Police is real smart

I’d always suspected as much, but now we know with certainty:

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.

“This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class,” Jordan said today from his Waterford home. “I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.”

He said he does not plan to take any further legal action. Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.

In other words, from my perspective, American police officers are quite literally retarded. Which, with a few exceptions, pretty much corresponds with my experience. However, in light of this, I may have to rethink my estimate of public school teachers as averaging 90 IQ. That might be overly generous.

Anyhow, it’s not exactly a mystery why the police are so willing to completely disregard the U.S. Constitution as they go about performing their “duties”. Chances are they haven’t read it, and if they’ve read it, they haven’t understood it. Nor has anyone troubled to teach it to them.


The true and obscure history of Psykosonik, part II

Paul Sebastien and I hit it off immediately after meeting at The Underground. We were both aloof, interested in music, in the habit of wearing designer clothes, and considered ourselves to be more cultured than most of our Midwestern friends and acquaintances. And to be fair, we probably were, as we were more likely to go to the Guthrie, the Ordway, or the Orchestra than we were to attend a rock concert, see a live band, or go bowling. (To this day, I cannot picture Paul on a bowling alley, much less wearing bowling shoes. He’d rather die.) He wanted to be a pop star and I wanted to be a hit game designer. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that we became inseparable, but along with my high school friend, The Perfect Aryan Male, the three of us regularly made the round of the Minneapolis bars and night clubs on weekends together.

Since Paul had an apartment that was centrally located in Minneapolis just across the river from downtown, our usual habit was to meet at his place, where he had a room devoted to a recording studio, complete with a full-size mixing board and multi-track tape recorder. I would usually get there about an hour before TPAM, since I liked to listen to his latest musical projects and in keeping with his attention to musical detail, Paul was an indecisive perfectionist who always took what seemed like forever to get ready. In a mildly ironic twist of fate, Paul was living with Kristen, the blonde waitress who had been so sympathetic to Noboys at The Upper Level. She and I got along well, so I would often hang out and chat with her as Paul fiddled with his suits, his ties, and his hair. Once TPAM arrived and Paul had finally decided that he looked presentable, the three or four of us would pile into my Porsche – Paul was ALWAYS in the front passenger side – and we’d head across the river.

Smilehouse had fallen apart, so Paul was working in a somewhat desultory manner on what passed for his solo career. He spent rather a lot of money to record a single at Paisley Park that was produced by Bobby Z of Prince and the Revolution, an eminently forgettable song that was as boring and lifeless as it was technically proficient highly processed pop. I can still vividly remember it being introduced for the first time at Glam Slam; Paul was standing proudly in the DJ booth, holding a beer as he surveyed the dance floor while his song was played in public the first time. The crowd’s reaction wasn’t negative, but merely indifferent, and the song didn’t make even the smallest dent on the local club scene, let alone radio.

Paul then decided he needed to play live shows in order to garner more interest in his music, but being the complete perfectionist that he was, he didn’t actually want to play anything live. This was a point of constant debate between us over the years, as he felt that audiences wanted to hear perfectly “performed” music whereas I felt that whatever flaws were likely to occur during a show made the performance aspects more interesting. And besides, the whole musical miming thing just struck me as ridiculous, especially after the whole Milli Vanilli thing. Paul’s counterargument was that everything looks ridiculous when it goes wrong, so the lesson is to be careful and get it right, not just give up on it.

Paul’s distaste for live performances posed a problem, however, because no serious musician wants to stand on stage pretending to play music pre-recorded by someone else. But being a virtuoso, Paul simply didn’t have confidence in any musician who wasn’t at his level. So, knowing that I had a modicum of piano given my three years of childhood lessons, he asked me if I would be his “keyboard” player and do the backing vocals. I was quite happy to help him out, and he recruited a young friend of his brother Nick named Mike to serve as his “drummer” and a mutual friend of ours from the club scene, Dejay, to serve as a multipurpose rapper/dancer/backing vocalist. There was no pretense of this being a real band, it was billed as “Paul Sebastian” and we were all perfectly aware that we were only helping him out until he was able to put together a real band. I don’t think we ever did so much as a single serious rehearsal, in fact, on further reflection, I’m sure we didn’t or else Dejay never would have seen the stage.

Paul Sebastian and “band” circa 1990

We only performed three times that I remember. The first time was at a University of Minnesota fraternity party, the second was at The Perimeter, and the third was at The Living Room. (Interestingly enough, Spacebunny was also at that fraternity party, although we didn’t meet and she didn’t remember us or the Jane’s Addiction cover band that followed.) Dejay turned out to be a complete disaster, as he couldn’t rap and his dancing would have been considered vulgar at a male strip club. It didn’t suit Paul’s style in the least. Even so, the little shows were received very well, mostly because we looked like a proper band and Paul’s DAT recordings were borderline professional. We weren’t just doing the full Milli Vanilli either; Paul’s lead vocal and guitar were both live, and though I didn’t realize it at the time, Mike’s ability to play his electronic drums in perfect time with the sequenced ones was rather unusual. Unfortunately, Dejay’s total inability to rap tended to support Paul’s point about the wisdom of pre-recorded performances.

As for me, I played a few atmospherics and thought I was singing backup, although I learned after the first show that Paul had somehow forgotten to plug my microphone into the mixing board. I’m sure a more serious musician would have been upset, but I just found it amusing. It was his deal, after all, and I could hardly blame him as he has a really good voice and a low tolerance for mediocrity. My prime directive was “stand back there and look like Nick Rhodes would”… which I understood completely since another thing we had in common was that we were both Duran Duran aficionados.

Dejay was dropped from the band after The Perimeter show, and because there weren’t rooms for the drum kit at The Living Room, Mike was too. Paul and I did a two-man performance at The Living Room that was much better than the two previous shows. However, it was gradually becoming apparent that the 80’s-flavored sound Paul was producing was becoming increasingly outdated in comparison with the music from EMF, Jesus Jones, the Charlatans UK and the Happy Mondays that we were hearing in the clubs.

Now, one of the things that people who don’t create music, and far too many people who do, simply don’t understand is the way in which musicians draw very heavily upon the influence of those who surround them. This is how even those who don’t write or play a note of music, or contribute a single lyric or sound sample, can nevertheless have a profound effect on what is being produced by the musician. It’s not an accident that George Michael’s music sounded very different post-Wham!, since he was no longer being influenced by his friend Andrew Ridgeley; this is one of the reasons why even a seemingly minor departure of a mediocre bassist can dramatically change a band’s sound. This doesn’t mean that the musician isn’t creating all the music himself or doesn’t merit 100 percent of the credit for doing so, only that those personal influences help determine what it is that he is creating. Although Paul vastly preferred keyboards and electronics, and absolutely loathed the heavy guitar of the grunge music that was making its way out of Seattle, he was a competent guitarist, and so I encouraged him to work on something that combined rock guitars with a dance beat. He was initially a little skeptical, but being a pretty open-minded individual, eventually gave it a whirl.

So, one night in the winter of 1990-1991, we met up at The Perimeter and he told me that he had a tape with him that he wanted me to hear. So, we went out to my Audi 5000, my trusty winter car, popped in the tape, and listened to it. It was an instrumental, but had a rocking guitar line over a busy, infectious dance beat, and it was obviously capable of providing the foundation for a really good song. I don’t remember who came up with which part, but we had been joking earlier about how dreadfully dumb the song “I Wanna Sex You Up” was, and between us we came up with the line “sex me sex me sex me up, before you go go”, which struck us as a hilarious combination of Colour Me Badd and Wham! meets EMF or something.

It started as little more than a guitar line and a joke, but it somehow worked. Paul encouraged me to put together some more lyrics on the theme, which I did, and the whole thing culminated about a week later in “Sex Me Up”. We invited a few guys over to hear it, including the DJ at The Perimeter, and after a few beers they all contributed a shouting chorus to the most raucous version of the song. The DJ liked it enough that he immediately put it into his regular rotation at the club. His name was Daniel Lensmeier.

The true and obscure history of Psykosonik, part I


The voice of the failed revolutionary

It is truly amazing to see how many revolutionaries are historically clueless intellectual totalitarians, regardless of whether they are socialist, communist, democratic, religious, or secular revolutionaries. It underlines the fact of how unusual the American revolution was:

One of the biggest mistakes of this revolution, and there are plenty to go around, was that we allowed its political aspects to overshadow the cultural and social aspects. We have unleashed a torrent of art, music and creativity, and we don’t celebrate or enjoy it, or even promote it. We have brought the people to a point where they were ready to change. To change who they are and how they act, and we ignored that and instead focused all of our energies in a mismanaged battle over the political direction of this country. We clashed with the military, and we forgot the people, and we let that small window that shows up maybe every 100 years where a nation is willing to change, to evolve, to go to waste. Even the work that was being done, it focused on teaching them their political rights, or superficial behavioral things like “don’t litter” or “don’t break traffic laws”, and nothing regarding respecting the women or the people from other faiths that share this cursed land. Wasn’t a priority back then, because in our arrogance and hubris we assumed that people will change by themselves. That they will act right, despite the fact that throughout the history of humanity, there wasn’t a single proof that people, by themselves, will act right. Sorry everyone, we were arrogant and idealistic. Forgive us.

Now, this Egyptian revolutionary is obviously much more decent than some. One doesn’t get the idea that he is willing, let alone eager, to kill anyone in order to make them “act right”. But it underlines the point that I have repeatedly made with regards to the atheist tendency to commit mass slaughter once in power; every revolutionary has to make a choice once he reaches a position of sufficient power and learns, to his historically ignorant astonishment, that the mass of people are simply not going to go along with his plans for them.

The dreadful reality of history is that there are few governments so bad that they cannot be made much worse by a revolution. And in the very rare instance of the non-totalitarian revolutionary, the great majority of intellectuals and people alike tend to regard them as a combination of naive and crazy. This is why Ron Paul’s libertarian revolution, regardless of its merits, is unlikely to succeed. Which, of course, does not mean that it is not a worthy one.


No, he really wasn’t

Paul Krugman is once again desperately trying to rewrite history, resurrect a rotting Keynesian economics, and cover his exposed posterior:

Unfortunately, in late 2010 and early 2011, politicians and policy makers in much of the Western world believed that they knew better, that we should focus on deficits, not jobs, even though our economies had barely begun to recover from the slump that followed the financial crisis. And by acting on that anti-Keynesian belief, they ended up proving Keynes right all over again.

In declaring Keynesian economics vindicated I am, of course, at odds with conventional wisdom. In Washington, in particular, the failure of the Obama stimulus package to produce an employment boom is generally seen as having proved that government spending can’t create jobs. But those of us who did the math realized, right from the beginning, that the Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (more than a third of which, by the way, took the relatively ineffective form of tax cuts) was much too small given the depth of the slump. And we also predicted the resulting political backlash.

He is not only at odds with conventional reality, but with history as well. Krugman is being shamelessly dishonest here. As I, and others, have chronicled, the stimulus package that he now claims was too small was actually $187 billion bigger than the $600 billion stimulus his “back-of-the-envelope calculations” recommended and described as “huge”.

Keynes was not right. He, and his General Theory, are still dead. Keynesian economists are not only still completely and entirely wrong, but are still in complete denial about the problem of debt, as I shall subsequently demonstrate in a forthcoming post.


They are getting desperate

Romney magically leaps 9 points in the polls versus Obama… in one week:

Mitt Romney has now jumped to his biggest lead ever over President Obama in a hypothetical Election 2012 matchup. It’s also the biggest lead a named Republican candidate has held over the incumbent in Rasmussen Reports surveying to date. The latest national telephone survey finds that 45% of Likely U.S. Voters favor the former Massachusetts governor, while 39% prefer the president…..

A week ago, Romney trailed Obama 44% to 41%.

I’m sure this massive 9-point swing has NOTHING to do with Bank Party fears that Ron Paul will win Iowa and therefore explode the “he can’t win the Republican nomination” argument. This marks the introduction of the “Romney will crush Obama” theme.


Bachman’s chairman endorses Paul

The Iowa chairman for Michele Bachmann’s campaign, Iowa State Senator Kent Sorenson (R-Indianola), leaves her campaign in order to endorse Ron Paul.

“The decision I am making today is one of the most difficult I have made in my life. But given what’s at stake for our country, I have decided I must take this action.

Today, I am switching my support from Michele Bachmann to Ron Paul for the 2012 Iowa Caucuses and the presidency of the United States.

I still maintain an immense amount of respect for Michele. The reasons are many. She’s never betrayed conservatives on issues like taxes, the Right to Life, and the Second Amendment. So over the past few months, I have been saddened at the dismissive way she’s been treated among some conservatives especially after winning the Iowa Straw Poll.

But the fact is, there is a clear top tier in the race for the Republican nomination for President, both here in Iowa and nationally. Ron Paul is easily the most conservative of this group.

The truth is, it was an excruciatingly difficult decision for me to decide between supporting Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul at the beginning of this campaign. Dr. Paul and his supporters were a major help in my successful campaigns for Iowa House and Senate even when I couldn’t count on the support of the Republican establishment here in Iowa.

Of course, battling the establishment is nothing new for Dr. Paul or for myself. During my time in the General Assembly, I’ve established myself as a leader in the fights for traditional marriage, the Right to Life, and the protection of the Second Amendment – sometimes even against the wishes of my own party.

Since my election, I’ve learned that doing the right thing isn’t always easy. It’s easy to see why so many legislators “sell out” once elected. The pressure to do so is immense.

But what America needs now is a President who will not just “go along to get along.” Instead, we must send someone who puts doing what is right above all else to the White House. That candidate is Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is the only candidate to predict the current mess we find ourselves in economically, and he’s the only candidate to offer a true plan to cut spending and balance our budget.

He’s also consistently spoken out against government spending, assaults on individual liberties, and unnecessary trillion-dollar military adventurism for over 30 years. Polls show he is the Republican candidate that can take on and defeat President Obama in November 2012.

Like all true conservatives, I wholeheartedly agree with Ron Paul that government is too big, and both parties share in the blame. We agree that it is immoral to print money and pass on mounds of debt to the next generation. We agree that life begins at conception and must be protected. We both believe that the Second Amendment must be defended unwaveringly, and that there are too many wars being fought with no end in sight and no obvious path to a defined victory.

Of course, as a state legislator, I recognize that Dr. Paul’s strong views on the 10th Amendment will enable me to fight for what I believe in right in my own backyard instead of having to constantly wait on one-size-fits-all “solutions” from Washington, D.C.

With the entire Republican establishment intent on smearing Ron Paul and his dedicated supporters, I understand this decision could impact the way people see me and my entire political career. But this is the right decision, and one in which I proudly stand behind.

To the truly wonderful people I met on the Bachmann campaign, I look forward to working with them in the future as we further the fights for the Right to Life, traditional marriage, and the restoration of our Second Amendment rights here in Iowa. I personally wish her all the best as she continues to battle in Congress.

As for conservatives who are rightly concerned with defeating establishment Republicans Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and – even more importantly – Barack Obama in 2012, Ron Paul has established himself as the clear choice.

If you are as frustrated as I am with what’s been done by the ruling class, I urge you to join me in supporting Dr. Paul. We can send the national big government political establishment a message they will never forget by voting for Ron Paul for President in the January 3 Iowa Caucuses.”

It turns out that Michele Bachman is a liar, as her own political director has come out and stated that Iowa campaign manager did not quit due to financial incentives: “I won’t say much about the situation or the conflicting statements beyond this; I can say unequivocally that Kent Sorenson’s decision was, in no way financially motivated. His decision had more to do with the fact that the Ron Paul supporters have been something of a family to him since he was first elected in 2008 and here in the end, as it becomes more and more apparent that the caucus cycle is coming to an end, Kent believed that he needed to be with them as they stand on the cusp of a potential caucus upset. While I personally disagree with Kent’s decision, and plan to stay with Michele Bachmann because I truly believe in her, I cannot, in good conscious watch a good man like Kent Sorenson be attacked as a ‘sell-out’ ….That is simply not the case, and it was not the basis of his decision,” said Mr. Enos.”

It surprised some that I was so contemptuous of Bachmann. But you see, she’s from Minnesota and I am very well acquainted with a few people who know her. And it doesn’t surprise me at all that she has shown herself to be untrustworthy, because I had already heard that about her.


Mailvox: true or false

Puacon has four questions:

1) True/False: Ron Paul is a political Leninist, i.e. an admirer of Lenin’s “salami tactics” via Rockwell/Rothbard (see Rothbard’s Ethics of Liberty for more…)

2) True/False: You (Vox) support this political Leninism, based on your support of Dr. Paul

3) True/False: Leninism is based on deception and dishonesty…lying about being a racist to infiltrate and control racist groups, etc. This is considered pragmatic, benefits outweighing costs (more liberty vs. associating with racists).

4) True/False: Dr. Paul isn’t a racist. He just lied about being a racist in order to get money, support, etc. as per point 3.

These are not trick questions. I’m not judging you either way, just trying to get a handle on your positions on above.

1. False. A Leninist is not someone who admires, embraces, or uses any tactic that Vladimir Lenin happened to historically utilize. Also, the addition of the adjective “political” is redundant, as Leninism is an intrinsically political ideology. Since a Leninist is someone who subscribes to “the body of political theory for the democratic organisation of a revolutionary vanguard party, and the achievement of a direct-democracy dictatorship of the proletariat, as political prelude to the establishment of socialism”, it is patently obvious that Ron Paul is not a Leninist of any kind.

2. False. I do not support the establishment of socialism. Nor does Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, or Murray Rothbard.

3. False. Puacon is confusing a tactic which was historically used by Leninists and other groups with Leninism itself. You might as reasonably claim that Ron Paul is a “political Muslim”, as the tactic you are describing is known in Islamic theology as taqiyya. Moreover, Puacon is committing a second error in assuming that because Rothbard believe the tactic was useful, Ron Paul is therefore utilizing it.

4. I can’t answer this question due to the erroneous assumptions implicit in it. I believe that all human beings who are science-literate or conscious of race could be considered racist, myself included, and there is no shortage of empirical evidence and scientific studies demonstrating that this is the case. If Ron Paul, like most people, has said that he is not racist, he is mistaken in that sense. But that does not mean he is lying about it.

I note with some amusement that Puacon’s mischaracterization and misidentification of his target on the political spectrum could, by his own erroneous metric, be accurately described as “Stalinist”.


Republican fiscal frauds

Remember how the House Republicans voted to increase the debt limit “just one more time” a few months ago? Well, I’m sure you’re as surprised as I am that Congress managed to burn through the additional debt and needs more already:

The White House plans to ask Congress by the end of the week for an increase in the government’s debt ceiling to allow the United States to pay its bills on time, according to a senior Treasury Department official on Tuesday. The approval is expected to go through without a challenge, given that Congress is in recess until later in January and the request is in line with an agreement to keep the U.S. government funded into 2013.

I note that this request for additional debt was obvious simply by observing the federal sector’s return to 4+ percent quarterly growth in the third quarter Z1 outstanding credit report.

I have been beating this drum for more than 10 years now, so if you still can’t figure out that the Republican Party is a significant part of the fiscal problem, not the potential solution they present themselves as being, you really have a severe problem with accepting reality. This isn’t to say that Obama and the Senate Democrats are any better, as they are not. But then, they don’t pretend to be the financially responsible party either.

Either Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney would be an unmitigated disaster as president. Both of them signed a pledge not to increase the debt limit, and yet it’s clear they will do so using the “just one more time” gambit; Newt didn’t even oppose raising the debt last time so long as the deal didn’t include tax increases.

No Tax Increase in the Debt-Ceiling Deal by Newt Gingrich

“Mitt Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, has said he would agree to increasing the debt limit only if a deal was “accompanied by a major effort to restructure and reduce the size of government.”

A major effort such as, for example, the one that supposedly cut $100 billion ten years from now… that was in the last deal.


The “discredited” campaign

The New York Times unintentionally recognizes the legitimacy of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign:

Ron Paul long ago disqualified himself for the presidency by peddling claptrap proposals like abolishing the Federal Reserve, returning to the gold standard, cutting a third of the federal budget and all foreign aid and opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Now, making things worse, he has failed to convincingly repudiate racist remarks that were published under his name for years — or the enthusiastic support he is getting from racist groups.

I find it extremely encouraging that both the Democratic and Republican establishments are training their biggest guns on Ron Paul while simultaneously attempting to play down the results of the Iowa caucuses. They never would have bothered to do so if Paul’s message was not resonating with Americans across the political and ideological divides. We are learning a lot here as a result of the various reactions to the Paul campaign, whether it is the willingness of Republicans to play the race card about which they so often complain, the remarkable extent to which Newt Gingrich is big government moderate rather than the conservative flamethrower he feigned to be in 1994, and the way in which many Republicans who pretend to revere the Constitution do not, in fact, harbor any real respect for it at all.

In short, Ron Paul has successfully opened the eyes of millions of Americans to the corruption and anti-conservate, anti-constitutional ideology of the Republican Party. This is the first step in helping them understand that the Republicans and Democrats are merely two barely distinguishable factions in the one party that has ruled America for over a century.

It is also interesting to note the Communist-style ideological lockstep demanded by Republicans. In the same way that some readers here cannot understand that I permit commenters here to post comments they find offensive without that permission indicating my position on the matter – even though they know I disgree with, but permit, their own comments – the demands that Paul denounce any of his supporters reveals a fundamentally totalitarian mindset of the sort that has pervaded the conservative media since William F. Buckley was seduced by the Wilsonian neocons.

One thing I found particularly informative in this regard was John Hinderaker’s endorsement of Mitt Romney. I’ve known that the former Hindrocket of the Northern Alliance Radio Show was an ideologically squishy political creature since appearing on that show, and his endorsement of Mitt Romney is the full flowering of what has historically been known as “growth”.

The “anybody but Romney” mentality that grips many Republicans is, in my view, illogical. It led them to embrace Rick Perry, who turned out to be unable to articulate a conservative thought; Newt Gingrich, whose record is far more checkered than Romney’s; Ron Paul, whose foreign policy views–indistinguishable from those of the far left–and forays into racial intolerance make him unfit to be president; and Michele Bachmann, whom I like very much, but who is more qualified to be a rabble-rouser than a chief executive.

It is deeply amusing indeed to see Hindrocket assert that Paul’s foreign policy views are “indistinguishable from those of the far left” on the very day that the New York Times is publishing an editorial that could easily bear his byline, given the remarkably similar language; for example, Hinderaker says Paul is “unfit” versus the NTY’s “discredited”. And Hinderaker’s statement about Paul’s foreign policy is astonishingly deceitful, as far left foreign policy is not the least bit isolationist, but is the exact same world revolution approach that is presently favored by Hinderaker and the Republican establishment, only its focus is world socialist revolution rather than world democratic revolution.

And Hinderaker is as wrong about Romney’s ability to beat Obama as all the usual suspects in the conservative media were wrong about McCain’s ability to win in 2008. John Hawkins list seven reasons why Romney’s supposed electability is a myth. I’ll add another reason: after the way he is being treated by the Republican Party establishment and the way the Tea Party-elected House Republicans have proven themselves to be the same fiscally irresponsible rollover Republicans their historical predecessors were, Ron Paul has absolutely no reason not to run in the general election as a third party candidate, ideally as the endorsed candidate of the Constitution and Libertarian Parties.

I very much hope he will do so. As the Bush family has taught us, better an openly declared enemy in power than a false and fraudulent “friend”.


Christmas and decline

Sometimes, I wonder if perhaps I am being too negative about the way in which the historical and economic patterns I see appear to be playing out. It’s not as if I spend all my time preparing for disaster, in fact, most of my professional activity is still predicated on the idea that some form of recessionary muddle-through will take place.

And then one encounters these responses of various young adults to their Christmas presents and realize that societal collapse may not be as probable as it is desirable.

One could hardly damn America in a more devastating and conclusive manner than to point out that this is what we have done with our historical freedom