novatownhall blog

Where you are held accountable for your convictions and record

Browsing Posts published by jack

One of the unspoken truths about race in this country is that the average IQ for Blacks is about 15 points lower than for Whites. (The standard Gaussian curve does not fit perfectly, of course, but it is a good enough fit for about 95% of both groups.)

Current studies suggest somewhere between 50% and 70% heritability for IQ — meaning that about 50-70% of one’s IQ depends on the IQ of your parents. There is, naturally, some environmental factors — such as whether your parents read to you as a child, and your home life in general.

There are structural problem for Blacks in our society today. Minimum Wage laws price many Black youths out of the labor market, so they can never reach that bottom rung of the economic ladder and start their climb. The democrat-run inner-city schools are a joke. Our criminal justice system is not race-blind. (The jury should never know the name, sex, or race of the accused. Justice really should be blind.) These government-imposed problems prevent Black men from attaining the ability to support a family. But the God-given biological drive to reproduce is still there — so they do. But the government will take away benefits from a woman who marries the father of her children. So the government makes the “spread your seed far and wide” strategy better for many Blacks (from a propagation of one’s genes perspective) than a “keep your eggs in one nest and guard it vigilantly” strategy. This, of course, perpetuates some of the problems of the Black community.

So what if polygamy were legal?

If polygamy were legal, many Black women might choose to marry a successful (intelligent) Black man who already has a wife or two. Than man could be having children with younger wives well into his 60′s and 70′s. Not only would this propagate his better genes, but those children would grow up in a better household than they would as the children of less intelligent men in single-parent households.

Furthermore, the less-intelligent men would not be reproducing with those women. Win-win.

Over time, we might see that IQ gap close considerably.

Many statements have been called “racist” — that term is used by the left to condemn anything they don’t like, and to shut down conversation.  Progs do not like real conversation, because they cannot argue with facts and logic.  Thus, they resort to emotional accusations such as “racism” or “sexism”.

So what is “racism”?

Resorting to our trusty Merriam-Webster Dictionary, we get these definitions:

1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2: racial prejudice or discrimination

So let us take the joke from Judy Moses, wife of Israeli Minister of the Interior, Silvan Shalom: “Do u know what Obama Coffee is? Black and weak.”

Is that racist? Obviously not. It shows no indication that 0bama is inferior because of his race (definition #1), nor does it show any racial prejudice or discrimination (definition #2). Her joke simply mentions that 0bama is Black. Thus, those who think the joke is racist must think that it is his race which causes 0bama to be weak, and therefore they are the racists, not she.

It is no different than saying, “Do u know what Biden Chocolate is? White and tasteless.”

It simple mentions his skin color, but does not imply that he is tasteless because he is White.

According to the race-baiters, any negative mention of race is racist. For instance, noting that the average Black IQ is about 15 points (about 1σ) below that of Whites is considered racist. But it does not fit either definition. If the difference were more like 2σ or 3σ, then it could be considered to be a “primary determinant”. But it is not. It is simply a fact.

Stating facts is not racist. Racism comes when those facts are used against individuals. For instance, a resume from someone with a typically Black name will receive fewer call-backs than a similar resume from someone with a typically Anglo-Saxon name. That is taking the properties of a population (averages, medians, standard deviations), and making assumptions about individuals. The is prejudice — pre-judging an individual based on the properties of the population to which he belongs.

That is what racism really is. Treating Blacks as if they need quotas and special dispensations to have a chance at a good life, is racist. Treating everyone as individuals, even if that means that a higher percentage of Blacks fail than Whites, is not.

To have an real, honest conversation about race and racism, we have to be able to speak the truth, and we need to stop calling racists the people who speak that truth.

Only when we get to that point can we look for underlying causes. WHY does the Black population have an average IQ one standard deviation below that of Whites? WHY is there more crime in the Black community? Then we can truly move to Dr. King’s great society, in which a man is judged by the content of his character.

Until the 1970′s, more men than women attended college.  Now, not only do more women than men attend college, but more women than men earn Bachelor’s (Bachelorette’s?)  degrees and Master’s (Mistress’s?) degrees.

Back in those halcyon days, educated men worked with less educated women.  Those women might be particularly intelligent, or they might not.  Personality and beauty reigned over intellect.  A young, beautiful, sweet girl could marry an educated man for whom she worked as a secretary, or whom she met in the grocery store or at church.

Now, college-educated men meet their wives either in college or at work.  As such, we are selection sorting by intellect.  Educated men marry educated women, and uneducated men marry uneducated women.  This stratifies society by broadening the IQ curve — more intelligent couples have more intelligent children, and less intelligent people have less intelligent children.

Such selection sorting by intellect necessarily increases the income inequality, as the intellectual inequality increases.

Exacerbating this trend is the fact that less-educated women (who tend, naturally, to be less intelligent) have more children, earlier in life, than do those with more education.  In fact, according to that study, college-educated women average fewer than two children over their lifetimes.  They are not even at replacement rate.  Meanwhile, women with only a high-school education are having an average of 2.7 children over their lifetimes.

Further exaggerating this stratification is that less-educated have those children at younger ages. Let’s figure that women with only a high school education have an average of 2.7 children, at an average age of 25, and that college-educated women have 1.8 children at an average age of 33.  By the age of 100, a less-educated woman will have 53 great-great-grandchildren (from 16 great-great-grand-parents).  The educated woman, however, will have about six great-grandchildren (from eight great-grandparents).

The less-educated (generally less intelligent) people increase, while the more-educated (generally more intelligent) people decrease.

So by more widespread education of women, we have greater stratification because of the selection sorting by education level (a proxy for intellect), and we have a demographic shift toward fewer intelligent offspring.

Whatever we may think about the riotous mobs of looters and arsonists in Baltimore, they are not “animals,” but humans who have been taught to act like animals.  Although the majority are Black, it is not because of their race but because of their upbringing that they act as they do. White people with the same intellect and same upbringing would act the same.

So what is that upbringing?

Liberalism.

From their birth, Liberalism has told them that they are too stupid to negotiate a fair price for their labor, so a Minimum Wage is necessary.  They cannot get jobs at that price, so the Minimum Wage teaches them not that their labor is worth less, but that they are worthless.

Since Liberalism makes them incapable of working, Liberalism provides them with welfare.  But if the women get married, their welfare is taken away.  So they are taught not to marry, and the children are brought up in the single-parent households that Liberalism forces on them.  The fathers, unable to find legal work because Liberalism priced them out of the labor market, turn to illegal work and end up in jail or dead.

Liberalism teaches them that they are too stupid to negotiate a fair price for the goods and services they buy.  As such, they think it is right to take back what what taken from them.  Prog politicians do this through progressive taxation and corporate taxes, and return the “stolen” money that they have stolen in Welfare payments, after taking out a nice percentage for themselves, of course.  But if the politicians can loot businesses through legislation via the mob power of the government, there is no moral difference in looting a store in person.

Liberalism, in support of killing babies in utero, implicitly teach that Black lives don’t matter.  So inner-city Blacks, steeped in Liberalism, murder and see nothing wrong with it, just as the rich progs support murdering children in utero and see nothing wrong with it.

“Liberalism is a mental disorder.”  Is it any wonder that those who grew up steeped in Liberalism do crazy shit?

 

The text of the law is clear

SEC. 1401. REFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT PROVIDING PREMIUM ASSISTANCE FOR COVERAGE UNDER A QUALIFIED HEALTH PLAN.

……………

(8)(2) PREMIUM ASSISTANCE AMOUNT.—The prem-
ium assistance amount determined under this sub-
section with respect to any coverage month is the
amount equal to the lesser of—

(A) the monthly premiums for such month
for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in
the individual market within a State which
cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any
dependent (as defined in section 152) of the tax-
payer and which were enrolled in through an
Exchange established by the State under 1311 of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,

or
(B) the excess (if any) of—
(i) the adjusted monthly premium for
such month for the applicable second lowest
cost silver plan with respect to the taxpayer,
over
(ii) an amount equal to 1/12 of the
product of the applicable percentage and the
taxpayer’s household income for the taxable
year.

It looks, at first glance, that part A does not obtain, since there is no such exchange, and so there is only part B.  However, lower down, part B is clarified:

(8)(3)(B) APPLICABLE SECOND LOWEST COST
SILVER PLAN.—The applicable second lowest cost
silver plan with respect to any applicable tax-
payer is the second lowest cost silver plan of the
individual market in the rating area in which
the taxpayer resides which—
(i) is offered through the same Ex-
change through which the qualified health
plans taken into account under paragraph
8 (2)(A) were offered….

That’s definitely a problem.  Neither of the two possible pricing options to determine the subsidy exists.

Some pundits have said it comes down to ONE word, “by”, not four words, “established by the State.”  The fact is, it is FOURTEEN words: “established by the State under 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”

The Federal Exchange is defined in section 1103, not 1311.

So what will the Supremes do?

Well, we know the progs on the bench will ignore the law — progs don’t care about laws.  (Well, they don’t care about laws they don’t like.  If they like a law, they’ll dig in like a tick on a hound.)  So the progs will rule to uphold the subsidies, and the conservatives will vote to uphold the law as written.

I expect the swing votes to go to the progs.  Why?  Because they have shown no integrity.  When Roberts ruled that the penalty is NOT a tax and thus the Supremes can rule on it before anyone actually pays it, then rule that it IS a tax and thus it is constitutional (the first time the Supremes have overturned a prior decision in the same decision), he has signaled to the world that he has no logical integrity, and is thus really a prog.  He will rule to uphold the subsidies and write up another steaming pile to support that ruling.

Sometimes I wonder if, when my grandkids are my age, this country will still have standing in the international community…or maybe just be standing at all. (Wolve)

I would not bet on it.  The forces of liberalism and illegal immigration are too great.

Internally, the more intelligent people are having fewer children and having them later, while the less intelligent have more children sooner.  The intelligent people are barely (or not even) making replacement rate, while the intellectual proletariat are doubling each generation or two.  (And then they wonder why income inequality has increased.)

Externally, we have dropped all pretense at border control, and are importing the intellectual dross of the poorer nations to our south.  Why are those nations poorer?  Do they have fewer natural resources?  No.  They have less civilization.  Their legal systems are a joke, and their educational systems are even worse.  So they come here, and vote for the same political system that destroyed their own country.

Civilizations have been destroyed by such migrations of the uncivilized since the dawn of civilization.  The Aryans destroyed the Aegeans and Semites in Greece and Mesopotamia thousands of years ago, the Huns and Goths overran the civilizations the Aryans built, and the Mongols and Turks overran the civilizations Huns and Goths created.

So what hope is there that our nation will stand?  Very little.

The progs undermine this country at every turn.  They welcome the invaders.  They fight against enforcing our borders.  They fight to reduce the overall intelligence of the population.  They fight for the enemies of our civilization.

In the oral arguments of King v. Burwell, Justice Ginsburg brought up the question of “standing”:

A plaintiff “has to have a concrete stake in the question,” Ginsburg said, interjecting almost as soon as Carvin began his argument. She noted that two of the plaintiffs had served in the military, one would soon turn 65 and be eligible for Medicare, and the fourth could qualify for a hardship exemption and not be required to pay the individual-mandate penalty.

Carvin countered that the lower courts had not raised a standing issue.

“But the Court has an obligation to look into on its own,” Ginsburg said. Carvin asserted that at least one of the plaintiffs did have standing before Ginsburg allowed him to move on to the merits of the case. (National Journal)

So what I want to know is, why doesn’t every taxpayer in the country have standing in cases like this?