Why the diversity of, or freedom of, thought makes the US great and the rest of the world lame.

Usually when non-Americans list things they don't like, or things that they believe represent the worst of its people, they list the usual suspects. 

• Republicans
• (social) conservatives
• religious people
• Christians

Given that most of Western Europe is non-religious this comes to no surprise but even then these people don't have much traction in their hate (no pun intended). Historically Republicans were always thought of as selfish, bigoted people by Western Europeans. The religious Americans just freak them out. I bet the religious would be okay at a Pride Parade despite not supporting the debauchery presented than Western Europeans sitting in a Baptist church as a cultural experience in May somewhere in the South. 

They go on and list things they just can't believe Americans believe. 

• anti-vaccine
• Creationism
• flat earth believers

Again, these tend to be secular non-Americans who list these things. 

But who cares, really. Western Europeans "believe in science" since whatever stance they believe in was reached by a consensus, supposedly. I think I'm reasonable and fall into this camp to some degree, but I don't clutch my pearls if someone is skeptical of vaccines. I don't care much to debate Creationism or flat earth believers because people will hold different beliefs and theories than the "educated" or the "enlightened." Who cares. If anything, it adds to the uniqueness of ideas; it's not all "what does science say and I'll believe it" - that gets real old. A materialist worldview just doesn't much appeal to.

The great thing in the US is that such people can voice their thoughts and there's usually a decent engagement of ideas. It's still happening but it's become rarer because we have "I believe in science" extremists/snowflakes that cannot function online, let alone in a society, where people think differently than they do. 

I was watching a video about a British medical student who was reviewing her medical match in the US as an IMG (international medical graduate). She was very happy to be matched for internal medicine in NYC, but was nervous prior to knowing her match because she was very hesitant to be matched in upstate New York. She then showed a map of the state of New York -

This is probably the recent map of NY counties with its voting pattern. The red is Republican votes while the blue is Democrat votes. The British medical student apparently did not want to be too far up in New York because that would be mean she'd be in a Republican/conservative county. Oh the horror. A medical student who doesn't want to serve her community as foreign physician because she may encounter more Republicans/conservatives than she's willing to encounter. Isn't that bizarre? She's more than willing to put up with difficult patients in NYC during a night shift than deal with a conservative patient. 

Religious and/or conservative Americans may be more parochial where they live sometimes succumbing to tribalism towards outsiders, but that is the norm everywhere in the world even in secular populations. In the UK, people tend not to absorb new friends as much as their American counterparts throughout their lives as they get older; they like to keep their circle of friends as it is. Europeans want to distance themselves from the Yanks because they think Yanks are dumb, uncouth and in general bigoted people. They're too religious for them. After all, why should the sophisticated, progressive European be seen sitting next to a suburban American dad with white New Balance shoes on a train heading towards Lisbon or Stockholm or Antwerp? 

The issue with the "enlightened", ironically, is that they see no need to talk such people because they have a strong belief that they have nothing to learn from them. Their brains aren't as elastic or flexible or open-minded as they think it is. It's rather stuck in its ways. And with this, they view the religious American as a representation of what makes America embarrassing to the world. 

You know what, all of a sudden I wouldn't mind talking to that suburban American dad with his New Balance shoes that has tinge of green rising from its soles. I'd like to hear about his church, if the preacher had a good sermon last Sunday and if they have any social gatherings planned. And I don't mind if his he has some theories on evolution and Creationism. I'd like to hear that perspective too. 

Americans and Insularity: A Double Standard By Non-Americans (And Self-Loathing Americans)

 If non-Americans, if asked on their impressions of Americans in general, and they say they think we're insular because they read or watched something by an American that they deemed as "slightly backwards" or not inclusive, I ask "Compared to what?"

I argue that the US is no more insular than any other Western country. 

Wouldn't it be a double standard to claim London is not insular or the country of England is not insular, but inclusive yet they ban conservative thinkers like Rush Limbaugh, give the cold shoulder to then Senator Mitt Romney when visiting, and make a giant blow-up balloon of then President Trump? Should we get into the almost unanimous negative opinion of Donald Trump and "what he represents" (as said by a Londoner)? Wound't it be hypocritical of a Londoner saying that what makes London great is that you can meet different people each day from all walks of life yet deem an American "slightly backwards" because you didn't agree with what he said? Let us not get into cultural relativism where the premise is that differences in one culture does not make is inferior or superior to another - just different. The Londoner would be pulling the rug from underneath his own feet! Indeed, if the Londoner views the American as "slightly backwards" that's a value statement being made - a statement that reaches to an absolute truth - that this belief is "slightly backwards." But by his own modern framework that "slightly backwards" belief is no better or worse than any other culture or belief one would encounter in London on any given day no matter the time or season.

The talks about inclusivity and diversity is just that - talk. It means very little. It does not matter if you can meet people from different backgrounds each day if you yourself do not take advantage of the resources that their culture brings, or better yet get to know them on a personal level. It's all window dressing. Just because you have a university degree doesn't make you smart or wise. Just because you're 18 doesn't make you an actual adult fully capable of discerning "adult decisions." Just because you make "art" doesn't make you insightful, talented or fearless. 

I will bet money these are the same people who want a centralized healthcare system, one month of paid vacation and "free" higher education amongst other things.

 

Americans v The World (Mostly Western Europe ... And Canada)

Embrace the 2A. It scares the sophisticated Europeans.

Embrace the automobile. It angers the confuses the Europeans since they have little concept of individual freedom itself.

Embrace your lack of fashion. It makes the Europeans crinkle their noses.

Embrace your work ethic and 40 hr week. It makes the European look lazy and weak as they conveniently forget about Japan's average work schedule.

Embrace meat, dairy and even sugar. It makes European food look bland and redundant (because objectively it is). 

Embrace the open road. It makes Europe look like a cluster fuck of countries all crammed together (because it sorta is). 

Embrace the American flag. It makes Europeans uncomfortable and it exposes their lack of flexible when dealing with a different culture.

Embrace American football, baseball, basketball and hockey. It makes Europeans confused because it seems they're unable to enjoy other team sports outside of soccer, rugby and cricket.

Embrace soccer. It makes the Europeans scared and worried that if America does get really good that it will be another American conquest. (Hey, in the end we got better fish to fry - like going to Mars.)

Embrace your prudish stance towards nudity. It makes the European angry and confused. I mean, no, I don't want to see your vagina or tits, Ms. Swede. I have no right to even if you insist. 

But most of all embrace the traditional nuclear family, religion and social conservatism. It makes the European believe you're backwards as they drink pints of nihilistic dreams and, ironically, support collectivist shallow social norms.

The Anti-Car People

 Are ignorant of history. 

They tend to admire the walkability of European cities - as do I - where many of these cities are "livable." I wish all American cities had more density and focused more on efficient public transportation - be it the combination of train, bus, cycling and foot traffic. 

I wish that, somehow, the suburbs could become less car centric with the transition from urban public transportation to the suburbs either become more seamless and thorough, or be created if they don't exist already.

I wish that swaths of parking lots found in the suburbs would shrink because the strength of the public transportation. Of course, more rural areas not withstanding. 

I wish many things that I want America to implement - the dream that interstate train transportation would reach Japan-like standards. One day. If the US can prioritize taking man to the moon than it can prioritize transportation not using cars. 

This is not say that I am anti-car. Far from it. Though I empathize with those who want good, efficient pubic transportation to grow in the existing urban centers of America, I also don't go as far to stigmatize those that do rely on a car every single to "participate in society" (as one bleeding heart puts it). I don't go as far as to call for a ban of cars (yep, there are those out there who want to ban cars). I will suggest that there should and can be an equilibrium between car driving and public transportation, especially in regards to commuting from the suburbs to the city and vice versa.

I say revolutionize car driving. The US should be the leader in electric cars and automobile research. Taking a cross country trip in America with an electric car would be a pain; charging an electric car takes too long and there isn't enough electric charging stations as there are gas stations. So if you do plan your trip to make carefully planned stops to recharge that recharge could take up to 4 hours until you hit the road again.  

Unlike some anti-car people like the YouTube channel Not Just Bikes (who is a prick and he actually admits this - most of his most watched vids are trashing American citifies and suburbs), I won't go all 1st world problem like him in a passive aggressive way. NJB is a Canadian who moved to the Netherlands because he was so enamored by how walkable their cities are. Okay, fair enough. You don't  got to be a prick about it and trash talk other countries. But enough that prick who retreats to the Old World because "grass is greener."

If America ever does realize that its lack of density just isn't attractive - or even sustainable, I propose the following:

• green trains and buses; expand already existing train lines and bus routes (with 5-7 minute departures each hour depend on city population)
• make every major and secondary city pedestrian friendly depends on the terrain of city
• make every city, big or small, if terrain allows (i.e. not Appalachia region) bicycle friendly with thorough bike paths 
• connect urban and suburban train railways with schedule that permits people to go to and from said locations from early work hours to well past midnight (i.e. last departure to suburbs is 2am with 10 minute intervals of departures)
• each state should have an comprehensive train and/or bus system that connects every and all cities to one another; the train system should connect to neighboring state's train system - basically forming an interstate train system/highway
• bullet trains connecting West, Midwest, South and East Coast (see: Shinkansen bullet trains)

But what that have to with history as I said in the beginning? Everything. People bash the US because isn't setup like Western European countries or Asian countries. They don't look into the history as to why. Instead, they just blame capitalism and say that America is crap and that they'd would never live there. It's okay. We send men to the moon as I pointed out earlier. You didn't build any of the already existing train and or bus routes, or any of the sidewalks or bike lanes. You benefit from those that came before you as you project a sense of smugness and superiority. 

Anti-car people will say when met with the talking point that American cities are relatively young therefore it grew and developed differently (this is 100% true) that cities like Rotterdam, Netherlands is also a new city. This is only half the truth. Sure, Rotterdam is new, but it grew out of an already existing city before Hitler raided and bombed it to ashes. The city was given a blank slate in order to build a "second city" where pedestrian friendly cities were the norm already in Europe (before the advent and normalization of automobiles as way of transportation). 

Small things like that are left out because they're too enamored of being in walkable environment. They fall in the same camp of zealotry for universal healthcare and "free" higher education. You see a pattern? It's Europe, Europe, Europe, Europe and maybe Japan. But mostly Eurocentric. 

I'd would like to see a compromise being made in the States between cars and public transportation. If there's a country that can say "we did our way" it's America. I believe that there's a healthy equilibrium somewhere in the far future where the US can rival Japan's public transpiration scene as electric trucks, cars and motorcycles zip across Route 66 as well. America can have it all - it just needs to be willing to accept the challenge as it did with the moon. 

I'll Stick to My Guns

In light of the recent gun shootings in Buffalo, New York and Uvadle, Texas I will say this: Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Guns are inanimate objects - just like a car, a pencil, a knife, a baseball, a machete or a shovel. Each item mentioned can be misused against anyone or thing. Alone the object cannot cause harm unless it's a bomb which is meant to self-destruct by its very nature. 

Don't believe me? Well, you ignore reality. People don't blame guns or the lack of gun control when nations go to war. If you're in a combat position you'll either be dead via bomb or by gun. Yet there's no calls for "gun control" when it comes to war - no one's saying the soldiers should use tasers or batons. Nope. The people who despise guns are not to be found here. What they do say is that X or Y war isn't necessary. Ah ha! So you're appealing for people to not declare war or to invade a country! People! It's the people! It's the head of the government responsibility to send or not to send troops in X or Y country. 

If people are going to call for gun control if not an outright ban of guns (see: Australia, UK), then you'd have to take a good look at cars and knives - both of which have been used as a means to harm or to murder someone - or alcohol which has a long, long, long history of abuse. But nope. Brittons won't have their pubs turned into literal watering holes, now, eh? 

On the end of the spectrum I do think those who extoll the goodness of America's 2A should tactfully bring up the issues of the lack off mental health in America. We have innocent people dying at the hands of psychopaths, sociopaths and the mentally unstable. Just last year an Asian women was pushed in front of an NYC train as she waited by a mentally unstable person. There was no serious national call for better care of his kind. 

Once again, we don't have a gun issue in the States. We have a mental health issue in the states which has been going on much longer before the likes of Columbine or Sandy Hook came into the picture. In my mind it's better to attack the root cause of it, not the means of it because it simply scares you (I myself have never handled a gun - in fact I'm intimidated by a gun not shown in a picture so there's that, yet I refuse to fall for the narratives of the anti-2A types). 

We don't need Woke education to be taught in American schools. Training and resources towards it are wasted time and money. What there needs to be put in schools at least one trained individual - who is vigilant and courageous at all times - to protect the one main entrance. That's a matter of life and death - or else all those kids who were to be killed won't grow up to be the physicians, engineers, social workers, teachers, moms, dads, astronauts and welders they were meant to be. Chuck out the Wokeness (which warps and later destroys them) and put in individuals who will protect our society's most innocent population. 

Yes, Non-Americans, Usually From Western Europe, Do Not Understand the "Quirks" of America

I'm always interested in what non-Americans like about the US. Usually they preface their list with things they do not like. I find this odd given they tend to feel the strong urge to tell what they don't like first even when asked the opposite. If they don't like it first it's at the tail-end. After listing the positive they go ons saying "With that said, there are many things I dislike .... " Below are the most common, if not universal, issues non-Americans, usually Europeans, have with the US

• gun "culture"
• no universal healthcare
• "no" work-life balance and paid annual leave (Western Europe in general work less than 30 hrs per week)
• lack of paid maternity leave (they will then boast "we have 1 year paid maternity leave!")
• "only" two week (paid) vacation (instead of 1 month)
• apparently it's seen as unfair for the government to make its citizens do their own taxes
• no "free" university be it undergrad, masters or professional school (i.e. med, law)
• no "proper public transportation" (it's not enough that Chicago and NYC have comprehensive systems since they're not 'good enough')
• the government (America is seen as imperialistic)
• Orange Man Bad

I would argue that there isn't that much of a gun "culture" within the States besides guns existing, whether they're obtain legally or illegally. I will say there are gun enthusiasts though. Most gun deaths are self-inflicted. After that it's gang wars. The minority are deranged people gunning down people for either political reason or just because.

As with leftists in the US, Europeans in general are just simply scared of guns. I wouldn't say it's a phobia, but it's definitely a foreign concept to them hence their fascination and disgust with gun ownership in the US. A good number who travel to the US for leisure have visited gun ranges, so I cannot say they are phobic to it. 

I myself do not own a gun simply for the fact I never felt the need to have one, and that guns aren't a social norm in my family. There are a couple friends who at one time did own a gun which wasn't taboo, granted they were middle class and were relatively responsible people. I sorta wanted to follow them so I filled out the paperwork for a FOID card but for whatever reason never completed it.

The absence of universal healthcare really makes Europeans scratch their heads. Even after the explanation that although many are without healthcare, there is Medicaid for the poor and those with limited financial means, Medicare for the elderly and robust healthcare through ones employee. They sometimes then move the goal posts stating that access of decent healthcare through the employee makes the person a slave to the employee system. Oddly enough I find this complaint bizarre since I believe in the saying of "honest day's work for an honest day's pay." Europeans are just too married to the concept of universal healthcare.

I don't care much for the government complaint. Only a handful of non-Americas have truly studied the American government system whereas many of the complaints of those who haven't are just surface complaints anyways. 

The most amusing thing I find that non-Americans take issue with is Trump. Orange Man Bad. If American leftists refuse to understand why someone would for Trump, and then later think his presidency was a stain on everything good in the world, then I can't see why a non-American would have a better understanding of the Trump Era. After all, if the US MSM can paint him as many bad things the likes of BBC will probably double their efforts. Often times non-Americans are equally as daft as the leftist who froths from the mouth when Trump is mentioned. 

One comment by an American who also reflected on what made her irate about non-Americans is when they talked about Trump. "He's not your prime minister." She made a very good point. It's similar to when a Swedish man said he despised the US because of some random law he learned about in Minnesota or Idaho or whatever state it was. The law wasn't even used; it was an old law that no longer recognized. 

Many non-Americans think that the idea of the American Exceptionalism, though somewhat admirable in their eyes, is ultimately misguided. Why? They say that is creates horse blinders on Americans. To be perfectly honest, I don't really see how places like the UK are anymore worldly given their mentality is the complete opposite of the US - "we're not special" to a pessimistic attitude. I suppose this belief is why they have a hard time understanding the MAGA (Make American Great Again) concept. A British woman said that the slogan didn't make sense to her since America wasn't great for everyone in the past. Obviously she has very clue on what she's talking about.

If there's one thing I never bought about Europe is the idea they are wise while America is not. I'm not saying the US is wise, it's just that the whole "European spent hundreds of years solving human issues yet America doesn't listen" is almost pure posturing. All I've experienced was a lot of hot air on their part.

For all its faults, give me America over the UK any day. Its people - heck, even its government. It's not perfect since it's made up of imperfect humans. And yes, I don't mind the religious fervor in the US. 

Differences between UK/Europe and The USA.

UK/Europe: 

• Protests and breaks into private property because fans of a soccer club's wealthy soccer/football owner "abused" the fans/supporters by seriously wanting the club to participate in a closed-system tournament consisting of the most competitive clubs across Europe.
• Protests against police even though their police system is known to have a relatively healthy relationship and perception with and amongst its everyday man, as inspired by police protests and race riots in the US.
• Protests against the US presidents that they don't like, or gives US politicians they don't like the cold shoulder, who visit their country while salivating over US presidents and politicians that they do like.
• Sends out sappy instagram post about staying in the EU i.e. David Beckham. 

Summary: Muh soccer/football. Muh EU. I love the NHS.

USA: 

• Protests and trespasses onto what is technically public property in the form of nation's Capitol building due to what they believe was a corrupted presidential election stolen by the winning party. 
• Protests against police and the jailing industrial complex (as they like to call it) who they believe have been treating minorities and people in general unfairly.
• Doesn't really care what politician visits America with the exception of Kim Jong-un.
• Broke away from what was considered at the time the world's superpower to form its own country to later overtake the unofficial title of world superpower. 

Summary: Muh fairness and government integrity. Muh social justice. Eagle says cacaaawww!

When Brits, or just foreigners in general, try to take on the American psyche and its institutions.

I'm talking about filmmakers and those in the entertainment industry. Rarely do you see an American filmmaker try to passive-aggressively mock [insert country not named America] and its values or what they've heard of X county. Listed below are examples of those in the entertainment business that try to do this.

The Shape of Water by Guillermo del Toro.

• Takes on the positive thinking type of American
• Takes on the machismo element of military men
• Takes on the nuclear family
• Takes on the public manners of white Americans in the 1950's

All shorts - American Virgin, American Pride and American Carnage all by Tamzin Merchant. 

Note: I haven't watch these shorts but I'm taking a good stab on what they're about just by the trailers and the tone of the interviews.

• Virgin takes on the concept of virginity within the American psyche, that it is seen as a precious "asset" (as noted in the short's description). The short is about a teenager whose accepted into Julliard Summer Program but due the high costs cannot afford it so she resorts to prostitution (similar case to the Duke student who resorted to porn and now is a porn star ... The secular world says to not judge but it'll judge those who view virginity as something else than a societal myth.
• Pride is about a closeted homosexual who is seen making out with another man behind the wedding curtains just when the bride and groom kiss where all the sitting public can see. This probably takes on America's more conservative social norms in comparison to UK's and Western Europe. Because what's the big deal, right?
• Carnage, as Merchant admits to listening to several podcasts (what type of podcasts my dear?) that formed her thoughts and later script, is about a Brit's (and more a critical American take on Trump) view on the political "carnage" that led to the 2016 POTUS election. Listed on the short's IMDB's page is picture of a live version of the Statue of Liberty and the main actor in Pride wearing a t-shirt that says "Pride." In one of the director interviews a church is seen being used as a setting. I bet it's used as a symbol of hypocrisy. It just looks like a Brit's take on God, Guns and Country. Maybe Michael Moore makes a cameo?

Foreigners can sometimes give insights on America that are worth listening to. Sometimes these insights have some truth to it, helping even the most patriotic American reflect on their country. But often times the insights are shit and skewed to the left where modernism talks about X institution and Y social value but utterly fails on understanding it. Foreign filmmakers can use the yellow school bus, dress their actresses in 1950's skirts and blouses, locate a beautiful church, but never understands their significance, cultural worth and history. 

They gathered all the hallmark symbols of what one thinks of America, but what they didn't do is talk to those who hold the symbols used in their production as signs of identity. In other words they're talking about things they don't understand in an honest manner. They just see America as a country filled with strangeness. But it's Americans who have to change when they view another culture through their red, white and blue prism, or so the modern world says.

Hey White folks, if you need lecturing on your "whiteness' here are some books.

I was on instagram going through some pics that was filtered through a hashtag of one of my favorite clothing brands. One account had various posts that were very appealing when it came just pure interior design. But there was one that made me raise my eyebrow. It was entitled Tears We Cannot Stop: A Sermon to White America by Micheal Eric Dyson. I heard of Dyson before when he was Bill Maher's show when he was guest alongside the late Andrew Breitbart. The discussion was about race and Dyson came across the typical "angry black man", hate to say it. When Breitbart was critical of the intelligentsia Dyson became offended - he thought his words were insulting black intellectuals and Dyson retorted "I can read you know." His newest book comes to no surprise. 

As I looked up the book on Amazon I was met with a list of recommendations that could be described as "angry blacks moan and b_tch." and "white people who believe in white privilege literally are cucks."

Here's a curated list I made made up of books that seem to be the go-to for white guilt -

Tears We Cannot Stop: A Sermon to White America
The New Jim Crow
White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide
Stamped From the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America
I Am Not Your Negro
White Awake: An Honest Look on What it Means to Be White
White Like Me: Reflections on Race From a Privileged Son
Between the World and Me 
Waking Up White, and Finding Myself in the Story of Race

Now, I'll probably read some of these via library loan. 

EDIT: I was stifling my laughter when copying and pasting these titles. You cannot get anymore crazy than an "angry black man" with beta whites who swallow the concept of white privilege like it's a green smoothie. 

Weddings.

I have some opinions that will be considered bizarre if not stupid. So be it.

1. When a bride asks for advice to deal with a friend being upset for not being in the bridal party, many, if not all responses, will say if she were a true friend she'd get over it and should be be honored to be invited as a guest to the ceremony.

My answer: You're not royalty and what if you get divorced? I've been to weddings. Was I honored to be there? No.

2. The whole "it's MY day" to "it's MY wedding."

My answer: Yes, it's your wedding, but what if you get divorced? Where's God in this? You sound like a damn spoiled bitch. "It's all about MEEeeEEEE!"

3. SIL/BIL as bridemaid/groomsman.

My answer: A rather stupid "rule."

It could be just me but I find it very strange how Americans (and I'm an American) approach and view weddings.

As I grow older I find myself rejecting the whole wedding industry complex. If I ever do get married I don't want a bachelor's party. I want the ceremony to focus on my bride, me and God. I don't want it held outside, or at some resort, or Vegas, or a court house. I want the ceremony to be in a Catholic church. No ifs not buts. I want it to be damn simple. I don't want speeches at the reception, at least on my side. Head table? Is this fucking Hogwarts with Professor Dumbledore? I don't want a flock of groomsmen - maybe just a best man. And the honeymoon? Okay, I'll take the honeymoon.

Look to Illinois.

A QZ article notes that if political observers want to get an idea of the country's next president, look to Illinois. My comments are added below with emphasis in bold.

Critics say the US presidential primary system is disproportionately influenced by early voting contests in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The influence wielded by these races is little more than a happy accident. New Hampshire only lost its first-state-to-vote status in 1972, when a lack of hotel rooms in Des Moines forced Iowa officials to move their election to the front of the pack. Nevertheless, Iowans and New Hampshirites often set the tone for the rest of the primaries: elevating winners, bestowing momentum, and winnowing out the weakest campaigns.

This gives a small fraction of the US population an exorbitant amount of power in selecting the future commander-in-chief. And neither of these states are particularly reflective of the national electorate, socially or economically.

I believe this is the most insightful paragraph in the entire article.

But if you want a real understanding of what America likes in a president, look beyond Iowa and New Hampshire to the great state of Illinois.

Along with California and New York, Illinois almost always casts its 21 electoral votes for the Democratic candidate in general elections. That said, internally, Illinois is quite diverse. It recently elected a Republican governor, boasts one of the country’s most notable centrist Republican senators, and its state legislature bursts with conservative lawmakers—representing a constituency anchored in the agricultural south; far from bustling, blue Chicago.

Illinoisans have also selected the eventual party nominees every election year since 1988, when Democrats opted for their congressman, Paul Simon, over Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis.

Illinois is also a microcosm of the nation. Quartz looked at the demographic data for all 50 US states and compared them to national averages. Illinois has by far the most in common with the country at large, according to 2014 census data:

Demographic data	US	IL
Median age (years)	37.4	37
% pop. between 20 and 34 years	20.6	20.7
% pop. aged 65+	13.7	13.2
% pop. that is female	50.8	50.9
Average household size	2.63 people	2.63 people
% men currently married	50.2	49.9
% women currently married	46.7	46.2
% families w/ children under 18	29.2	29.5
% pop. that are veterans	8.7	7.1
% pop. w/ a disability	12.3	10.6
% pop. that is foreign born	13.10	13.95
% pop. that speaks English at home	79.1	77.5
% pop. that is white	73.8	72.5
% pop. that is black	12.6	14.4
% pop. that is Hispanic/Latino	16.9	16.3
% pop. that is Asian	5	4.9
% pop. that is Native American	0.8	0.2
% pop. that IDs as “other race”	4.7	5.8
% pop. that is mixed-race	2.9	2.2
Unemployment rate	5.8	6.6
% workers employed by gov.	14.6	12.8
% workers in agriculture/nat. resources	2	1.1
Median household income	$53,482	$57,166
% households receiving Social Security	29.3	27
% households receiving food stamps/SNAP	13	12.5
% pop. health-insured	85.8	87.7
% pop. below poverty line	15.6	14.4
Median home value	$175,700	$175,500
Median gross apartment rent/month	$920	$903
% pop. w/ at least a BA	18.3	12.5
% pop. attending religious services weekly*	36	34

I will admit, how close these numbers are is rather fascinating if not a little creepy. I consider myself an amateur sociologist, and damn, this is some great social data.

Fewer Illinoisans receive Social Security and food stamp/SNAP benefits than the average American, and a smaller proportion live under the poverty line. That said, the unemployment rate is almost a full percentage point higher than the national average.

Points of particularly significant similarity include the median age, and percentages of adults aged between 20 and 34 years (major Bernie Sanders supporters) and 65 or older (Hillary Clinton’s camp). It’s also worth noting how startlingly parallel the racial demographics break down—Illinois’s African-American, Latino, Asian-American, and other minority communities are quite proportionate to their numbers nationwide.

In many ways, Illinois is a miniature version of America. A perfect RINO in Senator Kirk. Machine Politics. A bustling, sorta-Alpha city in Chicago, with small towns, farmland and small cities once you exit Chicagoland where religion is more important than said area, and where hunting game, guns and the American flag are done, carried and waved with support and reverence. Average state universities save for its flagship; top privates in U of C and Northwestern, with Notre Dame a stone throw away in South Bend, Indiana. Solid LACs as well. The state is also more interested in professional sports, with high school basketball rivaling Indiana's Hoosier passion. Out of all the cities, I do find Chicago a bit more libertarian than say NYC, LA and SF and bit more saner when it comes to liberalism (SF in just stupid liberal; NYC is corporate liberal; LA is debauch liberal). In terms of Seattle & Portland's coffee, Chicago has a growing scene of micro-breweries. Also Chicago is more of a tea city than a coffee city.

I'll also add that the electorate can be rather stupid, constantly voting (D) while complaining about political corruption. Every now and then they might get fed up enough, get some oxygen to their brain, and vote for someone not in the political system -- even if he's a white multi-millionaire in Bruce Rauner (a calmer, more cordial version of The Donald?). But vote for an actual conservative as Junior Senator? Leave that to Big 'Ol Texas. Illinois loves their RINOs for their upper chamber.

RIP Antonin Scalia

Antonin Scalia (March 11, 1936 - February 13, 2016) 

Associate Justice of the SCOTUS (September 26, 1986 – February 13, 2016)

Appointed by Ronald M. Reagan 

Preceded by William Rehnquist

Below are Scalia's Hearing Days in regards to his nomination, held on August 5 - 6, 1986.



Day 1 Part 2 -



Day 2 -

Change is sometimes good. Too bad it's mostly reactionary.

Possible Mississippi flag change. The petition headed by musician Jimmy Buffet (a manatee enthusiast and activist).

If South Carolina shooter, Dylan Rood, never held up the Confederate flag the momentum of abolishing it in public spaces would be mostly dormant. This zeitgeist of removal sounds mightily familiar of those who want to remove God from dollar bills and The Pledge of Allegiance.

Of course, the irony in this analogy is upfront - God being more respected, if not revered, in the interior of the States than the coasts. One can say that the Confederate states were rebelling against the Northern states drive to control economic revenues in the South. One can say that the belief in God and the following of traditional mores is the rebellion against secularism and modernism. One can say that both, that God and the Confederate flag, are misunderstood. One can also say that many will use the Confederate flag and God to justify horrid acts against certain groups. When this happens this does not mean that the item or "being" is innately corrupted - it just means that their use is being applied wrongly.

As a Yankee, or Northerner, I do not fly the Confederate flag nor have I had any feelings of animosity towards it. After the news that Wal-mart, Amazon and ebay taking the flag off their shelves as an act of non-race hating; it was simply an agency undoubtedly filled with reactionary thought. Corporations pander towards society's supposed aggrieved groups (LGBT, women, black & illegal aliens). I feel, in this case, that they are practitioners of the pathetic mindset of "nihilistic 'equality.'"

 I will admit, the Confederate flag is an aesthetically pleasing flag. I may actually fly it one day.

A leftist tactic.

Using Ronald Reagan to play "gotcha."

Here are two examples. The first is on granting illegal aliens citizenship.

It's clear that many true conservatives do not support Amnesty. What does the left do to implant the "Isn't-ironic-that-your-god-Reagan-thought-differently"? Note what Reagan said in support of the Immigration Reform and Control of 1986. Fair enough. But so what. I suppose in the right's stubborn, bigoted and antiquated world view, according to the left, that those who do not support Amnesty should seriously re-think their position because their beloved Reagan had opposite feelings.

Yea, no. Reagan had his thoughts and reasons and those who do not support Amnesty have their thoughts and reasons. The non-supporters of Amnesty did not make up their stance out of a vacuum whose foundation, as the left truly believes in, is based on the lack of compassion and not respecting the dignity of the illegal alien to become a "first class citizen" (it's the same fat that underlies the social justice warrior's heart as they feverishly supported same-sex "marriage")

The second is on gun control, most particularly the ban on so-called assault weapons. Enter Pierce Morgan interviewing Ben Shapiro.

Transcript (10:12 mark) :

"Why did Ronald Reagan want these assault weapons removed?
"You know, I don't why Ronald Reagan wanted these assault weapons -- "
"You like Reagan, right?
"I like Reagan in many ways. He's not a god. I don't agree with him on everything."
"Do you agree -- "
"He also believed in the progressive tax rate. I don't believe in that."
"Did you agree with him about assault weapons?"
"Um, if, um, I believe what you're saying, sure. I don't believe ... I don't agree -- "
"Did you know his position on assault weapons were?
"I don't know what his position on assault weapons was. Why don't you tell me."
"Well let me read the letter in full. This is a letter he penned alongside President Ford and Carter in 1994 to Congress ... (reads letters - Morgan puts emphasis on "statistics prove" and the appeal of "we urge you") ... That was Ronald Reagan."
"Okay. So? I mean I can disagree with Ronald Reagan."
"You keep framing it as a left-right debate. I'm putting it to you that one of the great right-wing presidents of modern times agreed with me."
"So?"
"So it's not left or right is it?"

- Morgan says stuff about how the NRA through the years have framed it as a left vs right, the left attacking the Constitution; tells Shapiro that he arrogantly comes in and brandishes "his little book" (holds up pocket size version of Constitution); Shapiro takes offense on how Morgan calls the Constitution "little book" and reminds him that it's the Constitution, Morgan says he knows what's in the Constitution and states he's been debating this subject for many years -

Is it a debate between left vs right? Yes and no. Yes because those who tend to support the ban are on the left and those who don't support the band are on the right. The right always appeals to the 2nd Amendment being violated while the left appeals to inaccurate, skewed statistics (science and facts are on our side card) and the dead bodies of those killed by gun violence (emotional appeal). No because I'm not sure how clearer it can be stated that gun ownership, assault or not, is an actual right of the US citizen for defense (you need to be aware of US history starting from its colonization). There is no appeal to the 14th amendment as a back up.

Let me be honest: Those who do support the ban on assault guns usually come from it out of fear. The don't like how guns look (they aren't 'cute' and 'beautiful' like two people of the same-sex kissing, holding hands and both wearing wedding gowns or tuxes). They don't like the sound a gun makes. They attribute the guns with the military and the left tends to see the military as hired murderers by the rich, white 1%, sent out to invade and kill innocent civilians for oil. This is how the left usually views guns, the military and war. This is their worldview. This is not anywhere near inaccurate or exaggerated.

Note that Pierce's attempt to refute the left vs right narrative; that it is, instead preferred, a "those-who-are-civilized-not-Neanderthals" narrative. The left's tactic to remove left vs right is the same thing to cast doubt on right vs wrong, no such thing as a country's border, no such thing as a baby in resemblance of a fetus, that the connection between marriage (between two people of the opposite-sex) and child should be regulated to antiquity standing - that the child has the right to choose its own parents, preferably non-biological (in great favor same-sex guardians), as it always should've been according to one California law professor. 

Also keep in mind that what Pierce did is the same tactic the same-sex "marriage" supporters did to those who oppose same-sex "marriage." Replace Reagan with "your non-straight friends/family member/police officer/teacher." Replace "little book" with the Bible. The "I read your book" is the same thing atheists and social progressives say when dismissing any social conservative stance.

It's the same play in the same playbook just with a different issue.

Next up, abortion and transgenderism.

The sad 4th of July.

I'm going to bed rather sad and I think tomorrow, in general, the sadness will linger.

Stop the earth rotating, Superman, there's racism!

Okay, and? 

It's so obvious what the producers tried to do here, and somewhat succeeded. What Would You Do? is an ABC prime time show. It puts people (actors) facing awkward social situations (racism, sexism etc.) that are staged in order to see what the unexpected population do and say. Sometimes the goal (to paint small towns as racist, sexist, homophobic etc.) gets the controversial results; sometimes it doesn't. In this episode an elderly woman expresses why people of different skin color should date and marry people within their own race. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with that - it's somewhat similar to the religious deciding to marry someone with the same faith. It's a reasonable belief.  

Ah! Racists and religion are two sides of the same coin! Nope. To be honest, I don't think the elderly woman or the woman agreeing with are racists.

And the comments on the video. Dear Allah. This is the proof that modernism is absolutely ridiculous.

"I can't believe such a person exists!"

Welcome to the reality of diversity of thought.

I'd rather sit down with that elderly woman, a supposed "outed" racist, while having a cup of hot chocolate than sit down with the cast & crew of WWYD? The look on their faces were priceless.

"Did you catch that Cynthia? Dear Lord I can't believe what's happening."
"Jim, camera 4. Grab a headphone."

Sins and crimes through a modernist lens are, and make sure you write these down:

Racism
Sexism
Homophobia

Are there racists in America? Yes. Are there sexists in America? Yes. Are there homophobes in America? Yes. Were the people who did not approve of interracial dating racists? I say no.

What do you think? Do you think the elderly woman is a racist?

This is the mindset I left a few years ago.

Nasty.

The "family"? Ew! Kids? Disgusting!

Then there's always that one guy.

A youtube commenter said Ted Cruz was  "cretin", and apparently this poster explains her reasons why.

If you use too many facts, real life experiences related to the issue and a little bit of common sense then you're blocked. (I saw no proof of ad homs and insults as the moderator accused poster "Mesar" of.)

 An anti-American and self-loathing Americans find out they're kindred spirits. (I'm not sure what posts Jessie was reading, but a good portion of the comments agreed with the writer.)

The modern liberal mind isn't hard to figure out - you know what they like and what they don't like ... And it's practically the same across the board. Once you have met one modern day liberal you met a good majority of them.

I don't frequent dailycaller.com, but since it was mentioned in the combox by one poster and another calling it a "bubble" (the irony) it ceases to amaze me how unhappy the American left can be. They complain about the same things:

1. Social conservatives & religion - this is the "far right" to them. They always bring up Barry Goldwater to paint social conservatives in a "you were never liked" light.
2. America's healthcare system not being "universal healthcare."
3. How ignorant/stupid Americans are.
4. How fat Americans are.
5. How many Americans don't speak a second language.

American left and American expats love:

1. Europe. (Specifically Western Europe.)
2. Europe's attitude towards sex and drugs.
3. Universal healthcare.
4. How Europeans speak multiple languages.

It's clear that the left wants America to become Western Europe 2.0. If they hate the South, the Midwest, and the suburbs then they're going to seek out greener pastures in America's cities. If their bitterness still resides in them they might even move to Europe, but they will always loathe America for what it is not and what it does not provide. As poster "howerton" expresses he wants non-Americans to constantly tell Americans "the truth" and how much better life is abroad. You heard it from many on the article - America sucks, its people suck and that Western Europe and Australia are immensely more mature, filled with wisdom and sophistication that only American wishes to achieve one day.

Chillingly speaking, it's the opposite of "And be not conformed to this world; but be reformed in the newness of your mind, that you may prove what is the good, and the acceptable, and the perfect will of God."

It's funny that leftists want America to conform to Western Europe "for the better", want the social conservatives to be social outcasts if not their beliefs to "die the way of the dinosaur" all while throwing mantras like "be yourself" and "be a free thinker" and other slogans that promote non-conformity & extreme individualism. They definitely sound like the teenager who's ashamed of their parents for not being "cool."

A New Start

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money/world-trade-center-reopens-for-business/ar-BBcGY5x?ocid=ansnewsap11

NEW YORK (AP) — The resurrected World Trade Center has again opened for business, 13 years after the 9/11 terrorist attack — marking an emotional milestone for both New Yorkers and the nation.

Some staffers of publishing giant Conde Nast began working at 1 World Trade Center on Monday. The 104-story, $3.9 billion skyscraper dominates the Manhattan skyline. The publishing giant becomes the first commercial tenant in America's tallest building.