Monday, February 18, 2019

Women want to mate with Neanderthals

Neuroscientist R. Douglas Fields writes in SciAm:
We know that Homo sapiens (meaning the wise one) co-inhabited the earth with Neandertals. What’s more, DNA analysis proves that men and women of both species (or subspecies if you prefer), mated. ...

By and large, H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis stuck to their own when it came to romance. This like-attracts-like is a strong behavioral drive in mating that continues today. Men and women tend to consort with and marry others who are of similar characteristics, what psychologists call assortative mating. We much prefer to become romantically involved with someone of the same race, and we also pick mates who are self-similar in education, height, body mass index, social positions, attitudes, religiosity and even genes. The biggest factor in mate choice is having a similar IQ and this is highly correlated with years of education.

But sometimes women marry up (the lady Neandertal bedding H. sapiens), and sometimes women marry down (the “wise one” female falling in love with the Neandertal). Psychologists have terms for this behavior of selecting mates outside one’s own group: “hypergamy” and “hypogamy,” for marrying up or down, respectively, but as with most technical jargon, the scholarly vocab contributes little. The question is, why do women do it?
Fields is a little mixed up. There is no reason to believe that the African H. sapiens had any higher IQ than European Neanderthals. Neanderthals has bigger brains, better tools, and better art.

Hypergamous women are not so picky about IQ. They will happily mate with whatever man happens to kill their current lovers.
Generally, when a woman chooses a mate outside her own IQ or educational group, she tends to marry up. This tendency cuts across culture, ethnic group and race. Even in developing countries, such as Nigeria, romantic partners tend to have the same level of education, but when there is a difference in schooling, females usually marry up. This is the long-standing pattern in the United States, but it is an inescapable consequence of the fact that females were excluded from higher education.
Females were never excluded from higher education. Even if they were, that would have no bearing on IQ, or mating strategies based on IQ.
Now that the gender gap in education favors females, women in the modern world are more frequently marrying down when it comes to scholastic smarts and income.  
This is not really any change in hypergamy. It still shows women to be mating with the best available man.

Women tend to be pro-immigration because they see the immigrants as invaders and they instinctively desire to be raped by invaders.

Women now get more degrees than men, but this change has no effect on IQ. For the most part, women are getting those degrees in soft subjects, and not pursuing high-income careers, so it is still possible for all the women to marry up.
Romantic partners tend to share the same psychiatric disorders, such as autism, schizophrenia and depression. The same goes for smoking, substance abuse and criminality. A 2017 study finds that people with criminal offences prior to marriage are significantly more likely to marry others with criminal records. After they became hitched, the spouses committed even more similar criminal offenses. To the extent that genetics contributes to such illnesses and criminal tendencies, this is something to ponder in terms of mating choices breeding future problems.
The dysgenic problem is not that mating partners are similar, but those with bad genes are mating at all. Anyone passing on schizophrenia genes will be causing schizophrenia in subsequent generations, no matter who the mate is.

The NY Times reports:
For decades, researchers and physicians tended to think about pregnancies as either planned or unplanned. But new data reveals that for a significant group of women, their feelings don’t neatly fit into one category or another. As many as one-fifth of women who become pregnant aren’t sure whether they want a baby. ...

It shows that some women want to avoid making a decision about becoming pregnant, or have strong but mixed feelings about it. A new analysis of the 2014 results from the Guttmacher Institute combined these results with data from abortion providers. It found that in 9 percent to 19 percent of pregnancies, the woman “wasn’t sure” what she wanted at the time. ...

The research confirms that many unplanned pregnancies can nevertheless become wanted as women’s feelings about pregnancy evolve.
Is anyone surprised by this? I am surprised that the percentages are so low.

Women are fickle and choosy. One day they want a kid, and the next day they don't. They don't really know what they want, or what will make them happy. If we had to wait for women to make definite decisions about kids, the human race would have died out long ago. Maybe that is what happened to the Neanderthals.

To see how crazy women can be, check out the latest NY Times MeToo article. The newspaper has become like a trashy tabloid.
For nearly two decades, Ryan Adams, one of the most prolific singer-songwriters of his generation, has been heralded as a mercurial creative genius and a respected industry tastemaker.

Equal parts punk-rock folk hero and romantic troubadour, Adams, 44, has 16 albums and seven Grammy nominations to his name. He has overseen music by Willie Nelson, written a Tim McGraw hit and recorded with John Mayer.

He has also taken a special interest in the trajectory of female artists, especially younger ones, championing them onstage, across social media and in the studio, where his stamp of approval can jump-start careers.
The paper found some women who complained that he did not help their careers as much as they wanted. An ex-wife complains that he said to her, "You’re not a real musician, because you don’t play an instrument." A teenaged musician girl managed to exchange some flirtatious text messages with him by claiming that she was over 18.

Adams has also written and recorded dozens of songs about his divorce, and other disappointments in his love life. Nobody cares about him, of course. But if a woman has some disappointment, then it is a national tragedy worthy of a NY Times investigation.

Sunday, February 17, 2019

Jussie Smollett crime was a hoax

The leftist white-hating news media has been claiming for three years about how Trump supporters were supposedly doing bigoted attacks. So far, their best example was Jussie Smollett. He is a prominent gay black actor who claimed that two white Trump supporters attacked him in a Chicago hate crime.

I did not follow this story, except to note that Alt-Right sites were quietly predicting that this story would turn out to be a hoax.

Now it turns out that the story is a hoax, TMZ reports. Chicago police found the two attackers, and they were black Nigerian bodybuilder Obama-supporting friends of Smollett. Smollett paid them to do it.

So how did the Alt-Right sites deduce that this was a hoax? Smollett could be charged with a serious felony, so telling a fictitious story like that was a big risk. Why risk it, and what did he have to gain?

The leftist white-hating news media portray Whites as bigots who are eager to put black men in a noose. In reality, the most racist Whites are nearly all law-abiding citizens who just want to get away from blacks, not provoke them. Nearly all hate crimes are perpetrated against Whites, not by Whites.

It will be amusing to see how the press covers this story. Now that they have made a national story about how it was a hate crime, they will have to now admit that it was all an anti-White hoax.

Saturday, February 16, 2019

Esquire has to kill story about white boy

CBS News reports:
Esquire magazine dropped the cover story for its March issue on Tuesday, and many people expressed their frustration with the 17-year-old boy profiled in the article. The author of the cover story, Jennifer Percy, says the presentation for her feature story was "misleading."

"The Life of an American Boy at 17" follows Ryan Morgan and, according to the cover, "what it's like to grow up white, middle class, and male in the era of social media, school shootings, toxic masculinity, #MeToo, and a divided country."

In an email to CBS News, Percy wrote the "article shows how much work we still have to do to educate boys about inherited white male privilege. It also shows that the teenage years are an ideal time to make change." ...

Several social media users were outraged that the magazine would release a story that highlights white males during Black History Month. ...

Some people thought releasing the now-controversial cover was a strategy to get people talking about Esquire's continuing series, which will later profile other, more diverse people. Some defended Esquires choice in subject, saying Morgan is, in fact, the typical American boy.
So the typical American boy cannot be portrayed as White anymore?

I am guess that only Whites and Jews read Esquire anyway. Why should it cave to demands of the White-haters? This shows how far White hatred has gone.

Friday, February 15, 2019

How the American west coast has declined

End Of The American Dream reports:
Almost everyone that goes out to visit one of our major cities on the west coast has a similar reaction. Those that must live among the escalating decay are often numb to it, but most of those that are just in town for a visit are absolutely shocked by all of the trash, human defecation, crime and public drug use that they encounter. Once upon a time, our beautiful western cities were the envy of the rest of the world, but now they serve as shining examples of America’s accelerating decline. The worst parts of our major western cities literally look like post-apocalyptic wastelands, and the hordes of zombified homeless people that live in those areas are too drugged-out to care. The ironic thing is that these cities are not poor. In fact, San Francisco and Seattle are among the wealthiest cities in the entire nation. So if things are falling apart this dramatically now, how bad will things get when economic conditions really start to deteriorate?
But tax revenue from Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Neflix, etc. have supplied billions of dollars for the govt to what it wants, right? Nope, it can't really do anything:
According to this Wikipeda article, in just six years, between 1863 and 1869, a 1,912-mile railroad line was built to connect the east-coast rail network to California. And they had to deal with stuff that we don’t have to deal with today, like massive buffalo herds and hostile Indian tribes.

Not that I’m saying that California needs a high-speed rail line (they probably don’t), but if they wanted to build one, then it’s pretty pathetic that it took 11 years to study a 450-mile-long line, less than one-quarter of what was built in the 1860s, and then scrap the project.

We used to be a nation that got stuff done, but today we can’t do anything despite having huge technological advantages compared to the 1860s.
Human capability peaked before 1975 and has since declined.

Law professor Peter H. Schuck writes in the NY Times:
President Trump is verging on a declaration of national emergency — purely in order to fund his wall. And if he does, the courts may — or may not — reject his gambit.

But the fact that he may actually possess the legal authority to require agencies to waste billions of dollars simply to fulfill a foolish campaign promise he thinks won him the election is itself scandalous. ...

In Mr. Trump’s case, it has handed an unguided missile to an ignorant, impetuous man-child.
If so, Trump got a huge arsenal of unguided missiles two years ago. We are just over halfway thru his term. Where is the damage from this "man-child"? It appears that the Presidency has too little power if such a person cannot even do any damage when he tries.

Thursday, February 14, 2019

Pretend that aliens are invading

I have taken the liberty of a few substitutions in the quote below.

NY Times opinion columnist Farhad Manjoo writes:
“The Uninhabitable Earth” by David Wallace-Wells is the most terrifying book I have ever read. Its subject is demographic change, and its method is scientific, but its mode is Old Testament. The book is a meticulously documented, white-knuckled tour through the cascading catastrophes that will soon engulf our browning planet: death by water, death by heat, death by hunger, death by thirst, death by disease, death by asphyxiation, death by political and civilizational collapse.

And should they escape death, your children and grandchildren might subsist instead through proto-apocalyptic ruin. ...

What so riled me up was not just the projected devastation but also the obvious incapacity of our political system to even begin to comprehend the suffering to come, let alone mitigate it. It struck me that what we need to fight demographic change is not just some new political plan but a whole new politics — the sort of thorough reimagining of stakes that humanity has only previously achieved during times of total war.

But demographic change is not war. There is no enemy, other than ourselves. And we are very bad, as individuals or collectively, at fighting ourselves over anything.

This thought chilled me.

Then, one late night after taking a dose of a kind of sleep medicine that is now widely available in California, I had an epiphany:

Pretend it’s aliens. ...

The whole thing is tragic and lazy, when what we need is heroism and bravery.

If the aliens attacked, we’d do better. I’m sure of it.

We would understand the stakes in the battle ahead. We would apprehend the necessity of sacrifice and perseverance. We would be able to perceive what is happening to our planet and our species as what it plainly is: a war for survival.
I only changed the words in italics.

We don't need to pretend. Aliens are invading. We are threatened with death by political and civilizational collapse. Are we able to perceive what is happening to our planet and our species?

The demographic change is likely to be far more significant than climate change. The climate change forecasts are only for sea levels to rise 2-3 feet this century.

Even if you think that catastrophic climate change is the biggest threat to our planet, the long-term threat is mostly from the developing world and from immigration.

Wednesday, February 13, 2019

Bezos and Woodward have gone nuts

Woodward to Bezos:
Jeff: Proud of you for stepping forward in such a difficult situation. Very gutsy and definitely right. This period reminds me of 1972-1974, perhaps Watergate Redux. So many assaults on constitutional government, common sense and privacy. Let's hope we all get it right — aggressive but careful and fair. Cheers and best, Bob Woodward
What is he talking about?

Bezos is embarrassed because the National Enquirer threaten to expose his crude extramarital messages, and wrote a rant blaming Trump.

Woodward is famous for conspiring with the assistant FBI Director to illegally leak info designed to frame President Nixon for impeachment. Does Woodward think that Bezos is doing something similar to President Trump?

Woodward is also famous for a lot of bogus stories that hide behind fictitious stories, such as the 8-year-old heroin addict.

This is weird. I can see why Bezos thinks he is being blackmailed, but if that is blackmail then so are most of the sexual harassment and MeToo complaints.

Tuesday, February 12, 2019

Moslem forced to apologize for the truth

The NY Times reports:
WASHINGTON — Representative Ilhan Omar, who has been battling charges of anti-Semitism for weeks, apologized on Monday for insinuating that American support for Israel is fueled by money from a pro-Israel lobbying group — a comment that drew swift and unqualified condemnation from fellow Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Telling the truth is anti-Semitic.

Of course pro-Israel lobbying fuels support for Israel. Isn't that obvious? Otherwise, all that lobbying would be a big waste of money.

Lots of Christians support Israel also.
“My intention is never to offend my constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole,” Ms. Omar wrote, adding, “I unequivocally apologize.”
This just proves the power of the Jewish lobby.
When Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, made comments embracing white supremacy, ...
No, he embraced "western civilization", and complained about those who put it down and call it white supremacy.

One of the newspaper's leftist Jewish columnists elaborates:
Consciously or not, Omar invoked a poisonous anti-Semitic narrative about Jews using their money to manipulate global affairs. This came just weeks after she’d had to apologize for a 2012 tweet in which she said that Israel had “hypnotized” the world, phrasing that also recalled old canards about occult Jewish power. ...

After all, it’s hardly radical to point out that lobbyist money has pernicious political effects. ... And I certainly have no problem with denunciations of Aipac, which plays a malign role in pushing American policy ...
So she agrees that the Jewish lobby is buying a malign influence, but says that it is anti-Semitic to point it out.
Personally, I’m happy to accept her apology. Progressive American Muslims and Jews should be natural allies; our mutual future depends on deepening this country’s embattled commitment
So Jews hate anti-Semitic Moslems, and will denounce them and force them to apologize. But nevertheless, Jews and Moslems are natural allies because they both hate Christians. They will work together to bring down western civilization by portraying it as a Christian white supremacist plot.

This is a point that a lot of Christians do not understand. They think that because Christians openly support Israel and Jewish causes, and Moslems work to destroy Israel and the Jews, that Jews would see themselves as having much more in common with Christians than Moslems. Indeed, that is true about many Jews. But among many leftist Jews today, such as those at the NY Times and other news media, they would side with the Moslems just because they hate Christianity so much.

Monday, February 11, 2019

How Indian foreigners ran Silicon Valley's biggest fraud

Philip Greenspun explains how importing foreign engineers has corrupted Silicon Valley:
Bad Blood, the authoritative book on the rise and fall of Theranos, describes American- and British-born engineers and scientists being fired for saying “the goal is too ambitious” or quitting when realizing this. Who replaced them? According to the book, almost all immigrants from India, either folks who’d recently completed a degree in the U.S. or coming over on H-1B visas, all managed by Ramesh Balwani, Elizabeth Holmes’s boyfriend.

During the “grand fraud” stage of Theranos, therefore, it was a primarily immigrant show except for the young impresaria.
Greenspun also explains what a disaster California has become.

His description parallels images of the Old South, where rich aristocrats ran profitable plantations, but the economy depended on millions of black slaves, and poor whites who were not much better off.

Today's California economy is based on rich elites importing cheap labor.

Sunday, February 10, 2019

Murderer gets imam to watch his execution

The NY Times Editorial Board writes:
When the Supreme Court turned a blind eye to President Trump’s hostility toward Muslims last summer, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned, in dissent, that the majority was undermining the Constitution’s “foundational principles of religious tolerance.”

In so doing, she said, the court was sending a message to “members of minority religions in our country that they are outsiders, not full members of the political commu­nity.”

Late on Thursday, the Supreme Court again sent that message, this time to a Muslim death-row prisoner, Domineque Hakim Marcelle Ray, who was awaiting execution in Alabama for the 1995 rape and killing of a 15-year-old girl from Selma. ...

On a 5-to-4 vote, the high court on Thursday allowed the execution to proceed. The imam, Yusef Maisonet, watched Mr. Ray die from behind glass. ...

“Under that policy, a Christian prisoner may have a minister of his own faith accompany him into the execution chamber to say his last rites,” Justice Kagan wrote. “But if an inmate practices a different religion — whether Islam, Judaism, or any other — he may not die with a minister of his own faith by his side. That treatment goes against the Establishment Clause’s core principle of denominational neutrality.” ...

And thus, the Supreme Court compounded the moral failure of its travel ban ruling. In each case, Muslims were diminished. “He wanted equal treatment in his last moments,” said Spencer Hahn, one of Mr. Ray’s lawyers, after Mr. Ray’s execution at 10:12 p.m. on Thursday. “We are better than this.”
The Establishment Clause says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
That means Congress may not declare Presbyterianism the national religion, in preference to Catholicism. It does not say what side of the glass a Moslem imam should be when a murderer is executed.

The core principle is not "denominational neutrality". Even if it were, Islam is not a denomination. It is debatable whether it should be called a religion. It is more of an anti-religion.

Kagan is on the Court because she is a leftist Jewish single woman, sympathetic to lesbians. The NY Times likes her for her hostility to Christianity.

Their position is that the Jews on the Court have a moral obligation to force the USA to import millions of Moslems, and to let Moslems celebrate one of their condemned murderers. We have enough murderers already, without bringing in Moslem murderers, and we should not have to respect their murderous beliefs.

Friday, February 08, 2019

The Whiteshift contradictions of multiculturalism

Eric Kaufmann writes in National Review:
Importantly, Duke political scientist Ashley Jardina, in work informing her forthcoming book White Identity Politics, distinguishes between an attachment to white identity and the dislike of racial minorities. This reflects the well-established psychological finding that, in the absence of overt conflict, there’s no correlation between attachment to one’s own group and hostility to outgroups. In the ANES, those who feel warm toward conservatives tend to feel cool toward liberals and vice-versa, but, on average, whites who feel warm toward whites tend to feel warm toward blacks. ...

Again, the own-group attachments of many who seek slower cultural change do not imply hostility toward outgroups. They are conservative, perhaps even clannish, but are not necessarily racist and should not be barred from the democratic arena. Yet many liberals consider white groupishness racist: I find that 91 percent of white Clinton voters with graduate degrees say it’s racist for a white woman to want less immigration to help maintain her group’s share of the population, compared with 6 percent of white Trump voters without a degree. Minority voters, who are less influenced by multiculturalist ideas than are white liberals, lie in between, at 45 percent, while the American average is 36 percent.
That is correct. White and Jewish liberals tend to say that it is racist and white supremacist for whites to want less non-white immigration. But in fact wanting such immigration limits is not necessarily based on any animosity towards any ethnic group.

I know whites whose communities have been taken over by Chinese. These whites often eat Chinese food and admire Chinese culture, and yet they are not happy that their kids don't have any white friends at school.

Liberals now praise Chinese-Americans keeping they Chinese culture, but hate Whites for keeping theirs.
The beginnings of what, in 2004, I termed “asymmetrical multiculturalism” may be precisely dated to July 1916, when Randolph Bourne, a member of the left-wing modernist Young Intellectuals of Greenwich Village and an avatar of the new bohemian youth culture, wrote in The Atlantic that immigrants should retain their ethnicity while Anglo-Saxons should forsake their uptight heritage for cosmopolitanism ...

A central premise of my book, Whiteshift, is that the contradictions of multiculturalism explain the current populist moment. Progressive-inspired elite norms suppressed the expression of white majority identity — or versions of national identity that recognize the majority — in stark contrast to the encouragement provided to minority cultures.
I don't know why he says it began in 2016 if he described it in 2004. Obviously it began long before 2004.
During the Republican primary, Trump was the only one of 17 candidates to make immigration restriction a central feature of his campaign because others were unwilling to challenge pro-immigration norms. This was the key factor helping him win the nomination. Likewise, in the presidential election, my ANES models show that immigration was the pivotal issue for both non-voters and Obama voters who switched to Trump.
That is correct. I thought that other candidates would see that immigration is a winning issue, along with other America First issues, and jump on it to steal Trump's supporters. But none did.

Republicans probably could have retained the Congress if they embraced Trumpism, and funded the Wall. But they never did. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan denounced Trump at every opportunity. Now he is out of office, working as a lobbyist.
Right-wing populism and left-wing identity politics have risen in tandem since 2013. Why?

The connecting thread is the contradictions of multiculturalism, which encourage a “common enemy” form of minority identity while repressing even moderate expressions of majority identity. The former produces antagonistic identity politics on the left, while both contribute to populist blowback on the right.
Since 2013? Left-wing identity politics has been rising since the 1960s. Jews have been promoting it a lot longer than that.

Trump discovered right-wing populism in 2015. I am not sure how much it has risen. Maybe Trump is just taking advantage of the fact that the Left is so obviously unreasonable.

Supposedly right-wing mags like National Review denounce Trump and Trumpism at every opportunity. Right-wingers have been unable or unwilling to do much about immigration or left-wing identity politics.

Thursday, February 07, 2019

Heading to soylent green scenario

Wired mag reports:
You know the story. Despite technologies, regulations, and policies to make humanity less of a strain on the earth, people just won’t stop reproducing. By 2050 there will be 9 billion carbon-burning, plastic-polluting, calorie-consuming people on the planet. By 2100, that number will balloon to 11 billion, pushing society into a Soylent Green scenario. Such dire population predictions aren’t the stuff of sci-fi; those numbers come from one of the most trusted world authorities, the United Nations.

But what if they’re wrong? Not like, off by a rounding error, but like totally, completely goofed?

That’s the conclusion Canadian journalist John Ibbitson and political scientist Darrell Bricker come to in their newest book, Empty Planet, due out February 5th. After painstakingly breaking down the numbers for themselves, the pair arrived at a drastically different prediction for the future of the human species. “In roughly three decades, the global population will begin to decline,” they write. “Once that decline begins, it will never end.”
The argument is that once Third World girls get iphone and birth control pills, they will all lead hedonistic lifestyles and not have any kids. Modern capitalism will then die, because it depends on growing economies.

No, this is crazy. Japan's population is not growing, and it has a sustainable economy. The rest of the world will have to figure that out, because exponential growth cannot continue for very long.

Any system will be gamed by those who take advantage of it. That is just evolution at work. If a group or nation figures out that it can get a greater share of the world's resources by encouraging their women to have ten kids, then that is what they will do. The Earth will be repopulated by those who play the reproduction game successfully.

Most of the world's problems stem from too many people using too many resources. Cutting back to a population of 1800 would alleviate those problems.

Wednesday, February 06, 2019

How Starbucks made billions

The NY Times reports:
In one email, Ricketts wrote to somebody identified only as S.V. that “Christians and Jews can have a mutual respect for each other to create a civil society,” but “Islam cannot do that.” He went on to write that, “we cannot ever let Islam become a large part of our society,” and that “Muslims are naturally my (our) enemy.”

Major League Baseball released a statement condemning the emails but seemingly tried to absolve Ricketts of some responsibility.

“While many of the emails were not written by Mr. Ricketts, the content is extremely offensive and completely at odds with the values and principles of Major League Baseball,” the statement said.
So the position of MLB is that Islam should become a large part of our society? Is MLB going to tell us where Islam has ever created a civil society?

An op-ed in the same newspaper says:
Corruption is in Russia’s DNA, as it is in Mr. Putin’s.
Really? If a private citizen in a private email says that jihadism is in Islam's DNA, then the NY Times blasts him as a bigot. But if someone says corruption is in Russia's DNA, then the NY Times happily publishes the statement.

The Russian press reports:
Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz doesn’t like people using the term 'billionaires' to describe billionaires, instead, the multi-billionaire prefers the term ‘people of means.’

Speaking at a Barnes & Noble book event last week, Schultz responded to a question about whether billionaires have too much power in the US by focusing on the term ‘billionaire.’

“The moniker ‘billionaire’ now has become the catchphrase,” he said. “I would rephrase that and say that ‘people of means’ have been able to leverage their wealth and their interest in ways that are unfair, and I think that speaks to the inequality but it also speaks to the special interests that are paid for people of wealth and corporations who are looking for influence.”
Is Schultz just trolling us?

He seems to have gotten rich off of two ideas:

1. If you charge $5 for a cup of coffee, you can create a chain of coffeeshops where Whites and Jews can sit around in the comfort that no blacks will bother them.

2. If you boost the caffeine in coffee, you can get everyone addicted to your coffee, and will not go back to whatever they were drinking before.

Such ideas are why there are so many Jewish billionaires. Others are not so clever.

These two ideas made Schultz a billionaire. I hate to think what ideas he has for being President of the USA.

Tuesday, February 05, 2019

Atlantic exposes CPS problems

An Atlantic mag article details CPS terrorizing innocent parents:
Lawmakers set up the system with the best intentions: The goal is to protect abused children and save lives. But one result of pervasive pressure, reinforced with potential civil and criminal penalties for nonreporting, is a skyrocketing number of hotline calls. According to a 2016 report, 7.4 million children came to the attention of child-abuse hotlines in a single year. ...

I had seen doctors work hand in glove with CPS to decide the merits of the hotline calls that their own hospitals had placed — a recipe for confirmation bias. They rarely used independent forensic specialists — a common practice in settings where controversies may arise over contested facts. A select group of child-abuse pediatricians served as the liaisons between accused parents and the state authorities. Later, if cases were filed in court, state prosecutors relied heavily on these same pediatricians to provide medical-expert testimony against the accused parent. None of the families I represented were informed about their assigned pediatrician’s entanglement with CPS. ... The treatment of families such as the Weidners raises serious questions about whether the system runs contrary to the American Medical Association’s codified ethics standards. ...

The CPS system needs some sensible checks to protect the innocent. “When in doubt, call the hotline” inevitably leads to unnecessary stress for wrongly accused families. Unless there’s reason to fear imminent harm to a child, a medical review for “reasonable suspicion” should precede rather than follow the decision to place a call. States need to use neutral decision makers.
No, I do not think that the system was set up with good intentions.

While a prior medical review with independent forensic specialists seems like the most fair and prudent course of action, it is a criminal offense under CPS law in most or all of the 50 states. The law says that suspicions must be reported to CPS. Physicians who consult a specialist before calling CPS are occasionally criminally prosecuted, because the consultation is considered proof that the physician had suspicions, and it is a crime to have suspicions without calling CPS.

The article is summarized:
Her basic point is that, once CPS decides a parent may have abused a child, that parent is in for a long, uncomfortable ride through the CPS system, pretty much irrespective of whether he/she abused the child or not. With the police, we call that “You can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride.” The same is true of CPS. Caseworkers can put the fear of God into any parent, even those who know they’ve done nothing wrong.
Yes, CPS has far too much power to harass innocent parents.

Monday, February 04, 2019

Dawkins says nationalism worse than Islam

London news:
“Listening to the lovely bells of Winchester, one of our great medieval cathedrals,” he wrote to his 2.8 million Twitter followers last July. “So much nicer than the aggressive-sounding ‘Allahu akhbar.’ Or is that just my cultural upbringing?” ...

“The problem with tweets is that they’re too short. ... But often ‘Allahu akbar’ is the last thing you hear before you’re blown up. Church bells are never the last thing you hear before you’re murdered.” ...

Six years ago, Dawkins described Islam as the “greatest force for evil today”. Now, he says, nationalism is a better candidate, but he has not ceased his crusade against religion.
Of course Islam is greatest force for evil today. But he switches to blaming nationalism? Is he kidding? Apparently not:
Dawkins is aggrieved by Brexit (“I’m trying to learn German as a gesture of solidarity”), though he conceded with scientific modesty: “I don’t think I know enough to say much about the actual pros and cons of the European Union. ...

He argued that, as with US constitutional amendments, a two-thirds majority should have been required for a binding result. “A simple 50 per cent majority is not good enough on an issue this important.”
Maybe so, but I don't think any country had a 2/3 majority for joining the EU in the first place.

If an educated man like himself doesn't know the pros and cons, what makes him think that the EU is beneficial? Why is he learning German?

If religion is bad, then some religions are worse than others. That is just logic. Dawkins accepts this. But he mostly associates with leftists who are reluctant to criticize any group. He goes along with leftist opinions about Brexit, even tho he doesn't know anything about it.

A good question would be whether he would support a ban on Moslems moving to England. If Islam is evil, then he should want to keep evil out of his country. However, he is too much of a leftist. Sam Harris is the same way. He is a leftist atheist who denounces Islam as evil and dangerous, but he refuses to support any effort to keep the evil out of the USA.

Sunday, February 03, 2019

Cat parasites make people crazy

Science news:
Scientists claim they have found new evidence of a link between infection with the protozoan parasite, Toxoplasma gondii, and schizophrenia, in what is described as the largest study of its kind. From a report:

T. gondii, a brain-dwelling parasite estimated to be hosted by at least 2 billion people around the world, doesn't create symptoms in most people who become infected -- but acute cases of toxoplasmosis can be dangerous. Healthy adults are generally thought to not be at risk from T. gondii infections, but children or people with suppressed immune systems can develop severe flu-like symptoms, in addition to blurred vision and brain inflammation.
The alarming thing is that this parasite has been proven to affect rat behavior, and probably affects human behavior also, without the infected person realizing it.

In short, it allows cats to enslave humans to support their needs.

There is no cure, or practical solution except to eradicate all the house cats. If you have a pet cat, you may already be a zombie.

Saturday, February 02, 2019

Feds take stricter definition of domestic violence

I mentioned how the definitions of domestic violence and rape are expanding to include normal human activities that no one ever considered criminal.

I am happy to report that the Trump administration has returned to a saner definition.

A feminist site complains:
As of April, as Slate first reported earlier this week, the definition of domestic violence as it appears on the website of the Office of Violence Against Women no longer includes language about non physical abuse.

Here’s how the DOJ defined domestic violence during the Obama administration (emphasis mine), per an archived version of the website:
A pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner. Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone.
Here’s how the DOJ now defines domestic violence as of April 2018, under Trump:
The term “domestic violence” includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former spouse or intimate partner of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse or intimate partner, by a person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction receiving grant monies, or by any other person against an adult or youth victim who is protected from that person’s acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction.
The Trump administration has limited the definition of domestic violence to criminal physical assault, ... By limiting the definition to physical assault, the DOJ is making it harder for victims ...

“Domestic violence is clearly defined in VAWA, and OVW has always used the statutory definition in carrying out its mission,” the statement read.
Separately, the NY Times has a feminist essay complaining that 90% of sexual harassment complaints to colleges are about off-campus conduct that has nothing to do with the college, and new Trump administration guidelines will not try to make the colleges police such off-campus non-criminal behavior. This is more good news, as colleges should not be punishing students for such behavior anyway.

Friday, February 01, 2019

Catholic bishop joins the Trump haters

Jewish newspaper gets a Catholic bishop to oppose the Wall. Reasons? (1) he wants open borders; (2) it will impede asylum seekers; (3) he doesn't like Trump's style.
NY Times:
Is the border wall ethical? President Trump has suggested the wall is moral and those who oppose it immoral. His critics claim the opposite.

To answer this, we have to consider its effect on humans. What harm could a border wall cause to immigrants and refugees, all of whom are equal to us in the eyes of God? ...

A wall would prevent asylum seekers from asking for protection at any point along our border — their right under the law ...

You must also look at the intent of someone who wants to construct a wall in order to determine its morality. ...

The way in which Mr. Trump has argued for a wall also is instructive.
I don't know how a Catholic bishop got suckered into a partisan political battle like this.

Opposition to the Wall is primarily Trump hatred, and a desire by Democrats to defeat him in 2020, if they cannot impeach him sooner.

Catholic doctrine has never favored open borders.