Fwd: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey

[Tim May]

Second of the items lne.com never sent to the list (that I have seen, 
9-10 hours later).

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Tim May <timcmay at got.net>
> Date: January 2, 2004 1:02:20 AM PST
> To: cypherpunks at lne.com
> Subject: Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey
>
>
> On Jan 2, 2004, at 12:03 AM, Tim May wrote:
>
>> So Kennedy's liberals scratched their heads and came up with a new 
>> plan. "Relief" would be converted to a series of state and national 
>> programs, no longer handled locally. And the bad connotations of 
>> "relief" would be changed by the new and positive name "entitlement."
>>
>> Money handed out to various folks would be their "entitlement," 
>> something they were _owed_. Other related names would be "social 
>> services" and, of course, liberal mention of "children" and 
>> "nutrition." Ergo programs like WIC ("Women, Infants, and Children"). 
>> Ergo, "Head Start."
>
> And I should have elaborated on the family system effects of the new 
> welfare system:  since the "entitlements" were not given to families 
> with husbands in the household, this made marriage a bad idea for 
> those wanting to get welfare.
>
> A young girl could go from the bottom of the pecking order in her 
> household to the top in her own apartment, with an income from welfare 
> that increased with each baby she had. So we had the spectacle of 
> 14-year-old girls being given their own apartments by Big Brother, 
> paid for with taxes taken from working suckers.
>
> The effects of this are so corrosive as to practically be 
> unexplainable to normal people: households solely dependent on 
> handouts from government, fathers completely absent (except in sneak 
> visits), a disrespect for those who work, the boys in the household 
> anxious to hang out on the streets below rather than be with Momma, 
> the crime that comes from this kind of hanging out, self-loathing (it 
> seems likely) that leads to lashing out at "whitey," and a 
> perpetuating cycle as the young girls seek to get their own "cribs" so 
> the process can repeat and expand.
>
> This is why so many black families today are into their third or even 
> fourth generation of welfare life.
>
> By the way, part of the reason Kennedy wanted to "remove the stigma of 
> relief" was because the decade of the 1950s had been especially bad 
> for the urban poor. Many blacks had moved from farms in the south to 
> cities like Washington, New York, Cincinnati, Oakland, Chicago, etc. 
> Partly they had moved to work in factories during the war, partly 
> because automation on the farms had displaced manual laborers, partly 
> because they heard of the success of other blacks who had moved north.
>
> But they were moving into the cities just as the whites were leaving. 
> (And the whites were not leaving because the blacks were coming 
> in...rather, the new jobs were increasingly in the suburbs, and as 
> highways and freeways and ring roads were built around cities, and as 
> cars became plentiful, and as families grew, many of the city-born 
> whites were moving into the massive new subdivisions being built out 
> in the suburbs.)
>
> So the blacks got to the inner cities with mostly only manual labor 
> skills, just as such jobs were vanishing under automation and through 
> a shift to the suburbs.
>
> Now what government _should have done_ circa the early 1960s is this: 
> Nothing. Except to cut taxes to encourage even more business, and to 
> maybe point out to blacks that they should slow down their move to the 
> cities. (By the way, the same move to the cities was happening in 
> other countries, which is why Mexico City now has something like 20 
> million residents, most of them very poor.)
>
> But instead of letting the dice fall where they may, letting the bad 
> effects discourage other blacks from moving to the cities, Kennedy set 
> his advisors to the problem of solving "urban poverty." They expanded 
> welfare and entitlements, ostensibly because America "could afford it" 
> (the 1950s having been a prosperous period).
>
> Precisely the wrong thing to do. It encouraged even more blacks to 
> flock to the cities, and once started, once established, the welfare 
> spigot could not be turned off, could not be denied to the newcomers. 
> Whoops.
>
> And none of the planners, I expect, saw the effects of the law of 
> unintended consequences, that they would disincentive blacks from 
> seeking hard jobs, that multigenerational welfare would become the 
> norm, and that blacks would be seen by those doing so well in the 
> rapidly-expanding, prosperous suburbs as some kind of throwback to 
> plantation life. The various "demands" by black leaders, the reverse 
> racism ("honkie mofo"), the whole hatred for learning ("reading be for 
> whitey") all combined with the welfare state in these cities to create 
> this gutterization of the negro.
>
> Even when the full magnitude of this developing train wreck was 
> obvious even to the liberals, they didn't pull back from the brink and 
> say "Let's stop this train wreck." Nope, they said the problem was 
> "not enough money." So benefits were expanded in the 1970s, with more 
> Medicare, Medical, larger payments...the idea was to pay enough to get 
> people "back on their feet." But of course, human nature being what it 
> is, most took the higher payments and bought nicer stuff, hence the 
> color televisions found in every "crib."
>
> And the huge influxes of Mexicans during the 70s and 80s magnified the 
> problem (to turn down Mexicans for the same "entitlements" that blacks 
> were getting would not have been kosher, would it?). The effect was 
> that large chunks of cities now had urbanized Mexican ghettoes, paid 
> for with dollars coming from the taxed suckers out in the suburbs.
>
> Whoops. Another train wreck.
>
> And it continues. Finally, even Bill Clinton, a Democrat, tried to put 
> the brakes on welfare. It's worked in some ways, but not in other 
> ways. Just too many "entitlements" to stop the hemorrhaging of money.
>
> (To those who claim the biggest recipients of "welfare" are 
> corporations, review again what I wrote about "sources and sinks." And 
> look at the $40 billion hole California is in. It isn't because of any 
> "welfare to corporations." The "services" sector is a black hole 
> sucking in nearly all of the tax monies collected in California.)
>
> The problem is that some well-meaning social planners thought they 
> could fix a fundamental problem (poor people moving into cities) by 
> giving money to the poor people in cities. It not only didn't work, it 
> worsened the problem in multiple ways and largely caused the "racial" 
> divisions of today.
>
>
> --Tim May
> "Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and
> strangled with her panty hose,  is somehow morally superior to a woman 
> explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound"
>
>
--Tim May
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize 
Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of 
conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are 
peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." --Samuel Adams