Friday, September 26, 2008

Current Mortgage Mess Was Caused by Clinton Civil Rights Agenda


In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

NYT


That's retarded, in the old school sense of "not fully developed."

We cannot subsidize the confused and less able by forcing the more sensible to cater to them. That's against natural selection and against common sense, which is that we should invest in our best, not those who are doomed to be an underclass by lack of natural ability, by confused lifestyles, and/or by addictions. This is who always make up the underclass: the dumb, the strung out, the neurotic, etc. Why is this? Because anyone with a modicum of intelligence + hard work can escape this situation. It is not rocket science.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

School Shooters: Don't Blame Guns, Blame Social Dysfunction


While some school shooters are delusional, and usually seek the attention, others like Jeff Weisse, Pekka-Eric Auvinen and now Matti Saari are of the ideological type, attempting to communicate through mass death what could not be said in words, because words can be ignored if inconvenient to the listener.


In essence, our society has decayed so far that we have created an alternate reality in which we operate as if it were reality, composed of our institutions and public opinions. Reality itself remains far away, doubly so because it is often complex and does not make a good sound bite, election slogan, advertising jingle or hip new saying to impress our friends.


Scientists Would Analayze School Shootings, Not Judge Them; Why Don't We? by Brett Stevens



Good points here. I'm not a gun fanatic, but I think citizens need something to defend themselves against parasites and government (often a parasite).

Why Hard Atheists Shouldn't be Taken Seriously


The people who concretely affirm that there is in fact no higher being whatsoever are among the people that I do not agree with nor trust. I see such declarations as the epitome of self importance. Hard atheism is a belief structure and it is just as prideful and dangerous as the unflinching beliefs of religious extremists.

...But, like hard-line religious fanatics, the hard atheists’ character flaw is an uncompromising belief in self. The individual fanatic and hard athiest both share the belief that they are right and disagreeing others are terribly misguided and wrong...

"Why Hard Atheists Shouldn't be Taken Seriously" by Edgar Alverson


What he means to say, but doesn't quite say, is that hard atheists and other fundamentalists base their beliefs in themselves, not in the world. They are using ideology to make themselves seem more important than they are. You can see this phenomenon in every belief system, from white power to hard greens to democrats and onward. The only philosophies that escape it, briefly, are those that negate the self, but even the Buddhists now are mostly egocases: "I am, indeed, holier and more passive (non-aggressive) than thou."

Belief systems based in promoting the individual in the name of changing the world are "cult-like" in that like viruses, they attack the ego and lowered self-esteem, and make their victims act in zombielike obedience toward impossible or untenable goals.

I stopped posting at the internet infidels forum (see my parting shot using Alverson's article) for this reason. I went there hoping to find people who, like me, believe our society is off-course and we should re-create it using the best ideas we have and discarding the worst. I figured that if they were atheists, they had already rejected much of the thought-conditioning around them; instead, I found that they accepted that thought conditioning, and revelled in the rebel identity granted them by telling off God.

This resulted in a forum where the admins did not know basic philosophy, the posters would chime in with smarmy comments but would tolerate blatant ignorance as long as it was atheistic, and there was a cult of revenge against Christians. When that forum was newer and healthier, its members rejected this kind of schoolboy bullying. But now it seems encouraged, and ignorance is rife, all while calling Christians ignorant, stupid, etc. and implying that all who are not good liberal atheists are somehow redneck morons who got on the internet because AOL dropped a computer in their laps.

When I was a blaspheming youth, I did it because I believed the religious path was a failure -- and for most interpretations of religion, I still believe this, although I also now believe that the same problem applies to science, politics, philosophy and culture -- not to make myself into some Antichrist Superstar. My goal was to find an ideological truth, use it to get humanity back on course, and then -- go back to doing what I always do. My life is full, in fact possibly overflowing, and I don't have a need to compensate for failure in it. What I would like, selfish perhaps, is to get my species to stop failing so the future is brighter and the smart people around me stop flaking out.

In the same way, I reject the idea of becoming self-righteous: "I have the right answer, you're all below me, therefore I rise." When I believe I have the right answer, I am the attack dog of its ideology, but that is because I believe the ideology will affect the world in positive ways, leaving my condition relatively unchanged. Ask yourself: if your ideology impacted the world as you would like it to, what would be your change in status? If the answer is that you go from night watchman to king, beware, you're in a cult state of mind.

Alverson does a good hit job on the hard atheists, who were like the skeptics a blooming internet cult for computer programmers and others, but now are fading. We really need to look out for this mindset, as it occurs everywhere, including in people of all religions.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Civil Rights Policies of 1990s Caused Mortgage Meltdown


"In an attempt to increase homeownership, particularly by minorities and the less affluent, an attack on underwriting standards was undertaken by virtually every branch of the government since the early 1990s," Liebowitz writes. "The decline in mortgage underwriting standards was universally praised as 'innovation' in mortgage lending by regulators, academic specialists, (government-sponsored enterprises) and housing activists."

"Guess Again who's to blame for US mortgage meltdown," by Drew Zahn (WND)


As I'm not a conservative (I am anti-liberal and pro-traditional) I am skeptical of this source, but it seems they've done their homework. The goal was, as always, benevolent through pity: get more minorities owning homes. The method was as usual to assume that business money is free money, and to force them to lend to people who couldn't sustain the loans, thus resulting in more minorities out of homes, but now they're also broke.

While none of us love the idea of an economy dominating us, we need to deal with the fact that some resource -- even if only intelligence -- will be scarce, and we need to figure out how to divide it up logically. One way is to take care of those who are basically competent, and let everyone else do the best they can, knowing that no one plan will work for every person, group or area.

Obviously, as we're fond of pointing out at this blog, multiculturalism denies this fact and continually pits ethnic groups against each other, since they can't coexist and retain their natural traits and cultural values -- they get merged into a grey race that seems popular with Christians and liberals. Yet another failing policy in contradiction to this fact has not done anything to alleviate our pluralistic society's path to failure.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

States Have Personalities Based on Industry


Even after controlling for variables such as race, income and education levels, a state's dominant personality turns out to be strongly linked to certain outcomes. Amiable states, like Minnesota, tend to be lower in crime. Dutiful states -- an eclectic bunch that includes New Mexico, North Carolina and Utah -- produce a disproportionate share of mathematicians. States that rank high in openness to new ideas are quite creative, as measured by per-capita patent production. But they're also high-crime and a bit aloof. Apparently, Californians don't much like socializing, the research suggests.

As for high-anxiety states, that group includes not just Type A New York and New Jersey, but also states stressed by poverty, such as West Virginia and Mississippi. As a group, these neurotic states tend to have higher rates of heart disease and lower life expectancy.

Lead researcher Peter Jason Rentfrow, lecturer at the University of Cambridge in England, said he was startled to find such correlations. "That just blew me away," he said.

"The United States of Mind" by Stephanie Simon


People are shaped by the dominant industries in the state, which introduce the stressors and rewards that define what personality attributes are promoted/demoted.

I wonder if modern society does the same to us, but probably on a lower level... unnatural selection.

78% of Americans Think USA is on Wrong Track


Americans are divided along racial lines but agree that the United States is on the wrong track and the economy is the top priority, according to an opinion poll conducted by USA Today, ABC News and Columbia University released on Tuesday.

Eighty percent of blacks and Hispanics and 76 percent of whites surveyed said the economy should be the next president's highest priority.

"Majority of Americans say U.S. on wrong track: poll" by Joanne Allen


This article is basically a hit piece on yesterday's figures which show the US electorate is strongly divided over race, with most white people preferring to remain white and believing that blacks and Hispanics are of lower intelligence and generally create their own problems. This view has not changed among most white people over 30 through the last ten generations.

Of course everyone thinks the economy should be fixed. It's how we eat, and it's broken.

Interesting how the different types of flag-waving exist to distract us from fundamental problems: unstable superpower, race/class war, sexual freedom leading to declining population, pollution, nuclear proliferation, dying fish stocks, no plan. All of those are more important than abortion, gun control, and these silly polls.

Teaching Financial Literacy


According to a 2007 survey commissioned by the National Council on Economic Education, only seven states currently require high school students to receive financial education in the school system. What about the other 43 states?

We need look no further than the daily news headlines about the mortgage meltdown, the stock market crisis, the housing slump, or the rising cost of oil to see how relevant financial literacy is.

We force students to learn trigonometry, yet how many of us ever use it again after graduation? In contrast, how many transactions involving money will we each conduct on a daily basis for the rest of our lives? - "We teach teens trigonometry, why not Money 101?" by Braun Mincher


Of course this author is correct: the modern world is complex enough that we all need whatever education we can get in the ways of its finances.

However, he hasn't pointed out why we don't teach financial literacy. It would ruin our pretense that schools are training camps for careers, not for life itself. This is why art classes are sacred, and we try to teach literature to kids with IQs under 110 even though we know it's gobbledygook to them.

Why don't we teach kids life literacy? That forces us to admit that our schools are basically vocational training for desk jobs, and for those who fail, another few years before they become full time fry cooks.

Why White People Hate Themselves

It's a class war, silly.


But although Lander’s designation is peculiar, he’s hardly the first to dissect this elite and its immediate predecessors (see for instance Mark E. Kann’s Middle Class Radicalism in Santa Monica, Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism, Richard Florida’s The Rise of the Creative Class, and David Brooks’s Bobos in Paradise—Brooks calls these people variously “bourgeois bohemians,” the “educated elite,” and the “cosmopolitan class”). Lander, like many of these writers, traces this group’s values to the 1960s, and there’s clearly a connection between a politics based on “self-cultivation” (to quote the Students for a Democratic Society’s gaseous manifesto, the Port Huron Statement) and what Lander defines as White People’s ethos: “their number-one concern is about the best way to make themselves happy.” That concern progresses naturally into consumer narcissism and a fixation on health and “well-being”: Lander’s most entertaining and spot-on entries dissect White People’s elaborate sumptuary codes, their dogged pursuit of their own care and feeding, and their efforts to define themselves and their values through their all-but-uniform taste and accessories (Sedaris/Eggers/The Daily Show/the right indie music/Obama bumper stickers/uh, The New Yorker).

So why call this group “White People”? Lander is almost certainly being mischievous. After all, dismissing something or someone as “so white” has long been a favorite put-down among those who like to view themselves as right-thinking, hierarchy-defying nonconformists—that is, White People. Recall those ads extolling “the new face of wealth,” which contrast male, stone-faced WASP bankers with attractive, far less formally—though far more expensively—clad women, quasi-hipsters, and assorted exotic ethnics. The women and hipsters may be white, but they’re not white—they’re members of the cool-looking pan-ethnic tribe, a tribe defined by economic and social status and by cultural and aesthetic preferences rather than by ethnicity. When I interviewed Lander on the telephone in July, he acknowledged that White People are in fact “desperate to define themselves as other than white.” Indeed, he rightly places “diversity” and “tolerance” highest on the list of virtues prized by White People (as did Brooks for Bobos). "Intolerant Chic" by Benjamin Schwarz


As Tom Wolfe pointed out, as a white person you gain status by demonstrating bending-over-backward altruism, or potlatch.

So you have these white people who are ashamed of their own origins as impoverished Irish or Slavic farmers, or wops or Jews, and they're trying to use their benevolent attitude toward people they obviously consider inferior, all as a means to lift themselves up personally in social status.

That's why we like Stuff White People Like, and it's why I'm re-reading David Brooks' Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There: they point out how in the intra-white class war, minorities are just sad pawns.