Fund Your Utopia Without Me.™

19 May 2012

Here's A Secret: Austerity Does Work & Here's The Biggest Example Of It...Ever

Music to read by:

 

 

 Levon wears his war wound like a crown
He calls his child Jesus
'Cause he likes the name
And he sends him to the finest school in town

Levon, Levon likes his money

He makes a lot they say
Spend his days counting
In a garage by the motorway

He was born a pauper to a pawn on a Christmas day

When the New York Times said God is dead
And the war's begun
Alvin Tostig has a son today

 



By James Pethokoukis

Now, we all all know “austerity” from deep spending cuts (not the tax hikes, of course) is killing Europe’s economy and would do the same here in America, right?

Well, here’s a story about austerity that critics such as President Obama, Paul Krugman, and Ezra Klein never seem to mention: From 1944 to 1948, Uncle Sam cut spending by a whopping 75% as World War II came to end. Spending as a share of GDP plunged to 9% in 1948 from 44% in 1944.

Superstar economist and devout Keynesian Paul Samuelson—later to become the first American to win the Nobel Prize in economics—predicted such shock austerity would cause “the greatest period of unemployment and industrial dislocation which any economy has ever faced.” That dire, disastrous prediction was widely held by his fellow Keynesians, with one even predicting an “epidemic of violence.”

Except the doomsayers were wrong, even though Washington obviously ignored Samuelson’s call for gradual spending reductions. Despite cuts which dwarfed those seen in the EU today—not to mention those Republicans are calling for here at home—the U.S. economy thrived. There was no mass unemployment despite rapid demobilization of the armed forces. As George Mason University economist David Henderson explains is his 2010 paper, “The U.S. Postwar Miracle” (which this entire post draws upon):
As demobilization proceeded rapidly, employers in the private sector, full of the optimism … scooped up millions of the soldiers, sailors, and others who had been displaced from the armed forces and from military industries. … The number of unemployed people did increase, rising from 0.8 million to 2.3 million, but with a civilian labor force of 60.1 million, the 2.3 million unemployed people implied an unemployment rate of only 3.8 percent. As President Truman said, “This is probably close to the minimum unavoidable in a free economy of great mobility such as ours.
Of course, liberals are quick to point out the U.S. economy suffered its worst one-year downturn in history in 1946, a drop of 12%. To many Americans, it surely must have seemed like Samuelson was right, that the Great Depression had returned. But no one thought that back then, especially with jobs plentiful unlike during the 1930s. The drop in output was a statistical quirk caused by the removal of price controls. As Henderson explains:
For example, imagine that the free-market price of a pound of filet mignon during the war would have been $1.40 a pound. But imagine further that the government had set the price at $1.00 a pound. Then, when the price control was removed, the price would have shot to $1.40 a pound. Inflation statistics would have recorded some amount of inflation due to this large price increase. But those statistics would have overstated the real price increase because getting beef at $1.40 a pound is better for many of the people who couldn’t, because of the shortage, get it at $1.00 a pound.
Second, those sky-high output figures during the war measured government spending on goods and services, lots of it military hardware, at their cost. But what was all that stuff really worth, in purely economic terms, vs. post-war consumer purchases of homes and cars and nylon stockings? While total output fell by 12% in 1946, private-sector GDP rose by nearly 30%.

Or look at it this this way: Real U.S. output in 1947 was 17% higher than in 1941 despite the decline in government spending. Why was the economy prospering in way it never did during the Great Depression? Taxes were cut a little, and government interference—including price and production controls and rationing—was reduced a lot. But perhaps just as important, Truman dumped many of FDR’s most radical New Dealers. That change boosted business confidence, and companies started to invest again in America.

The typical Keynesian response mostly centers around dismissing the immediate post-war boom as a one-off event complicated by many unique factors. But it happened again, as Henderson notes! After the Cold War ended, overall federal spending fell to 18% of GDP in 2000 from 22% in 1991. But again the economy boomed. Real U.S. GDP grew by 40% with an average annual growth rate of 3.8%. Henderson speculates that perhaps the decline in defense spending freed up knowledge workers to help make technological miracles happen in the private economy.

The lesson here: Spending cuts might well produce prosperity instead of austerity, especially if accompanied by less government interference in the economy and less fear in the private sector of anti-market government policies.



Related Reading:

   



"Levon" - Elton John/Bernie Taupin

Levon wears his war wound like a crown
He calls his child Jesus
'Cause he likes the name
And he sends him to the finest school in town

Levon, Levon likes his money
He makes a lot they say
Spend his days counting
In a garage by the motorway

He was born a pauper to a pawn on a Christmas day
When the New York Times said God is dead
And the war's begun
Alvin Tostig has a son today

And he shall be Levon
And he shall be a good man
And he shall be Levon
In tradition with the family plan
And he shall be Levon
And he shall be a good man
He shall be Levon

Levon sells cartoon balloons in town
His family business thrives
Jesus blows up balloons all day
Sits on the porch swing watching them fly

And Jesus, he wants to go to Venus
Leaving Levon far behind
Take a balloon and go sailing
While Levon, Levon slowly dies 


Mr Obama, Build Up That Wall!



M2RB:  The Dave Matthews Band






Stay, beautiful baby
I hope you
Stay, American baby
American baby

Nobody's laughing now

God's grace lost and the devil is proud
But I've been walking for a thousand miles
One last time, I could see you smile

I hold on to you

You bring me hope, I'll see you soon
And if I don't see you
I'm afraid we've lost the way

Stay, beautiful baby

I hope you
Stay, American baby
American baby







By Andrew Klavan


In order to avoid throwing his money into the maw of an increasingly oppressive and spendthrift government, Facebook co-founder and about-to-be gazillionaire Eduardo Saverin has renounced his U.S. citizenship in favor of Singapore. To put an end to such sensible behavior, Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer and Bob Casey have proposed a punitive tax on any wealthy Americans who try to escape the clutches of Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer and Bob Casey by leaving the country.

But I have a much better idea, a much simpler and more effective idea. Why not just build a wall? Come on, this is a great, creative approach! How could it not work? We build a wall around the country and anyone trying to escape with his money or his brain power or his hard work, we capture him and bring him back. Or shoot him, if we have to.

This wonderful solution to the Saverin problem is not just perfect for the United States in general — it’d work in individual states as well.  Take California — please!  As City Journal’s Steven Malanga reports, businesses are leaving the golden state in droves.
As California has transformed into a relentlessly antibusiness state, [its] redeeming characteristics haven’t been enough to keep firms from leaving. Relocation experts say that the number of companies exiting the state for greener pastures has exploded. In surveys, executives regularly call California one of the country’s most toxic business environments and one of the least likely places to open or expand a new company. Many firms still headquartered in California have forsaken expansion there.
This shouldn’t be. Not when the answer is right there in front of us! Just build a wall along the border of the state and anyone who tries to get out gets the old bang-bang-you’re-dead treatment!

I mean, the Communists did this in Berlin, right? That worked well! Did you think the reds just slapped that sucker up because they were evil? Did you think they just did it for the joy of shooting their own citizens? Of course not. The Communists were smart people, logical people. They knew that when the state encroached on human freedom by taking the fruit of people’s labor, by demanding power over people’s productivity and creativity, those people would naturally, sensibly come to understand that the contract between citizen and state had been violated, and they’d take off. And you just can’t have a socialist state if all the creativity and productivity and other people’s money leave.  So the Communists built a wall. 

It made perfect sense.

And so we should build a wall! And keep job-and-wealth-creating people like Eduardo Saverin from leaving! What other solution could there possibly be? I mean, if smart guys like Senators Schumer and Casey can’t think of one, I sure can’t.

So this is the country you made, President Obama — and in only three short years too. So don’t you wait. Don’t hesitate. Don’t bother with punitive taxes or big speeches or any of that stuff.

Mr. Obama, finish the job! Make this the America you want it to be.

Mr. Obama, build up that wall!


 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Sophie:

"I will merely note that for some people, their citizenship is worth everything they have to give."
- David French, The Corner, National Review


Nice words, but is that really true? Doesn’t your country owe you something in return? Were Germans, who opposed the Nazis, wrong for immigrating to the US and becoming citizens? Were Russians, who left the Soviet Union, wrong for defecting, renouncing their citizenship and becoming Americans? 

If the Federal government decided to impose a 90% income tax on everyone, would you still believe that your citizenship is worth 9 out of every $10 you earn? Really? What else would you give at that point? Your wife, if El Presidente demanded her? Your firstborn son?  Would you begin to kill your neighbours if your country demanded that of you?  Better yet, were the Founding Fathers wrong for declaring their independence from England because of high taxation, taxation without representation, and the tyranny of King George III?  Were they unpatriotic?

No, Saverin and people like him are renouncing their citizenship because being an American doesn’t have the same value as it did as little as a decade ago when I became one. The country has the most progressive income tax system in the world; yet, the 50% of the populace, who does not pay a dime in Federal income taxes, believes it is entitled by right to the property of others. The dollar is on its way to being as valuable as an old Reichsmark. The national debt will enslave generations. Neither party is capable of or willing to address the real issues.

In addition to the most progressive income tax system, we also have the highest corporate tax rate and are increasing dividend and capital gain tax rates while expanding economies are cutting them. Further, the bureaucratic tangle of red tape answers the question “Where are the jobs?” They are overseas because the US government has created a hostile environment to job and business creation. It isn’t at the stage of Greece — where a stool sample is required of some people before they can obtain an operating licence to start an internet business — but it is rapidly following in the country’s footsteps.

The question shouldn’t be whether Saverin is a bad guy for renouncing his American citizenship. The question should be "Why has the US decided that it doesn’t want to keep people like Saverin and attract more of them?" Obviously, it doesn't want Saverins. If it did, it would make itself competitive.

Senators Schumer and Casey, among others, claim that people like Saverin are unpatriotic and they are probably correct, but how patriotic are they?  Is it patriotic to debaunch the currency of your country?  Is it patriotic to spend your country into bankruptcy?  Is it patriotic -- and moral -- to enslave future generations to unsustainable debt obligations?  Is it fair, patriotic, or moral to steal the futures of generations yet unborn while taxing them without representation?

Would Americans be unpatriotic if they wanted to insure that their children were not enslaved by the debt and unfunded obligations of their forebears by raising them as citizens of another country?  Is that really selfish?  How much do your future children and grandchildren owe the greedy, irresponsible people of today?

When I tell the Progressive Movement to "Fund Your Utopia Without Me™", I mean it.  If the Progs want to recreate the French Revolution -- with or without the blood -- and they manage to be successful, in whole or in part, why do I owe the country anything?  Why do you?  Must we stay around and pay...and pay...and pay...and pay to satiate the envious cravings and most base desires of humanity?

California has 1/8th of the country's population, but 1/3rd of all of the country's welfare recipients.  Is it doing anything to attract new business or relocations?  No.  It continues to pass higher taxes, fees, and more regulation, while giving more to union workers and welfare recipients.  Businesses and the productive class are leaving.  Why would anyone think that this would not happen on a national scale should Obama succeed in turning all of America into California?

Great civilisations do fall.  Hopefully, the United States will not, but if it does, you do not have to go down with the ship.


BTW:  I can't wait to hear the hypocritical screeching from Senator John Kerry, who parked his boat in another state to avoid paying Massachusetts state taxes.


American Baby by Dave Matthews Band


If these walls came crumblin' down
Fell so hard, to make us lose our faith
From what's left you'd figure it out
Still make lemonade taste like a summer day

Stay, beautiful baby
I hope you
Stay, American baby
American baby

Nobody's laughing now
God's grace lost and the devil is proud
But I've been walking for a thousand miles
One last time, I could see you smile

I (I) hold (hold) on (on) to you
You bring me hope, I'll see you soon
And if I don't see you
I'm afraid we've lost the way

Stay, beautiful baby
I hope you
Stay, American baby
American baby

I (I) hold (hold) on (on) to you
You lift me up and always will
I see you in life
Hope I don't get left behind

I (I) hold (hold) on (on) to you
You bring me hope, I'll see you soon
And if I don't see you
I'm afraid we've lost the way

Stay, beautiful baby
I hope you
Stay, American baby
I hope you
Stay, beautiful baby
I hope you
Stay, American baby
American baby 



Democratic Party to White, Working Class Voters: Drop Dead.



Music to read by:






One last kiss, one only, then I let you go
Heart for you, heart fallen, but you can't break my fall

I'm broken, don't break me, when I hit the ground

Some devil, some angel has got me to the bone



You said, always and forever

Now I believe you baby

You said, always and forever is such a long and lonely time

 






By Mickey Kaus 

So it’s unanimous, then– Thomas Edsall was right: In the aftermath of Obama’s gay marriage flip, pundits seem to have concluded that Obama’s Democratic party has indeed given up on white working class voters. They’ve been dropped from the winning coalition, which is now composed of three main groups: “young people, college-educated whites (especially women), and minorities,” according to Ron Brownstein. Bill Galston agrees. Ruy Teixeira–who once wrote a book called America’s Forgotten Majority: Why the White Working Class Still Matters–agrees. Here’s Teixeira on how Obama can win Arizona:

"First, the share of Hispanic voters must grow and their support level for Obama must increase …

Second, a projected 3 point decrease in the size of the total white vote should come entirely from white working class voters. Based on recent data, this is a highly plausible assumption. Eligible voter trends since 2008 are consistent with such an outcome and, in 2008, the decrease in the white vote (4 points) did in fact come entirely from working class voters, according to the exit polls.

Finally, Obama’s performance among white college graduates needs to improve …. Returning to [2000 and 2004] earlier levels of white college graduate support will be crucial for Obama. [E.A.]"

Hmm. Are there any other Dems out there who think basing the party on this New
Coke
Coalition is a really bad idea? Here’s alert kf reader Pollster Y:

For now, it’s not even an argument. This is the direction the smart people are taking the Democratic Party. Wheeeee! …

A college-educated whites plus blacks and Hispanics coalition is not the cruise I signed up for—and for many blacks and Hispanics, the door they came in was marked “for low- to middle-income working folks of all races,” and they will understand immediately that the old working class door is closed now and they are just votes to support the ascendancy of a college-educated whites agenda. Steerage class. …

[W]hich holds greater promise in the Electoral College—winning more vote in Denver, Phoenix, Santa Fe, Columbus, OH and the suburbs of Washington DC with a college-whites+minorities focus, OR trying to win back the arc of votes Obama lost to Hillary and has not won back, stretching from WVA, VA south of the Northern Virginia suburbs, western NC, southwestern PA, southern OH, southern IL, MO, Arkansas? And in the long run, which Democratic Party is more likely to hold the loyalties of blacks and Hispanics for another generation—a working class Democratic Party, or a knowledge-worker Democratic Party?

Let me add a few other possible reasons to take Pollster Y’s doubts seriously:

1. Unskilled workers–men especially–are among those who’ve been most harmed by the big structural changes of the past four decades (i.e., global trade that forces them to compete against cheap foreign workers, technology that puts a premium on skills and smarts). Any political party that doesn’t attempt to improve the economic position of these people–who make up a lot of the “white working class”–simply isn’t addressing the problems of the times.

2. The increasing premium on skills and smarts promises to bring us an uglier society in the form of a meritocracy where those who are rich can think not only that they’re richer but that they’re better. That doesn’t simply threaten the incomes of the unskilled. It corrodes the traditional American idea of social equality–the idea that we’re “equal in the eyes of each other.” Cheering on young professionals–while urging the non-professionals to hurry up and do some learnin’–doesn’t make the problem better. It makes the problem worse. Even if it increases GDP.

3. Weren’t Democrats supposed to be the party of Everyman? If you went to work and obeyed the rules, Dems would “make work pay”–plus give you unemployment compensation and Social Security and medical care in old age. White male workers are sort of the indivisible denominator in American politics–they have no special economic leverage, and no race- or gender-based claim to special privileges. They’re naked as far as favoritism goes, and thus (not unlike Marx’s proleteriat) are the representatives of universal privileges (such as Social Security). The new Obama coalition threatens to abandon this universality, becoming instead the party of non-universal skills, ethnic and gender identities–of special pleaders, victims and causists. Not of citizens.


P.S.: But isn’t this just a question of strategy or political marketing? No. Different coalitions produce different policies–or, rather, the attempt to mobilize different coalitions produces different policies. (Sorry, Weigel.**) Gay marriage is a New Coalition policy: Young voters love it; white working class voters, not so much. “Comprehensive immigration reform”–e.g. legalization or amnesty– is a New Coalition policy: It is quite explicitly framed as an attempt to win over Latinos. But if it attracts additional unskilled illegal immigrants, from Mexico and elsewhere, unskilled working class Americans are the ones who will see their wages bid down even further. Screw ‘em–they vote Republican anyway!

Similarly, if you don’t care that much about ordinary white unskilled workers you might be perfectly willing to raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67, as Obama has apparently been willing to do. After all, it”s not such a big deal to retire two years later if you are an accountant. But what if you are a coal miner? The worst example of all would be Obama policies that push poorer workers out of Medicare into often-inferior Medicaid, as Scott Gottlieb has charged the Affordable Care Act will do. (I await Jonathan Cohn’s explanation of why Obamacare doesn’t actually do this).

You can’t blame Obama for trying to win, and if white working class voters don’t like him–well, he has to assemble a majority anyway he can.*** But if you’re not Obama you can hope this particular Emerging Democratic Majority un-emerges soon.
_____

**–Back in November, Slate‘s Dave Weigel assured his readers that “Obama isn’t switching policies in or out of a playbook because whites won’t vote for him.” Tell it to opponents of gay marriage.

***–You can blame Obama for not doing things that might have made white working class voters dislike him a lot less–doing a better job of selling Obamacare, for example. A big initiative to get the fat out of the federal bureaucracy might have done for him what welfare reform did for Bill Clinton. (For that matter, welfare reform might have done for him what welfare reform did for Bill Clinton–specifically, backing up work requirements with Wisconsin-style last-resort “workfare” jobs.)





Some Devil by David Matthews Band

One last kiss one only
Then I'll let you go
Hard for you I've fallen
But you can't break my fall
I'm broken don't break me
When I hit the ground

Some devil some angel
Has got me to the bones
You said always and forever
Now I believe you baby
You said always and forever
Is such a long and lonely time

Too drunk and still drinking
It's just the way I feel
It's alright
Is what you told me
Cause what we had was so beautiful
Feel heavy like floating
At the bottom of the sea

You said always and forever
Now I believe you baby
You said always and forever
Is such a long and lonely time

Some devil is stuck inside of me
I cannot set it free
I wish, I wish I was dead and you were grieving
Just so that you could know
Some angel is stuck inside of me
But I cannot set you free

You said always and forever
Now I believe you baby
You said always and forever
Such a long and lonely time

Stuck inside of me

Pic of the Day: S.Wo.A.K.



Music to read by:






No final kiss to seal or anything
I had no idea of the state we were in






h/t Roger Kimball







18 May 2012

How Politically Correct Liberals Left a Muslim Gang Free to Rape British Girls



Music to read by:





 
Now babe the time has come.
How'd ya like to have a little fun?
And she said."If we could only please be on our way, I will not run."


That's when things got out of control.
She didn't want to, he had his way.
She said, "Let's Go"
He said, "No Way!"
Come on babe it's your lucky day.
Shut your mouth, were gonna do it my way.
Come on baby don't be afraid,
if it wasn't for date rape I'd never get laid.


He finished up and he started the car
He turned around and drove back to the bar.
He said."Now baby don't be sad, in my opinion you weren't half-bad."



 



Nine men were jailed in Britain last week for raping and abusing dozens of girls aged as young as 13 over a period of several years in the northern town of Rochdale. The men plied the girls with drink and drugs before assaulting them, in a practice known by the appalling euphemism of “grooming.” One girl was raped by 20 men in one night; another had an abortion after becoming pregnant by one of her attackers. Police are trying to track down other victims of the gang, and are hunting up to 40 more suspects.

These would be horrific crimes under any circumstances. But the case had an added dimension that has provoked much controversy: All of the rapists were Muslims, and all of their victims were white. Predictably, racist groups such as the British National Party are trying to exploit the case, citing it as evidence that the sexual abuse of white women by Muslim men is widespread in Britain. Equally true to form, many liberals in the media, politics, the criminal justice system and others charged with guarding the flame of multiculturalism are falling over themselves to deny that ‘race’ has anything to do with it.

Leading the campaign to persuade the public that there’s “nothing to see here” in terms of the identities of the rapists and their victims was the chief of the police force that investigated the case, who insisted it was “not a racial issue.” The mantra was taken up by the left-wing Guardian newspaper, a prominent Labour MP, and assorted left-wing bloggers, while the BBC – the taxpayer-funded propaganda arm of Britain’s liberal-left establishment – carried the message far and wide in its television and online reporting. The ability of sections of the media to produce lengthy reports without mentioning the word “Muslim” was something to be hold; by way of contrast, try to imagine the same outlets reporting on a sex abuse scandal in the Catholic church and omitting the word “Catholic.”




Unfortunately, the evidence points overwhelmingly to the contrary. Out of 77 men convicted of similar ‘grooming’ offences in recent years, 67 were Pakistani, while analysis of several cases has shown that 94 per cent of perpetrators were, in the official terminology, “Asian.”  And in every case, the victims have been overwhelmingly young white girls. While this doesn’t, as racist groups claim, mean the abuse of white girls by Muslim men is endemic, there is clearly a racial element to these crimes.


In case you were confused, "Asians" is the term used in Europe to describe Muslims. The perps' names are Kabeer Hassan, Abdul Aziz, Abdul Rauf, Mohammed Sajid, Adil Khan, Abdul Qayyum, Mohammed Amin, Hamid Safi.  That sound "Asian" to you? Me neither.

- Sophie


(The ‘Asian’ race category encompasses a vast number of ethnicities and religions, from Indian Sikhs and Hindus to Filipino Christians. Not for the first time, Britain’s many and varied Asian communities have been angered to find themselves lumped together with Muslims in the coverage of horrific crimes.)

The race of the gang members themselves isn’t an issue, but their religion and associated cultural attitudes, and the racism that these foster, are. The fact that in this case, as in previous ones, the perpetrators were Muslims, and from parts of the world where extremist forms of that religion hold sway – eight of the Rochdale gang were of Pakistan origin and the ninth was an Afghan – has absolutely everything to do with the case, and it’s just one uncomfortable aspect that liberals don’t want to confront.

Another is the fact that politically-correct attitudes to all things “racial” among the relevant authorities meant the victims’ ordeals went on for years longer than might have been the case. Many of the victims were from broken homes and under the supervision of social workers, but when they reported abuse to their carers the police and prosecutors failed to act because, it’s claimed, they were “petrified of being called racist.”

There are also broader social issues arising from the case, and others like it, that liberals would prefer not to discuss; in particular how decades of liberal social polices on everything from immigration to welfare have helped to create the environments in which these crimes can be committed.

So what drives some Muslim men to commit these especially horrendous crimes against white girls? Well for a start there’s the issue of misogyny. No culture is innocent when it comes to the mistreatment of women, from casual sexism to domestic violence and rape; but across large parts of the Islamic world misogyny is enshrined in law, one example being that, in some schools of jurisprudence the testimony of two or even four women is required to counter that of one man. Widely accepted interpretations of the law also permit men to have sex with ‘slave’ women seized as war booty, which could provide a justification – albeit a warped and tenuous one – for British Muslim men who, while they might never dream of strapping on a suicide bomb vest, are deeply hostile to the values and culture of their host country.

Misogynistic cultural practices, such as veiling, the non-education of girls and female genital mutilation are also widespread in Islam. It doesn’t help that many western liberals who are normally champions of women’s right often choose to remain silent about these issues, or even try to defend them, as with Naomi Wolf and the burqa. In short, if a Muslim man is minded to rape or otherwise abuse a woman, he’ll have little trouble divining a legal or cultural justification for his actions.

But arguably the key factor in the Rochdale case and similar ones is the low opinion that Muslim men have of white British women, and in particular young working-class girls. Prevented from having sexual relations with girls in their own communities by family honor codes and religious strictures, they look to “inferior” white girls – particularly vulnerable teenagers – to satisfy their cravings, and in some cases consensual relationships degenerate into rape and abuse (the victims aren’t exclusively white girls though; groups representing British Sikhs and Hindus say their young women have also been targeted by Muslim men who boast about seducing ‘unbelievers’).


Top Email Newletter Banner
Judge says gang preyed on five girls, aged between 13 and 15, partly because they were from different 'community and religion.'  As many as 47 vulnerable girls were plied with alcohol, gifts and money then passed around for sex with 'several men a day' - At least one victim forced to have sex with 20 men in one night, police say.


In the aftermath of one of the first ‘grooming’ cases to attract national attention, the Labour MP and former Home Secretary Jack Straw, who represents a northern constituency with a large Muslim population, came under fire from sections of the media and the race relations industry for claiming that many Muslim men considered white women ‘easy meat’. But his view is supported by other Labour MPs in the party’s northern strongholds, where most ‘grooming’ cases have occurred, and who by no stretch the imagination can be described as racist bomb-throwers. (It’s important to distinguish the traditional left-of-center politics of Straw and his colleagues with the politically correct liberalism of officialdom and the media.)

You don’t have to take their word for it, however, because Muslim men who commit these crimes are happy to admit their contemptuous attitude towards white girls. One of the Rochdale gang summed up that attitude in court when he said: “You white people train them in sex and drinking, so when they come to us they are fully trained.”

One of most effective voices in articulating this misogynist/racist mindset among Pakistani Muslim men has been Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Muslim youth organization The Ramadhan Foundation, and himself a Pakistani. “They think that white teenage girls are worthless and can be abused without a second thought,” Shafiq told the Daily Mail. In an opinion piece for the same paper he said the girl victims had been let down by “a system obsessed with the doctrine of political correctness, where anxieties about racism trump common sense and compassion.”

The judge who jailed the Rochdale gang got to the crux of the matter when he told the defendants that one of the factors that had led to the abuse was the fact that the victims “were not part of your community or religion.” And even some prominent liberals are prepared to admit the obvious: the chairman of Britain’s Equality and Human Rights commission, a bastion of multiculturalist thinking and political correctness, said it would ‘fatuous’ to ignore the fact that the attackers were Muslim men and their victims white girls.

The racial/religious nature of these crimes are clear for most people to see. Yet not only have many liberals tried to ignore or downplay these issues; they’ve intimated that anyone who so much as tries to have a discussion about them is a racist. When the BBC reported in news bulletins that “some people” had raised the issue of race, reference was invariably made to ‘far-right’ groups (their phrase, not mine; the organisations in question are simply racist, and there’s nothing right-wing about them) and footage of thuggish white men protesting outside the courtroom was shown. The implication was clear: If you are in the slightest bit uneasy with any aspect of this case, then you are on the same side as these racists.




Those of us who have genuine concerns about the scale of immigration into Britain and the attendant social problems it has created are well used to being called racist, but there are more important issues at stake here. Rape, pedophilia and sexual abuse are not, of course, the sole preserve of Muslim men, but the reluctance of many in positions of authority and influence to acknowledge that there’s a particular problem with Muslim Pakistani men targeting white girls means the communities in which those men live are not being encouraged to tackle the problem.

Leaving aside liberals’ instinctive “sensitivity” toward other races and cultures, there are other reasons why it’s understandable that they don’t want to discuss the implications of the Rochdale case and others like it. While the blame for the attacks lies squarely with the perpetrators, they would not have been able to commit their crimes on the scale they did, if at all, had the necessary environment not been created by years of failed liberal policies on immigration, and by the breakdown in family life, particularly in working-class communities, caused by misguided thinking on education and welfare.

It was Tony Blair’s Labour government which, after coming to power in 1997, massively increased the pace of immigration to Britain, with many of the immigrants Muslims from Pakistan. At the same time, the emerging doctrine of multiculturalism signaled to those immigrants that they were under no obligation to embrace British values and customs – indeed, as British culture was no better than, and arguably inferior to, that of their own countries, they would be mad to do so. The result was that ghetto communities became established in large British cities, and also in smaller towns, particularly in the north of England, such as Rochdale.

During the same period, liberal social policies that encouraged welfare dependency and undermined family life were hollowing out the white working class communities from which the rape gangs draw their young victims. Add in the relentless sexualizing of youngsters – partly caused by their immersion in trashy celebrity culture, but also the result of liberal sex education polices that see Britain regularly at or near the top of “league tables” for teenage pregnancies, abortions and sexually transmitted diseases – and the damage was well and truly done. Scores of damaged and vulnerable young girls, failed by parents, teachers and others charged with their care, have been virtually served up to their tormentors on a plate.

Many of the politicians and opinion-formers responsible for those catastrophic policies remain profoundly out of touch with the white ‘underclass’, and oblivious to the consequences of their mistakes even as they pander to minorities of every ethnicity and religious stripe. It’s not much of an exaggeration to say that Britain’s liberal elites despise the country’s white working class in general almost as much as the rape gangs despise their young victims; no wonder they don’t want to talk about what’s happening.

But to judge from the reaction to the Rochdale case, and in particular the brave voices being raised within the communities from which the rapists came, there are signs that the problem of ‘grooming’ may now start to be addressed. Sadly, for the perhaps hundreds of young girls who have been abused, and others who are still being exploited, vital years have been wasted.



Date Rape by Sublime


Let me tell you about a girl I know,
had a drink about a hour ago.
Sitting in a corner by herself, in a bar in downtown Hell.

She heard a noise and she looked through the door.
And saw a man she'd never seen before.
Light skin, light blue eyes, a double-chin and a plastic smile.
Well, her heart raced as he walked in the door
And took an empty seat next to her at the bar.
"My brand new car is parked right outside. How'd ya like to go for a ride?"
And she said."Wait a minute I have to think."
He said, "That's fine. May I please buy you a drink"
One drink turned into 3 or 4 and they left and got into his car
and they drove away someplace real far.

Now babe the time has come.
How'd ya like to have a little fun?
And she said."If we could only please be on our way, I will not run."

That's when things got out of control.
She didn't want to, he had his way.
She said, "Let's Go"
He said, "No Way!"
Come on babe it's your lucky day.
Shut your mouth, were gonna do it my way.
Come on baby don't be afraid,
if it wasn't for date rape I'd never get laid.

He finished up and he started the car
He turned around and drove back to the bar.
He said."Now baby don't be sad, in my opinion you weren't half-bad."
She picked up a rock.,threw it at the car, hit him in the head, now he's got a big scar.
Come on party people won't you listen to me.
Date Rape Story.

The next day she went to her drawer, look up her local attorney at law,
went to the phone and filed the police report and then she took the guy's ass to court.
Well, the day he stood in front of the judge he screamed, "She lies that little slut!"
The judge knew that he was full of shit and he gave him 25 years
And now his heart is filled with tears.

One night in jail it was getting late.
He was butt-raped by a large inmate, and he screamed.
But the guards paid no attention to his cries.

That's when things got out of control.
The moral of the date rape story, it does not pay to be drunk and horny.
But that's the way it had to be.
They locked him up and threw away the key.
Well, I can't take pity on men of his kind,
even though he now takes it in the behind.

But that's the way it had to be.
They locked him up and threw away the key.
Well, I can't take pity on men of his kind,
even though he now takes it in the behind.
DATE RAPE!

She didn't want to [x4]
TAKE IT! 



OWS RIP

Remember when Occupy Wall Street was sweeping the nation? The media branded it the left’s answer to the Tea Party, the start of a grand national mobilization; depending on who you ask, half of America once supported the OWS protestors, double the amount who back the Tea Party. The Huffington Post even launched a separate page devoted entirely to coverage of OWS.

How the mighty have fallen. The New York Times may still be trying to perform mouth to mouth resuscitation on the decomposing OWS corpse, attributing continuing policy influence sans evidence of any kind to a movement that has all but completely disappeared, but compared to the Tea Party, except for the media hype, OWS was a political flop. (Via Meadia is not a card carrying tea-partier, by the way; any tea sipped in the stately Mead manor is poured into delicate China cups by our well trained housekeeping staff, and tasted with pinkies appropriately extended in the proper, traditional way.)

Much of the Tea Party’s influence was negative from a Republican point of view: weak Senate candidates nominated by Tea Party enthusiasm dragged the GOP down to defeat in Delaware and Nevada races. In other cases, Tea Party enthusiasm increased turnout and swung close races to the GOP. But like it or loathe it the Tea Party did — and does — make a difference. Politicians seek its support; its leaders have taken over local party organizations and made waves in race after race across the country.

OWS is not in the same league. Despite generally favorable coverage from the MSM (something the Tea Party has never had), OWS has essentially fallen apart. It is not a significant presence on the streets; it is not a significant presence in Democratic Party politics; it is not a significant presence in the national conversation. Its vaunted strategy of shunning conventional politics in favor of self organizing groups making decisions from day to day more or less evanesced into space while the Tea Party, equally anarchic, did in fact spawn the kinds of movements and political changes that the OWS crowd did not.

To the extent that OWS had any influence at all, it was at the level of slogans: “one percenters,” “the 99 percent” and “occupy x” have entered our language. But as a populist left wing fight back against the biggest economic disaster since the 1930s, it was dismally lame. At its height it failed to match levels of popular mobilization and outreach that earlier movements achieved in past episodes in American history– and it fell quickly from that height.

To some degree, it was killed by its “friends.” The tiny left wing groups that exist in the country jumped all over the movement; between them and the deranged and occasionally dangerous homeless people and other rootless wanderers drawn to the movement’s increasingly disorderly campsites, OWS looked and sounded less and less like anything the 99 percent want anything to do with. At the same time, the movement largely failed to connect with the African American and Hispanic churchgoers who would have to be the base for any serious grass roots urban political mobilization. The trade unions picked up the movement briefly but dropped it like a hot brick as they found the brand less and less attractive.

It is as if the Tea Party had been taken over by the Aryan Brotherhood and delusional vagrants while failing to connect with either evangelical Christians or respectable libertarians. The MSM at one point was visibly hungering and thirsting for exactly that fate of marginalization to happen to the Tea Party, and the MSM did its klutzy best to tar the Tea Party with that kind of Mad Hatter extremism. The Tea Partiers by and large (not always or cleanly) escaped the fatal embrace of the nutters and the ranters on their side of the spectrum; OWS was occupied by its own fringe, and so died.

OWS’s popularity continues to plummet. Many pollsters haven’t even bothered to ask the public about OWS since the protestors were kicked out of Zuccotti Park. The NBC/WSJ poll, one of the only reliable indicators of OWS support these days, shows OWS’s popularity has dropped by half since November. Over the same period NYC’s Mayor Bloomberg’s popularity has remained steady months after closing the sad and futile encampment at Zuccotti Park. No backlash there.

At Via Meadia, we thought we’d wait until the weather warmed to offer our opinions on OWS, since we don’t like to bury social movements prematurely and since college students mostly come out to protest when it’s sunny. But there’s been no upsurge this spring. OWS tried to spark a May Day protest against the 1 percent that would reverberate around the world. The Whole World Is Waking! Into The Streets! OWS wanted the May Day affair to breathe new life back into the movement, but it was more of a last gasp. Few people took notice, even fewer obeyed the message and took to the streets, and May Day passed without incident.

OWS also tried to partner with Anonymous, the hacker group that once teamed up with Russian television propagandist Julian Assange to attack Visa and Mastercard when those companies refused to process funding for Wikileaks. Jointly, the two organizations published a laundry list of demands and tried to hype each other up: They promised to “flood” downtown Manhattan with protestors, they tried to send “black faxes” to the Federal Reserve, Goldman Sachs and others, they tried to hack into the NYPD’s communications equipment, they tried to take down the NY Stock Exchange website — all efforts sputtered and failed.

The ideas behind OWS are more important than the movement; questions about the legitimacy and the consequences of liberal capitalism are going to be part of the political discourse as long as markets produce socially disturbing and morally questionable results. It is natural and healthy for young people to question society and to explore the alternatives to the intellectual status quo. Many youthful protesters grow up to play important parts in the social organization they once denounced; others end up writing blog posts about the futility of exactly the kind of protests their younger selves would have joined.

It is important to ask how wealth should be distributed or redistributed. The role of banks and the dangerous position they occupy — where private, market power and government finance intersect — has preoccupied and puzzled some of America’s greatest statesmen; neither Thomas Jefferson nor Andrew Jackson would celebrate the crony capitalism that the conventional establishment takes for granted.

Occupy Wall Street brought important issues into a national discussion. The group had a range of complaints, some reasonable, others not so much, about a variety of policies and social conditions in the United States. Many of the concerns and the grievances they voiced were and are widely shared.

This makes the failure of the movement more striking, not less so. It is easy to understand how someone can go broke selling umbrellas during a drought, but OWS was peddling leftie economic ideas and the politics of redistribution in the middle of the worst economic times in eighty years.

There are some who think the United States is better off without an effective left. Via Meadia does not share that view (though we wouldn’t want the left to get so effective that it “seized state power”, “occupied the commanding heights”, and then extirpated outdated bourgeois illusions like free speech, trial by jury and private property before going on to liquidate such social parasites and running dogs as ourselves). The level of confusion and dysfunction apparent in the OWS universe during its brief run is a sign that the American left has yet to find a vocabulary and a political stance that works in the 21st century.

Historically, the American left has found its base among immigrants who have not yet found a place in American society, African Americans excluded from it on the grounds of their race, workers savagely exploited by the rawest kind of capitalism and farmers being driven from the land. Organizing an effective left has always been exceptionally difficult in America because these groups were (and remain) much less cohesive than, say, the traditional blue collar factory proletariat of a conventional European ethnic nation-state.

There are plenty of reasons today why Americans might turn to the left. Since the 1970s real wages have scarcely budged: manufacturing employment has been falling, waves of immigrants are competing for low-end jobs, and the mass entry of women into the workforce since the 1960s has increased the supply of labor as well. Those long term problems were seriously exacerbated when the housing bubble burst and the financial panic swept us into a deep recession.

Meanwhile, the upper middle classes and the super class (the Davoisie) have seen their incomes soar even as their interests and their values diverge from those of mainstream America. Seldom has the American economy looked so unfair — and so unpromising — to so many.

A generation of intellectuals and students raised on Howard Zinn expected great things from this combination. If times don’t improve — and especially if the GOP wins in November and a Romney administration governs from the right so that right-wing rather than left-wing policies get the blame for economic failure — we may yet see a serious movement of left-populism contending for national power. But on the whole, it is harder than it looks to push the United States to the economic left.

The great OWS meltdown is proof enough of that.