ICBMs vs Voting the Down Ticket

Many #NeverTrump voters insist that we must at least still vote. They say that voting the down ticket is still necessary and useful. But Trump proves that won’t work. After all, Ted Cruz was the quintessential down ticket vote for the last decade, and that down-ticket vote failed. But why did it fail? To understand this, we need only consider why the MAD American policy on nuclear ICBMs works, and understand where it can fail.

MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, worked only to the extent that our missile shield didn’t. If the enemy launches 10,000 nuclear-tipped missiles, our shield had to be 100% effective. If it were any less effective, one missile would get through, and we couldn’t know which one it would be.

Now, the missile shield was useful, in the sense that it accomplished unilateral disarmament of the other side. That is, if our shield was 50% effective, then 50% of the opposition’s weapons were functionally neutralized: the shield reduced the enemy's effective throw-weight by 50%. But, ultimately, no one launched a nuclear war because we knew we couldn’t guarantee that all of the opposing force could be stopped. If only one nuke managed to hit a high-value target, we might easily see our entire strategic position unravel in front of our eyes.

When MAD fails

This year’s Republican presidential election demonstrates the problem in spades. Of the 17 candidates running, at least fourteen were down-ticket candidates. All of the down-ticket candidates lost. ALL OF THEM. LOST. One nuke got through, and the country will now go up in flames. That one missile got through because American citizens wanted it to get through.

It doesn't matter how many good down-ticket candidates are placed into office. Sure, it's easy to do it when no one is paying attention. But, when Americans do pay attention, they choose the nuke. They will nuke those down-ticket candidates. Constantly. Mercilessly. Until one of their nukes gets through. And one of their nukes will always get through. As soon as the public focuses its attention, the person in the down-ticket office dies or is neutralized (Kim Davis, Ted Cruz, et. al., this means you). When the nuke the American public delivers is the Presidency, as it was with Obama, as it will be with Trump/Hillary, we will watch our strategic position evaporate before our eyes. Trenches aren't really good defenses against nukes.

Today, it is clear that Obama and the liberals have won the culture wars. Yes, he won. Yes, they won. Many people argue that since we survived eight years of Obama, we can survive another four or eight of Hillary or Trump. But this statement assumes a falsehood. We didn’t survive eight years of Obama. We died. I will say it again: Obama and the liberals won.

Let me explain.

What we were

We think of America as a single country, a mature entity, a rock-ribbed, unchanging reality. That isn’t true. America has been many different countries in the last 200 years.

At its founding in 1789, America was 90% agrarian in population. Dueling in the streets was legal, ordinary and expected. Slavery was legal in every state, states had religious tests for holding office, the tax burden was nearly non-existent. While we had mercantile tendencies, we were still essentially an honor-based society.

Fifty years later, (1830s) we were a different country. Half the states had outlawed slavery, dueling still happened, but was dying out, industrialization had begun, urban populations had already begun a century-long increase. There were still no federal taxes that directly affected the individual. Geographically, the nation had more than doubled in size, permanently changing our self-image.

Fifty years after (1880s), we were a different country again. Only 43% of the population was agrarian, but 15% were involved in the new industrial processes, mostly as small artisan shops on farms. The federal tax burden was increasing. 3.4% of the population now lived in cities over 1 million in size. The West was nearly completely settled, but Alaska had just been purchased. The last duel was fought in the streets of Fort Worth, TX (1887), slavery was gone, religious tests were gone, abortion was affirmatively outlawed, there was still almost no mandatory schools for children. Immigration from central Europe had caused a population spike.

Fifty years later, (1930s) we had changed again. Now we were a fully industrialized country, only 20% agrarian, while fully 20% was involved in manufacturing. All states required mandatory schooling for children, about 30% of the population graduated high school, and high schools had gun clubs, some with WWI-era machine guns to use on the high school rifle range. Abortion was a heinous crime against humanity. Dueling was outlawed everywhere, Massive immigration from the Mediterranean regions had caused an urban population explosion.

Today, we are 80% urban, perhaps 8.8% of the population are engaged in manufacturing, only 2.6% agrarian, producing more food and products than ever before in the history of the country. Abortion is now not only not a crime, but affirmatively a right and sometimes a social duty. The sale of the corpses of aborted children and their organs is tacitly accepted. Automation steadily eats away jobs in virtually every economic sector. Immigration from Central and South America is causing a population spike. Nibbling a pop-tart into the shape of a gun is grounds for expulsion. The national attention is focused on people who don't even know what sex they are or what bathroom they should use.

What we have become

This is the new America. May 3, 2016 marked a demarcation line, a sea-change. By choosing Hillary and the Donald as our nominees, we have broken the last bonds with an honor-based society, we have broken with being men and women of integrity. Trump and Hillary make no pretense of having honor, allow us to carry no illusion that they have integrity, or even that they have a policy that can be articulated. The country that elected Obama twice has now demonstrated that his election was no aberration. We will be ruled by increasingly narcissistic despots from here on out.

We have deliberately nominated two people who are proven and demonstrable liars, even supporters of rape (when it pays them). Yes, today you can laugh at a child who has been raped, you can call a convicted rapist a “real man”, and still gain the nomination to be President. We have nominated two people who boldly and nakedly pursue nothing but money, power and their own self-interest, celebrities who hold up, as examples, other celebrities who have successfully performed the ultimate acts of self-interest (rape and abortion).

Now, many of us have not surrendered our principles. Many of us refuse to support either of these nominees. But we are now clearly in the minority, and an extreme minority at that. In the past, Americans chose to be ruled by Christian principles, even if we did not always live by them. By nominating these two, the vast majority of Americans demonstrate they no longer wish their principles to be even nominally Christian. This current crop of Americans has successfully redefined the culture to the point where most are comfortable with naked narcissism. The country we once belonged to no longer exists.

America has once again changed, become a new country, and the Constitution is no longer fit to be our founding document. It is too good for us. We need a document fitted for the servile crudity that we have become. If you need further proof, contemplate this: Trump supporters say that he is the superior candidate because “nobody knows what Trump will do.” That is, Trump supporters argue that America-at-large has become the Democrat Congress it elected in 2008. That is, we have become a people who no longer debate issues, rather, we pass a bill, elect a President, in order to find out what is in it.

But even that is a lie. We know what Trump will do. We just comfort ourselves by telling ourselves this lie, pretending to ourselves that we are ignorant of what comes next. We know. We know what comes next.

What does it mean to be an American? With this last clearly defined change, this last clearly defined choice, we can look back at the last eight years and look forward to the coming eight years, perhaps even the span of a full generation, and we now clearly see what it means to be an American, as the Frenchmen of the Vendee looked towards 1789 Paris and saw what was coming. What it means is the Deluge. What it means is Obama, Bernie, Hillary and Trump. It means the narcissism of rape and child murder, celebrated every day. It means "the greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters."

As a citizen of the Vendee might have said about France, so I am today sad to say, I am no longer an American. I am a man without a country. America was a great country while it lasted. I forlornly hope it doesn't kill too many others while it goes through its death throes.

As a country, America is finished.

Bathroom Wars

The solution is simple.

If someone of the wrong sex walks in, scream.
Scream like you're in a horror movie and Jason's bloody knife is inches from your jugular.
Scream, scream, SCREAM!!!!!!!!

That makes YOU the victim and THEM the perp.
You are welcome.

Getting Back to the Mass

Traditionalists are famous for their sacrifices.
People, we are told, will drive hours to attend a Traditional Latin Mass.
Why?

Well, often, they make that sacrifice because they don't understand the Mass very well. As one traditionalists told me: "I don't feel like I've been to Mass unless it's the TLM."

Wow - so many errors packed into one little sentence:

1.  Catholic Faith is reduced to feeling
2.  Feeling is so screwed up that it cannot detect Christ at a valid Mass
3.  Implicit assertion that personal feeling is infallible 
4.  Implicit refusal to acknowledge the validity of the Novus Ordo
5.  It's all about ME, not about God.

How is this not Protestantism?

And then they wonder why bishops aren't interested in encouraging this attitude.
Yeah, there's a mystery.

Trump's Delegate Problems

In Colorado, Donald Trump's "best people" directed their own supporters to vote for Ted Cruz delegates. No one else made such a monumental unforced error.

In Washington state, Donald Trump's "best people" sent email reminders to vote for delegates to Washington D.C. voters. And, to add insult to injury, the email reminders were several days late.

In South Carolina, Donald Trump's failure to do due diligence caused him to lose "five of the six delegate seats on the ballot in South Carolina’s 3rd and 7th congressional districts."

Indiana hasn't even voted yet, but Trump's failure to pay attention to delegate selection means he will capture none of the delegates. Worse, as of April 9th, less than a week ago, he seemed completely oblivious to it.

New York: he failed to begin working voters by the October deadline for party registration. His ignorance of the deadline was so thorough and complete that Trump even admitted his own family won't be voting for him. They are all registered Democrats. Their opportunity to switch to Republican and vote in New York's closed Republican primary expired over six months ago.

Louisiana: Trump's failure to understand the Art of the Deal meant he let all unbound delegates walk. Cruz is reported to have picked them up. In Georgia and Tennessee, Trump's failure to close the deal with the delegates means Cruz managed to get several pro-Cruz delegates elected as convention representatives: these delegates are only bound to Trump for the first two votes.

California: Cruz has been building a ground game for a year. Trump just declared his Statewide Director on April 13. California's delegate registration deadline is May 7.

Wyoming: Trump's own manager gave up hours before the vote even began.

Nebraska: Trump never even sent people in to look for delegates.

Trump has a fake on-line army. He also has an artificial 22% boost in delegates, courtesy of the GOP rule system. If he really thought the system was unfair, he could give back his unearned 22% delegate bonus.

Instead, Trump whines not only without apology, but with great pride. No, really, he is proud of his whining. Trump acts like a garden-variety welfare queen, insisting he should get more than he already hasn't earned, and blaming all of his unforced errors on George Bush Ted Cruz.

Update:
Cruz has now grabbed Missouri and half of Pennsylvania's delegates.

Amoris Laetitia

The new papal apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, is out.

A few words may be in order.
Here is a summary of what I found to be highlights (your may find others, when you look):

This is news to the folks at EWTN
#50 Distractions abound, including an addiction to television.

Homosexual unions are again condemned.
#52 We need to acknowledge the great variety of family situations that can offer a certain stability, but de facto or same-sex unions, for example, may not simply be equated with marriage. No union that is temporary or closed to the transmission of life can ensure the future of society.

Islamic practice of FGM is specifically called out as reprehensible:
#54 The verbal, physical, and sexual violence that women endure in some marriages contradicts the very nature of the conjugal union. I think of the reprehensible genital mutilation of women practiced in some cultures, but also of their lack of equal access to dignified work and roles of decision-making. History is burdened by the excesses of patriarchal cultures that considered women inferior, yet in our own day, we cannot overlook the use of surrogate mothers and “the exploitation and commercialization of the female body in the current media culture

One of the more beautiful passages in the exhortation:
#72 The sacrament is a gift given for the sanctification and salvation of the spouses, since “their mutual belonging is a real representation, through the sacramental sign, of the same relationship between Christ and the Church. The married couple are therefore a permanent reminder for the Church of what took place on the cross

Article #75 has a great description of exactly how the grace of marriage works

Pope Francis notes opportunities:
#78 When a couple in an irregular union attains a noteworthy stability through a public bond – and is characterized by deep affection, responsibility towards the children and the ability to overcome trials – this can be seen as an opportunity where possible, to lead them to celebrate the sacrament of Matrimony.

Another beautiful passage:
#80 Nonetheless, the conjugal union is ordered to procreation “by its very nature”.84 The child who is born “does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfilment”.85 He or she does not appear at the end of a process, but is present from the beginning of love as an essential feature, one that cannot be denied without disfiguring that love itself.

#81 A child deserves to be born of that love, and not by any other means, for “he or she is not something owed to one, but is a gift”,87 which is “the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of the parents”.

Article #83 has a great exhortation against abortion

Bishops, take note:
#84 At the same time I feel it important to reiterate that the overall education of children is a “most serious duty” and at the same time a “primary right” of parents....Schools do not replace parents, but complement them.

Bishops, priests, DREs: stop trying to replace parents
#85. The Church is called to cooperate with parents through suitable pastoral initiatives, assisting them in the fulfilment of their educational mission. She must always do this by helping them to appreciate their proper role and to realize that by their reception of the sacrament of marriage they become ministers of their children’s education.

Articles #91-94 are a great passage on what "patience" means. In fact, the whole discussion through #119 is a wealth of material for meditation.

Note the difference in attitude towards children
#124 In the words of Saint Robert Bellarmine, “the fact that one man unites with one woman in an indissoluble bond, and that they remain inseparable despite every kind of difficulty, even when there is no longer hope for children, can only be the sign of a great mystery”.

Another beautiful passage:
#170 A child is a human being of immense worth and may never be used for one’s own benefit. So it matters little whether this new life is convenient for you, whether it has features that please you, or whether it fits into your plans and aspirations. For “children are a gift. Each one is unique and irreplaceable… We love our children because they are children, not because they are beautiful, or look or think as we do, or embody our dreams. We love them because they are children. A child is a child”.186 The love of parents is the means by which God our Father shows his own love.

Pope Francis paraphrases Pope Benedict:
#186. When those who receive it turn a blind eye to the poor and suffering, or consent to various forms of division, contempt and inequality, the Eucharist is received unworthily.

Important advice for newlyweds
#190 In some marriages, one spouse keeps secrets from the other, confiding them instead to his or her parents. As a result, the opinions of their parents become more important than the feelings and opinions of their spouse. This situation cannot go on for long

Possibly the most beautiful passage in the document:
#221 Might we say that the greatest mission of two people in love is to help one another become, respectively, more a man and more a woman? Fostering growth means helping a person to shape his or her own identity. Love is thus a kind of craftsmanship.

This passage speaks for itself:
#242 At the same time, “divorced people who have not remarried, and often bear witness to marital fidelity, ought to be encouraged to find in the Eucharist the nourishment they need to sustain them in their present state of life. The local community and pastors should accompany these people with solicitude, particularly when children are involved or when they are in serious financial difficulty”

Re-iterating constant teaching
#243. It is important that the divorced who have entered a new union should be made to feel part of the Church. “They are not excommunicated” and they should not be treated as such, since they remain part of the ecclesial community.261 These situations “require careful discernment and respectful accompaniment. Language or conduct that might lead them to feel discriminated against should be avoided, and they should be encouraged to participate in the life of the community. The Christian community’s care of such persons is not to be considered a weakening of its faith and testimony to the indissolubility of marriage; rather, such care is a particular expression of its charity”.

#246 Divorce is an evil and the increasing number of divorces is very troubling.

#247 With regard to sharing in the Eucharist, ‘the decision as to whether the non-Catholic party of the marriage may be admitted to Eucharistic communion is to be made in keeping with the general norms existing in the matter, both for Eastern Christians and for other Christians, taking into account the particular situation of the reception of the sacrament of matrimony by two baptized Christians. Although the spouses in a mixed marriage share the sacraments of baptism and matrimony, eucharistic sharing can only be exceptional and in each case according to the stated norms’ (Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, 25 March 1993, 159-160)”.

Nothing new on homosexuality
251. In discussing the dignity and mission of the family, the Synod Fathers observed that, “as for proposals to place unions between homosexual persons on the same level as marriage, there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family”. It is unacceptable “that local Churches should be subjected to pressure in this matter and that international bodies should make financial aid to poor countries dependent on the introduction of laws to establish ‘marriage’ between persons of the same sex”

Bishops, take note:
263. Parents rely on schools to ensure the basic instruction of their children, but can never completely delegate the moral formation of their children to others.

On Correcting children (read through #274, but here is a highlight)
268. It is also essential to help children and adolescents to realize that misbehaviour has consequences. They need to be encouraged to put themselves in other people’s shoes and to acknowledge the hurt they have caused. Some punishments – those for aggressive, antisocial conduct - can partially serve this purpose. It is important to train children firmly to ask forgiveness and to repair the harm done to others.

BRILLIANT!
#274 A person may clearly and willingly desire something evil, but do so as the result of an irresistible passion or a poor upbringing. In such cases, while the decision is voluntary, inasmuch as it does not run counter to the inclination of their desire, it is not free, since it is practically impossible for them not to choose that evil. We see this in the case of compulsive drug addicts. When they want a fix, they want it completely, yet they are so conditioned that at that moment no other decision is possible. Their decision is voluntary but not free. It makes no sense to “let them freely choose”, since in fact they cannot choose, and exposing them to drugs only increases their addiction. They need the help of others and a process of rehabilitation.

Good to remember for training spouses - they have to learn to trust each other
#279. Nor is it good for parents to be domineering. When children are made to feel that only their parents can be trusted, this hinders an adequate process of socialization and growth in affective maturity.

Great summary on sex education
#283. Frequently, sex education deals primarily with “protection” through the practice of “safe sex”. Such expressions convey a negative attitude towards the natural procreative finality of sexuality, as if an eventual child were an enemy to be protected against. This way of thinking promotes narcissism and aggressivity in place of acceptance. It is always irresponsible to invite adolescents to toy with their bodies and their desires, as if they possessed the maturity, values, mutual commitment and goals proper to marriage.

Nancy Pelosi, please call your office:
#297 Naturally, if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others; this is a case of something which separates from the community (cf. Mt 18:17). Such a person needs to listen once more to the Gospel message and its call to conversion.

The Church's declaration on a particular marriage's validity/nullity CAN be wrong:
#298 There are also the cases of those who made every effort to save their first marriage and were unjustly abandoned, or of “those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably broken marriage had never been valid”

Interesting
#301 Saint Thomas Aquinas himself recognized that someone may possess grace and charity, yet not be able to exercise any one of the virtues well;341 in other words, although someone may possess all the infused moral virtues, he does not clearly manifest the existence of one of them, because the outward practice of that virtue is rendered difficult: “Certain saints are said not to possess certain virtues, in so far as they experience difficulty in the acts of those virtues, even though they have the habits of all the virtues”.

A quote from the Summa (I-II, q. 94, art. 4.)
#304 I earnestly ask that we always recall a teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas and learn to incorporate it in our pastoral discernment: “Although there is necessity in the general principles, the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects… In matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the same for all, as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles; and where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to all… The principle will be found to fail, according as we descend further into detail”.347 It is true that general rules set forth a good which can never be disregarded or neglected, but in their formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all particular situations. At the same time, it must be said that, precisely for that reason, what is part of a practical discernment in particular circumstances cannot be elevated to the level of a rule.

Justice through Mercy
#305 Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end. Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits. By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God. Let us remember that “a small step, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order, but moves through the day without confronting great difficulties”

The Republican's Open Convention

I am a Cruz supporter. Cruz has been working to close the nomination deal. Either he does, or he doesn't. That's his problem.

It isn't "unfair" if he doesn't manage it.

Same with Trump, Kasich or anyone else. Everyone knew how things worked going in, or should have. Everyone certainly had time to find out how things worked over the last year. There's nothing unfair going on - this is how the process works. It's not news. Whatever candidate gets nominated is the one who is able to close the nomination deal.

You can complain about the GOP backroom establishment all you want. That won't change the facts. Everyone knew the facts going in. This is life. Conservatives don't whine about how badly life treats them, or how things are unfair. The world doesn't owe us anything, nor does the process owe any of the candidates anything. The process is the process, it is a well-known process.

That is all.

Trump and The Hunter's Snare

Recently, Donald Trump made a statement about punishing women for trying to get an abortion. While he has walked those remarks back, many of his supporters continue to insist that Trump was essentially correct - women should be punished for abortion.

Here is the transcript of Trump's abortion remarks, with the relevant portion below:

MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?

TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.
MATTHEWS: For the woman.
TRUMP: Yeah, there has to be some form.
MATTHEWS: Ten cents? Ten years? What?
TRUMP: I don’t know. That I don’t know. That I don’t know.
MATTHEWS: Why not?
TRUMP: I don’t know.
MATTHEWS: You take positions on everything else.
TRUMP: Because I don’t want to -- I frankly, I do take positions on everything else. It’s a very complicated position.
MATTHEWS: But you say, one, that you’re pro-life, meaning you want to ban it.
TRUMP: But wait a minute, wait a minute. But the Catholic Church is pro-life.
MATTHEWS: No, let’s not talk about my religion.

Has the pro-life side (a) ever said women should be punished and (b) displayed inconsistency by saying women should not be punished? After all, if it is murder, shouldn't the one attempting murder be punished?

The answers are (a) no, no state in the Union has ever prosecuted a woman for attempting to have an abortion, nor has the pro-life side ever attempted to get that to happen and (b) no, it is not inconsistent to say that the abortionist should be punished while the woman should not be.

Consider: a man who attempts suicide has, according to pro-life principles, also attempted to commit murder. So has anyone who assists such a man in his suicide attempt. Yet pro-lifers have always insisted that only doctors who assist suicide (e.g., Dr. Kevorkian) should be prosecuted, not the man who attempts it or who hires Dr. Kevorkian to assist him in completing it. 

For those who insist Trump is correct to punish women, I ask a simple question: would you also support prosecuting and punishing those who attempt suicide?

And for those who do not like this analogy, keep in mind what Planned Parenthood itself celebrates as a pro-abortion attitude:

In a magazine article some years ago I wrote, “No one wants an abortion as she wants an ice-cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal, caught in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg.”

To my surprise, this line revealed a place of agreement in the midst of the deadlock. Not only was it quickly picked up by sympathetic pro-lifers, but it was “Quote of the Week” in Planned Parenthood’s Public Affairs Action Letter, and “Quote of the Month” in the Pro-Choice Network newsletter. Apparently pro-choice partisans could agree with pro-lifers that, no matter what their political differences, abortion was a miserable choice.

We don't punish people who are trapped by the hunter's snare. We punish the people who ensnared them. 

Trump answered as a pro-abort Democrat imagines a pro-lifer would answer. He is wrong, and all who agree with him are wrong.

Jail vs. Execution

The Bernie Sanders crowd is sending around a meme that looks like this:

While it is true that we incarcerate more people than China (2.2 million vs. 1.7 million) while having only one-fourth China's population, the meme fails to account for executions. Let's compare the execution rate for all the countries in the world that still perform executions (three columns on the right) versus the incarceration rate for all the countries in the world that still perform executions (two columns on the left). Both data sets are sorted highest to lowest:

Country	Total executed	(Min) Per Million		Jail rate	Country
	(2014)[4]	People (2014)		(inmates per 100,000 pop)
Equatorial Guinea	9	11.567		????	Somalia
Iran	289+	3.707		????	Palestine
Saudi Arabia	90+	2.925		698	United States
North Korea	50+	2.079		600	North Korea
Iraq	61+	1.701		306	Belarus
Jordan	11	1.665		290	Iran
Somalia	14+	1.309		269	Taiwan
Yemen	22+	0.881		229	United Arab Emirates
China	1,000+	0.7		220	Singapore
Sudan	23+	0.593		164	China
Palestine	2+	0.44		161	Saudi Arabia
Singapore	2	0.366		161	Malaysia
Belarus	3+	0.317		154	Vietnam
Taiwan	5	0.213		145	Jordan
Afghanistan	6	0.192		133	Iraq
Egypt	15+	0.173		132	Equatorial Guinea
United States	35	0.11		76	Egypt
United Arab Emirates	1	0.106		74	Afghanistan
Malaysia	2+	0.066		53	Yemen
Pakistan	7	0.038		50	Sudan
Vietnam	3+	0.033		49	Japan
Japan	3	0.024		43	Pakistan

As can quickly be seen, Equitorial Guinea has the highest execution rate, at 11.567 per million, while the US has the highest incarceration rate, at 698 per 100,000.

But, in terms of execution rates, the US is at a paltry 0.11 persons executed per million, while the Chinese execute seven times as many at 0.7 per million. 

Only Japan and Pakistan have both low incarceration and low execution rates. Most of the remaining countries balance being high on one list with being low on the other list. Equitorial Guinea, for example, has a very high execution rate, but a relatively low incarceration rate. 

So, we could reduce the incarceration rate the same way China does - we could execute many of our criminals. I'm not at all a fan of capital punishment. It kills many people who are actually innocent, it does not account for the fallibility of the cops and the courts. Increasing executions is a ridiculous "solution." Worse, I somehow suspect that solution will not satisfy Bernie supporters.

If Bernie really wanted to make the United States look bad, he should compare our incarceration and execution rates to that of Pakistan. Pakistan - perceived by most Americans as a backwater, violent Muslim nation - is low on both lists. On the other hand, we don't have Pakistan's mob violence or murder rate. Pakistan's murder rate, for instance, is 7.7 per 100,000, while America's is only 3.3 per 100,000. If we cut out the 6% of  the US population that commit half the murders in America, America's murder rate would be around 1.6, very low indeed.

But, that having been said, the incarceration rate is something to be concerned about. If America is the land of justice, that is, if most American prisoners really belong in prison, then Americans really aren't very nice people. On the other hand, if Americans really are essentially nice people, then we have a serious problem with our justice system. If nothing else, we should contemplate the fact that, when it comes to capital punishment, we are on a rather short list of nations, and most of the other nations on that list are not very nice.

And this isn't the only short list of nasty countries the United States finds itself on. As Washington Post fact-checkers confirmed, the United States is also one of only seven countries in the world that allows elective abortion after 20 weeks’ gestation. The US joins China, North Korea, Singapore, the Netherlands, Canada and Vietnam in this sorry distinction. So, America is not only fine with an incredibly high incarceration rate, we are also fine with executions, as long as the executions are carried out on very small children.

Bernie's meme may be somewhat misleading, but refuting it is not as pleasant as one would hope.

Trump: Put Up or Shut Up

Trump supporters really have no basis to be concerned about the upcoming Republican convention. If their man is as good as he represents, he can walk in with 100 delegates, but still walk out with the nomination.

Of course, if he walks in with 1200 delegates and does not get the nomination, we know the reason: Trump is not the negotiator he pretends to be. He is a fraud.

So, let's not hear any cries of "theft!" from Trump supporters.
Trump has a chance to put up or shut up.
My bet is he does neither.

Illegals and The Unionized States of America

It is often said that illegal immigrants take jobs from Americans. The assertion is laughable. Let me demonstrate.

Assume an employer has contracted with a union to employ only union labor. Over time, the employer decides to find cheaper labor and brings in non-union workers. Now, in reference to the agreement the employer has with the union, the non-union workers are illegals. But, from the non-union workers point of view, they have not violated any agreement. They aren't part of the union, they haven't violated any contract because they are not under contract with anyone. The employer has violated his contract, but the scab labor, the "illegal" labor, has not.

Union leaders often characterize the "illegals" in this situation as having taken jobs, but they haven't taken anything. They didn't force the employer to hire them. They simply took a job that was offered. What was the last job anyone "took" from an employer? Can someone walk in with a gun and force The Man to hire him? Can I seriously threaten a prospective employer with car-jacking if I don't get the position or don't get my paycheck? Does anyone get a job by zip-tying a prospective employer during the interview and savagely beating him down to the ground until the position is attained? Do we actually think that's what illegals are doing? Are they "taking" the job from the employer?

How do these illegals even get jobs? Employers give them jobs. Period. We act as if America is really just one big union shop, where everyone has to have the union card before being allowed to work here. But is that what America stands for? Seriously? Even when it comes to government welfare, the situation is not significantly different. Government pays farmers to keep fields lying fallow. Government pays workers not to work. We call it "welfare". Government offers the job, hands out the money. Half of the Mexican population lives below the poverty line. When your kids are hungry, what kind of fool would turn down free money?

Conservatives like to decry union violence. How are Americans who try to stop illegals from getting jobs any different from the union thugs who prevent men and women from crossing picket lines to feed their families? Are the same conservatives who endlessly complain about the shortcomings of the "blue model" and the unions now seriously going to treat illegals as if they were scab labor in the Unionized States of America? Yet, isn't that precisely our beef against things like the perfectly legal H-1B visa? Doesn't the H-1B feel like the employer is bringing in scab labor?

We need to stop saying illegal immigrants take American jobs.
Quite obviously, that statement is completely erroneous.
American employers take those jobs ... and give those jobs to whomever they please. American hiring practices are 100% of the problem. But, once you acknowledge that, you simultaneously acknowledge that your beef isn't with the illegal immigrant at all. Your beef is with the American employer.

The point is, the employment of illegals is not up to illegals.
American business leaders are the ones who supplant American workers.
Illegals literally have no control over that.

So, if you don't like seeing illegals working for a living in these United States, take it to the employer and leave the illegal out of it. The illegal doesn't control who hires him OR who pays him. He's just trying to win the lotto, same as anyone else. He can't even get a ticket (a job) unless an American employer, whether government welfare officer or private industrialist, gives it to him.

Ask yourself: why it is that so many of us adhere to the same script when it comes to illegals and jobs? Why do we suddenly become the voice defending American Big Business? Trump and his friends trained us to do this, they taught us to attack each other. We compete for jobs against each other. How many times have we had to roll over and beg just to keep our paychecks? In that respect, in the respect that we hold jobs at the mercy of our employers, are we any different than the illegals?

Regardless of our citizenship, it is you and I who go down into that mine and dig out that coal at the risk of our own lives so the employer can live in the mansion on the hill. If you honestly think Trump and his friends are going to change the way they work to please either the citizen worker or the illegal, if you really think they don't enjoy watching us attack each other, don't enjoy busting up our quasi-union, then we will get what every union miner ever got from union management - the shaft.

Immigration Up, Crime Down

Image 1

Image 2

UPDATE:

I didn't know about this 2015 WSJ article that says exactly the same thing. Great minds think alike.

From "US Homicide Rate at 51-Year Low": "...cities and counties that border Mexico tend to have much, much lower homicide rates. The city of El Paso Texas, for example, which is of course within the jurisdiction of Texas's lax gun laws, has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world, at a mere 0.6 per 100,000 (as of 2012). El Paso has long been considered to be one of the safest cities in North America (and one of the most Hispanic cities, as well)."

The Cato Institute says the same thing:

"With few exceptions, immigrants are less crime prone than natives or have no effect on crime rates."

It appears that everyone who studies the issue comes to the same conclusion:

"According to geographic data, actually, it appears that in New York, immigration may have even reduced crime, or at least correlated with lower crime rates. As explained by Chrissie Long, a graduate student at the Harvard Kennedy School, the study found that “immigration actually appears to have a protective effect on crime,” as the presence of immigrants in New York neighborhoods “often means decreased crime rates.

As for specifically Latino immigration, a major factor in the national immigration debate and for Southern border states, Long notes that it had almost no “net effect” on total crime, and “Latino immigration is correlated with slightly less violence.” That finding matches other national surveys. A study of several American cities from 1990 to 2000 found the places with largest spike in immigration also had the “largest decreases in homicide and robbery during the same time period.” 

 The facts are clear, but the public is ignorant of the facts:

They might start by pointing out that numerous studies going back more than a century have shown that immigrants—regardless of nationality or legal status—are less likely than the native population to commit violent crimes or to be incarcerated. A new report from the Immigration Policy Center notes that while the illegal immigrant population in the U.S. more than tripled between 1990 and 2013 to more than 11.2 million, “FBI data indicate that the violent crime rate declined 48%—which included falling rates of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and murder. Likewise, the property crime rate fell 41%, including declining rates of motor vehicle theft, larceny/robbery, and burglary.”

Falsely Crying Rape

False rape reports account for 17% of all sex assault accusations in the military:

In 2012, there were 2,661 completed investigations, meaning that the 444 false complaints accounted for about 17 percent of all closed cases last year. False reports accounted for about 13 percent of closed cases in 2009.

Half of all rape accusations are false:

In a follow-up study of rape claims filed over a three-year period at two large Midwestern universities, Kanin found that of 64 rape cases, 50% turned out to be false.4  Among the false charges, 53% of the women admitted they filed the false claim as an alibi.

Certainly many more than 2% of reported rapes are false. Here's what we do know: The 2 percent number is very bad and should never be cited. It apparently traces its lineage back to Susan Brownmiller's legendary "Against Our Will," and her citation for this figure is a single speech by an appellate judge before a small group of lawyers. His source for this statistic was a single area of New York that started having policewomen conduct all rape interviews. This is not data. It is an anecdote about an anecdote.

The 41 percent number beloved of men's-rights activists is better; it involves a peer-reviewed study by Eugene Kanin (Kanin article link here)

False rape reports violate men's rights

At whatever rate such cases occur, they should not be dismissed as statistical blips: These lies can have tragic results. Two years ago former California high school football star Brian Banks, who had spent five years in prison for raping his classmate Wanetta Gibson, was exonerated after Gibson contacted him to apologize and admitted making up the attack. In 2009, New Yorker William McCaffrey was released after serving four years of a 20-year prison sentence for a rape his friend Biurny Peguero had made up to explain her injuries from a fight with several women. In 2012 a Michigan man, James Grissom, was freed after nearly 10 years in prison when the woman who accused him, Sara Ylen, was caught making another false allegation (and faking cancer to bilk money from insurance companies and sympathetic donors). Even without a wrongful conviction, the consequences of a false accusation can be devastating—from a terrifying middle-of-the-night arrest to lengthy pretrial detention.

Colorado Prosecutor Admits Half of Rape Claims are False (another link on this story here)

Craig Silverman, a former Colorado prosecutor known for his zealous prosecution of rapists during his 16-year career, says that false rape accusations occur with "scary frequency." As a regular commentator on the Bryant trial for Denver's ABC affiliate, Silverman noted that "any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes." According to Silverman, a Denver sex-assault unit commander estimates that nearly half of all reported rape claims are false.

Idaho Sheriff Indicates Majority of "Rapes" Are Actually Consensual (better link here)

“The majority of our rapes – not to say that we don’t have rapes, we do – but the majority of our rapes that are called in are actually consensual sex.”

Facing  Polygraphs, 27% of "Rape" Victims Admitted to Having Lied, 45% of US Air Force rape claims are false: (better link here)

Charles P. McDowell, a researcher in the United States Air Force Special Studies Division, studied the 1,218 reports of rape that were made between 1980 and 1984 on Air Force bases throughout the world (McDowell, 1985). Of those, 460 were found to be "proven" allegations either because the "overwhelming preponderance of the evidence" strongly supported the allegation or because there was a conviction in the case. Another 212 of the total reports were found to be "disproved" as the alleged victim convincingly admitted the complaint was a "hoax" at some point during the initial investigation. The researchers then investigated the 546 remaining or "unresolved" rape allegations including having the accusers submit to a polygraph. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of these complainants admitted they had fabricated their accusation just before taking the polygraph or right after they failed the test. (It should be noted that whenever there was any doubt, the unresolved case was re-classified as a "proven" rape.) Combining this 27% with the initial 212 "disproved" cases, it was determined that approximately 45% of the total rape allegations were false.

In fact, only 2% of rape accusations are true: (better link here)

That's why rape shield laws exist. They're meant to protect victims, but it's now becoming clear that the "victim" in many accusations is actually the accused. Activists often claim that the number of false accusations is between 2 percent and 10 percent. But these statistics refer only to accusations that are proven false. An equally small number of cases result in convictions, so following the same logic, we should also be claiming that just 2 percent of rape accusations are true.

Characteristics of a False Rape Report (better link here)

Therefore, if you were going to file a false report of sexual assault, you would probably describe a sexual assault that looks like the stereotype of “real rape” that we have discussed at such length throughout this article. For this reason, it is not surprising that the potential indicators of a false report are actually the same as the stereotypic characteristics of “real rape.” 

Time for a Constitutional Convention

"...While it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Proposition: If the electorate produces a Clinton-Trump matchup, we will have conclusively demonstrated the Constitution is wholly inadequate to govern us.

Thus, it is only right and proper to call a Constitutional Convention, because we are no longer worthy of the original document. We must take on an oligarchy, an aristocracy, socialism, communism, or some other form of government better suited to the wretches that we have become.

When SCOTUS legalized contraception and abortion and the country largely accepted the judgement, the adult electorate had already shown the United States was an empty husk. At this point (2016), we're just catching rocks that bounce about in the rubble.

If we were to take Weigel's analysis, none of us are the priest - all of us are, at best, the wife, who took years to figure out what the priest knew immediately.

I have been pointing out for years now (see here, here, here, here) that Vatican II is not the cause of anything, rather, the post-VCII age is the symptom of the yawning catechetical gap that existed prior to VC II. VC II just revealed us for what we really were, that's all. In that sense, VC II got it right decades before Trump made it clear to the American voter - we are an empty shell.

Discuss.

The Ecological Indian, Part II

The American Indian didn't just use every part of the buffalo, but every part of their captives and slaves as well:

Adoption or Entree

Anasazi Cannibals

Karankawa Cannibals

Chippewa and British Columbia Cannibals

Iroquois Cannibalism: Fact, not Fiction

Jamestown's Cannibals

When the White Knight Triumphs

The federal government sends foreign aid, in the form of both economic and military assistance, to other countries every year. Something less than 1% of America's four trillion dollar budget is spent in this way. Broken down, it looks like this:

In fiscal year 2013, the U.S. government allocated the following amounts for aid:
Total economic and military assistance: $40.11 billion
Total military assistance: $8.03 billion
Total economic assistance: $32.08 billion
of which USAID Implemented: $17.46 billion

Recently, I have seen a lot of very liberal people, people who applaud our foreign aid contributions, get deeply upset that private corporations ship jobs overseas. US corporations paid roughly $6 trillion in wages each year from 2001 to 2011. So, ten years at $6 trillion per year: $60 trillion in wages. Meanwhile:

... over the 2001-2011 period, U.S. workers who were directly displaced by trade with China lost a collective $37 billion in wages as a result of accepting other lower paying jobs.

Notice: the feds handed over $32 billion out of $4 trillion in one year in direct payments overseas: less than 1% of each year's annual budget. Meanwhile, US corporations handed over $37 billion out of $60 trillion in jobs and wages overseas (while giving out an additional $4 to $5 billion a year in straight-up charity). That's less than 1% of American jobs sent overseas in a decade. Liberals celebrate the former and lament the latter. Why?

If the federal government can send federal money to overseas in order to provide economic assistance, why can't private companies do the same thing? That's all the corporations are doing when they ship out jobs - corporations are just making wealth transfer payments. Which I thought Democrats loved?

So, for those of you on the liberal left, explain why the dissonance. Do people in China not have a right to work for a living? Mexicans shouldn't be employed... is that it?

"Ah," I hear them say, "but those people deserve a living wage!" Ok. But what kind of living wage comes with a free check from the American government? When all the bribes are done, how much of these government-to-government transfer moneys end up in the pockets of corrupt officials? Meanwhile, how much of the corporation-to-individual transfer payments get lost that way?

At least with Nike, IBM, Apple, et. al, we are relatively sure we know how much money each individual worker walked away with. We can count very precisely how many poor people now have at least some change in their pockets. With government-to-government transfers, we don't ever really find out. For all we know, that money gets transferred straight from a government bank account to the local president's private Swiss account. Even better, with corporation-to-individual transfers, we actually get something back: an iPhone, a pair of sneakers, something. The poor get a chance to contribute, to make a difference in the world. With government transfers, we get the fleeting good will of a ruler who may be assassinated tomorrow, and the poor get nothing at all.

So, I ask again, on what grounds do liberals get upset about American jobs getting shipped overseas? What precise liberal principle is violated? Individual poor people get money, Americans get cheaper goods, accountants get paid well to tax-shelter the profits... aside from the American worker, who loses?

And even the American worker isn't really any worse off. As a result of job transfers, he gets the same cheaper goods every American non-worker gets, and, if government transfers were to replace the corporate transfers, he would have gotten shafted ten times worse on the taxes anyway. After all, the government has to get the 10-fold increase in money they give way from someone. America's middle class is richer than 95% of the rest of the world. It's not like anyone else was ever going to pay for this wealth transfer, no matter who initiated it.

So, again, why the outrage on the left when corporations move jobs overseas? Do you not like the fact that we can actually track poor people and watch them become wealthier because of their new jobs? Is that what upsets you? Or do you just not like anyone but government acting as a white knight?