See here. This essay was written for Britain’s Guardian newspaper by someone (Larry Elliott) who was in favor of Brexit and who points out that a number of horrible consequences that were supposed to happen have not happened:
Unemployment would rocket. Tumbleweed would billow through deserted high streets. Share prices would crash. The government would struggle to find buyers for UK bonds. Financial markets would be in meltdown. Britain would be plunged instantly into another deep recession.
None of that has happened, though the author admits that Britain is still in the early stages of its new status. But he also makes clear that too many people talked about how terrible conditions would be if Britain were to exit from the EU, and that this was a bad strategy:
The remain camp was ill-advised to rely so heavily on its warnings of economic Armageddon, when only two regions of the country – London and the south-east – had seen GDP per head rise above the level before the 2008-9 recession. After weighing up the pros and cons, plenty of voters didn’t think they were risking all that much.
Also, once Brexit was voted on, lots of people in business and government began working on making sure that the economic Armageddon didn’t happen; in other words, all the horrible predictions were based on the idea that no one would actually do anything sensible afterwards.
I regard the Brexit vote as a rare example of the poor winning against the rich. Or perhaps the better analysis is that of the people with no access to the media winning against the media.
Since at least the 1960s, some people whom leftists think should be supporting the left have instead drifted over to the right. These have mostly been white members of the working class, and the general idea on the left is that they turned conservative. First, however, it should be noted that the right consists of more than just conservatives, a fact of which the left is only dimly aware, for the right includes libertarians, too. Accordingly, it is possible that they became libertarians. However, I want to suggest that most of these people are neither conservative nor libertarian (nor “conservatarian”; see here). Instead, they should be deemed the egalitarian right.
Now everyone on the left thinks that if you are an egalitarian, you are automatically on the left, but I want to suggest that just as some libertarians (like Noam Chomsky) think of themselves as being on the left rather than the right, so some egalitarians think of themselves as being on the right rather than the left. How can this be? It is because there is plenty of room for disenchantment with the current way that the egalitarians on the left run things, either in terms of their tactics or their choice of emphasis, and so some prefer to move to the right and make common cause with conservatives and libertarians in order to thwart their former leftist allies.
Note that nobody, as far as I know, actually uses the term “egalitarian right.” Rather, they tend to vote Republican as a way of voting against the liberals and leftists who dominate egalitarian thought. Sometimes they agree with conservatives and libertarians, and sometimes they don’t. (For that matter, conservatives and libertarians don’t always agree with each other, either.) However, whatever disagreements they have with conservatives and libertarians, these seldom become great enough that they split off from the right.
What are the issues on which the egalitarian right disagrees with the egalitarian left? It is more informative to do this in terms of history rather than simply listing the issues. There may have been people who drifted to the egalitarian right at the time of the Nazi-Soviet pact, but since I wasn’t alive at that time, I’m not sure. Possibly, so many people were disenchanted that they could form an anti-communist left without feeling the need to move to the right. Accordingly, my story begins in the late 1960s when lots of working-class whites became part of the egalitarian right as a result of rising levels of crime together with the Democrats’ refusal to do much about it. In the early 1970s, there was the issue of busing, which sent many more poorer whites over to the Republican side. George McGovern said of this period that in a spirit of inclusiveness, he opened up the party to more groups and twenty million people walked out.
By the 1980s, we began hearing about “Reagan Democrats.” These people were bothered by the weakness both of the economy and of America in its foreign policy, and electing Reagan solved both of these problems. Since 9/11, there has been a new group, that of leftists horrified by the left’s alliance with Muslims. Names like Phyllis Chesler, Bruce Bawer, and Milo Yiannopoulos perhaps are part of this group. They are feminists and gay activists who are repelled by the obvious sexism and homophobia of Muslims and the left’s blindness to these facts.
However, the great majority of right egalitarians are poorer whites.
I don’t know if anyone has ever enunciated any principles or values of the egalitarian right before this, but the first such principle will be a preference for equality, though just as some libertarians talk about being libertarian with a small letter l, the same is true here. No one expects absolute equality; but something can be done to help the poor and others who are marginalized. The question is what, and it matters greatly if you think that high taxes and redistributions will help (as the egalitarian left believes) as opposed to tax cuts and job creation (which the egalitarian right is more likely to believe).
The next principle is a preference for using small government rather than large government. The egalitarian right agrees with the idea of the libertarians that a government big enough to give you everything you need and want is also big enough to take it away. Having seen their tax money used for redistributions that go to those they consider the wrong people, or else having seen it go not toward them but towards others the left regards as more “worthy,” the egalitarian right has less interest in redistributions.
With that in mind, they will want lower taxes. As I have pointed out endlessly, the Democrats and Republicans fight constantly over the tax rate of the rich, but this group probably is more interested in the tax rate on the poor.
Along with the anti-redistributionist mindset, they are anti-welfare, at least as it is run by the left these days. Likewise, they want job creation which will not only help get people off of welfare, but help everyone else as well. Moreover, they are cautious about immigration because it hurts the job creation they are hoping for. It undercuts their own prosperity. Their idea is that we first make sure all citizens are employed, and only then do we invite immigrants in. It is pointless to do so during a recession.
They are also leery of free trade if it means good jobs will be lost, and of course they are leery of the environmentalists, too, since their policies often involve jobs being lost (or else they impose pointless costs on poor people).
They are also against the left’s insistence that society be soft on crime. Either they themselves have been victims of crime, or else they saw their neighborhoods deteriorate, so they want nothing to do with soft-on-crime policies.
Finally, they are angry about schools that have been taken over by the left so that schools are more concerned with propaganda than with actually teaching children. As a way to escape poverty, the public schools are now a complete disaster, but no one on the left wants to acknowledge this.
Now why should we classify these people as on the right when they don’t share all the values that other people on the right share? First, these are people who vote Republican, having allied themselves with those on the right rather than those on the left. Second, libertarians generally think of themselves as on the right, even though they don’t always share every value with conservatives. Third, there is a preference for small government that all three groups share.
But fourth, let me observe that the preference for small government that conservatives have these days was not true when I was young. Growing up in the 1950s and the early 1960s, I knew plenty of religious conservatives, and these were people who accepted big government in certain ways. For example, they expected that government schools – that is, public schools – would teach their values. History would be taught according to what they believed to be true, and there were no worries about whether diversity or inclusiveness was being attended to. It was very patriotic, it taught that democracy and Christianity were part of progress, and it taught that communism was evil. My relatives expected moreover that there would be prayer in those schools. There would be Christmas programs. More generally, there would be Christmas displays on government property. There would be laws against stores being open on Sunday. The laws concerning divorce made it harder to get one, and of course, there was no way to get a legal abortion. These were all examples of big government that would horrify leftists today.
There were also plenty of customs that prevented people from being free. Men were supposed to dress and behave in certain ways, while women were supposed to dress and behave in quite different ways. Girls were supposed to wear dresses to school. We boys could not wear blue jeans. Men did not have long hair. They wore suits at work if they had white-collar jobs. There were no casual Fridays. There was pressure on people to get married and have children (in that order). Women were expected to give up their jobs when they got married, or if not then, when they had children. It was expected that if you went to a nice hotel or motel, you simply wouldn’t be allowed to check in with a member of the opposite sex to whom you weren’t married. People didn’t live together before marriage. Homosexuality was never mentioned.
In other words, if conservatives, particularly religious conservatives, are now promoting small government, it’s because they’ve been burned by the wrong kind of big government. (Similarly, those leftists who love big government would turn against it if all they ever saw of big government was something that didn’t do anything they wanted it to do.) That doesn’t mean they are in principle against big government, something which a libertarian would never say. Likewise, the egalitarian right is not necessarily against big government; it’s just that the big government that we have today treats them so shabbily, they want nothing to do with it.
The reason I bring all this up is because it is by now quite clear that working-class whites who vote Republican (and maybe even some of those who generally vote Democrat) love Donald Trump, while those who are conservative or libertarian are much less fond of him. Some in these two groups are even willing to vote for Hillary to prevent Trump from becoming president. It should thus be clear that working-class white Republicans are neither conservative nor libertarian, but something else. I am suggesting we can call them the egalitarian right since nothing else comes to mind. I touched on this concept briefly in my last book (pp. 276-7), but didn’t go into it much. I simply said that if I was not a leftist, and that if I must be placed on the right, then since I didn’t think of myself as either conservative or libertarian, then I must be part of the egalitarian right. But whatever we call working-class white Republicans, it is pretty clear they aren't conservative or libertarian.
Once again, a team has failed because of the lack of proficiency at penalty kicks. This time it was the German men, who managed to stave off a dominant Brazilian team by tying the game 1-1 in regulation time, but then losing on penalty kicks 5-4. What’s worse is that at least two and maybe even three of the German kicks were quite good since they landed in the (inside) side netting. And of those three, two went in even though the goalie guessed right (which simply goes to prove what I have been saying, that accuracy in taking the shot means you don’t have to use guile to get it in). The Brazilian shots were not as good, but they were good enough to go in.
So, Brazil won the Olympic gold medal, but it was not a brilliant game for them. The German goal was the result of a stupid pass by Brazil, and there were other stupidities, too. For example, at least twice I noticed that as time ran out, the Brazilians had the ball in the midfield area but did nothing to advance it towards the goal for one last shot. Did they not know how little time was left? Shouldn’t someone on the sidelines have shouted this out to them? Look, if there’s fifteen seconds left, then why not send it long into the penalty area? Everyone does this, as far as I know, because you might get lucky and it costs nothing. Also, Germany were unlucky since they did have some excellent chances that they simply couldn’t put away.
But, at least the Brazilians can say that their one goal, by Neymar, was a beauty. It was on a free kick, and it curled up over the German wall into the corner. So, why can’t someone who can shot that accurately not have a perfect penalty kick? Neymar’s kick, the last Brazilian kick which won the game, was not a bit impressive. Sheesh.
A few years back I read the first in a series of novels about a Swedish journalist hired to find a woman who had disappeared years before. (I talked about it here and no, I didn't read any more of that series.) It was part of a series that made a big splash here, and it involved neo-Nazis committing crimes against women. I thought this was crazy because it’s hard to believe that neo-Nazis are still big in Sweden. As I pointed out at the time I read it, how can Swedes think of themselves are morally superior to the rest of us if they have neo-Nazis roaming in their midst? However, my bigger point was that these people were ignoring the elephant in the room, that most of the crimes against women in Sweden are being done by Muslim immigrants. See here for the latest in this completely unnecessary saga, namely some girls sexually assaulted at a music festival in Stockholm. Note that the police refused to discuss the nationality of the perpetrators. Note also that the police and the media covered up similar incidents in the past.
And in an amusing twist on the situation, Turkey now has warnings about travel to Sweden, saying that Sweden has the highest rape rate in the world (here). This was done apparently in retaliation for what the foreign minister of Sweden said about Turkey, namely that they allow sex with children under the age of 15. Incidentally, this warning I believe is the first official acknowledgment of Sweden’s rape rate anywhere, though it is well-known in counter-jihad circles. Whether your average liberal or leftist knows of it is a different matter.
Anyway, I love this sentence at the link about Stockholm's sexual assaults: “young girls have now turned on the police after they urged the teenagers to wear bracelets telling men ‘not to grope.’” Maybe the long-awaited resistance to Islamification from the feminists is finally starting to happen.
The other day I talked about how some whites thought they had Indian blood, but when they did DNA tests, it turned out that they didn’t. Why would they have believed this in the first place? Recently, David Brooks had a column (which I’m not going to bother linking to) in which he mentioned that in early America, some colonists went off to live with the Indians, while Indians seldom came to live with the colonists. Apparently, they were attracted to the close-knit community of the Indian tribes. Assuming this continued for a while, we can imagine someone in the nineteenth century like a recently widowed mother who, finding it hard to live without a husband, takes herself off to an Indian tribe and bringing her children with her. The children grow up among the Indians, but return to white society when they grow up. But they talk about living among the Indians to their children and grandchildren, who then get the idea that they have Indian blood when they don’t.
There. That’s my best guess for now.
This article [hat tip: Mark Spahn] talks about the limitations of peer review in connection with research showing that the police aren’t as hostile to blacks as is believed. This was reported in the NY Times, and progressive readers were quick to doubt the science (even though this is what they accuse conservatives of doing), and while this article observes that the research had not gone through formal peer review, it had been reviewed informally. Anyway, the article points out that the standards across disciplines vary, and of course standards within a discipline may not mean much, if everyone shares the same bad assumptions.
The obvious conclusion (not drawn in the article) is that we need to be cautious about assuming that climate science is correct about global warming.
The Narrative Fails Quickly in the Case of the Murdered Imam
See here. The suspect is not white, but Latino, and the motive isn't a simple case of Islamophobia, no matter how much progressives wish it to be true. One motive proposed is that it was because of bad blood between Muslims and Latinos in the neighborhood of the mosque. Gosh, we hadn’t heard about that before, had we?
College for the Poor: At Last!
I’ve been saying for quite awhile that all the statistics about how advantageous it is for people to go to college are based on the experiences of the rich and upper-middle class and that they may not be true for the poor. Yes, the rich can get great benefits from going to college, but then they can tap into connections that poor people can’t. Finally, though, someone else is picking up on this. This article talks about a new study:
The research, which is set to be published later this year, was highlighted in an UpJohn Institute research brief a few weeks ago, around the time that Hillary Clinton partially endorsed Sanders’ college plan. The authors find that college graduates earn more than those without a college degree—a finding on which experts nearly universally agree.
But they also found that the magnitude of this college wage premium isn’t felt equally: It’s larger for people who grew up in non-poor households than it is for those who grew up in poor households. Although college does lift people up, the poor reap smaller benefits than the well-off do. So if a poor family and a middle-class family both send kids to college, the economic gap between them may actually grow.
Yup. Think about a poor young woman who goes to college and majors in Women’s Studies. What jobs are there for her? The best job is to be a professor of in that area, but with so many applying and so few jobs available, the powers that be can always pick those who come from wealthy backgrounds, because such people will always come off better than anyone from a poor background. They will have gone to better schools, they will be more confident, they will know how to deal with interviewers, etc. Our young woman is better off training to be a nurse.
Islamist Terrorism: Touche!
This post quotes a tweet from someone from India who dashed to smithereens the view prevailing among our elites that terrorism in the West by the Islamists is the result of Western imperialism. The tweet was a response to a tweet from France’s ambassador to the U.S. (Gerard Araud) expressing this view. Here is the response:
We Indians have been colonized by all European powers including your country [i.e., France]. Ever heard of Indian terrorists? Shame on you.
It is true that the ambassador suggested not just past imperialism as a factor, but geographical proximity as well. Nevertheless, this is why I’d love to allow a bunch of Hindus to migrate here because I suspect they aren’t going to put up with all the Islamophilic propaganda from the left. They would challenge it at every turn.
Soccer: Brazilian Women Downed by Penalty Kicks
Just like the U.S. Heh. Brazil ran up against the brick wall of Sweden and couldn’t score a goal against them in regular time and overtime, and one would think that they would have watched us fail against Sweden, thereby deciding that practicing penalty kicks would be a good idea. But no. The outcome was almost exactly the same as our result with Sweden having one of their shots saved and Brazil having two of them saved. The only difference was that one of our misses went over the bar instead of being saved. Mind you, Sweden did not have particular accurate shots, but they did get the job done. And let me also add that even though none of these shots by either team was what I expect at this level (and what I expect is that the shot will be within an inch or two of the post and at one of the four corners), some were close enough to the post that, even though the goalie guessed correctly, she wasn’t able to save the shot. Which simply proves my point that accuracy will score every time. Why, then, use guile?
The other day (here) I complained about a woman, a Muslim lawyer, who insisted that shari’a would be difficult to impose without a trove a lawyers who understood it and that the teenagers of ISIS were not going to be able to do it. Therefore, she concluded, we have nothing to fear from shari’a. This, of course, is naive because shari’a is being imposed by violence and not by lawyers, and the people doing it are not concerned with whether every little jot of shari’a is correct according to Muslim lawyers. They are just concerned that the basic features are there.
But now I want to argue that in a very limited way, shari’a is already here. Consider that thirty years ago, I never worried about making fun of any religious figure. I never thought I’d get death threats, though I might make people mad, and even if I did get death threats, I assumed the media, Hollywood, and all liberals and leftists would support me. That has all changed. Anyone who didn’t get the message concerning the fatwa against Salman Rushdie got the message with killing of Theo van Gogh, the threats to the Danish cartoonists, and later on the actual killings at Charlie Hebdo. The amount of support one gets from liberals and leftists when you side with these victims is small and easily countered by those liberals and leftists who join with the thugs and express disapproval for what you are doing. “You are punching down,” thunders Garry Trudeau. Many whine, “You’ve offended the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims.” It doesn’t seem to matter to them that free speech will inevitably offend people or that the Muslims most offended are also the ones who are the most conservative and whom they’d hate if they’d grown up near them.
Think about the plight of Molly Norris, the American woman who suggested that if everyone drew Muhammad, the Muslims wouldn’t be able to deal with all the “blasphemers” and would simply give up and do other, presumably more productive things. This might have worked, if we actually lived in a society whose elites were interested in preserving our freedom of speech, but we no longer live in such a society, and so Molly Norris had to go into hiding because of all the death threats she was getting. The fact that an ordinary Westerner had to go into hiding because some immigrants didn’t like what she said is outrageous, but our elites don’t care. They would probably say that she deserved her fate, assuming they have even heard of her.
But it is not just cartoonists or novelists who are under siege because scholars are under siege, too. No one who delves into the beginnings of Christianity or Judaism needs to hide if they come to conclusions unpopular with believers, but that is now true for scholars looking at the beginnings of Islam. There are such scholars, and they are now either abandoning the field or going into hiding and using pseudonyms or reaching conclusions that the Islamists like. I don’t expect any such scholars to emerge after this generation since no one will dare do it. There are plenty of other historical topics to investigate, so these fields will dry up, and the community of skeptics, freethinkers, and secularists will be poorer for it. Anyone growing up in a rigidly reactionary Islamic household will find no help from our leftists if he or she wants to break away. It is people on the right who are concerned, not people on the left.
Now it is true that most people will not be affected by this change. But it’s easy enough to see how as a result of relentless terrorizing and constant demands from liberals and leftists that we ought to support Muslims, other things could change, too. Suppose that the terrorists decide that all restaurants should be closed during the day during the month of Ramadan. With that in mind, they choose some restaurants at random and blow them up, announcing their intentions on social media. What will our society’s reaction be? The fact that the basic reaction of our society to the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the murder of Theo van Gogh, the threats and killings of cartoonists, and various other horrors has been to import more Muslims already suggests that our reaction will be much weaker than it ought to be. So, while I have no idea exactly what would happen, I am not optimistic. Probably, many people will be stunned and have a deer-in-the-headlights reaction with no idea of what should be done. Still others will want nothing done beyond ordinary police work. Some leftists will demand that we support Muslims on this issue as a way of showing solidarity with them and complaining that if we don’t, then we are somehow punching down. The only good reaction is that some will head to the far right, and maybe if enough head to the far right, our elites will find themselves out of power so that some effective action can be taken.
Now what I have just described is what would happen today. But now imagine that Muslims wait twenty or thirty years before making their demand. By that time, the West will have far more Muslims than it does now, and they will be scattered all over. It would be hard enough today to determine who the terrorists are, but with Muslims everywhere, it will be impossible. The reason it would be impossible is that every agency that wanted to determine who was doing the terrorizing would already have so many sympathetic Muslims as employess that nothing could be accomplished. They would be a fifth column who would support the enemy.
The same would be true of gay marriage. Someone has said that a right is nothing more than a probability that society will allow you to do something, and with Muslims everywhere thirty years from now, the prospects that gays will be allowed to get married is not good. To get married, one must apply for a marriage license, but any gays who do this will then become known to whichever Muslims work in the marriage license bureau (and there are bound to be some), and those Muslims can inform the network of Muslim terrorists who will issue death threats to the couple, who will then give up on the idea. This, of course, assumes that any gays are even still out of the closet at that point, and it seems quite likely that they will not be. Likewise, women will all be covered when they go out in public, alcohol may be prohibited, dogs as pets might become scarce, etc. All that is required for any of these possibilities to occur is for the cultural atmosphere that we now have to continue. What I mean is that the important institutions of our culture that might offer resistance (like schools and the media) actually demand that we accede to the terrorist demands or say that it’s all our fault or pour forth some other defeatist nonsense that encourages the terrorists to keep pushing.
Let me consider some objections. First, why assume that Muslims want more of shari’a than they now have? It’s because wherever they have gone, they have wanted more. When Islamists went into Mali, they demanded of the Muslims already living there that they adopt a more rigid Islamic style of living. The Muslims who took over Iran in 1979 wanted a lot more than just the absence of cartoons mocking Islam; they wanted full shari’a.
Next, suppose leftists actually drew a line that they wouldn’t want Muslims to cross such that if Muslims did cross it, then leftists agreed that they will demand stern countermeasures. The problems here are numerous. There is no such line right now, and it is doubtful that there ever will be since there would be no unanimity about where to draw the line. But even if there were such a line, we saw how President Obama dealt with a line that he himself had drawn regarding Syria’s use of chemical weapons. He simply ignored it, so there is no guarantee that any leftist line would be adhered to. Plus, there is no guarantee that a line accepted by leftists of today will be accepted by them tomorrow.
A third objection is that “they” will prevent these changes from happening. Exactly who “they” are is not explained, but so far “they” have not done anything, and I assume they will never do anything to help. Anyway, if we consider who might help, we can see that this is just nonsense. For example, is the “they” a reference to the police? The police have been infiltrated. The army? The army has been infiltrated. An NGO? Yeah, right. Black Lives Matter? Please. They want to tear down our society, not help it. Ordinary people banding together? Not likely since it hasn’t happened so far, and anyway that requires a strong will, and so far we don’t have that. Once we do have a strong will to resist, then anything is possible, but given that right now none of our elites (including the MSM) considers it possible that shari’a will be imposed on us, then there is no reason for anyone who follows the elites to develop such a strong will. And even if such a strong will were to emerge among the populace (in the face of strong opposition from all the elites and their institutions), the likelihood is that by the time this happens, a civil war with a hundred million dead would be required to resist the imposition of shari’a.
The U.S. women are out of the Olympics soccer tournament after having failed to beat Sweden. It came down to penalty kicks, and the U.S. blew two out of the five kicks. Hope Solo, our goalie, did her part by saving one of the Swedish shots, which is about all one can ask of a goalie. But Alex Morgan took an unimpressive shot that was easily saved, and Christen Press shot over the bar. It occurred to me that what I am saying about penalty kicks is similar to what Nassim Taleb is saying about black swan events. He says everyone discounts certain catastrophic events as so rare as not to be worth preparing for, but then they happen more frequently than expected. That seems to be the mentality of soccer players and coaches when it comes to penalty kicks. They rarely happen, it is believed, so why bother practicing them? And it is true that during a season of play, ties are allowed to stand so that deciding a game by penalty kicks never happens, so the only penalty kicks come during the run of play, which is seldom. It is only when it comes to tournaments that the situation changes because it is very likely that some games will go to penalty kicks. Since that is the case, then because the consequences are so severe, PKs ought to be practiced, but it seems they aren’t. And so we get very bad shots, shots that are wholly unworthy of people at the top levels of the game. And everyone but me takes this to be normal.
According to this account of an incident on a recent Jet Blue flight, the turbulence was so bad that even people wearing seat belts were thrown out of their seats (and they quoted a woman who said that that happened to her and her mother). This account is different and says it was only people who weren’t wearing seat belts who were affected.
It’s hard for me to imagine this. Did they not have them tightened? Is it possible that the part anchoring the seat belt was ripped apart by the turbulence? If that were the case, I would imagine there would be a lot more destruction than they talked about. I suppose it’s possible that that part was faulty, but I’m guessing these are people who want to sue.
I was going to post these last night when we got hit by a power outage, so I’m posting them now.
Turkey and the EU: I Wouldn’t Be So Sure What the EU Will Do
This post talks about how Turkey’s Erdogan wants to bring back the death penalty in Turkey, which was abolished in 1984. One commenter says, “Europe will write him off completely after this.” I wouldn’t be too sure. If this was, say, Uruguay, yes, they probably would. But when it comes to Muslims, Europeans give them all kinds of slack, so there’s no telling what they will do. Probably, they will ignore it, just like they ignore all the other horrible things Muslims do.
The Orlando Shooter’s Father: This Doesn’t Surprise Me at All
This post quotes the father of the Orlando shooter as saying that homosexuals will be punished by God. Yep, no matter how much the left wants to ignore it, lots of Muslims are homophobes.
An Interesting Letter from a Liberal Professor from Appalachia
It is quoted here. She makes a number of good points, to the effect that she doesn’t feel quite right among either conservatives or liberals, who are mostly from wealthier backgrounds than she is. We really need a party of the poor that distinguishes itself from both parties. The Democrats used to be the party of the poor, but they aren’t any longer, though most Democrats still think that it is, and while Republicans are better at helping the poor than Democrats think, they still aren’t as good as I’d like.
She also talks common sense about college women who are raped at fraternity parties after passing out from too much alcohol. Just don’t do it, she says. Amen.
What To Do? Nothing
This article talks about young men with no jobs who aren’t going to college, either. What do they do with their time? They do nothing but play video games all day while still living with their parents. Various suggestions are made in the comments (both at the link and here) as to how to get them outside and either working or going to school, but the fact is this: jobs are scarce, white males will be the last in line to get whatever jobs come along, and going to school means risking having huge debts while being unemployed afterwards. So, why bother doing anything but playing video games?
A lot of people talk about how wonderful STEM degrees are, but here is what I found recently when perusing stories about the fate of physics majors. There weren’t many jobs for them, unless they ended up in programming. Why, then, major in physics when you could simply major in programming and get trained in what you will end up doing anyway? Plus, the programming classes I’ve taken were vastly easier than the physics classes I took. Why bother with physics, then? And if you don't think you have a chance at getting a job as a programmer, and if your parents are willing to fund this strange lifestyle (mine weren’t, but they were from another generation), you might as well go for it.
Olympic Soccer: Honduras versus Argentina
If this had been World Cup soccer, a minnow like Honduras would have been blown away by a giant like Argentina, but it is merely Olympic soccer, where things are different. Honduras was already in the position of merely needing a draw to advance, while Argentina had to win. And Honduras looked as good as Argentina, if not slightly better. At the end of the first half with the score 0-0, Honduras had the chance to make life very difficult for Argentina by getting a goal via a penalty kick. The kick was easily saved by Argentina’s goalie. Early in the second half, Argentina had a chance to pull ahead with their own penalty kick. The kick went wide. Finally, after Honduras had blown lots of good chances to score, they scored in the 75th minute on a second penalty. Argentina had to press forward hard, and Honduras had all sorts of great chances to score, which they blew. In the last few minutes, Argentina tied the game, but Honduras held on to get a tie and now gets to advance, while Argentina is out.
This is a strange tournament with Argentina now out and Brazil being held to scoreless ties by lowly South Africa and Iraq. But like I said, Olympic soccer isn’t World Cup soccer.