We skew older on this blog. But as generations churn and things start getting ugly, remember that the United States is, in historical terms, an unimaginable of racial and sexual harmony. For most of our lifetimes, the United States accepted more immigrants than all other nations combined… And we made things work.

I had to quit reading the AP news site when they attacked Trump for using the same pens as Obama.

"For most of our lifetimes, the United States accepted more immigrants than all other nations combined… And we made things work."

And then some of us morphed into consumers, as opposed to citizens. That and apathy combined to block our view of those things that worked - chief among them a citizenry who wanted to DO things rather than just GET them.

Those special people barricading themselves in Seattle had no idea how to simply maintain order. Imagine the response you would get if you asked such people how to administer a state payroll...

Those special people barricading themselves in Seattle had no idea how to simply maintain order.

Because they imagine the world to be one giant commune, where everyone simply wants to get along and is happy with the basics for survival; that no one is possessive, jealous, or greedy. Property will be happily shared by all, right?

They cannot conceive that the market offers a regulatory mechanism for the distribution of scarce goods and services. They think that, by eliminating the market, they'll make Rolexes and Barbour jackets available for everyone.

As children they were told to share. Mostly because adults don't want to deal with children crying over access to a toy. That, and children don't have any money with which to rent or buy the toy so lessons in economics fall flat. The CHOP folks are still in the jealous child stage of the maturing process. They want what the other has and insist the other should share it with them.

A limited supply of things without a regulatory mechanism breeds desire, envy, and greed. The movie, The Gods Must Be Crazy did an excellent job of showing that on a microeconomic level. A Coke bottle dropped by a pilot fell from the sky into a Bushman village and chaos resulted.

At first, everyone shared the new item. It was very useful. Being smooth, it could be used to roll and crush food. Being hollow, it could be used as a musical instrument or to carry water. But there was only one and it could only be used by one person at a time. The ones not using it had to go back to the laborious ways they had used before the gods bestowed their gift. Soon, fighting broke out and the once-harmonious clan was riven by conflict.

As long as the Bushmen stayed in a simple, primitive existence, nature supplied all their needs. However, once introduced to specialized technology - i.e., a scarce resource - they found themselves fighting over access to it.

It's the same thing with services. We all know that not every accountant or attorney is equal in skills, knowledge, experience, ethics, or dedication. Some are better than others. The ones who are better command a higher rate, and should. In a collectivist system, however, attorney = attorney.

It goes beyond scarce goods and services; down to a personal preference level. Let's say I don't want my dwelling place covered in graffiti but my neighbors do. In a collectivist society, I have no choice; it's not my property. On a microeconomic level, I'll compare this to my experience in jury duty.

In California, I would go to jury duty at the local courthouse (6 times in 12 years). In the jury room, there was one television set. Invariably, it was playing Oprah, Jerry Springer, or any one of a number of daytime trash television shows. I got into the habit of sitting out by the coffee kiosk and reading a book just to avoid getting sucked into overhearing what passes for daytime entertainment for the masses today.

Collectivist paradigms always default to the lowest common denominator. That's what makes it impossible to establish and maintain order without force.

The major message these BLM/Antifa riots send is, "We (blacks) still consider ourselves victims, and YOU WILL give us what we demand or we will kill you and your children, and burn your house, your car, and your business!"

This message will certainly be taken seriously. But not in the way its senders want, and those who send it certainly aren't our "co-humans" anymore. That's their choice, and we will follow through.

So, should AP reporters capitalize "indigenous" when describing the native cultures of Europe? Or is the capital "I" reserved for non-white indigenous cultures?

One wonders if the AP editors who made this decision have had any education in the English language. Or do they write "english?"

As children they were told to share. Mostly because adults don't want to deal with children crying over access to a toy. That, and children don't have any money with which to rent or buy the toy so lessons in economics fall flat.
______________________________________

It doesn't help that most American parents are too dumb to realize that the more toys even an only child has, the more miserable work it will be for the kid to pick them up - cue the whining. So if there are two or more kids, all the more reason to LIMIT toys to those games that call for more than one player.

But, there's NO reason parents can't use their imaginations and come up with ways for kids to EARN money (e.g., by doing the parents' chores in addition to their own). Too many parents are too cowardly to go against the grain that way. But at least a few have. Amy Dacyczyn, author of "The Complete Tightwad Gazette" and mother of six (almost all are now in their 30s) said that whenever she went shopping and some kid demanded something, her standard reply was "where is YOUR money?" Yes, they had to do unpaid chores as well as paid chores, and no, they didn't get allowances. Just like adults.

The result? Their rate of consumerism was cut by 90%, they learned to think before buying, and they eventually felt empowered, since they could earn money whenever they wanted, instead of waiting for it.

As I mentioned elsewhere, maybe teenage "incels" wouldn't feel so miserable and entitled if parents took a stronger stand against useless fun and instant gratification from day one. (Trouble is, that would mean having to set an example!) To put it another way, maybe it's time for parents to start saying "I expect you to become a kind, giving and useful CITIZEN" and stop telling their teens "I just want you to be happy."

There are clearly too many things wrong with the latter statement. After all, plenty of "gutter punks" - that is, young people who choose to be homeless - might say they're happy, but they're still burdens to society. What parent wants that?

Like the imposition of Latinx, which actual latino's absolutely despise, very few American indians refer to themselves as Indigenous or want to. It's another example of Progressive white racists commandeering the identity of another group to preen themselves & harass the 'low whites'.

Also I suspect that the AP is lying when they claim to have performed 2 years of research and discussion. Someone may have proposed capitalizing Black two years ago, but as with Indigenous, there's never been a push for that. And why would you need two years to determine whether it's warranted in any case?

Conan, The University of Oklahoma had a professor doing this back in 2000. If white was ever capitalized (even if it was the first word in a sentence) then you got a 0. If black was ever not capitalized you got a 0. People complained to the powers that be and were told anyone complaining is a racist. So 20 years later students of such professors are now in charge of the AP and other groups.

It's worse, Conan: in a collectivist system, your give according to you ability, but get according to your needs. Thus an able person with modest needs will come to resent the less able person with much greater needs.

Those able people - because they are able - will game the system as much possible and provide as little work and reduce their resentment.

Soviet optimization problems, if you will.

> should AP reporters capitalize
> "indigenous"

No. Italicize it. And boldface the g.

It's the only way to honor indigenous peoples.

Also, "peoples" is always plural.

Also, "peoples" is always plural. ~ Crid at July 22, 2020 4:13 PM

It is, mostly because it makes you sound like a learned anthropologist.

Also, "peoples" is always plural. ~ Crid at July 22, 2020 4:13 PM
It is, mostly because it makes you sound like a learned anthropologist.

Conan the Grammarian at July 23, 2020 6:18 AM

Or Winston Churchill.

"The original sin of the American intellectual is his desire to be popular. [...] And not just popular, but popular in the way politicians are popular; a man of the people — but a man of the people to whom the people must defer and pay tribute, because he wields power over them." ~ Kevin D. Williamson