Crime & Federalism

An important meme is spreading, namely that the Republican Party is the Party of Beta Males. Until the GOP is recognized for what it is, men will associate with it - not realizing that the GOP views men as useful idiots. 

Joe Scarborough has taken this subversive meme to the mainstream. In a Political op-ed, he writes:

Republicans have a problem. The most-talked-about figure in the GOP is a reality show star who cannot be elected. And yet the same leaders who fret that Sarah Palin could devastate their party in 2012 are too scared to say in public what they all complain about in private.

Enough. It’s time for the GOP to man up.

No one in the GOP will "man up," because the GOP is loaded with beta males. Joe Scarborough knows this, and his column should be understood as a trial balloon. He is encouraging men to leave the GOP.

All self-respecting men should leave the GOP. When the GOP starts focusing on men's rights issues, we can negotiate with them. Here are a list of demands:

1. Eliminate no-fault alimony. Generally the party who breaches a contract is required to pay damages. Marriage is a contract, and yet women who breach the marriage contract profit handsomely. Although 66-75% of all divorces are filed by the wife, men are required to pay alimony in over 90% of cases. Why won't the GOP fight wholesale robbery of men?
2. Joint custody should be presumed. Currently courts presumed mother-only custody. Rarely does a man receive anything beyond marginal rights to visit his own child. Father's are not optional parents, and are more than an ATM.
3. Child support payments must be audited. My good friend's ex-wife uses child support [sic] to make car payments on her Range Rover. The family court judge told my friend, "How the mother chooses to spend the child support payments if of no concern." How is this just?
4. Abolish lifetime alimony. In a divorce, a man loses the benefits of having a wife. Why shouldn't the wife lose the benefits of having a husband?
5. Mandate paternity testing. Between 10-25% of men are cuckolds - that is, their wives became pregnant with another man's child after having an affair. In every state, a man who is the victim of paternity fraud can be forced to pay child support. A paternity test is non-invasive, and can be done at a hospital for a few bucks. It is an inexpensive way to protect a man from fraud, and thus should be mandated in the public interest.

Until the GOP starts fighting for men, then men must stop fighting for the GOP.

How hopeless is today's American male? So hopeless that a site devoted to masculinity is going to create a "safe space."

The "men" at the Spearhead are tired of people posting comments that disagree with them. Rather than ignore or address the dissenters, they are going to go into a bomb shelter. I wish I were joking.

UPDATE: There is hope yet. In the comments section, readers can vote comments up or down. This is the most voted-up comment:

And here is the most unpoular comment:

Thank you.

Listen to your readers, Spearhead editors, and avoid the fate of the National (Beta) Review.

As vulgarity is revolting, I rarely read conservative publications. Thankfully someone reputable reads the mouth breathers at the National Review, or I'd never realize the extent of conservative pussydom. The conservative standard bearer, the National Review, presents this timid article: 

In the coming days, millions of Americans will travel to celebrate the Thanksgiving holiday with family and friends. May I pose a novel idea? As we go through the airport screening line, let’s stop and say “thanks” to the men and women of the TSA who give up time with their families during the holidays to keep us safe from terror.

Who is this coward, and why is he writing at the National Review? Can't the magazine of pseduo-masculinity find someone who doesn't lose sleep over ghost stories?

How defective must one's brain be in order to even fear terrorism? It is a low-probability event. Unless you fear driving your "manly" SUV to the grocery store for "Paleo diet" food, fearing a terrorist attack is retarded.

Even if terrorism is a threat, what is it like to live in fear of cave-dwelling, 150-pound savages? Have you seen the average Muslim terrorist? Terrorists are laughable, and any male who couldn't single-handedly kill three with his bare hands...should be writing at the National Review.

Conservatives are a joke. They live in fear of terrorism, and demand that Big Government protect them from the scary terrorists. The Republican Party is the Party of Beta Males.

Indeed, the GOP is beta by definition, as the sine qua non of betaness is abdication. A beta male does not take responsibility for his life, but instead seeks the protection of some Other. Just look at Thiessen's concluding words:

They may very well be planning something equally spectacular for the tenth anniversary. So when we stop to give thanks for all our blessings this weekend, let’s give thanks for the people who spend their days and nights working to stop the terrorists from succeeding — including the men and women of the TSA. 

Wrong, motherfucker. The last terrorist attacks have been prevented by passengers - passengers who, unlike Thiessen, were willing to stand up against evil. Those who would say, "Enough!"

No self-respecting man can associate with the GOP. Nor can any self-respecting male can have any respect for the National Review. Until that piece of shit rag hires someone who doesn't piss his pants at the sight of undersized cave dwellers, NR is unworthy of anyone who walks with dignity and pride.

If you think I'm being unfair, ask yourself this question: If shit were about to go down on an airplane, would you want Marc A. Thiessen sitting next to you?

So a bunch of high school teachers are upset that their students are bored with them. Well, that's not how they say it. Instead, the New York Times has the backs of boring, stupid teachers everywhere: "Growing Up Digital, Wired for Distraction." If kids didn't have iPhones, they would pay attention in school.

Really?

What's the last book you've read. How often do you - a big, bad, enlightened adult - sit down without the television or radio on? How often do you seek the lengthy solitude of reflection and reading? Can you even sit in silence for an hour?

Adults rarely read, and that's fine. Adults spend most of our time in a distraction from our impending death. Or is there another justification for TV?

When you start claiming to have the moral high road when you're doing the same things as your kids, there's a problem. When you start diagnosing children - especially boys - with mental illnesses, then you are my enemy.

One teacher uses a student's failing to read Cat's Cradle as evidence of a cognitive defect. One student just can't seem to finish it. That same student puts in full workdays working on film projects. He obviously has energy for something. I can relate.

I forced myself to read 25% of A Farewell to Arms. That's a classic. I hated it. I couldn't finish it. A disorder? Well, if you want to pull out the dicks: I'll compare the quanity and quality of my reading list to any high school English teacher's. One man's entertainment is another man's tedium.

Does the student have an "attention disorder," or does he just not enjoy doing busywork? I spend hours a day reading, and if I didn't work, I would read all day. Was my attention disorder cured once I graduated from high school? Who was the problem in high school - me, or my teachers? (Or neither?)

Well, he needs to do busywork, to prepare himself for the adult world. Great. Education's sole concern should be with conditioning a young person to learn to suffer through putting covers on a TPS report? He'll be a cubicle rat soon enough. Let the boys play before putting them in a cage.

When I coached youth boxing at a high school, I didn't have problems keeping the students' attentions. These wired-for-distraction teenage boys spent 2-3 hours a day at wrestling practice. On Saturday, practices were even longer. When training Judo, Sambo, American wrestling, boxing, or MMA....The only time one of them checked a cell phone was when a girlfriend was texting him. (And who can blame them?)

People are bored with you because you're boring. That's your problem, not theirs.

If you read the Mercatus Center website, you'll be greeted with an interesting claim: "For over 25 years, the Mercatus Center at George Mason University has been the world’s premier university source for market-oriented ideas—bridging the gap between academic ideas and real world problems." The Mercatus Center has even formed a Financial Markets Working Group. "The Financial Markets Working Group is a collection of seventeen university-based scholars with expertise across a wide range of economic issues relevant to the recent economic crisis."

Oh really? Here are what three leading Mercatus Center "scholars" wrote about subprime lending:

There has been much criticism lately about so-called 'exotic mortgages' that are creating a 'housing bubble'.... Although often lumped together, the two are distinct. And I'm not sure I see what the problem is here. I want to focus on the supposed harm of exotic mortgages, especially interest-only mortgages (which are said to create the housing bubble by allowing people to borrow "too much" and forcing up home prices).

The subprime mortgage market is relatively new, and some lenders and borrowers misjudged the risk of loans and originated overly-risky loans-but most borrowers are now better off because of their subprime loans

[T]he growth in subprime lending is not creating overwhelming debt burdens for low-income households.  -- Todd Zywicki, Mercatus Center "scholar," and George Mason University economist. 

More from another "scholar""

 "[S]ubprime mortgage lending is a natural and positive outgrowth of financial innovation. Although some problems have occured they are being self-corrected and do not threaten the financial system." -- Alex Tabarrok (approvingly quoting Ben Bernanke's 2007 comments), George Mason University economist, and Mercatus Center "scholar."

Alex Tabarrok had much more to say about subprime lending. In a long rant against "credit snobs" - those of us who thought loaning money to people who couldn't afford to repay their loans - Tabarrok writes:

The fact that there are defaults is partly a learning process in response to financial innovation, and thus evolution, but also partly a simple matter of risk. Defaults are to be expected. I see no reason to expect contagion. All lending statistics must now be marked to the global financial market which means that diversification is now more extensive than ever before and thus net risk is lower. 

Mercatus Center CEO and George Mason University economist, Tyler Cowen, also had much to say about subprime lending.  I have collected his commentary here.  Among other "facts" about subprime lending, he presented this gemstone: 

Even with about a tenth of all subprime mortgages now in foreclosure, only a small share of all American families -- about 0.3 percent -- own a home in foreclosure...Here is the link, from Mark Thoma. This is one big reason why I'm not yet convinced by the economic pessimists. The article also notes how many estimates of the S&L crisis of the 1980s were exaggerated, and suggests the same tendency may be happening today.

How can the same economists who claimed that subprime lending was great for poor people, and no threat to the broader economy, claim to have expertise about the financial crisis? These are the guys who enabled the economic crisis!

The Mercatus Center has no credibility. They do, however, produce great work - if you're a bank or large corporation looking for a "research paper." In our next post about Mercatus, we'll see what Mercatus' tax records reveal. Who is funding their "research"? And what - or, rather, whom - is Mercatus spending a substantial amount of money on?

The biggest problem with expert accountability is that there isn't any. People turn on their televisions, or read their newspapers and blogs, to hear what is being said today. Yet how can one determine if what's being said today is true? The best way is to look at yesterday.

Marginal Revolution is a popular weblog that has turned George Mason economists professor (and Mercatus Center CEO) Tyler Cowen into a minor celebrity.  People turn to him for his expertise.  Indeed, the Mercatus Center calls him an expert.

Should Cowen be considered an economics expert?  If so, why?

Go to his blog, and run a search for "subprime." There are several gems, beginning with his co-blogger's introduction to the Cowen view on subprime lending.  You'll find several entries entitled "Subprime fact of the day."  In these entries, Cowen explained to the unwashed masses why their fears of subprime lending were hysterical.

In one post entitled "Subprime fact of the day," Cowen writes:

Even with about a tenth of all subprime mortgages now in foreclosure, only a small share of all American families -- about 0.3 percent -- own a home in foreclosure... 

Here is the link, from Mark Thoma.  This is one big reason why I'm not yet convinced by the economic pessimists.  The article also notes how many estimates of the S&L crisis of the 1980s were exaggerated, and suggests the same tendency may be happening today.

Here is another "Subprime fact of the day"

The entire market in subprime debt is just 1.4% of the size of global equity markets. Or, to put it another way, a 1.4% downward fluctuation in stocks erases the same amount of value as if all subprime-backed bonds were collectively marked to $0.

Here is the link.

There is another "Subprime fact of the day":

..the problems in the subprime mortgage market are relatively small.  Currently, losses are estimated to be at most $35 billion – equivalent to a stock market decline of about 0.2%.  (Last week the value of stocks traded in US markets were down a not terribly unusual 1.5%, or 7 times the total expected decline in the value of these mortgages).

That is from an excellent short essay by Stephen Cecchetti.

The implication of those "fact" posts was clear: Subprime lending wasn't that big of a deal.  Obviously Cowen didn't understand mortgage-backed securities.  He had no idea what a collateralized debt obligation was. After all, Cowen had never worked on Wall Street.  

One of Cowen's commenters tried educating him:

The subprime thing IS big because it's the canary for the HUGE raft of Collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) that are a web of unknowns (and unknowables). A lot of hedge funds are going to see their "equity" evaporate when CDOs are marked-to-market. (They are avoiding liquidation now to keep their fantasy prices intact.)

This may be a good post to save when you need humility in the future :)

Yet after displaying a profound ignorance of the issues that lead to the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression, Cowen has shown no humility.  Instead, he has been defending Ben Bernanke's decision to print money - euphemistically called "quantitative easing." Cowen, who could not have been more wrong about subprime lending, is defending Bernake - who, also, could not have been more wrong about subprime lending.

Let's assume that Tyler Cowen is giving his opinions in good faith. If he is arguing in good faith, he clearly has no understanding about how Wall Street actually operates. He doesn't understand modern financial products and macroeconomics.

Why should anyone, then, listen to his opinions today?

And this post is about much more than Tyler Cowen. Unlike Cowen, Ben Bernanke is in charge of the entire United States economy. Here is what, in 2007 before the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Bernanke said about subprime lending:

All that said, given the fundamental factors in place that should support the demand for housing, we believe the effect of the troubles in the subprime sector on the broader housing market will likely be limited, and we do not expect significant spillovers from the subprime market to the rest of the economy or to the financial system.

This is the same Bernanke who insists that we trust him while he prints $600 billion. It is enough to give a grown adult indigestion.  

Awesome video. Her attitude is what more Americans need. Don't whine or cry like a passive-aggressive little bitch. Don't mumble something under your breath. Make a scene. Once people realize that anti-social actions have consequences, people will start behaving themselves again.

Amazing video (thanks, Rob) showing TSA's harassment of a law school classmate of mine. She was harassed and threatened with arrest because she requested - under TSA's own procedures - alternative screening for her breast milk.

A TSA lawsuit would be fun...

Smart comments from someone who gets it:

First they came...