Red State Abroad

World Traveller, Western Supremacist

The Green Road to Serfdom… My Apologies Mr Hayek

With over two dozen Democratic presidential candidates promising voters a surfeit of free stuff; college, health care, reparations, etc., one candidate is trying to break away from the pack by not just offering free stuff but also proposing an expensive and invasive government program that makes the New Deal look cost-effective. The candidate is Washington state governor Jay Inslee (don’t worry, I’ve never heard of him either.) 

Governor Inslee’s Evergreen Economy Plan is essentially a more thorough and detailed version of the Green New Deal. While one can appreciate the candidate has actually provided implementation particulars for his strategy to achieve environmental nirvana, the specifics are not revolutionary ideas but rather hackneyed statist philosophies. The plan literally reads like an excerpt from the ‘looters’ in Atlas Shrugged. Written in the usual government jargon, the deal is packed full of recycled progressive bromides that promise utopia… for the bargain price of $9 trillion dollars and the loss free market autonomy. 

In short, the massive spending program seeks to green all buildings, homes, appliances, manufacturing facilities, cars, infrastructure, etc. Inslee guarantees that 8 million new jobs will be created by putting “millions of Americans to work cutting pollution and energy bills for households and businesses through energy efficiency and electrification upgrades in millions of existing residential and commercial buildings throughout the country.” These upgrades will be financed through loans offered by CEDA (Clean Energy Deployment Authority) to various electric companies throughout the country. CEDA, also referred to as the ‘green bank’ in the plan, will allocate $90 billion in ‘initial’ federal investment (so $90 billion is just a starting figure) that will “provide low-cost investment for projects in market segments where the private sector is underinvesting. This financing will be deployed as low-cost loans and loan guarantees that will earn a return for CEDA, allowing it to cost-effectively support clean energy transformation on an ongoing basis.” Imagine thousands of mini Solyndra’s spanning across the country… great plan. Pro-tip, when the private sector is NOT investing, it usually means there is no money to be made.

The overly ambitious proposal claims that it will save all Americans money on their energy consumption in the future, the particulars prove otherwise. One citation reads, “Establishing a reserve fund for inclusive financing through utility on-bill investments in cost-effective energy efficiency upgrades for all customers, regardless of income, credit score, or renter status.” Utility on-bill investments means an added tax onto your current utility bill which will be used to finance the loans provided by CEDA. ‘Inclusive’ financing means loans will be offered regardless of whether the borrower has the means to pay back the loan or not.

However, the proposal does intend to cut costs for some consumers through welfare programs. “Expanding and updating the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) to streamline eligibility verification across federal and state programs and also to allow low-income consumers the option to pay energy bills that include efficiency, solar energy, and beneficial electrification.” Meaning, after all of our energy bills rise thanks to the “on-bill investment,” taxpayers will also pay more to offset the higher cost of energy for the poor. 

Further aspects of the Evergreen Economy Plan reek of the authoritarian intervention practiced during 20th century communism. “Giving the USDA a leading role in driving both innovation in: enhancing ecosystem services; and developing and deploying innovative business models that put these systems to work to create new revenue streams to support the livelihood of farming communities.” Translation: bureaucrats working in posh, air-conditioned buildings in Washington D.C. are going to tell farmers in the Midwest how to do their jobs. This type of rhetoric and governmental oversight has usually ended very badly. When Stalin and Mao controlled the Soviet Union and China, both leaders employed government agricultural ‘experts’ to improve farming techniques. These experts believed that they could create hybrid fruit trees, grow oranges in Siberia, and instructed peasants to plough furrows five feet deep and plant seeds very close together. These techniques were supposed to increase crop yields ten-fold. Instead they caused widespread famine and starved millions. Just imagine when President AOC mandates farmers plant yuca in upstate New York.   

Governor Inslee’s environmental agenda is not confined within US borders; he hopes to convince other countries to accede to his climate demands by threatening to cut off trade.Ensuring that America’s trading policies support, and do not undermine, the global transition toward clean energy, endeavor to close the carbon loophole, and promote continuous climate pollution reductions across nations. This could include potential enforcement of trade policies against certain imports from nations that are not committed to reciprocal restraints on their climate pollution.”

While this may potentially make American trips to Walmart more expensive, this does have an upside. It will finally force progressives to confront the real polluters of the world like China and India rather than pretending the United States is the sole climate change criminal.

There isn’t an aspect of human life the Evergreen Economy Plan doesn’t seek to control: pensions, minimum wage, education, trade, public transport, public housing, and of course, social justice. The only thing the plan is missing is how we will create the magical trees that will grow all the money needed to pay for it.

Dear Conservatives, Republicans Will Not Save You

Last week, Facebook and Instagram officially banned Alex Jones, Infowars, Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopoulos, Laura Loomer, and Louis Farrakhan. Not only are these individuals restricted from using the sites, but even current, authorized users are forbidden from sharing their work, lest they be banned as well. It is the most Orwellian overreach that everyone knew was eventually coming… which is why conservatives shouldn’t feign outrage. 

We have known for a long time that this was going to happen. Thanks to the excellent undercover work at Project Veritas, we have long been aware of the shadow banning and deceptive algorithms developed in Silicon Valley to censor conservatives. Simultaneously, we have been witnessing the slow and hilarious painful death of the Democratic party. Every bombshell report to crucify President Trump has failed miserably, the Mueller report proved nothing, and the economy is doing great. Leftists cannot make a coherent argument that doesn’t involve physical violence and the party has been reduced to promising terrorists the right to vote and infanticide. It has truly been a pleasure watching them descend into the bowels of lunacy. Naturally, the IT California communists were going to have to massively intervene to save these morons from hanging themselves. 

But now conservatives are demanding government intervention on the grounds of violations of free speech. Any conservative who thinks the government will save us from Silicon Valley is just as foolish as the Bernie Bro who thinks the government will deliver superlative health care. The government will not save us. We have to save ourselves.  

First and foremost, there is a debate as to whether a legal basis exists to regulate social media platforms. This is dependent upon whether these sites are designated as platforms or publishers. If social media is a platform, that means they are not responsible for the content created by users on their site. It’s the same as Verizon Wireless not being responsible for what you say on their telephone line. As a publisher though, if something is published on the site that is libelous or a copyrighted, then the publisher can be sued. However, this only applies to information released specifically by the publisher, not a third party using the site like for example a commenter. If the Times posts an article with factual information (a rare occurrence) but a commenter posts something nasty or defamatory in relation to the article, the Times is not responsible. One legal argument is that that standard changes once the entity starts removing commenters/users. If the platform starts removing posts or denying service not based on clearly articulated standard, then the platform is now acting more like a publisher and could be subject to legislation. 

I don’t find this a particularly strong argument though because any business anywhere in the United States is allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason (except if you are a Christian bakery). You don’t have a constitutional right to Facebook. Perhaps another legal recourse is to mandate terms of service be more clearly defined in which case these sites could just be honest and refuse to host conservative users, which is their right.

Even if there were some other legislative path forward, how can anyone on the right trust that the Republicans in Congress will follow through? They failed to deliver on the wall, they failed to kill Obama Care after years of promising to, they can’t curtail spending or reduce the debt. They can’t even defund Planned Parenthood and now we are supposed to have faith they will protect us from Big Tech. Republicans couldn’t pour piss out of a boot if the directions were written on the heel.   

Furthermore, any legislation passed to preserve our presence on the progressive owned social media sites will be immediately in jeopardy once a President AOC and her comrades get into power. We would only be buying time. 

Our only option is to build our own platforms and thankfully we have already won this battle before. Conservatives dominate talk radio and YouTube, despite attempts to silence us too. We have to persevere and recreate the success of our conservative elders like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin. Luckily, social networks committed to the free and open exchange of ideas already exist like Gab, Dissenter, Minds, and BitChute. We might as well flee now. 

This won’t minimize the huge obstacles we will still face. Leftists will still sabotage our efforts by targeting advertisers, payment processors, and refusing new platforms access to the app store. One thing we can rely on though is the left’s assurance to eat their own. They can convince PayPal now to not do business with certain conservative thinkers. But eventually they’ll turn on the corporations themselves citing the mythical wage gap or because these businesses don’t have enough black, transgender Muslims on their board of directors. Let the economic balkanization commence and watch those who bend the knee to the left suffer. Progressivism is not good for business. Just look at the down vote ratios for the Gillette ad and Pantene’s new She Search Engine ad. 

Many on the right don’t seem as concerned with this new social media standard and even celebrated the removal of Alex Jones and others. “They can’t ban all of us” they say. Actually, they can and they will attempt to do so until every person to the right of Chairman Mao is offline. 

Make no mistake, this is only the first round of the conservative online purge and the subsequent guilty by association change in the terms of service is a substantial escalation in the ideological war. It will get considerably worse from here. My bet is that they now go after lesser known conservatives before they accelerate again and take out some big key players. They might even go after some very intelligent, well-travelled, articulate bloggers who know how to argue… which is why you should definitely put your email into that subscription box to the right of the page.

No More Spanish For Hispanics… Sorry Hombre

Anne Coulter once said that sometimes it can be difficult to debate liberals because every so often they say something so incomprehensibly stupid that you don’t even know how to respond to such utter retardation. This is one of those moments. Imagine being so daft that you don’t even know that Spanish comes from Spain? Guaranteed the person who wrote the above excerpt took out at least $100k in debt to become indoctrinated with this garbage and thinks there are an infinite number of genders.

But rather than try and convince leftists that this philosophy is unintelligible and racist, I am in total agreement with them. Speaking another civilization’s language is indeed cultural appropriation and I won’t stand for such bigotry. That’s why I propose that from this point forward Central Americans should no longer be allowed to speak Spanish. They must now speak Aztec.

Unfortunately for the commenter above, Spanish is indeed a white language. Sure, the Spaniards are slightly tanner and better looking than the rest of us European mutts, but they are European and white. Sorry liberals, Spanish belongs to the whites. 

While I understand this language change will be drastic, fear not, the Aztec language, formally known as Nahuatl is still spoken by at least 1.5 million people in Mexico today! So, it can easily be reintroduced into the cultures south of our border. Unfortunately, they won’t be allowed to use the Roman alphabet that the Spaniards introduced to the natives when they translated Aztec into written word for the indigenous people. Unlucky for Western Hispanics, the Roman alphabet belongs to European whites too and simply allowing them to continue using it would only reinforce the elements of European imperialism, white supremacy, and be a daily reminder of the genocide committed against the native cultures. Instead, Aztec speakers will have to return to pictograms used before the evil, white Conquistadors arrived and supplied the alphabet, the wheel, and draft animals.

In better news, the new Aztec speakers will be allowed to use the unique numerical symbols created by their ancestors as well as the Aztec calendar. Additionally, now uninhibited from the shackles of Western morals and what is deemed appropriate behavior, these indigenous people should be free, better yet encouraged, to re-establish the practice of human sacrifice. After all culture is relative and who are we to judge other civilization’s customs.

Leftists are absolutely right when they demand that any remnants of colonialism among non-whites be destroyed. It’s only fair that we unburden these poor minorities with the language our ancestors forced them to speak. We must take back the Spanish language and permit only white Europeans to use it… except Beto O’Rourke. He will only be allowed to speak in Gaelic.

Empathy: A Unique Characteristic of the West & How We Are Losing It

The destruction of the Notre Dame Cathedral sent shockwaves across the western world. Notre Dame isn’t just a Cathedral, it’s a symbol of western civilization. A structure that signifies the West’s love for beauty, architecture, art, and God. The men who built the church knew they would never live to see its beautiful completion. That’s a dedication no one of the modern age can understand. But while westerners wept for the cherished holy site, others celebrated its demise. This is the fundamental difference between the West and everywhere else: empathy.  

As live footage of the enflamed building hit the internet, comment sections were simultaneously flooded with despicable cheers of glee, smiley face emojis, and accusations of karma for colonialization. The vile, disgusting specimens of human excrement were either non-western or self-loathing western leftists joining in the merriment. You can find excerpts of this garbage below. I also encourage you to check out Andy Ngo’s and Paul Joseph Watson’s coverage of those pleased with the fire.

A snapshot of some of the commenters celebrating the fire at Notre Dame.

These individuals were not lurking on the dark web to express their adoration for the fire. They were unabashedly showcasing their excitement on mainstream media like France 24 and Al Jazeera (which should give you a good indication of the lineage of some of the commenters.) Also note that these comments were made while the fire was still ablaze, BEFORE authorities confirmed that there were no casualties. The lack of concern for human life is astounding.

Contrast this brazen behavior with the West’s reaction to other worldly atrocities, whether they be natural disasters or man-made tragedies. When an earthquake hits Japan, we don’t say “Haha, that’s for Pearl Harbor!” When a terrorist blows himself up in a Turkish airport we don’t call that retribution for Constantinople. 

When an Australian psychopath gunned down 50 Muslims during Friday prayers, CNN wasn’t overwhelmed with reverence for the shooter. Instead, Westerners expressed sympathy and sadness. There is an odd air of collective guilt whenever one of our own commits such an abominable act. We don’t celebrate or ignore it. Instead, we don hijabs in solidarity with the victims and broadcast the call to prayer over our cities. The West looks inward and asks what did we do wrong. The left blames poverty, lack of resources, or the gun; conservatives blame family structure or lack of it. Nevertheless, there is a bipartisan consensus that perhaps we could have done something to prevent it. Other cultures do not share this communal culpability when one of their brethren commits mass murder.

The joyous rhetoric for the destruction of one of our holy sites should show westerners why it’s so important to safeguard our culture and why we must be mindful of who we let in to share it with. I have been fortunate enough to see many foreign wonders like The Great Wall, Angkor Wat, Stonehenge, and the Grand Mosque. It would never bring me pleasure to see any of those cultural treasures destroyed. But that sentiment is not shared equally amongst all cultures and certainly not reciprocated towards our own.

Even more concerning is the western shame within our own citizenry. We can protect ourselves from the outsiders who care not for the glorious beauty our culture has created. The real danger lies within our own borders, with our kin who are so indoctrinated into anti-Western propaganda that they would have happily supplied more kerosene to the raging fire. The left doesn’t mourn the loss of the symbols of our civilization, especially if they have anything to do with Christianity. The empathy that we have for others derives precisely from our Judeo-Christian values, which is exactly why leftists don’t have any. They despise our culture and the virtues it represents. The more of our culture that we concede to leftism, the more we risk losing the cherished virtue of empathy.

One might also point out that the absolutely thoughtless “they deserved it” logic of these anti-western civilization trolls does not bode well when applied to other nations. If we are to accept that modern day disasters are karmic social justice for past wrong-doing, one might only look to the most dysfunctional countries in the world like Haiti, Bangladesh, or most African nations and have to conclude that those countries’ ancestors must have been so remarkably and inextricably evil that they warrant the insufferable conditions that their populace live in today. If our worst vengeance is the loss of a church, then by leftist logic, that only proves the moral superiority of Western culture. 

A Brief Recap of the Media Hating White People

Last week, conservatives had the best week ever with the Mueller report asserting no collusion, $1 billion in border wall funds secured, Michael Avenatti arrested, the Green New Deal unanimously voted down, and Obamacare ruled unconstitutional by a federal court. The only way the week could have been better is if Jussie Smollett got his ass kicked for real this time. To cope with the devastation, leftist media took some time out to reflect on their incredibly flawed logic and rethink how they could have gotten it all so wrong. Just kidding, they spent the entire week shitting on white people. 

The first anti-white news story came when Us director, Jordan Peele told the Hollywood Reporter “I don’t see myself casting a white dude as the lead in my movie. Not that I don’t like white dudes. But I’ve seen that movie.” To be fair, I don’t really consider Peele’s statement that controversial. He is correct when he notes the absence of black leads in horror films. And certainly, if Us is as good as Get Out, then horror film aficionados like myself can’t wait to watch more of Peele’s work. But the quality of Peele’s films has nothing to do with the fact that he or the cast is black. It is because he is a good director, the story is compelling, and the acting is well done. Skin color does not determine talent. 

The next story came out of Savannah, Georgia where a public mayoral candidate meeting restricted any white members of the media from attending, brazenly putting up signage stating ‘Black Press Only.’ One of the mayoral candidates, Alderman Van Johnson, was interviewed afterward and offered no immediate condemnation for the blatant racism. He did apologize two days later however. Perhaps it dawned on him that he might actually have to placate the white constituents of Savannah.  

The following day Facebook announced that it would be banning white nationalist and white separatist content from the platform. Now I am no ethno-state advocate, after all my husband wouldn’t be allowed into Richard Spencer’s utopia, but the new Facebook regulations along with the previous two stories have a common denominator. None would pass the ‘shoe on the other foot’ test. No white director would ever be allowed to say what Jordan Peele said, nationwide outrage would ensue at any ‘whites only’ signage, and black separatist groups like the Black Hebrew Israelites are still present on Facebook. Perhaps this is the new form of the soft bigotry of low expectations, where whites are held to a higher moral standard. In the same way minority students are admitted entry into universities with much lower test scores, progressives think so poorly of minorities that they don’t even think they are capable of basic human decency and not being racist towards whites, hence they’ll allow it. 

But the trash whitey media still had more bias excrement to push when a study was published that asserts white peoples’ diets disproportionately hurt the environment as their food requires more water and greenhouse gases to produce. The offending foods include beef, potatoes, apples, and milk. However, this study should not be confused with the PNAS study that alleges whites disproportionately contribute to air pollution. Mind you, the data set for ‘white people’ in the PNAS study oddly includes Asians and Native Americans. Poor Asians, they are slowly losing their minority status for the crime of being productive members of society. I have yet to confirm whether this same measure of academic integrity applies to the “white peoples’ food is racist” study. 

But my personal favorite of the week comes from the op-ed page of The New York Times, titled I Broke Up With Her Because She’s White. This one is particularly special because in the writer’s pathetic attempt to look ‘woke’ he actually reveals the true disdain for whites within minority communities, something I know about firsthand. The author, who is of Dominican decent, reveals the pressure put on him by his community stating “brown and black people in my community started giving me a hard time about dating white women.” As someone in an inter-racial marriage, I know this is to be absolute fact. Despite the left’s pitiful attempts to always portray whites as uncomfortable with mixed relationships, the animosity I myself have faced has invariably come from non-whites. Thankfully, my melanin-rich (and extremely good-looking) husband had the courage to tell the naysayers to piss off, unlike the spineless coward who wrote this tripe. None of my friends or family have ever chastised me for dating outside of my race/religion/culture. In fact, leftists always assume I’m one of them because of it. Darker husbands tend to invoke invitations to progressive dinner parties… and subsequent dis-invitations when they find out I’m conservative. 

The Times author goes on to share the touching moment his mother disclosed her pregnancy to his father. In that moment they “made a commitment to give us children everything they never had, to strive and achieve and provide for us….” These noble aspirations were chided by members of their own community with allegations of ‘trying to act white.’ This self-inflicted degradation and stupidity are rife within minority communities. And in my humble but usually correct opinion, this is what holds them back. It is precisely this attitude toward success that infuriates me. Whites do not equate productive behavior and success to being white; minorities do, as evidenced by the author’s own words. You don’t get to constantly complain about white incomes, wealth, and educational attainment while simultaneously degrading the very behavior it takes to achieve those things. 

Word of advice to minorities, stop shitting on each other for trying to better your life. You know what my children will never have to deal with? They will never be made fun of for speaking proper English. Minority children do not have the same luxury, and that is categorically the fault of the adult minorities within their community. But I’m sure some liberal arts graduate can find a way to blame whites for minorities self-destructive behavior. Check the comment section later.

The week ended with the nauseating twitter hashtag, #mywhiteprivilege. Tweeters shared banal and fictitious stories that they consider to be evidence of this illusive privilege. One woman complained of the fact that she can walk into any hair salon and they will know how to cut and color her hair, and this apparently exemplifies her privilege. I guess she never considered the fact that she lives in a majority white country so naturally market forces would supply services to the largest demographic. I myself am wholly offended by my lack of this same privilege living in China. How dare Chinese hair salons not be fully stocked with every shade of trailer trash blonde to accommodate my needs?!? 

Another user alleged that he was able to evade prosecution for DUI, reckless driving, 16 tickets, marijuana possession, and leave jail under a $100 bond, all because he is white. This assuredly did not happen… unless he is a member of the Kennedy family.  

Alas, there was still a plethora of white shaming by the media in regards to how Democratic presidential candidates with the plague of pale skin can overcome this fault by choosing running mates of darker complexions to make that perfect caramel colored running ticket. At this point, the only way a white person wins the Democratic primary is if they strip naked and parade around the town square, Cersi Lanister style, and atone for the sin of being white. 

But rest assured, for the wise folks reading this blog, it is indeed ok to be white.  

If My Parents Had Money I Could Have Gone To Yale

In the latest episode of “It’s only ok when we do it,” several wealthy celebrities and business leaders have been indicted in the largest college admissions scandal in history. The indictments allege that parents paid a total of around $25 million in bribes to coaches and university administrators for manipulated test scores, forged essays, and outright fake athletic profiles for students whose most strenuous activity is walking a runway. Additionally, the co-conspirators falsified ethnicities to take advantage of affirmative action programs. Which proves just how stupid these people are. If you want to pretend to be a poor minority, don’t waste four years of your life in college, just run for the Democratic primary. You can make far more money from special interest groups than from your liberal arts degree.

Participation in the scandal isn’t the only thing these parents have in common. Most are also residents of liberal, coastal cesspools and are heavy Democratic donors. Which leads us to the awe-inspiring hypocrisy of the racketeers involved. The parents of these under-achieving progenies are part of the “I’m with her” crowd. They spawn from the most privileged zip codes in the country; the deep blue districts filled with pompous, self-righteous twats that are constantly preaching to the plebs about the systematic oppression that they so indignantly abhor and that we apparently ignore. All the while, they are paying for the inflated test scores to get their feeble-minded offspring in and keep the genuinely smart out.

These are the people that casually proclaim they ‘don’t mind paying more in taxes’ but don’t voluntarily send more than they owe to the federal government. In fact, some of the bribes that paid for their child’s admission were written off on their taxes as charitable donations. How progressive.

And before you accuse me of painting all of these people with a broad brush, yes, I am. Given that the current political climate allows for all conservatives to be deemed fascists and Nazis for the crime of understanding basic economics, I have no problem undertaking the guilty by association leftist tactic, and will attach derogatory labels to those affiliated with the Democratic party at my leisure.

The demographic of the individuals indicted believe that the plight of the poor and the oppressed in America is due to the backward, bucolic residents in the middle of the country. Those two-parent families that share one vehicle, hang dry their laundry, and home-school their children are the REAL purveyors of oppression against the downtrodden. These progressives also believe that standardized tests like the SAT/ACT are inherently biased because some marginalized groups are significantly underrepresented among the pool of top-scoring college applicants. However, wealthy progressives are particularly hostile towards the testing because it’s one of the ways middle class smart students can honestly outperform their lower IQ elite children.

In an effort to shield their progressive brethren from their crimes, the “blue checkmarks” flooded Twitter contending the scheme was nothing more than another example of white privilege. A closer look at some of the defendants’ names might indicate otherwise. Gamal Abdelaziz, Manuel Henriquez, Agustin Hunees, I-Hin Chen, Homayoun Zadeh…. yes, obviously full-blooded Aryans and possibly secret agents of President Trump’s impending Fourth Reich.

According to reports, the students were completely oblivious to the fraudulent behavior of their parents. Unbeknownst to them, they actually believed they were accepted on merit. This kind of coddling isn’t limited to the ultra-wealthy though. Parents all across the nation are guilty of inflating the egos of their mediocre children. This trend is so bad that we now have an adolescent member of Congress that doesn’t know what a tax incentive is and thinks the world will end in 12 years.

Handwriting sample of one of the defendant’s children, provided so that the forged essays would be written in a similar style.

One of the more repugnant tactics used by the defendants is that they would claim their child had a learning disability to get more time on the test. Although, by the looks of the handwriting sample above, that rich kid probably wasn’t faking a disability.

In essence, this scandal hasn’t really revealed anything we didn’t already know. If a parent donated a wing to the dorm or library, we already assumed that student wasn’t worthy of his placement in the Ivy League. We now just have more details regarding the nefarious length’s progressives will go to help their dense kids get ahead and screw over genuine, worthy applicants, all while standing on their soap box of virtue telling the middle class what awful people we are. But overall it feels pretty good to see these scum bags get what they deserve. Imagine how disappointed they’re going to be when they find out Cartier doesn’t make handcuffs.

My Body, My Choice…. Until the Market Tells You Otherwise

Last week, New York State legislatures, to thunderous applause, enacted a new law rolling back the state’s current limitations on abortion. Previously, women in New York could only obtain abortions after 24 weeks if the mother’s life was in danger. The new law puts no gestational age limit on a woman looking to obtain an abortion as long as it is a danger to the mother’s health. Not only does this allow for full-term babies to be aborted, but changing the legal term from “life in danger” to “danger to health” makes the law incredibly subjective. What constitutes health? Are we talking physical health, mental health, financial health? Clearly the term health, in this context, is difficult to define.

There are other nefarious elements of New York’s new abortion law that are outright absurd and diabolical. Prior to the Reproductive Health Act, only physicians could provide abortions, but the new legislation allows licensed nurse practitioners, physician assistants and licensed midwives to perform the procedure now. Many states also mandate that late-term abortions must be approved by two physicians as a safeguard for the doctor and patient; however, New York does not. It’s astounding really. Leftists will refuse to read a conservative blog because it isn’t “peer-reviewed” but they think it’s totally fine to get a late-term abortion without a second opinion, from a midwife they found on Craigslist. Furthermore, the law Gov. Cuomo signed repealed section 4164 of NY’s Public Health Law, which mandated medical care for any baby born alive during an abortion. In other words, New York abortionists will now be adding the finest in Chinese medical devices to their operating rooms… a bucket of water.

But enough of the repugnance of the new law. Whether you find it abhorrent or advantageous, immoral or moral, there will be serious market consequences to increasingly lax abortion laws. The market doesn’t discern between good or bad behavior, it simply provides goods and services to facilitate behavior. Look no further than the thriving illegal drug market where users can obtain marijuana, cocaine, meth, heroin, etc. Pornography is available on demand, prostitution is completely legal in some jurisdictions, and despite law makers best efforts, illegal weapons are not hard to come by. The free market does not discriminate against commerce the public deems good or evil, it just gives them what they want. However, sometimes a new good or service can come at a very high cost. Not necessarily to the suppliers, but to the buyers. 

The highly controversial practice of assisted suicide gained national attention in the 1990s when Dr. Jack Kevorkian aided over 40 patients in committing suicide. Since then, six states (California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, Hawaii, Washington) and Washington DC have legalized assisted suicide/euthanasia. While constituents and lawmakers argued over the morality of such legislation, insurance companies were discovering a very profitable/cost saving service. In the states where assisted suicide is legal, some insurance companies have stopped offering to cover expensive treatments for terminally ill patients and instead are only offering coverage for the lethal drugs used in assisted suicide. Effectively, leaving dying patients with two options, pay out of pocket or kick the bucket. 

Those in favor of legalizing options for suicide reason that it is compassionate to spare a terminally ill person the months/years of pain and suffering before their inevitable death. But they never foresaw the profit incentive that would encourage death. Proponents for assisted suicide essentially take the “my body, my choice” route, not realizing that that position might actually reduce choice.

As with the market’s response to the cost savings element of assisted suicide, abortion will be no different. How long until the health insurance companies start covering abortions for babies with birth defects rather than the treatment for said birth defects? How long until the 20-week scan (the lengthy ultrasound that can detect fetal anomalies), is the do or die moment for the unborn? Why would insurance companies not incentivize mothers to abort babies with birth defects by simply refusing to cover treatment for the birth defects once they are born? 

Conditions that incur huge medical expenses to treat after birth and that carry low survival rates will be prime for insurance companies to prefer termination. For example, hypoplastic left heart syndrome is a rare heart condition where the left side of the fetal heart does not develop. According to the CDC, 1 out of every 4,344 babies is born with the condition. It is fatal without treatment. Infants born with the condition must undergo heart surgery within two weeks of birth, another surgery between four and six months of age, and again between 18 and 36 months. Medicine and follow up treatments are required for the rest of their life and a possible heart transplant may be necessary. That’s an enormous expense for any insurance company. Doctors already encourage mothers with this fetal anomaly to terminate. Why would an insurance company with the financial incentive not do the same?

Congenital heart defects, like hypoplastic left heart syndrome, are the most common type of birth defect. Additionally, heart defects are the leading cause of death in birth defect-related deaths. Eliminating gestational age limits for abortions puts these babies at the most risk of abortion. They will not be alone. How will insurance companies in states with no gestational term limits react when fetal testing discovers other birth defects like progeria, fragile X, spina bfida, Phenylketonuria (PKU), or any other abnormality that incurs costly medical treatment post birth?

Additionally, as medicine continues to make remarkable advances, more fetal abnormalities will become detectable at earlier and earlier stages of pregnancy, making abortion more attractive to insurance providers.   

With the precedent now set in suicide coverage versus treatment coverage, we have now approached the slippery slope for the same practice to be employed in regards to abortion. Fortunately, there are some hurdles insurance providers have to overcome. In total, 29 states restrict abortion insurance coverage, 11 of which restrict coverage for private companies and providers on the health insurance exchanges. Other states only put restrictions on the exchanges or insurance for public employees. However, that leaves 21 states with no abortion restriction for insurance providers. And of course, legislation is subject to change. 

Of the now eight states that allow full-term abortions on perfectly healthy babies (Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont) and the District of Columbia, precisely none of these states including the District, restrict abortion coverage for private insurers, health insurance exchanges, or public health plans (with the small exception in Colorado, DC, and New Hampshire that limit only the public funding option to life endangerment, rape, or incest).

This makes the states with the most progressive abortion laws the most vulnerable by providing a loophole to insurance providers operating in these states to start refusing coverage for birth defect treatments and instead only opting to cover abortions. Furthermore, without the ability to purchase insurance across state lines, expectant mothers in these states are at the mercy of their already limited choices of insurance providers operating in their state. The combination of a completely unrestricted pro-choice movement and a severely limited insurance market within the states has the potential to terminate thousands more pregnancies in these states, and possibly not by the mother’s choice.     

The only ways to ensure that expectant mothers will not be susceptible to this perverse incentive is to either enact legislation barring all insurers from providing abortion coverage in states where no legislation exists or to completely unleash the free market, allowing citizens to purchase across state lines. 

If the latter is done, the former may not even be necessary. On a national level, support for abortion has largely remained in a deadlocked split 50/50. It’s hard to fathom insurance companies taking the risk of ostracizing half the market by employing the ‘abortion instead of treatment coverage’ approach. Then again, who could have predicted that the insurance companies would have been so brazen and cruel to refuse potentially life-saving treatment and condemn customers to death? By limiting competition within the states, insurance companies have the ability to run rough-shod over customers. If there is only one provider on the health exchange, insurance providers have no obligation or incentive to supply better coverage, they need only to look out for themselves. And particularly in New York, where a single medical professional can encourage and provide abortions with no oversight from a second party, the minimal cost of the abortion paid for by insurance companies ends up being very profitable (several thousand dollars’ worth) to the abortion provider. 

What we have here now is a dangerous precedent. The lack of insurance competition within the states provides insurance companies refuge from rival companies who will provide illness/ birth-defect treatment. The tactic has already been used against our terminally ill and could be used against the unborn. What the pro-choice movement has not realized is that it may be your body, it may be your choice, but without economic choice, pro-choice is just a fallacy.

Much Ado About Manufactured Nothings

With the shutdown still at a firm stalemate, it was an insufferably slow news cycle for the media last week. So, to cope the ‘Guardians of the Truth’ spent the week hyper-inflating completely monotonous events as if they were ground-breaking news stories. 

First on the docket was the completely non-newsworthy story that second lady, Karen Pence, would be returning to work at a Christian school she taught at years ago. The private school has the impudence to follow the strict teachings of the Lord as outlined in the Bible and as a result, requires staff, students, and parents not to engage in homosexual behavior in addition to adhering to other biblical lifestyle tenets. The fact that a Christian school would not permit homosexuality was apparently a clandestine belief to the left. Who could have foreseen this? Pro-tip for liberals, none of the Abrahamic religions permit homosexuality, including Islam. I’m still trying to figure out how leftists are going to circle that square into their intersectional assembly. 

Then Thursday evening, the ‘journalists’ at Buzzfeed published a ‘bombshell’ asserting that sources had informed them that Michael Cohen has admitted to the Special Counsel that President Trump directed him to lie to Congress regarding business dealings in Russia. The Walter Duranty wannabes claimed to have documentation from anonymous (of course) sources to prove the claim. As with every other mendacious Trump headline we’ve seen for the past two years, the claims were debunked within 24 hours, this time by Robert Mueller himself in a rare public comment on the matter. Now, admittedly, a news story like this would have made me nervous two years ago and perhaps prompted me to quietly purge any MAGA hat donned photos of myself from social media. However, given the pathetic failures of the media in recent years and their obvious contempt for Trump, this story was undoubtedly going to be false, especially since it originated from the amoebas at Buzzfeed. Anyone who took this story as earnest reporting is too far to the left on Bell Curve to be taken seriously.

Finally, the weekend social media feeds were rife with condemnation of a MAGA hat wearing teen in a stand-off with a Native American tribal member. The original clip showed nothing more than an older man hitting his drum and singing in very close proximity to a teen staring back at him. The left accused the teen of being ‘disrespectful’ with soy boys calling to scalp the young lad with the Gillette razors they just used to sever their scrotums. Elizabeth Warren immediately started tweeting outrage from her teepee. And Reza Aslan posted a photo of the teen asking ‘Is this the most punch-able face you’ve ever seen?’ For the record, no Mr. Aslan, it is not. That title belongs to David Hogg. 

Had the media put as much effort into fact-finding as they did into their indignation, they would have quickly found a two-hour livestream that proved the elderly man walked up and confronted the teen. Accusations of ‘build the wall’ chants were completely unfounded as no such chanting has been captured on video. Although there were some pleasantries exchanged between the Native American men and the teen boys when the protected class of minorities started telling the teens to go back to Europe. For a full comprehensive analysis on the incident check out Tim Poole’s coverage here

The footage, even in its original context appears more of an awkward confrontation rather than animus. The kid is just staring back at the man but leftists acted as if he had just smothered him with a small pox blanket.

The omitted video also revealed some fine fellows known as the Black Israelites. CNN described the actions of these men as ‘preaching the Bible,’ a very generous interpretation of their scripture reading. Somehow 30+ years as a Catholic including eight years in parochial school and I must have missed the part of the Bible where it read ‘Don’t give the f*ggots any rights.’ Perhaps its in the King James version. Usually Bible thumpers yelling gay slurs is primetime gold for the mainstream media, but I guess they were just too burnt out from chastising Karen Pence earlier in the week to call out the Black Hebrew bigotry.

The media loves to refer to certain news stories as manufactured… until they arrive at your border pummeling rocks at your citizens demanding entry. But this week proved to be nothing more than the very manufactured scandals they admonish. Let’s hope that this week brings some real meat to the news desks. Maybe, in fact assuredly, Alexandria Occasional-Cortex will say something stupid we can discuss. Maybe another dozen Democrats will announce a run for the presidency. But as for the moment, the government is still shut down, Trump is still your president and Hillary Clinton is not. 

Praise the Lord.

Leftist Economics Leads To Leftist Outrage

A few weeks ago, I was scrolling my Facebook feed and came across a video taken outside of an Australian supermarket. The video featured about half a dozen Asian customers purchasing baby formula, two tins at a time, and stacking them neatly in a large pile outside of the market. Then, like a revolving door, they would return to the store to purchase two more. The pile amassed must have been at least 50+ tins of baby formula. 

Confused by the relevancy of the post, I looked to the comments to find animus condemnation from other mothers. Accusations of extortion, unethical behavior, law breaking, outright rage, and even racism towards Asians.

For the past several years, Australia has been experiencing a shortage in baby formula. To cope with dwindling stocks, supermarkets have implemented a two tin per customer policy. However, this shortage isn’t a result of a baby boom down under. It’s a result of a lack of reliable formula in a country in the opposite hemisphere, China. Hence, the reason you find Chinese people buying all of the formula. They are sending it home. 

By the time the formula reaches China, the retail price increases three-fold, but that doesn’t deter the Chinese from buying it. Demand remains steady in a country that births about 17 million babies a year. In the eyes of many viewers, they saw people preying on the misfortune of others through price gouging. For those of us that understand economics, we saw the market working efficiently. 

Price gouging is often touted as an ‘exploitation’ of desperate consumers. Governments try to crack down on the practice by enforcing price caps on products. In the United States, thirty-five states and the District of Columbia have enacted legislation to keep prices down, even during emergencies. However, these well-intended laws have a negative effect on consumers, leaving shelves empty and people still in desperate need. 

By artificially keeping prices low, customers are encouraged to buy as much as possible, often more than they need. Higher prices encourage conservation. If the first customer in the store during a hurricane purchases the entire water supply, that leaves nothing left for anyone else. Higher prices force consumers to be more mindful of their purchase and the price hike signals to suppliers to increase production ASAP. 

Price gouging isn’t some nefarious behavior meant to line the pockets of manufacturers. It is nothing more than the market reality that when supply is low, the demand increases and prices go up. Conversely, when supply is high, demand decreases and prices go down. No natural disaster or regional economic problem will change the basic laws of supply and demand.

But why exactly is there a shortage of formula in a country like China that has a robust, self-reliant economy? The problem isn’t a general lack of formula, it is a lack of reliableformula. In 2008, six babies in China tragically died due to melamine-laced baby formula and another 54,000 babies were hospitalized. Four years prior, 12 infants died from a watered-down milk scandal. In short, the Chinese, rightfully, have no faith in the Chinese-made brands and refuse to buy them. There is even skepticism among western brands in China due to the enormous counterfeit market. The Chinese haven’t just mastered replica designer bags, they can fake the baby formula too.

The contaminated formula scandal led to a slew of criminal prosecutions, imprisonment, resignations and even two executions. But why would formula developers put melamine, a compound used to make plastics, into baby formula?  The reasoning goes back to the highly praised but incredibly dangerous practice of price capping.

Until recently, the Chinese government extensively employed the use of price caps for a wide range of commodities and services, including baby formula. This was meant to make items affordable to China’s largely poor population. Unable to use quality ingredients to create baby formula and subsequently charge a fair market yet competitive price for the formula, makers turned to a cheaper and in this case, deadly option. 

As usual, the government’s regulatory means to keep costs down for consumers eventually produced health problems for those same consumers and was the catalyst for the price gouging that exists today.  

Only in 2015 did the Chinese government rescind the price control policyfor about 80% of the products including the formula. But the damage has been done and the effects are long lastingas market confidence has yet to recover for Chinese manufactured baby formula.

What the Chinese were and still are experiencing is a paradox of leftist fiscal policy. Government malfeasance that was disguised as ‘helpful’ through price caps which has led to today’s inflated value due to the ‘harmful and extortionate’ price gouging that is keeping Chinese babies healthy and alive.

Worse still is that common opinion among western governments and their constituents is that the former policy is beneficial while the latter is harmful, when nothing could be further from the truth. Had the Chinese government left the market alone, developers would have been incentivized to create the very best quality formula at the best possible price. The 18 poisoned infants would have been spared and the Australian market would be stable today. But as usual, the state insisted on ‘helping’ consumers. 

What’s that saying about the road to hell again?  

Why China’s “Social Credit” Scheme Will Create More Corruption, Not a Better Citizenry

(As published on FEE.ORG)

News of China’s social credit system has been making waves across media outlets for months. Some publications are going soft on the massive surveillance state, saying it is not as bad as it seems (it is), while others are referring to it as something straight out of Nineteen Eighty-Four (again, it is). With pilot programs operating in certain municipalities, the system is already affecting citizens’ lives by limiting their ability to travel or send their children to universities

“Four million people have been blocked from buying high-speed train tickets over low social credit,” VICE News reported earlier this year, “and more than 11 million from buying flights.”  

Government documents detailing the social credit system say the program will “allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step.”

The final version of the social credit system is expected to be fully implemented by 2020, but Beijing is being vague regarding the confirmed list of offenses and how the program will work. Here are some of the actions the Chinese government deems “bad behaviors” that warrant punishment:

  • Bad driving or traffic offenses
  • Jaywalking
  • Smoking on trains
  • Not cleaning up after your dog
  • Not having your dog on a leash
  • Not paying debts
  • Not paying taxes
  • Playing too many video games
  • Watching pornography
  • Making frivolous purchases
  • Consuming too much alcohol or junk food
  • Criticizing the government
  • Criticizing the social credit system
  • Visiting unauthorized websites
  • Being friends with or messaging others with low scores or those who commit the above offenses

Some transgressions may be worthy of punishment, like not paying debts, taxes, or traffic citations. However, one can already identify some issues with alleged wrongdoings, such as what defines fake news or a “frivolous” purchase or “too much” gaming. 

Even on the surface, not cleaning up after your dog seems well-intentioned. But for those unaware, it is still common for people to urinate and defecate in public in certain areas of China. (As someone who has lived in China for nearly the last year and a half, I’m all too aware of this fact.)

Perhaps Beijing should get the people to stop pooping outside before they worry about the dogs.

One reason to doubt the efficiency of the behavioral ranking system is the rampant corruption and use of bribes in China. After collecting and analyzing corporate data, Charney Research published a paper in 2015 that found 35 percent of companies in China pay bribes or give gifts in order to operate. One CFO went so far as to describe the practice as “an unspoken rule.” Bribes are particularly common in public hospitals, where doctors and nurses are severely underpaid. Patients try to persuade staff with a hongbao (red envelope filled with cash) for special or preferential treatment, which even the bribe can’t guarantee. 

This year, the local Shanghai government introduced a slew of new traffic laws and fines for offenses like smoking while driving, not wearing seatbelts, cell phone use while driving, and unlicensed driving. While I can appreciate the measures to improve safety for the average rider like myself, and this is purely anecdotal, no behavioral changes in taxi drivers are evident as bribes to traffic cops are still prevalent.

Even the simple act of delivering packages can foster bribes. I recently had a care package sent from the US. The sender paid all necessary customs fees based on the content and weight of the package, but upon arrival to Shanghai customs, the package was impounded. It seems the sender had not paid enough to ensure delivery to a residential address. Indeed, the sender was informed that delivery to residential addresses in China cost more than double the original shipping cost. Upon investigation with Chinese colleagues, I found out that this was nothing more than, you guessed it, a bribe. 

There is no reason to believe that the social credit system will suddenly transform the pervasive practice that is common business procedure in all industries in China.

One of the stated goals of the new social credit system is actually to cut down on the corruption and use of bribes in China. But in the grand tradition of government intervention, state programs have proven a reliable means of perpetuating the very problem they intend to eradicate. (See also: the wars on poverty, drugs, and terror.)

In the Chaoyang district of Beijing, there are allegedly 120,000 spies, each paid 300 yuan a month. Already they are at work tattling on their fellow citizens for bad behavior (or rather, behavior deemed bad). If you aren’t familiar with the currency, that’s a whopping $43 USD a month. Not exactly a Christopher Steele-sized salary.

What this means is that it won’t be very expensive to red envelope your way to behave however you would like. The wealthy will simply pay off the informants, who have every incentive to demand payment for silence. The poor, on the other hand, will just have to behave.

Additionally, as Rachel Botsman of Wired UK points out, the birth of reputation black markets selling under-the-counter ways to raise your credit score is inevitable. In the same way that Facebook likes and Twitter followers can be bought, individuals will pay to manipulate their score.

If the government truly wants to create an equal and anti-corrupt society, they should just let the free market reign. Make no mistake, the market is already hard at work circumventing the social credit legislation in China. While the program threatens to downgrade users for visiting certain websites or messaging friends with low scores, the use of VPN apps in China to bypass the Great Firewall is widespread. In fact, not having a VPN is like missing a vital appendage; you just need one to survive in China.

The VPNs allow you to visit any restricted websites, use banned apps, and shield your online activity from the government’s prying eyes. So instead of messaging your low credit score friend on the Chinese friendly WeChat app, you can just message them on the unauthorized WhatsApp or Facebook apps. 

And while the big government gurus at Apple happily conceded to the Chinese government’s Orwellian demand to remove all VPNs from the Chinese app store, you can still purchase them on other platforms. In fact, for a few hundred dollars, you can purchase a modem at one of the technology markets in China that has a VPN pre-installed on it so that every device in your home can access the web totally unrestricted and privately.

Furthermore, it isn’t only VPN use that will salvage social credit status. Using cash for purchases the government considers unwise and relying on private ride-sharing apps will allow users to avoid bureaucratic judgment and punishments for behavior.

For those unfazed by this creepy government overreach because they think “that would never happen here,” beware, because it already is. Tech giants are already punishing people for their ‘wrong think’ by banning users from Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, website hosting services, and payment processors. Invariably, these users tend to be conservative/libertarian, free-market advocates, though progressives critical of establishment politics have also experienced bans. And proving that their ideological confidence in the market is correct, it is the free market that swoops in to rescue their public standing with new platforms. Those banned from Patreon will use PayPal, controversial Tweeters are now on Gab, and when the overlords at YouTube find your Super Chat content offensive, you can instead post it on Stream Labs.

Whether it’s China’s social credit system or Silicon Valley’s, free markets find a way.

Page 1 of 2

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén