Ha ha!

See, right now we are awash in articles which try to understand the inconceivable world in which Colin Kapernick is not on an NFL roster. These articles point out that NFL types have suggested that teams might be worried about his health. But that can't be because people near him assure us he is healthy. They might be worried that his Vegan diet will make him unhealthy, but "there are no studies that say that being a Vegan hurts your ability to play in the NFL." They say he stunk his last few years, but if you limit his numbers to a four game stretch against some awful teams and you kind of squint, then he's probably as good as the worst 5-6 starters. They even claim he might be a locker room cancer, but I found a guy who liked him! So why, oh why is this God among men not on an NFL roster?!!! There. Is. No. God!

This all gets wrapped up in the faulty assumption that somehow the default position should be that Kapernick has a job unless he is proven entirely unfit. That's simply not true. You need to earn those jobs. There is also a smear in these articles consisting of unspoken by hinted at allegations of some vague unsavory right-wing thing going on here. See, Kapernick has the absolute right to stand for what he believes in... or kneel. But apparently, NFL teams don't have the same rights, and to deny this man a place on your team is to love Hitler.

Here's the thing. Kapernick's skill level collapsed when he got exposed as a one-trick pony. Add in the health concerns and the questions regarding his focus and how much money he may or may not want and he's just not worth anyone's time. There are a dozen other guys with better track records who fall into the same category and remain unemployed. But all that is a red herring. The reason NFL teams won't touch him is the NFL media.

When Kapernick did his disrespectful anti-America crap, the sports media waddled to their keyboards as fast as they could to proclaim him a hero. They did their best to turn something less than 40 guys out of 1900 into a "national movement." And the result was a backlash. People burned his jersey. Attendance dropped. Televisions ratings dropped. In fact, these same journalists trumped that as proof that the fake movement they had invented was working!!! The NFL will be on its knees soon and will need to negotiate with us!!! MWooo ha ha ha!

So now that everything is over and the NFL has survived, why in the world would any NFL team court re-opening that can of worms? Sorry, Florio and Robinson and friends... you caused this. And I'm loving your wringing of hands now. Assholes.


As an aside, the NFL players union has been trying to destroy the NFL. I'm not kidding. They have done a massive number of things to undermine the league and attack the owners, everything from verbal abuse to frivolous lawsuits to hiding the top draft pick from the draft. And yet, this week, the NFL Players association made several bizarre comments about issues in which they "hoped" the league will do something for them out of the goodness of the League's heart. Really? What makes them think they can make themselves an enemy and then beg favors? Has the world gone stupid?

Loser Speak

So I came across this article the other day about women in technology. The article really highlights to me the problem the article is talking around. Observe.

The article begins by noting that there aren't nearly as many female engineers as there are male engineers at the tech companies. This is true. And this will be the question the article attempts to solve. Unfortunately, things go downhill from here.

First, the article points out that a former Facebook engineer did an analysis last year which found that the code of female engineers was rejected much more often than that of male engineers. So is this possibly evidence of sexism and therefore the reason why there aren't more women? Well, no. According to Facebook, the analysis was "incomplete and inaccurate" and if you take into account the rank of the engineers in question, then the rejection rates become equal. In other words, the only reason there was a difference is they were comparing low-level newbie female engineers against the most experienced male engineers at the company. Remove that difference and the supposed gender difference vanishes.

So why even mention this discredited study?

Well, because the author has little else to offer. Indeed, she suddenly jumps to this statement after mentioning the study and that it's probably meaningless:

While we have seen some positive change in more recent years, the reality is that there still aren’t enough female engineers at the top. The more women who progress to these leadership roles, however, the more likely other women will recognize their own ability to do the same.

This is bait and switch. The author begins by mentioning a supposed problem and a discredited study which proves nothing and then jumps into advocacy based on this opening. Moreover, her statement is completely unsupported. Where is the proof that having more women at the top will somehow inspire other women?

And let me make this point, because I think it is the key point: this is loser thinking. I have never met a man in my entire life who needed to see someone else succeed before they decided they could do something. It is not part of our genetic makeup to need someone else to follow to help us "recognize our own ability to do the same." To the contrary, every man I've ever met has simply decided what he wanted to do and he went about doing it... whether anyone had done it before not. Moreover, the most successful ones did the things they did despite everyone telling them it couldn't be done.

If women want to succeed, they need to learn this. You will never be a success waiting for others to show you the way. You have to pick your own goal and make your own way.

The article then continues:

Perhaps there will never be a definitive answer as to why the proportion of men in technical positions, and subsequently leadership roles, far outpaces women.

This is really ironic as the article has done nothing to look into this or advance our understanding of the issue... nothing. Yet, this author now speculates that we may never know. Gee, quit easily, do you? Seriously, she examined zero possible causes and now decides that, gosh, maybe we'll never know. Worthless.

Moreover, she then proceeds to tell tech firms: "don't just check the box. Take diversity seriously." But where is the evidence that they aren't taking it seriously? She just admitted she has no idea what is really causing this issue, so why jump to this conclusion. Where is the evidence that the lack of women in tech firms is in any way the result of anything tech firms are or aren't doing? In fact, doesn't the discrediting of the study above suggest that the idea she once again casually treats as true that tech firms are sexist isn't true? Could articles like this be the problem?

Here's the thing. Articles like this push a false belief that hinders many women. That belief is that somehow they shouldn't do something until their betters show them the way. Either they need to follow in the footsteps of female trailblazers once the path is well-worn and easily trod (read: exhausted), or they need the boys to pat them on the head and let them into the winners' club. That's bullship. No one ever won that way except the retarded children of alumni.

The real problem, as I have observed by watching the herd of young girls my youngest travels in (and other women throughout the years), is the very idea of this sisterhood. The sisterhood is like a union for women broken into competing cliques, and liberal society tells girls to join it. Television shows push the idea of the sisterhood. "Girl power" is all about joining the girl herd. So many moms I've seen warn their daughters to get in with the right herd. Feminists push the idea of one sisterherd all united in their victimhood by phallus creatures. Even articles like this push the idea by lumping all women into one helpless mentality.

The problem is, to stay in the sisterhood, you basically need to follow union rules: never work harder or try harder or be more successful than the least of you. Don't make anyone feel bad. That is exactly the recipe for failure. Boy don't do this with the exception of ghetto/trash cliques, where education is seen as some sort of trick. They have no problem competing or letting their friends excel - no one gets upset, no one feels betrayed by another's success.

So my advice would be this. If you want more women to succeed in science or any other field, then stop them from sabotaging each other throughout their lives, drop this sisterhood nonsense, and stop telling them they aren't expected to succeed until someone else makes them a success. If you want to be a success... chart your own course.

Quick Thoughts

Let's start the week with some quick thoughts.

● Marine Le Pen lost in France is a damning landslide. I'm not surprised. She's a dipshit and her politics is unpalatable. Anti-Arab. Anti-Europe. Anti-American. That's not a recipe for success in the modern world.

● The Democrats think they will now win in 2018 because of Trumpcare. They think it's the exact same thing as Obamacare, which wiped them out. They're wrong. For one thing, it will be easy for the GOP to blame Obamacare for the problems that arise. For another, the bill shifts money from Democratic voters to other groups who vote GOP or neutral, like old people. They are even coming up with new subsidies for the working poor rather than the leeching poor.

Even more to the point, I don't think the GOP will have nearly as much of a problem because Obamacare messed everything up so badly that it's impossible now for average people to decide what is causing their unhappiness. Unlike Obama, Trump has not claimed to fix the whole system and make it divine. That's a key difference.

Finally, I think the Democrats have been so cynical about this whole thing that many of the genuine complaints will get dismissed as politics.

● There's been an interesting shift from the ranks of billionaires and tech giants. Before the election (when they thought the working poor were on their side), they warned us about machines taking jobs and made a big deal about someone needing to do something (a patented liberal phrase). In this week alone, a half dozen of them have said that machines taking those jobs is not a big deal. Interesting. I get the sense they've now turned against "the workin' man" because he voted against their desires. We'll see.

Feel free to add your thoughts!

Some Random Catch-Up Thoughts

Here are some things that have struck me of late, but which I haven't had time to discuss.

● That's Pathetic: Some black dude in a promo for a show about race says, "racism has been the biggest problem of my adult life." To that, I say that you're an idiot and a fool if that is true. What kind of fool lets other people control their lives? And how do they do it anyways? If your boss is racist, change jobs. If your town is racist, go somewhere not-racist like Colorado (actually, no, don't come here) or some white-excluded utopia like Baltimore or Detroit. Do racists control who you date? Who you marry? How hard you try in school? What jobs you can apply for? Where you can live? How you spend your money? What you choose for entertainment? How you raise your kids? What kind of house you can buy? No.

● The March For Idiocy: A group of political types just did a March for Science. What a joke. They had no specific cause they could point too except the leftist claim that conservatives are anti-science. They had no agenda and no demands except, uh, um, keep sciencing and give us money and stuff. They also seemed to overlook the fact that it's the left that is really antiscience. The left believes in magic ("invent a car that runs on good wishes!"), dogma in social sciences ("don't you say men and women are different!"), the banning of things that could be "misused" like cars, guns, and genetically modified foods, the left is protectionist ("this could kill jobs!"), the left likes to move money from genuine worries like cancer to politicized worries like AIDS, etc. Even when it comes to defending "scientific" procedures like abortion, it won't let you do them if you do them for the wrong reasons ("we need to ban sex selection and gay conversion therapy!"). Don't tell me this was about science.

● Pussy Hat Brigade: So, uh, where is this movement of women we heard so much about?

● Trump is finished!: After enduring the left's full anti-Trump onslaught now, the left was ready to declare that Trump is finished. Then an ABC poll showed that only 2% of his supporters regret the decision. Huh. Rather than seeing that they remain in the same bubble, the left doubled-down on their current strategy of spewing elitist nonsense.

● Whoops: Then another poll came out which found that only 28% of the public thinks the Democrats get their concerns and 67% believe they are out of touch. Gee, I can't imagine why. In a completely unrelated aside, crazy Nancy Pelosi will be facing a challenger from her left because the Democrats now see her as too normal.

● You mean he lied???!!: Gee, it turns out Obama lied about the Iran deal. Who could have see this coming? When Obama said he gave up almost nothing for the deal. One minor part, for example, was "businessmen awaiting trial for sanctions-related offenses." He forgot to mention that this included amnesty for 21 men who are considered threats to national security, including a man Obama's own Justice Department was trying to stop as part of their efforts to "stop the global spread of nuclear and missile technology." Yep. An arms dealer who deals in nuclear parts and missiles. Basically, this derailed Obama's entire counter-proliferation initiative... and lied about it.

● No Duh!: The Democrats are beside themselves that Obama is getting paid large ($400k a pop) to speak to banks. How can that be? Uh, because he's always been on their payroll. Did you idiots really not pay attention to the past eight years? Bernie's rich too, folks.

● You Can't know that: I saw an ad today that said, and I quote, "60% of women are using the wrong size pad." Uh, ok. My first thought was that this does not speak well of women. But then I realized, they can't possibly know this. There is no way to know this in fact. It is impossible. Think about it. You can know how many women there are and you can know what size pads get sold, but you can't know who is wearing what or even what sizes are needed in what numbers. This is a bullship claim.

● Smokin' In the Boys Room: There is something so fitting about "the beautiful people... the rich kids of Instagram" (Hadids, Kardashians, Baldwins, etc.) gathered in the bathroom at the MET Gala to smoke. Very fitting indeed.

Real Books Are "Antiquated"?

This is just depressing. I read this in the NY Post this weekend...well, just read it and weepManhattan school is trashing all its textbooks.

“They made an announcement that they were getting rid of the books because they were antiquated and outdated, and we should be using new technology,” a teacher said. “I hid some of my books to prevent them being taken.”

Whaaat?? Teachers having to hide books to "prevent them from being taken"?? This is insane! And the idea that math textbooks could ever be "antiquated" is absurd. At the very least, the adminstrators could pack them up and send them to the other schools who are begging for textbooks! The good news is that, at least some of the students are smart enough to pick them up and taking them home to use.

Okay, I love books as my shelves and shelves of them will attest. I see a book in the trash...well, who throws away books?? Donate them to charity, give them to a friend, sell them to a used book store, but throw them away? That's a crime to me. [Okay, maybe burning "The Exorcist" is okay, but that is it!]

And I honestly tried to go digital with books. What's better than being able to carry 50 books around and being able to read anyone of them at any time at a touch of button, right? Well, it's just not the same as reading a real book. It's not the same as reading words on a page. Maybe it's turning real pages, or the smell or weight. But like studies that reveal that writing by hand is more lasting to memory than typing on a computer, maybe reading words on a page connects to the memory better too. What happens when there's a giant power failure and all of the e-books disappear?

This is scary. It is the first step into the long road to the new Dark Ages. H.G. Wells predicted this in "The Time Machine". Remember that 1960's movie when the Time Traveller (Rod Taylor) travels to the future and lands in this beautiful place with beautiful people running around in little togas? Yeah, remember the scene where he goes into the "library" and touches one of the books and it falls to dust? That's what happens when you don't appreciate real books! The Morlocks will use you as food!!!

Okay, I dare you to disagree...