Peak Stupidity University Sociological Observations versus Theory
Posted On: Tuesday - May 6th 2025 7:33PM MST
In Topics: University Female Stupidity
At the bottom of our post last week entitled University Bubble Housing, we foreshadowed this post, saying "Next time: What one can't help noticing around campus."
Since I'd looked at a whole bunch of stats on the University in question with the rapidly growing housing capacity yet questionable growth prospects, I wanted to discuss one of them in particular. That is the sex ratio, often mistakenly called gender ratio, which I must admit, is probably clearer in this context than sex ratio. (Sounds like "who's gettin' any?") Here is that pie chart:
Let me get a couple of things out of the way here. Firstly, I'm sure most Peak Stupidity readers are aware of societal trends enough to know that the numbers of University enrollees would be skewed toward woman at this point. Secondly, the reasons and the implications have probably been discussed by you all, likely in the comments section of the old iSteve blog, as that's well within Steve Sailer's wheelhouse. Therefore, I won't get into all that here.
This is one university, so to get more general data, I did my best with my sorry-assed search skills on the www. For the recent few years, I get the ratio for the whole US as anywhere from 57.4% women to right at the numbers for this school, approaching 60% women. Oh, so it's significant, but the number of women is only 20% more than the number of men. No, this is why some of us went to the university!... besides that there are so many women there - ;-} - that's 50% more women than men! Nice! (If you're horny.)
That means that if you sit there at the student union and wonder if you'll be able to get chicks, you can think "I'll write off 1/3 of these girls as too homely and we're still even." Does that work? Some say no. I was not in a fraternity, so your mileage (heh) may vary.
Is there anything that we can notice that has changed due to this now-heavily-female-skewed university attendance. Yeah, Noticing. I'm no Steve Sailer, but I still have that Y chromosome, so I can't HELP but notice some things at the university campus or within a mile radius.
Butt cheeks. You can see a lot more. Perhaps the girls were generally slimmer when I went to college, which is very important, but of the many who are now, I have noticed this trend. They wear shorts that show significant amounts of material that I don't recall were visible years ago. It's something else, I tells ya'.
I see a correlation, with the observational numbers - I mean, I can't go measuring parts of people - and the theory, which supposes that these young ladies, many, or probably most, there to start that MRS degree, have to "work" harder these days to attract attention, since they outnumber the men 3:2. There's more competition and that means that you've got to show off more skin than the next
Since I've brought up Steve Sailer throughout this post, let me take a cue from him and propose a law, somewhat (but not) akin to his Law of Female Journalism.*
Peak Stupidity's Law of Female University Student Hotness: The higher the female/male enrollment ratio at a university, the higher the average amount of ass cheek visible.
Sociological Observation. We have not even gotten our research grants approved yet. Still, it's what we thanklessly do here.
* You'll have to read the book, or, yeah, look it up on the www, for the exact wording.
Comments (8)
Shiloh and the Somalians
Posted On: Saturday - May 3rd 2025 5:16PM MST
In Topics: Immigration Stupidity Student and other Snowflakes Political Correctness Liberty/Libertarianism Race/Genetics
This is a screenshot from The Gateway Pundit, not the video itself. It's at the bottom.
No, that wouldn't even be a good name for a rock band*. In Minnesota, don'tcha' know? Shiloh obviously sounds like a Southern girl's. name, and Somalians, I mean what the...? I'd have figured a Rochester, Minnesota girl would be Natalie, Marge, Helen, Mary... Tyler Moore, or something, and we were led to believe (in a 1970s TV show) that there'd be no Somalians in a place like Rochester, Minnesota.
OK, we're being facetious here, as we HAVE kept up with the immigration invasion, including the refugee resettlement scam. As if they hadn't already screwed up by creating a big welfare State in the upper midwest to where native blacks from other States moved up, the nice White Minnesota ladies invited 10's to 100's of thousands of foreigner blacks from Somalia, repeating a 200-400 year old mistake.
Well, for this "N-word" story today (one I just read about today, after reading "Shiloh" here for a while in bewilderment) the difference between mistakes made by Shiloh Hendrix's possible 20th generation ancestors vs. those made by her parents' or grandparents" generation doesn't matter. This could have happened either way, with either "community". As I watched the viral video of Miss(?) Hendrix admitting (OH! GOSH!) to calling a budding little thief a nigger and not backing down, I had a memory from years ago of some little black girl grabbing something of my boy's off the bench at this same type of playground. Her little brother seemed to be eyeing stuff too. It was the appropriate time to give my son John Derbyshire's The Talk - non-Black! version. He was about 4 y/o, so I had to abbreviate it quite a bit, to "You have to keep an eye on 'them'." I don't remember having known who the Mom was there at the playground, and luckily, yes, we have no
Miss Hendrix must have had the word "nigger" nearby in her head, meaning she had some experience with racial matters. No, it's no longer Mary Tyler Moore's Minnesota. (... and this is Rochester, even, not Minneagadishu.) You get pissed, and the bad words come out... rude, but it ain't no crime [/Billy Joel]. OTOH, stealing someone's diaper bag at the park is, but it was a little thief, so whaddya' do? Usually nothing - just walk away and cool down.
Mr. concerned good
I'm sorry if I don't pay attention to, or really care about, foreign students who get kicked out of the country for speech of some kind, that is, as compared to the de facto ban on certain "Hate Speech" by the Establishment, in which free speech has been limited for 2 decades. It was very nice to see Shiloh Hendrix not back down to this race hustling Somalian... and multiple times at that. I suppose once you're already on camera, the rest of them are free, as they say.
Young people especially know how video is everywhere, and it can put your good or bad moments "up" for all the world to see. Yet, young Shiloh thought "Screw it, we shouldn't have to take grief from some worthless foreigner for not putting up with theft from my little one in our formerly White spaces." I am very glad to see that she is getting a lot of support from (ya' gotta figure) White people around the country and also that she has not backed down, as of press time.
Will the BLM types and Commie goons be stirred up by their leaders to start another Floyd campaign 5 years later, in the same State even? Well, see, nobody died... but then, saying "nigger" is worse than murder, apparently. I'm guessing even the Snowflakes of Minnesota won't put up with any more of that. The Commies will have to come up with something else, because, single-motherhood, arm-long tattoos and all****, Shiloh Hendrix is something of a hero. I don't proclaim the following in jest, as the wording suggests:
(AI cartoon kindly provided by Adam Smith, without his permission.)
In comments below, Adam Smith has given a link to Shiloh's GiveSendGo page. It's up to $619,000 and climbing, with many small donations. It's perhaps hypocritical for me to urge people to Give, Send, and Go(?) when I haven't, but I seriously have a problem with apps and personal info for ANYTHING that doesn't need it. I send checks and cash. Were I to be sure to have a good address for this young lady, I may send her $100 and a nice thank you note. Hopefully she's the type that cares about what happens here not solely for her ability to get away (but where?! This was Minne-freaking-sota!) from this "community", but I also hopes she does care, and is proud of, her probably unintentional blow for free speech in America.
Here's the video from Adam Smith's youtube channel (No, you can't use the clicker there, Meathead!)
If the youtube MiniTru Dept. strips it out, Adam has provided us with 2 other sources. Thanks!
PS: This isn't unexpected, but it's too bad Jim Hoft of The Gateway Pundit has nowhere near the courage of young Shiloh. His post on this story reads "N-Word" in the title, and he made this into story of the criminality of the Somalian playground-goer rather than any defense of Shiloh Hendrix and free speech. Beyond that, he advises discretion of his readers (hence my not having cropped that out above) due to, what... the one word? Cuck!
* Hat tip to good old Dave Barry.
** See this take on the parable of The Good Samaritan.
*** Not to be confused with a guy named Omer, who was involved in some crime with him. It used to be you wouldn't get confused by Omar/Omer because THERE! WERE! NONE! in America.
**** From thoughts of Greg Hood in the article on this story linked-to up top also, The Battle of Shiloh. Yes, clever title there.
*****************************************
[UPDATED 05/04:] Added GiveSendGo link and paragraph associated. Added the video clip itself. Thanks to Adam Smith for the help.
*****************************************
Comments (28)
Senator Josh Hawley reintroduces the PELOSI Bill
Posted On: Friday - May 2nd 2025 7:26PM MST
In Topics: Humor US Feral Government
They're calling it an Act, but an Act is only created when a Bill is passed, by both the House and Senate, and then signed by the President (or via the override of his veto by 2/3 aye's in both the House and Senate. The PELOSI Bill, an acronym for Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments is surely not going to. US Congressmen and Senators have too much invested in the status quo.*
Yes, the PELOSI Act! Missouri Senator Josh Hawley is a clever guy. I mean, that there is funny, no matter who ya' are... unless you're Nancy Pelosi or one of the stockbrokers who work for the many millionaires in the House and Senate.
Really, even if one of the Communists of the American left had come up with such a great acronym, I'd find it humorous. That wouldn't happen though, because the ctrl-left have no sense of humor. We at Peak Stupidity do, and this is so funny because it fits so well.
Nancy Pelosi is something on the order of 1/4 $Billion filthy rich. It pays to be a 20-term servant of the California taxpayers. Additionally, if you don't want to be eating cat food when you retire (aka, die) from the office, there's insider trading, designed to help one augment the meager $174,000 annual salary plus the $49,500 override for serving as Speaker.
* Surely that pun was intended, the reader may ask. Indeed it was, and quit calling me Shirley.
No comments - Click here to start thread
University Bubble Housing
Posted On: Thursday - May 1st 2025 7:45PM MST
In Topics: University Economics
The reader may have been expecting "Housing Bubble" together, as we've written about that before. (See our old posts with my favorite Case-Schiller graphs off one particular blog I used to like: Housing Bubble 2.0 - West coast, university towns, minorities, to be hardest hit! - - Housing Bubble 2.0 - (Part 2) - Voila, an American Dream - - One year after our last post - Housing Bubble 2.0 going Bubblicious and Checking in on Housing Bubble 2.0- Bubble or just high inflation?.) I've been wrong too many times about housing prices, as you can see from the titles*, so here I discuss the University Bubble, prompted by my seeing so lots of new housing being built.
The "University Bubble" is something Instapundit Glenn Reynolds used to discuss, or actually, point out articles about, and I saw a post of his about it a couple of months back. Is this anything real?
Is it as with the manufacturers of socks I buy at Target, there's just one architect doing all of these?
There have been traffic jams as work had to be done out into the busy streets around this whole city block apartment complex being built ~ 3/4 mile from the center of the nearby University. I looked the builder up. They are a big company that builds these structures all over. Regarding this particular one near us, depending on which site you read, there will be 600-odd or 900-odd bedrooms. (Based on units, also 2 different numbers, the apartments will average to 3 bedrooms.)
These are not dorms, owned by the U., but they are mostly definitely for students. They are expecting a WHOLE LOT of university students. That would be a whole lot MORE. This is after 20 years of my seeing new housing being built all over, and it's not going anywhere.. I just found a nice web page for the University of REDACTED stats on student population. Student population attending this campus has increased 18% in the last 10 years, but unfortunately, the data doesn't go back past 11 years ago.
Interestingly, at first, I found it odd that, for all years I checked, the number of students in each academic year-category went up from Freshmen, sorry Freshpeople, through Seniors. Whaaaa? Don't students drop out anymore? (Well, now there's "grade forgiveness" and basically lower standards and all the student loan money you can use, so .. don't call us, child, we'll call you....) Freshman class sizes are about 1/2 of Senior class sizes, and Sophomore and Junior are in the middle and fairly close to each other.
Ahaa, this shows that there are plenty of students that have transferred from other schools, most probably from less expensive community/tech colleges.
I see a pie chart that says 17% of the students get Pell Grants, but no pie** about student loans held. THAT would have been more helpful. It was not easy to get consistent numbers, but for American college students in general, I get that about half of them exit (graduate?) college with student loan debt. The average amount is not as much as I'd thought, somewhere around 25 big ones. (That's only half of a new pick-up truck.)
Is this continual growth in college student population, ahem, sustainable? I see 3 factors in this possible University Bubble:
1) College student age population. I know I read something by Steve Sailer predicting lower numbers of American available to attend college, but Census Bureau data doesn't agree. this link on the CB site goes to a simple spreadsheet. There's a slight drop going on, with the population of the 20-24 y/o, 15-19 y/o (about 1/2 of these 2 of standard college age), 10-14 y/o, and 5-9 y/o (a decade before college age) groupings going from 22.3 million, to 21.6 million, to 20.7 million, then down to 19.9 million. It's not a drastic change. With some averaging of the oldest 2 groupings, we'd see a drop of 5% over 5 years and 10% over 10 years. (This is assuming President Trump keeps on doing what he's doing at the border, what with all those future Valedictorians and all...)
That reduction is not what I'd call the popping of a bubble.
2) The financial burden of student loans. We have an idea of this burden numerically. However, we don't know whether or when students, or more like their parents, will start balking at accumulating debt that may have served no purpose, depending on major. IOW, will potential students and their parents stop supporting this cycle of tuition increases***, with taxpayer support for it all? I guess this depends on the rest of the economy, the outlook of which is not rosy.
3) The point of going to college. There's a video I've seen referenced in multiple place recently by some famous (not to me!) guy who recommends not going to college for lots of young people. With automation and AI possibly wiping out lot of the rest of the white collar jobs, will it get even harder to enter one of the careers that college education is important for?
There will always be a need for engineers, doctors, scientists, etc., but most of those attending college are in other majors. Is there really a point now, when most student have no resemblance to real humanities scholars of the past? College has become a rite of passage and 4 years, sometimes 5, of good times and that's all. Your parents went, they still buy the sweatshirts and ball caps, and everyone follows the sportsball teams, so ... why not? The future of this spending of half a decade just for fun and inertial reasons depends, yet again, on the economy, the outlook of which is .... yeah...
One would think the businessmen at the large firm behind the erection of these 600-900 student housing complexes know what they're doing. I don't know about that. I think someone, somewhere is gonna lose his ass.
Next time: What one can't help noticing around campus.
* OTOH, I was right in thinking that Housing in China was going to take a dive. That's what I've been hearing about from personal sources.
** There's another very important simple pie chart in there that I'll discuss in another post.
*** And don't forget FEES either! They're not your parents' $20 lab fees anymore. They are significant... but they are not tuition. (Don't ask me how they're not.)
Comments (5)
Pat-25 Helo Pilots - NY Times with some below-the-fold details
Posted On: Wednesday - April 30th 2025 8:04PM MST
In Topics: Political Correctness Feminism Anti-Social Media
No, it's an expression from the days of paper newspapers. Please don't fold your computer screen. Peak Stupidity takes no responsibility for this or any other stupidity recommended on this blog. [Ker-ching!! - PS Legal Dept.]
We got hung up on this story on Monday with that old-timey but still very stupid and confusing Feminist-implemented grammatical stupidity. Before we move on, let me restate from Adam Smith's comments (also mentioned by ZH commenters) that it was NOT the NY Times doing this stupidity.
Moving on, this post is written to start to answer the question posed a week after the Army UH-60 Blackhawk/Canadair* CRJ-700 jet mid-air crash in the terminal area of Ronald Reagan Field (aka, Reagan National, code KDCA**), Did D.I.E. cause 67 people to die?. The next day we discussed the D.I.E. factors in regard to the helo crew, who, even at that point, were known to be THE cause of the crash
Let me paste in a bit from that post, and then we'll add some more based on that NY Times article that Gateway Pundit and ZeroHedge referred to. (BTW, thank you so much, Adam Smith, for the links! One link is to the article on the web archive site, so I didn't even have to click on the NYT website, something I'm loath to do.)
I don't know how the relationship would have been between a higher ranking officer getting trained and her instructor. I emphasized her, notice, because I can see that being a part of a problem.
I talked to a former Army helicopter pilot today who assured me that, no, there's no big deal about a higher-ranking officer receiving instruction from a lower one. Each knows where he stands. Oh, that was he. I don't know the guy well enough to ask him about problems with the sexes in said situation. Some would say it's a bad idea to have women involved in military combat roles period. I would tend to agree.
Rebecca Lobach, using her leverage as a member of the IN crowd during the Bai Dien Reign Administration, moved up the ranks to Captain very quickly. I imagine the whole "Grrrylll Power" thing took with her. What could go wrong, indeed? What kind of attitude did she have that night when flying with a lower-ranking man? She'd broken that plexiglas ceiling. Was Andrew Eaves, still Pilot in Command of the flight, as the instructor, a little bit wary of being too tough on his student? There'd be a number of social factors at work. Again, I don't know, and nobody can be sure, until the pertinent parts of the voice recorder transcript are released. Will the military ever release that?The 2 NYT reporters, Kate Kelly and Mark Walker's discuss 5 "takeaways" (can't stand that term) from "The Times investigation". What? I was expecting it to say the "NTSB Investigation", as that's where the info is coming from. What the NY Times DOES have, rather than an investigation, is apparently access to the Blackhawk's (and possibly CRJ's too) Cockpit Voice Recorder transcript. I'd like to see that too, as I can only get so much from Kelly's and Walker's last, 5th, takeaway, the one that has the important information on what the helo crew did that night.
The other "takeaways" show the 2 authors slight ignorance about aviation, as much as they try to understand things. We'll have more on this stuff, just for the record in an other post. This last one, The Black Hawk pilot failed to heed a directive from her co-pilot to change course., is that key point held for the end, cause, yes, shhhhh, Diversity Hire. Rebecca Lobach was one. Even after her name was withheld for a couple of days so that her anti-Social Media self could be scrubbed, we all found out that she had become a Brandon Administration political figure, until, sucks to be her, Trump won the '24 election and she had to go back to just old flying helicopters (something some guys might have loved to have GOTTEN to do to fulfill their dreams, but for Diversity).
What happened, as gleaned from the NY Times writers' summary of the CVR transcript? As we had thought happened, in contradiction to the claims of former helo pilot I'd talked. To be fair, I didn't bring up the sex/diversity angle, just the conflict between rank and instructor/student relationship. I'd say commenter Alarmist summed up the problem succinctly on Monday:
I missed the part where he called out "My Aircraft" and took control to avert disaster.
I guess you don't interrupt girl-bosses in the New US Army.
Right, hopeful suggestions don't cut it after a while. "Take us down to 100 ft radar alt, now." might have been said, but, otherwise, yes "My aircraft!" or "I got it", and do what needs to be done. That's an important part of an instructor's job. NY Times "investigators" Kelly&Walker - LLC, two hundred dollars a day... PLUS EXPENSES - either don't understand this or could not shake that PC/Wokeness, being worried about the NY Times editor in chief calling out "My newspaper!"
Of course, this lady pilot was not up for the job, but I put more blame than that above on the Warrant Officer Eaves, the Instructor pilot too, than just what was written above.
The 2nd big mistake he made was something I have gleaned from this article, but this, along with the 1st point would be clearer had I the CVR transcript. It really sounds like this pilot's use of the visual separation exception to other air traffic control methods was a quick crutch for him, requested a couple of times quickly recklessly as a way to continue the trip down the Potomac on that Helicopter Route 1 without hassle. It's a published procedure that they were not following anyway***. The Tower had told the helicopter (as in the 2 crew members both listening to the radio, one would think. where this traffic was and that they were coming around to land on 33. Some of this may have been missed, as in "stepped on" (on Live ATC, one cannot detect the reception, only the transmissions), but that does't excuse anything. You either positively see the specific aircraft in question or you don't claim you can maintain a visual on it.
It's likely that neither pilot had the PSA flight in sight when they needed to, and it's possible they didn't even try looking for it. That would explain why the instructor wanted to go down and left besides just for compliance's sake. It's also very possible that neither of them knew the layout of Reagan Field enough to understand that an approach to runway 33 would put a jet just over their heads coming from the left, if they were where they were SUPPOSED to be, even.
Until we read the CVR transcripts, we can't be sure what as said between the lower-ranking and White male instructor pilot and the woke Diversity hire token pilot during those critical moments. How hesitant was this instructor to take charge due to worries about being written up later as a bigot or male chauvinist pig? (Haha, it's That '70s Show here at Peak Stupidity. Maude is on next.****) A few extra seconds of hesitation can get lots of people killed.
This team of 2 from the "Paper of Record" sure didn't want to get into THAT part. It was just that she wasn't doing what she was told, that's all. What would be the NTSB recommendations to prevent that sort of thing? That it shows the very real dangers of D.I.E., when push comes to shove, well, will there be some recommendations based on THAT? I believe that's a bridge too far, even for the NTSB, one of the few organizations in the US Gov't that I support and appreciate.
We'll have more to say based on the first 4 takeaways (ugghhh!) from this article, but our conclusions won't be much different from before.
* The news"papers" use Mitsubishi now, but they bought out that particular part of the Canadian conglomerate Bombardier ("Bombadeer" in English), who had bought out Canadair a few decades back.
** The "K" is the international code for US airports, and DCA is District of Criminals Aerodrome, if I'm not mistaken.
*** That the geometry for use of that helo route at the same time traffic was landing on runway 33 (or T/O on 15 for that matter, but I think that'd be rare) doesn't work is something to be explained in the next couple of posts on this accident.
**** Thanks go to my friend for remember these terms as I had a Brandon moment in progress.
Comments (5)
Pat-25 Helo Pilots - wading through grammatical stupidity
Posted On: Monday - April 28th 2025 7:50PM MST
In Topics: Websites Political Correctness Media Stupidity
It was a tweet on Instapundit, by Alex Berenson (he of anti-Corona-Panic fame) critiquing a NY Times article on this past January's fatal mid-air crash of Army "Pat-25" and PSA, dba American 5342, that got me back into this story yesterday. The CVR from the helo (along with from PSA's CRJ-700) with excellent sound quality, per the NTSB, is out somewhere, such that the NY Times could get to it.
I'd noted early on that the pilots of the Army Blackhawk helicopter were completely at fault for the crash. There are always contributing factors, but this doesn't change the basic blame. Peak Stupidity asked Did D.I.E. cause 67 people to die? and then discussed the D.I.E. social factors in The pilots of Pat-25 about a week after the crash. In addition to bringing up D.I.E. as a root cause,in that tweet, Mr. Berenson objected to the way this "Newspaper of Record" only got to the real story of the mistakes of the diversity helo pilot* at the end. Does he read Steve Sailer, because I'm pretty sure pundit Steve Sailer has been first in being all over those writers for putting the important stuff in paragraph 18 or 25
Perhaps Peak Stupidity may have been first in noticing this were we prone to READING the NY Times. We won't, generally, but this story was interesting enough to where I tried to get to the original article, especially to see how and where the writers got that CVR transcript. Alas, tweets suck! I spend=t time going to twitter, back and forth, gave up, and then figured I'd go on 2 go-to websites for the story.
That's where this post turns into a story of Media grammatical stupidity - we'll get to the real story soon. OK, Gateway Pundit (review there**) is full of ads and hype. I got sick of it about a year ago. However, I can usually find news on a timely story that would interest Conservatives there. Yeah, I found their story.
As I'd expected, the writer Christina Laila knows nothing about aviation. That wasn't the problem. The problem was the confusing pronoun usage that truly impeded intelligent conveyance of a story. Let me get this straight. D.I.E. hire or not, it's possibly Army Captain Rebecca Lobach did get into the weird Woke pronoun business. However, the politically erroneous pronoun problem here, and worse to be described later hearken back to Feminism. This is the use of "they", "them", and "their" for 3rd-person SINGULAR when the sex of said person is not known. We discussed this way back in First post on Feminism - starting off at a low stupidity level. The deal was, we can't use standard English male pronouns for unknown sex. It'd be "sexist".
Yeah, that's a pretty low stupidity level compared to today's, but it's, after half a century, still damned annoying and confusing. What I didn't get to in that post (because they used to be short!) is that these pronouns will be used even if we DO know the sex, and even if the sex is female! I thought at least Feminist would like us to use "she", "her", "hers"...
So, I'm there trying to quickly get the gist of things on GP, and I see the following (reproduced as best I could because the site fixed it since yesterday.)
On Sunday, The New York Times released new details about the fatal crash and it revealed Rebecca Lobach repeatedly ignored warnings from their right seat about altitude.Well, enough of that - I went over to ZeroHedge to read this:
Lobach’s male co-pilot, an Army flight instructor, directly told them to turn away, and they flew straight into a passenger jet.
It was worse there!
Let me spell out what the Times buried deep in their article: The Black Hawk pilot received clear, explicit warnings about altitude from their co-pilot.You couldn't tell who's doing what and who's telling what to whom, were you not already familiar with the story. No, the blameless unfortunate crew chief is NOT one of the plural people here. There are only 2! In aviation, if ANYWHERE, you want clear communication, which is, in fact part of the very story of the crash.
The co-pilot explicitly instructed them to turn away from the passenger jet. And what did they do? They ignored those warnings and flew straight into the path of an American Airlines flight carrying 64 innocent people.
Yet, this gobbledygook is written all because of a bunch of bitching by some Feminists 50 years ago. If we're (and Trump sure is trying!) going to shut down D.I.E. and wokeness, the least we can do for starters is to reverse this old-timey pronoun stupidity. Maybe, then, we - talking Peak Stupidity here - can get to the additional information on the Pat-25 helo pilots in that fatal crash.
PS: As you can see, it was not "Tyler Durden" who wrote the ZeroHedge article, but, rather, one Matt Margolis of Conservative PJ Media. Still, Tyler Durden is Blogger-in-Command of ZeroHedge, so he should have taken control of the pixels, just as Warrant Officer and Instructor Pilot Andrew Eaves should have taken the stick from them, you know, them, I mean the one(s?) flying that Blackhawk. See?
PPS: The GP commenters are an OK lot, but not as bright and fun, IMO, as the ZH guys. The ZH guys gave the writer appropriate criticism for this confusing pronoun stupidity.
* Blame can be put on her instructor too, but we'll get to that in the REAL POSTS on this story.
** See also our Addendum to that. Also, a bit later, I got pissed off and wrote about Gateway Pundit Spanish-language "outreach". That was about the time I quit reading regularly.
Comments (12)
Reader Friend Suggestion: Judge shopping for re- and pro-active Reverse Lawfare
Posted On: Saturday - April 26th 2025 4:12PM MST
In Topics: Trump US Feral Government ctrl-left Legal Stupidity
(I was glad to see that when I'd typed in "Boasberg Judge i..." for "images", google suggested impeachment.)
In my mind, the judicially obstructionist strategy of the ctrl-left was even worse during Trump-45, but, after the initial Trump-47 E.O. Blitzkrieg, it's baaaaaaackkkk! We may see much more of it, just based on the fact that Trump has been getting a LOT more done this time, or in some areas just trying harder. It's been only 4 months, and I don't think President Trump had this many policies at least STARTED in 4 years last go-around.
Will no one rid of us these turbulent Commies? For Henry II, just asking the question may have greatly helped answer it in the affirmative. For American Conservatives, we like to stay within the law. As much as the commies of the ctrl-left stretch the law way beyond the spirit of it to fight us, we may need to fight back in the same manner.
A long-term friend and Peak Stupidity reader has an idea on this matter. He's been trying to get someone, ANYONE, to at least explain why it won't work, if there's a reason. If not, why can't the Trump Administration adopt these ideas?
Here's Coulda Had Lee Rille (NOT his real name) with his idea:
**********************************************
I've had this idea since Trump's first term to deal with anti-constitutional lawfare (e.g. Boasberg, Friedman, many others) that attempts to usurp executive powers at the hands of a few black-robed unelected "judges". The problem's gotten so ridiculous now that I'm compelled to find some way to get this seemingly obvious idea out there. It seems so simple and obvious to me, but in all this time (7 or 8 years now), I've not seen ONE person online, in the media, or in government mention it. That makes me think there must be some technical or legal reason that it's not even being mentioned.
There are two versions of the strategy. The first might be called "reactive" and is considerably simpler. The second might be called "proactive" and would require more planning and thinking, even before an Executive Order is issued. The "reactive" version assumes that one can bring a complaint or case to a federal "district" court, even though a fairly similar complaint has already been brought (and possibly ruled on) in another district.
Reactive: Once a lame injunction or ruling has been dictated in a leftwing activist judge-shopped district, you get a plaintiff(s) to bring a similar complaint to a "conservative or constitutional" judge in a different district. Hopefully, a ruling is then soon made which runs counter to the first ruling. At that point, the prez can safely say "We've got one judge that says "A", and another that says "B", and they conflict with each other severely. The only reasonable thing to do is to keep the order in place until one or both rulings are possibly appealed to the Supremes."
Proactive: Before the latest EO is signed, people in or near the administration brainstorm and try to predict the most likely case or complaint that a crazy leftwing group and lawyer might use to defeat said EO in court. Find some plaintiff(s) to bring that complaint/case to a conservative or originalist judge (reverse judge shopping, as it were!). Hopefully said complaint will be quickly struck down. At that point, if the ACLU (or other anti-American activist group) brings a similar case elsewhere - and it results in the inevitable injunction or "temporary blocking" of the EO - you're back in the situation of saying "hey, we've got two judges saying two totally contradictory things on this, so we're forced to just keep the EO in effect until an appeal is made and ruled on."
Note, the main reason to go with the "proactive" version is if it's somehow illegal or "against process" to bring a complaint to a district judge if a "similar" complaint has already been brought (and possibly ruled on) in a different district. I apologize for my lack of legal process knowledge and language. I'm just hoping some legally knowledgeable people out there might explain why some version of this strategy has not been implemented. BTW, it would also work for a Democratic administration, but they don't seem to have this judicial activist issue hitting them in the face every week or two (probably because there are so many leftwing activist Federal judges that only care about party and politics).
**********************************************
I hope Mr. Had Lee Rille will get some help from either Peak Stupidity readers or elsewhere. (I'm gonna put it in the next Steve Sailer Open Thread.)
Have a good Sunday, Peakers. We'll be back with plenty more next week.
Comments (9)
REAL ID - Zee deadline iss approaching, Comrades
Posted On: Friday - April 25th 2025 10:39PM MST
In Topics: US Police State Liberty/Libertarianism Orwellian Stupidity
Back in the day, one would make fun of attempts to implement an American Police State using German or Russian sounds, seeing as a) Those were the Police States people were most familiar with, b) Nobody knows how to even attempt at making fun of Chinese, and c) We didn't have our own Police State yet here, so we didn't just write in plain English. Oh, and, as with that Monty Python Communist Quiz Show skit, we often confuse Russian sounds with German ones. (I do, anyway.)
Peak Stupidity mentioned the continual extensions of this Orwellian REAL ID bull twice already. Oddly, but maybe not, the 1st post, Reprieve on the Illuminati ID* - written in Fall '21 about the extension of the '20 deadline, was not mentioned in the 2nd post Illuminati ID delayed. Peak Stupidity delighted., written at the end of '22, about the extension of the then-coming '23 deadline. Yes, we forgot we'd written the 1st one.
I swear I'd seen a sign extending the May '25 deadline earlier this year, but maybe that was in a dream sequence. Alas, per Ron Paul, who keeps up and hates this stuff as much as anyone, in REAL ID: Phony Security, Real Authoritarianism - this time's for REAL.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem must not be much of a Patriot, since she's enforcing this deadline. Actually, anyone who'd work at a "Homeland Security" department, speaking of old Police States in history, is by definition not a Patriot. Ron Paul notes the various ways the REAL ID can and will be used against you (no court required), but he also added:
REAL ID could even be the final piece of the transformation of America into a total surveillance society where government monitors, and thus controls, our actions.I don't see this as the final piece. Peak Stupidity readers may know that the transition to a cashless society is one of our niche issues (check out the US Police State or Orwellian Stupidity topic keys). Control of who may buy and sell sounds like the final piece, or at least it is from what I've read.
Back in '08, when this REAL IDea was first trotted out, we did not yet carry the pieces of iEspionage that willingly send in all the info about us that iCrap designers and Globalist control freaks can imagine. What's REAL ID compared to that? Still...
My driver's license had gotten so worn out already 2 years back - it fared better before, in my wallet made out of duct tape! - that the cop the other month had to look it up. I went in a few weeks ago and got a non-Illuminati license (even the black ladies at the Highway Dept. seem to understand that terminology). However, it still expires in a year, so what next?
Here's hoping the airports are full of loud, pissed-off passengers who are being turned away by the TSA in a couple of weeks. Maybe the Feral Gov. control-freaks will back off on this yet another time. The deadline looms ...
* There are some great driver's license (or NOT) stories from Adam Smith in the comments thereunder.
Comments (7)
The 5150 Skil Saw
Posted On: Thursday - April 24th 2025 11:23AM MST
In Topics: Cheap China-made Crap Americans
#CommissionEarned-KerChing! [/Instapundit's wife] We don't do sales here. It's a shame though, that we can't recommend the Peak Stupidity reader go out and buy the (original, not generic-termed) Skil Saw shown above. They don't make stuff like that anymore, though there are a few on ebay.
I'm pretty sure I paid $30 for this made-in-America circular ("Skil") saw in 1990. That's when I got to doing a lot of wood projects. I would say that equals $100 for a saw in today's money, but you'll unfortunately still be getting TODAY's saw - probably Cheap China-made Crap. Do you have a choice now?
We had to cut some 14 gauge sheet metal - that's only .074" or so. I got the right blade, pulled the saw out from the shop, swapped out blades, and guess what? The saw doesn't care what year it is. It doesn't get on the internet and talk to my phone about updates. It just RUNS. Same as it ever was.
OK, sure, the thing is mostly just a big electric motor, but the spring-loaded safety cover has some screws and that torsion spring, there are electrical connectors, and there's the safety trigger mechanism* and pieces of obviously very durable plastic. I haven't replaced a single part and haven't had to do ANYTHING. It just runs. That WAS America.
Americans under 40 y/o, much less foreigners, have no memory/idea of how it used to be. It's difficult trying to convince people that, YES, quality stuff can be and did get built in America. I mentioned experiences with my long-owned American-made mower and desk lamp already. I just started the 1992-built Murray/Briggs&Stratton mower for the season. (I even gave it some new oil- no NOT the good stuff, though I feel terrible about that.) I've given up on it before, but It never gives up. I've also given example of household appliances/equipment that lasts 3-4 decades in comments elsewhere.
Could America ever build good stuff again? I'm not sure myself. President Trump's efforts, no matter how Reality-TV-style they are, will help us find out.
In the meantime, I've bought old Ryobi tools (saws, both) from an estate sale. I expect they will work well. They were made 30 years ago, and per the instructions that were actually in GOOD ENGLISH (ONLY!), they were "Made in USA". (The funny thing is that I'd long thought that name was Japanese.) However, as with selling each other gourmet hamburgers and craft beer to support the Service Economy, I don't think the purchasing of good power tools from estate sales by Americans who want durable goods is SUSTAINABLE. (If I may borrow that word from the tree-huggers.)
PS: The Skil saws - no matter what brand - are one type of the more dangerous of hand power tools, IMO**. That aside, we used eye protection for the steel, and it's the only thing (when cutting wood) that's loud enough at the right frequency to make me consider putting foamies in my ears. Nope, our lawyers didn't make me write that.
* I'm not sure about all of them, but this one has a push switch for one's thumb that unlocks the trigger. Now that I'm not using it and have put it up, I have to think about it, but I believe after you've unlocked the trigger you don't have to stay on that unlock switch.
** Perhaps a Sawzall "beats" the Skil saws in this respect - I haven't used mine enough yet.
Comments (9)
Bad luck streak in Traffic School
Posted On: Wednesday - April 23rd 2025 3:26PM MST
In Topics: Humor US Police State Cars
Continued from our post Good luck streak in Traffic School of 6 years back, only because, yeah, our streak of good luck has been broken. (The titles come from the great title of a music album by the late Warren Zevon, to be honest.)
Who coulda' seen this coming? I've been doing any speed I felt comfortable with, rolling through stop signs with open views, whatever, for 15 years now and no blue lights ever appeared in the rear view mirror. I was under the impression that sort of thing didn't happen anymore. It didn't used to be like that, I can tell you! (Got pulled 3 times in one week one summer in the 1990's - 2 tickets out of that, and one time in traffic court the judge who I well recognized asked me first "Hey, where do I know you from?" Somehow, we couldn't figure it out...)
We've got this one 3-way intersection nearby for which there's really no point in stopping completely. You can see the other 2 ways. If someone were coming cross-ways, he'd better slow or he'd barrel though parked cars and into a house.
Because the one vehicle has very accurate real-time and cumulative gas mileage readouts, it's a game for me to bring this number up and up vs. my wife's driving. It's wasteful to stop completely and then accelerate, so I don't. I care about the planet, you know? And another thing I could bring up to the judge besides the fate of the planet is that if someone else is stopped dead in front of me (we're in a neighborhood of Grannies, traffic-wise, some of them 40 y/o guys in big pickup trucks, but, yeah, grannies!), and I've already got the view, I should be legal to follow through. (Rarely is anyone coming on the vertical leg of the T.) This would be an interesting question for a lawyer, in fact.
Well, my wife kinda learns by example. She got pulled over on the way to work at that 3-way, first time ever for her. Per her words, the cop said she sped right through it. I believe him. She got the full 4 points.
The jurisdiction has a "diversionary" policy - wait, we're not Black!! - in which one can go one time to this program. That means you're in for $150 for the ticket and the same for that program. But wait, there's MORE! You still gotta pay $25 to the guy who "teaches" the class. It's on-line and NOT in real time, just web forms, so this guy may be making thousands each "class".
So, instead of some at least minor learning experience, as I'd had 1) enjoying the work of a comedian who wasn't yet ready for the clubs, 2) Watching sportsball due to muh playoff and talking about how to deal with cops once pulled over so you don't get tickets in the future, or 3) having a guy tell me that 1 in 3 of us will die in traffic accidents, she had to answer page after page of web tediousness and WRITE ESSAYS! Yikes!
The worst part was actually the multiple choice questions as this "instructor" must have used this very same test for all kinds of diversionary programs. I kid you not, there was a long series of "When did you stop beating your wife?" (I guess husband, in this case) questions about my wife's alleged substance abuse. I mean that it's inherently alleged by questions such as:
How did your substance abuse affect your family's finances?
Do you think this class will help you with your substance abuse?There were about a dozen of them. How do you answer these, as there was no "N/A" option?
To me, it'd be a great way for The State to have some "dirt" on her saved for future use. "Suspect admitted to abusing substances during her traffic school class." (Oh, was this a traffic school class?) "That is inadmissible, Your Honor. Anything answered during a diversionary program for allegedly driving like a maniac is not allowed." "You're out of order, councilor." I'm out of order?! You're out of order! This traffic school is out of order, and this whole society is out of order!" [/Al Pacino or Robert D'Niro, one of 'em]
This required a text message to the instructor who wrote back telling her to ignore these questions. Yeah, he wasn't about to straighten this out by going all out making up a separate automatic web-based test... just for thousands of $$ a day - that's not a Black! Middle Class thang. This website has its name for a reason. I hope our readers do see that by now.
Now, eventually there were questions not about actual driving, but ones like:
Explain how your bad driving affected your family?My wife showed me that. "Oh, let me do this one. Put down My husband is very upset that I didn't look uphill for the cops. She refused to write that in. I get it - you wanna get those 4 points back...
As I described what my wife had to go through for modern traffic school to a friend of mine who gets speeding tickets like $Million-donating alumni get tickets to basketball games, I ... got pulled over for 55 in a 40... yes, while I was on the phone. The cop was pretty nice, but I didn't get the golden opportunity to answer the usual question "Do you know how fast you were going?" The speedometer hasn't worked for 8 years, so I had so looked forward to answering "Not really. I mean, right now the needle's curled around pointing to 105 mph. That CAN'T be right!" He wrote it up for 49. I think the reader may have figured that I won't be going to traffic school. It's not the same...
Comments (2)
Earth Day celebrated as landfills with cheap China-made Crap
Posted On: Tuesday - April 22nd 2025 7:38PM MST
In Topics: Cheap China-made Crap Treehuggers Globalists Cars Curmudgeonry Economics Americans Artificial Stupidity Environmental Stupidity
There are a whole lot of points we made about garbage, recycling, and landfills in our 7 y/o post Toward Sustainable Stupidity. One point was that, NO, we're not running out of room for landfills. It's just that for completely reasonable NIMBY reasons, as America grows full of newcomers, population increases result in landfills having to be located farther out of cities, meaning more expense is involved in trash transportation.* That's all, not the End of the World as we know it.
In somewhat of a follow-up post, 2 1/2 years later, we got more into the economics of recycling in Make Stupidity Sustainable Again. The leads us to the actual topic of this post, economics and the recent goings-on with President Trump, tariffs, and China.
First, let me say that your Peak Stupidity lead blogger is NOT a licensed Economist. [Thank you! PS Legal Dept.] We do have pages of reports from the BLS, Jerome Powell, Ben Stein, and all sorts of sources
Continuing along those lines, I very much enjoyed a recent Charles Hugh Smith** post - he of Of Two Minds fame or unfortunate lack thereof - on ZeroHedge, Last Gasp Of The Landfill Economy.
Mr. Smith's post is not so much about landfills either as it is about the American pursuit of Cheap China-made Crap. I agree with a ZH commenter that, unfortunately, that "Last Gasp" part is quite optimistic, but I sure like the way this guy thinks!
Globalization's great gift wasn't low prices--it was the collapse of durability, transforming the global economy into a Landfill Economy of shoddy products made of low-cost components guaranteed to fail, poor quality control, planned obsolescence and accelerated product cycles--all hyper-profitable, all to the detriment of consumers and the planet.Charlie, my man, you're preaching to the choir here, nay, to the Bishop of Stupidity! AMEN, anyway! Peak Stupidity has discussed multiple times in posts tagged with our Inflation topic key that decreases in quality are very much a form of inflation but one we really doubt is taken into account. There's that basket of goods the green-eyeshade boys (and girls, and unknowns) manipulate to reflect consuming habits, and even this very basket is now cheap China-made crap and deteriorates before you can even calculate the current year's CPI! Holy moley, I want to excerpt the whole article!:
Globalization also accelerated another hyper-profitable gambit: . Since all the products are now made with the same low-quality components, they all fail regardless of brand or price. The $2,000 refrigerator lasts no longer than the $700 fridge. Since the manufacturers and retailers all know the products are destined for the landfill by either design or default, warranties are uniformly one-year--and it's semi-miraculous if the consumer can find anyone to act on replacing or repairing the failed product even with the warranty.
In The Landfill Economy, Consumer choice is pure illusion. I'd like to buy once, cry once, so where is the option with a 10-year all parts and labor warranty? There isn't one, because nothing is durable--by design or default.Right. I just got done (for now) relating some stories of working household appliances/infrastructure made in America one lasting 38 years, just gone bust, and another 37 and still going strong. Then, there's the now-33 y/o lawn mower.*** Next, I'm gonna write about a 35 y/o Skil Saw (the actual brand, not generic terminology) that I just pulled out to use after 3-5 years. It doesn't care what year it is - it just plain works!
As a result, The Landfill Economy is fundamentally extortionist. We know this product will fail, you know this product will fail, and so here's our offer: buy a 3-year extended warranty for a hefty sum, because we've engineered the product to fail in four years.
If the product is digital, then even if it still functions, we'll force you to replace it via a new product cycle: we no longer support the old operating system, and since your device is out of date (heh) it can't load the new OS, and since all the apps now only function with the new OS, your device is useless.
The low price is also illusory, as we now have to buy four, five or ten products instead of one durable product. Appliances that once lasted 40 years now fail in 6 or 7 years if not sooner, so over the course of 40 years we have to buy five, six or seven appliances instead of one.
Let me back up to the 2nd-to-last paragraph I excerpted. This is very much what Peak Stupidity has described in a number of apoplectic spasms of curmudgeonry about all the Artificial Stupidity such as in our post Software as a tool.
Digitization is a key driver of The Landfill Economy, as cheap electronics all fail, and the product / vehicle / tool becomes a brick. Since inventory is an expense, it's been eliminated, so parts for older products are soon out of stock and unavailable.Car stories follow, so you Peak Stupidity car guys have just got to finish reading that great article, as I don't want to get sued here. (Nah, CHS is a cool guy - I'd love him to read here.)
In a few years, the firmware is no longer supported, and in a few decades, nobody will even know what coding was embedded in the chipset, but it won't matter anyway, because the chipsets are long gone.
Readers tell me vehicles are now wondrously reliable. Um, yeah, until they need to be repaired. Then the cost is higher than what I've paid for entire used cars.
I really wish that the Trump tariffs and big wrecking ball style upset of the world's economies results the end or a big tailing off of this Landfill Economy, produced in China. I've hated it since it started. That makes me a REAL treehugger, I'd say, as, no matter about costs and all, I just hate to see things get thrown out that could be fixed. (Except they often can't.) My trash can goes out to the road once in 2-3 months and the recycling can about 1/2 that often. We're leaving a small polycarbonate footprint and helping to keep the landfills small, which is great... unless you're a seagull... or Tony Soprano.
Thanks so much for this, Charles Hugh Smith! I hope this has gotten read by millions.
PS: Now, OK, I haven't agreed with all the ZeroHedge commenters lately. (It's read-only for me.) When they do let loose, though, they are truly the best! These are just the first 3:
Krink26
Digitization is a key driver of The Landfill Economy, as cheap electronics all fail, and the product / vehicle / tool becomes a brick.
But your new refrigerator comes with an app. That needs to be connected or it won't cool. Because it's green. Or some other nonsense. And you can get notifications. For a fridge.
PeachPit
I often get notices on my cell phone, if I use it outside, to register or something my Samsung washing machine. Some day I'm going to try it and see what it does.
PS. I don't own a Samsung washing machine.
TeleslesThen the Prepper talk gets going, which is good. One guy mentioned getting tools at estate sales, which is horning in on my post to come.
My neighbor's fridge has an open Wi-Fi network. Too bad I like them.
* If you don't like it, go have a talk with my friend Tony Soprano - and you thought you already have enough trash in your yard due to illegals... he's gonna make you an offer for some refuse you no canna' refuse. (Pun totally serendipitous!)
** We praised this pundit Brandon in a post a year back titled Lew Rockwell and the 2 Smiths.
*** I wrote that one nearly 8 years ago, and interestingly the title was close to Mr. Smith's: Cheap China-made crap in a throw-away country. Yeah, OK, "World".
Comments (5)
So-called Pope Francis finally lightens up.
Posted On: Monday - April 21st 2025 7:35PM MST
In Topics: Commies Bible/Religion Poetic Stupidity So-called Pope Francis
He died yesterday, is what we're trying to say.
His real name was Jorge Mario Bergoglio. I don't know who so-called Pope Francis was trying to fool with that subterfuge. Was he running from the ghost of Juan Peron? I have not liked this guy one bit. Pick most well-known Catholic figures down there in Latin American, and you're gonna get a "Liberation Theologist", that ideology being a brand of Communism. What were the Bishops and Cardinals thinking 12 years ago when they put out the white smoke for this guy?
Peak Stupidity has stated that we find only one reason to speak ill of the dead. We've stated plainly that we were glad when Ted Kennedy died and when Juan McAmnesty died - that was due to the fact that neither WOULD EVER retire from his position of power, so we'd only get relief from their ctrl-left oppression when they kicked off. Whaddya' gonna do?
It's tricky with Francis and his death. Pope is not a position you generally retire from, so one can't expect that, and I suppose Catholics felt they had to put up with whatever ctrl-left ranting and poor advice came from the guy. Impeachment is not a Biblical thing - you're thinking US Constitution. (Then again, there is no "Pope" mentioned in the Bible either.) I've ignored the guy for the most part, the last few years, and he's mellowed out in his old age, so OK, R.I.P.
Let me add here that his late Pope was an exception, the last being 600 years ago, to what I just wrote, about Popes being Popes for life. For all the information one could possibly want about the deal that happened with the short-time (under 8 year "reign") Pope Benedict XVI, you could not go wrong by visiting the site of Ann Barnhardt and her The Bergoglian Antipapacy. section (with 3 videos too). Miss Barnhardt saw Jorge Bergoglio as evil.
Though we'll probably have no more posts with the So-called Pope Francis topic key, I noted we had some fun stuff and some angry stuff in there. The image up top is from a fun one titled Pope Poetry. What made me most angry at this imbecile and Communist turd (sorry, just quoting the President of Argentina here - not MY words) was not his suicidal stance on immigration but his deigning to be an expert on the Climate Calamity™, with admonitions to the world about it. From Is this Pope on Dope?!, we quote ourselves:
Now, we see that "Pope" Francis, titular* head of the Catholic Church, has got a bug up the Papal rear-end about his apparently undeniableWell, it was a little of both there...knowledge offaith in the ongoing Global Climate DisruptionTM. In his latestpiece ofPapal Bull, he "rebuked those who deny the science behind global warming and urged negotiators at climate talks in Germany to avoid falling prey to such "perverse attitudes"..." OK, so besides the label of "denier", people who understand mathematical modeling (continued here, here, here, here, here, and here) are now also shouldered with the appellation of pervert.
Now, not to get into the history of some of the Middle-Age Popes in terms of being perverts, we would be the last to tar all Popes with the same broad brush. The current Pope is no pre-vert, and probably not high, but just lightly retarded. That's OK, that's OK, a differently-cognizant individual should be given an opportunity to run the Catholic Church, as appointed by God, as any thinking man, even in these times of anti-Christian fervor, what with 1.5 Billion Moslems having started a demographic invasion of Europe, because, like, diversity. [Links in original only]
Today, we'll add another limerick to the 3 in the "Poetry" post:
We'd told him to "Lighten up, Francis!"
Pure Papal Bull each of his rants is.
For his Lib'ration Theology
we deserve an apology.
Next Pope, pull your head outcher pants(es?)
Will the next Pope also be Woke? Will Wokeness itself pick the next Pope? It would not shock me too much if they picked a woman, even. In comments elsewhere, someone suggested it'd be fun to see a strongly anti-gay African guy. (I've read about one in particular.) I really hope they don't practice Catholic AA though. I don't think we'd like what we'd get.
Europe is the long-term home of Christianity, so I say narrow your search, Bishops and Cardinals. Francis was the 1st non-European Pope in a Millennium and a quarter, going back to Gregory III from Syria in the early/mid 700s. Francis is just one data point, but... no, none of that.
Why should Peak Stupidity care anyway? This whole Pope thing - not my monkey, not my circus.
Comments (10)
A Quarter Millennium Ago: Lexington & Concord, Mass
Posted On: Saturday - April 19th 2025 10:00PM MST
In Topics: History Americans Liberty/Libertarianism Bible/Religion Holiday from Stupidity
How long has it been since the residents of Massachusetts have resembled in the least the Patriots of a quarter millennium ago? It seems to be the last place you'll find a modern day Patriot. What happened to the people in that Colony that turned them from Patriots to Massholes?
We probably shouldn't pick on Massachusetts alone when wondering how the America of colonial days became the Imperial Socialist Police State of 250 years later. However, the Massachusetts Bay Colony was the site of the proverbial "Shot heard round the world" that anyone my age learned about in Elementary School. It was 250 years ago today.*
In case you didn't participate in said schooling or just don't remember it all, Rick Moran of PJ Media has written a pretty good quick summary. Massachusetts militiamen under the command of John Parker had mustered at Lexington as British regular soldiers under one John Pitcairn marched through out of Boston. Pitcairn had told the militiamen to lay down their arms.
Through the haze of one quarter of a Millennium, we know there was confusion as can be the case , and nobody knows which Colonial militiaman fired that first shot. The battle later on that April 19th at the North Bridge across the Concord river, with 400 Americans overwhelming less than 100 British soldiers, is seen as the first battle of the Revolutionary War. That was April 19th of 1775, so today we memorialize it.
The American colonists had a lot of beefs with their British rulers. We've got so many more now that a new Declaration of Independence (from the Potomac Regime) would take a half hour to print out on a laser printer. Were we to write U.S. Constitution 2.0, we'd hopefully include a lot learned during the misuse of 1.0 and doctor the old one up quite a bit.
We can go back only 32 years and see the state of the American Republic at the end of the
The country has become even more of a Police State since the Waco Massacre.
We've been lucky that they've put off this National (Illuminati) ID implementation 3 or 4 times already, but they seem to be pressing the issue this time. Nobody balks anymore when Bill of Rights Amendment IV is trashed at airports around the country daily, so what's one more small indignity?
Generally, we are not the same Americans as the militiamen involved in that shot heard 'round the world 250 years ago today.
That all said, going back 8 times farther in time, to right at 2 Millennia ago,
Luke 24:
1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?
6 He is not here, but is risen:
PS: I'm sure there are plenty of websites with "This day in history", and specializing in the Revolutionary period. We'll put a few more highlights up some days, just to imagine "it was today, a quarter of a Millennium back!" That beats memorializing all the rock/pop stars from a few decades long era of great music, as pretty soon, there'll be a famous one dying weekly. We appreciate their music, but the men of the American Revolution deserve mention more.
* Your blogger-in-chief is too tired to make a Sergeant Pepper's verse out of this tonight - maybe I'll fill it in later.
Comments (2)
Tariffs: Libertarian Ideology v Patriotism and RealLifePolitik
Posted On: Saturday - April 19th 2025 11:23AM MST
In Topics: Trump Globalists China Economics Liberty/Libertarianism
I believe I've only written this in comments (will search later), but I will relate the subject of a conversation between me and my now-departed friend about China. I'm trying to pin the time down, but it just MUST have been near the end of the 1990s. We both knew that lots of manufacturing work was being outsourced to China even then. My friend did not like the whole deal, and his major point was "they will equalize the salaries between China and America." I disagreed that that was a problem. "So? What's wrong with that?"
I don't know why I said that, as even in the early '90s I was well aware of the problem with America trying to have only a service economy. I'd even helped in the Paul Tsongas campaign, and then nearly voted for Ross Perot* in '92. (No, of course not Bush, nor Clinton, but I voted for the L guy. They weren't Open Borders wackos back then...)
It's been more than a quarter century since that conversation of ours. Even a decade later I could see that he was right - I'm sure I admitted that to him. Well, in the 2 hour-long conversation that Peak Stupidity urged our readers to view, that ZeroHedge-run tariff debate between Spencer Morrison and Peter Schiff, there were some words exchanged that get back to this point about what's good for the World vs what's good for America.
I can't remember every word said, mind you, or every point made, but this was early on, and it was Peter Schiff who brought the wrong side (in any Patriot's opinion) of the issue up. The talk was about "Comparative Advantage", "Competitive Advantage" (for the difference, try to figure it out here) and other Libertarian economic theory/ideology. Peter Schiff said, and I AGREE with this, that Free Trade, on the whole is best for the people of the world. (I'd take that as "on average", and as for "Where is this Free Trade of which you speak?", don't get me started... just yet.) Well, probably so, but is that what's best for Americans, especially right now? Of course not. Shouldn't President Trump be working on behalf of Americans, not the whole world?
I don't recall whether Mr. Morrison made the point exactly that way. That's what the debate came down to, though. Peter Schiff did not come across as an American Patriot here.** Yes, the Libertarian economic theory he defended is right, assuming, of course (NOT!), that each country and each country's businesses play by the rules. No, they don't. The biggest of them all, what Trump's new tariffs (and that debate) are all about, is China. China, the country, does not play by the rules, and Chinese businesses themselves don't play by the rules.
The Chinese government may have some certain agreements with us, all of which have been MOST FAVORABLE, by American Globalist definition, for China, but, even within those bad deals for us, the agreements are evaded purposely by the State bureaucracy. People will tell you that Americans just don't try hard to export to China. They've tried. The Chinese government, in its insidious ways, makes it difficult. Were you to finally get permission and start shipping products, the Chinese will rip off the IP, reproduce the products, and end up selling them to Americans! (That'd be at a lower price too, due to the Yuan being pegged to the US $, for one reason). One tends to give up banging one's head up against a brick wall after a spell...
Secondly, Chinese businesses themselves deal dirty. I suggest again to the reader to take a look at the Paul Milner book Poorly Made in China. Peak Stupidity reviewed this work, basically a description of an experience of frustration on steroids, and commenter Adam Smith kindly linked us to this online .pdf copy. (Speaking of, errr, stealing IP, haha!)
Beyond the cheating and subterfuge behind the Cheap China-made Crap, there is the basic difference between the old American way of doing business and the Chinese way, and most of the rest of the World with it. Olde White Man America was a place where a man's*** word was his bond, and deals really could be completely confidently with a handshake. All that doesn't fly in China ... and not so much in America anymore either.
I've known about the shady Chinese business practices from personal accounts. President Trump is good at seeing scams for what they are. He is quite aware of the scamming of America and American businesses by China and Chinese businesses. That's the RealLifePolitik. You've got to take that into account before you go claiming that sticking with the Libertarian ideology on the benefits of "Free Trade" is the best thing for Trump and America to do.
To summarize this post, it's really 2 separate reasons that Patriots are right and Libertarians are wrong about the tariffs and supposed Free Trade:
1) Whatever good Free Trade does for the World, it is not good for America. We care about America, foremost, because we LIVE HERE! [/Red Dawn]
2) There is NO Free Trade going on 'round here anyway!
PS: Long ago Peak Stupidity suggested the Conservatives and Libertarians just try to get along. See What's the deal with Peak Stupidity - Libertarian or Conservative?
* Yes, I should have, but his dropping out and coming back into the race that summer made me wonder about him. I know better now that he'd probably been threatened by the Deep State.
** I've been disappointed with what I've heard from him lately. In those gold v bitcoin debates (see here - - here and here), though I agree with him on the very point of gold as money, Mr. Schiff comes off too much at times as a salesman for his monetary fund of some sort. (He's with that "Sovereign Man" guy, no American Patriot, and maybe some others.) "There's more upside to come....!" C'mon, man! That's completely in contradiction to your main point, that gold is REAL money. Got 20 oz. today, you'll have 20 oz. tomorrow - same amount of money - THAT's the point.
His Dad Irwin, OTOH, was a real Patriot, having resisted the IRS his whole life and, in fact, died in prison due to this. Peter Schiff has bugged out to Puerto Rico for some odd reason...
*** Yes, that's "a man's" written her not just due to that olde correct grammar but to explain that, plainly, a woman's word ISN'T. It's just like that. It'd have been best to have learned that young, for personal reasons alone.
Comments (4)
Trump v Leticia - Round 2
Posted On: Thursday - April 17th 2025 1:13PM MST
In Topics: Trump US Feral Government Race/Genetics Legal Stupidity
The fatassed (hey, we're just quoting original sources here) Leticia James, Attorney General of New York, is just one of the handful of minions of the ctrl-left that tasked themselves with conducting lawfare against candidate Donald Trump. I have to say here again that Mr. Trump's persistence among all of these distractions of his time, threats to his finances, and threats to his existence as a free man over that long period (not to mention nearly getting shot dead) is very impressive.
For Donald Trump, everything is personal. Sometimes that becomes more important to him than, well, America. However, I can't really blame him for wanting to exact legally-justified (or not!) revenge against this evil fatassed Leticia James. More so, Trump's persecution has come from (she's not the only one) vicious and dull Black! women playing legal eagles in positions designed for intelligent, decent White men, upping the stupidity level and making it that much more humiliating. (Even without this sort, you can get trouble - it IS New York, after all.)
It so happens that, besides our agreeing with the idea of bringing the ctrl-left Totalitarians who've ruled outside the law for the last 4 years to revengeful justice (see The World Turned Upside Down), Peak Stupidity takes the Leticia James lawfare personally too, on behalf of our friends at VDare. For them, it was very personal - when one Totalitarian fatass from New York (where you'd mistakenly thought you'd always see rule-of-law) takes down your whole patriotic Foundation out of West Virginia based on NO CHARGES, only continual harassment by tax-payer-funded lawyers, it's been VERY, VERY personal.*
So, even though President Trump hasn't thought to consider VDare's travails**, any legal action his administration can take against this evil broad will be beneficial to VDare as well. For Trump, it's about revenge and justice, while for VDare it'd be about their ability to start the Foundation and website back up now when we need it more than ever... yeah, and justice in a a cosmic but not physical sense. It's not like they're be repaid their money, their lost years, and their loss of readership. Call it Social Justice for VDare!
Regarding the first benefit for VDare, were Leticia to be put out to pasture, that Mr. Brimelow*** and his organization may very well have indirectly gotten Trump to where he is and the invasion into the spotlight 10 years back is great, but we could use VDare now for news on all things immigration, now that there's a lot to be excited about. (/Fingers crossed]
Therefore, the following story of uncovered malfeasance, of all things ALSO in the real estate business, is very good news. The Gateway Pundit has the story, without even a lot of hype within - yeah BREAKING!], whatever - here: BREAKING: Trump Administration Criminally Refers NY AG Letitia James to Justice Department for Mortgage Fraud as First Reported on The Gateway Pundit. For a change, rather than a bunch of tweets and counts of LIKES therein, GP has some very good plain simple evidence of Miss
Additionally, ZeroHedge has the story too: Bye Letitia? Criminal Referral Filed Against NY AG Over Real Estate Fraud Accusation. Gateway Pundit commenters are pretty good, but ZH commenters are better.
This is a very nice development, though the discovery of cheating by a Sistah in power is almost expected nowadays. All the excitement may be for nothing if Trump fails to follow through, as is often the case - he's pretty motivated, but then, what about this Attorney General Pam Blondie? (I'm not to enthused about some of the women, non-sexually, that is... that's another post.)
I hope Peak Stupidity readers will not assume something here, that is that we feel this story is very important in the big scheme of things (except re: VDare). There should be lots of people getting visited and dragged off by the FBI and arrested already, starting with Allie-Hondro Mayorkas, Merrick Garland, and the list is endless. I haven't seen this happening. It needs to! Then again, the personal comes first all too often with Donald Trump.
Still, all else failing, I'd really like to see a Round-2 knockout by The Donald, putting Leticia James on the mat with dead eyes, wait, she's already like that... and drooling blood. Trump likes the boxing and the TV, so he'd like our metaphor here ...
* Peak Stupidity has written about this multiple times. Of course, VDare had, for the multi-year period all that was going on until they had to cease operations. If you want to know more, see Tucker Carlson's interview of Lydia Brimelow and our review of it.
** It's possible that he does know of this story but is not courageous enough or focussed enough - probably the latter, and what was the first thing again?... to bring it up. It seems like it would have helped his fight against this lawfare to bring up the VDare case with, again, NO CHARGES.
*** BTW, commenter E.H. Hail has informed us here that Peter Brimelow has been writing on this substack site. I see no comments - as with Alarmist's substack site, I've got to work on this. Thanks, Mr. Hail.
Comments (7)
Praise for Steve Sailer
Posted On: Wednesday - April 16th 2025 6:52PM MST
In Topics: Feminism Pundits
Now THERE's a concise, honest, and (somewhat?) entertaining headline!
In our over 8 years of blogging, Peak Stupidity has discussed the writings of, and the opinions of, pundit Steve Sailer far more than of any other pundit. It got to the point early on where we felt obligated to explain to readers that No, we don't worship Steve Sailer. We were, errrr, borrowing, that's the ticket, a lot of material around that time. To excuse that behavior at the time, I will note that reading the NY Times, Washington Post, The Atlantic as Mr. Sailer does still, to point out the stupidity therein would feel creepy for me. I've made other people feel creepy - no problem, it's a thing now - but being a NY Times reader, no, just too creepy... I couldn't live with myself. So... we got a lot of material from him.
It's been great reading Steve Sailer's writing over the years on The Unz Review. (Ron Unz keeps all the archives there, and he's kindly created threads at slightly variable intervals for us former commenters to keep arguing.) Mr. Sailer had definitely moved on, as we noted 9 months back he was in the process of doing. I've given my reasons (time spent and curmudgeonry regarding the format) for not joining up on the SteveSailer.net substack site. However, I read the posts that interest me, especially when there is no paywall.
Why? I've had a few more differences with this pundit than I used to, agreeing with him 90-95% of the time rather than 99%, as I used to. Most importantly I've considered whether this time in American history is no longer the time for a peacetime consigliere?
OK, again, Why? Because he's really a great writer. His writing is entertaining while at the same time being as full of truth as Mr. Sailer allows himself in this time in his life. By that I mean he still writes truthfully about issues that most pundits who worry more about their status will avoid. IMO, Mr. Sailer has trying to fit in a little more to get more young readers to understand these truths without turning them off.
That graphic above is at the top of this recent SteveSailer.net post. This is his thing, seeing and writing entertainingly but also informatively (often with statistics) to show the hypocrisy and stupidity of one of his many well-noticed social goings-on in America. (His book Noticing has a great assortment of these.) To start off, this "wait until paragraph 17 for the actual facts" description of the NY Times is one of his many themes:
Here’s a classic upside down New York Times article that puts the interesting facts way down toward the bottom with practically indecipherable terseness about the cause of the catastrophe after dozens of paragraphs of human interest trivia about the garbagemen’s strike in Birmingham, UK:Garbage Men are called Bin Men in England.
Why is there a garbage strike in Birmingham?(OK, paragraph 24 this time.) Most of the rest of the post is excerpts from the BBC and then the actual story out of some tweeter. Mr. Sailer again:
The answer is actually quite interesting — greedy feminist dogma run amok in Labour-run Britain — but NYT subscribers don’t want to hear that. It gives them Bad Feelz.
So, the most glancing reference to the cause of this disgusting situation is left unmentioned until this masterfully boring 24th paragraph:
You see, bin men, who are mostly men, were paid more by the city than people who held more genteel jobs, which are filled mostly by women, that didn’t involve lifting stinking heavy stuff. That’s supply and demand.The snark is excellent. He's like that a lot.
But in a breakthrough in feminist theory, a judge determined that women in nice jobs should get paid as much as men doing nasty jobs, because women are Good and men are Bad. Or something.
So, Feminism has backfired in Birmingham, England, as (per Lara Brown's tweet-string): Rubbish is piled high, ... Yeah, I mean, the NY Times can be over an inch thick on Sundays, so you get a few hundred copies and ... yeah... I agree it IS piled high. Now, see, Steve Sailer could have done a better job with that joke, is what I'm saying.
This is just one post out of many I enjoy. Unfortunately, a look at the recent posts on Mr Sailer's site isn't a good sample. Golf? Sorry, knock yourself out writing, but it's not for me. Basketball is not either, but I realize there is a bigger point that he's making in these ones on his classic topic, Human Bio-Diversity*. Then, there are a couple of posts in retort to on-again/off-again Sailer nemesis Mathew Yglesias. They aren't so entertaining, because I can tell Mr. Sailer has really gotten pissed at this guy, who is throwing Mr. Sailer under the bus, best some cuck pundit can heave him, in order to virtue-signal rather than tell the simple truth. This is from a guy who borrows Mr. Sailer's material and takes it only as far as is is socially acceptable.
As a very honest guy**, Steve Sailer detests people, whether it's Matt Yglesias or Lyin' Press "journalists" who purposely miss the real story. OTOH, as we wrote recently, SO WHAT, if you're right!
Keep on truckin' Steve! I hope you gather 100's of thousands of reader, no, millions, on your substack site, and get 10% of them to subscribe.
* Believe it or not, I'd read his old site for about a year before I figured out what "HBD" meant, as many times as it was written back then.
** About the only time I remember Steve Sailer not being quite honest with his commenters is during that Kung Flu Panic time. Though I didn't agree with his short-lived but serious pro-Panic stance, that wasn't dishonesty. That's not it. What someone brought up yesterday is that bit about "You don't want to take the jab because you're scared of needles." Yes, I read that from him a few times. IMO, he was pissed off that he had unruly commenters that could be seen as "conspiracy theorists" and even worse, low brow. He had to know we weren't avoiding the jab due to the ouchies from the needles.
Comments (4)
Peak Stupidity Geophysical Research Letter - Sea Ice Albedo
Posted On: Monday - April 14th 2025 7:51PM MST
In Topics: Global Climate Stupidity Science
Peak Stupidity is no scientific journal, so we refer not to our post itself here but to a recent short paper ("letter") in Geophysical Research Letters pointed out by commenter Alarmist under one of our recent posts.* I don't claim to understand the methods within the paper. However, I can read this sort of thing and at least see what kind of science these people are up to.
In Biases in Climate Model Global Warming Trends Related to Deficiencies in Southern Ocean Sea Ice Evolution Over Recent Decades, climate scientists H. Mutton** and T. Andrews noted "deficiencies" in various climate models. These discrepancies, as I'd call them, have to do with the actual versus predicted extent of Antarctic sea ice. Different surfaces on the Earth, or any body, say, plowed soil, forest, rock, ice, etc. reflect energy by different amounts. Ice obviously reflects a lot. The term used in Astronomy is "albedo" (al-bee'-doh).
Well, OK, since the albedo of all areas of the Earth, these areas themselves changing due to changes in the environment, must be part of a model of the Earth's climate, such a model must predict the current and future states of such surfaces. These researchers have found that the prediction of sea ice extent in the Antarctic is not just wrong but backwards. First line from the Abstract (Intro.):
Between 1985 and 2014 observations show an expansion of Southern Ocean sea-ice. This phenomena is not simulated in CMIP6 Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs). Here we quantify the impact of this discrepancy on radiative feedback and simulated global temperature trends.One may note from reading or from a perusal of the paper's Table 1 that 5 different mathematical models of the climate are being studied, errr, really, screwed-with, here. "CMIP6" is one of them, but I'm sure there are thousands outside of the realm of this work.
Sea ice obviously has a high albedo, so if it's increasing in that region rather than decreasing, as predicted by THESE MODELS, then the models must be changed. I'll make my basic points here shortly, but let me excerpt a few parts to show the tone of this paper. There's no science/engineering-style observational data of measured different ice albedos, convection and radiative heat transfer equations, energy balances, etc. here. It's all about the various and sundry factors, "global ensemble means", "regressions", "feedback forcing functions", etc. Now, I can see that the math here is originally based on thermodynamics and heat transfer, but what you read here is playing with math. Of course, it all ends up as math in the models, but, I'll summarize the problems... OK, to get a taste of this:
Using this relationship between and , for each model we apply three values of to demonstrate the impact of Southern Ocean feedback biases on the estimated . First, the estimated from the historical ensemble mean, second, a modified where we replace the Southern Ocean (55–78°S) with values from the amip-piForcing ensemble mean, and third, a modified where we replace the Southern Ocean with values from the amip-piForcing ensemble mean. These values of and the associated are indicated for each model as a dot, vertical marker, and an arrowhead respectively in Figure 3d and are recorded in Table 1. Here the Southern Ocean substitution has been performed for and to capture both the direct impact of the sea ice biases through surface albedo changes as well as any other related local processes such as changing clouds (Cesana et al., 2025).Sorry, the paper's Greek letters, sub-, and superscripts don't show up here, and I'm not up for it - you can read it better there if you care. I have points to make that's not about the details.
The zonal mean of and over the Southern Hemisphere higher latitudes is shown in Figures 3b and 3c respectively, where black vertical lines indicate the region over which the amip-piForcing values have been substituted when modifying the historical . In Figure 3b observed values of have also been included, using observed values of and and taking from the ensemble mean of all CMIP6 models analyzed. This was done given the effective radiative forcing used for the IPCC AR6 is only provided as a global mean timeseries. A clear negative feedback can be seen in the observed estimate, confirming that in this region the amip-piForcing experiment is able to capture feedback processes consistent with those seen in the real world.
We see that had the coupled historical experiments simulated the observed changes in sea ice, assuming all other feedbacks remain unchanged, this would impact the global temperature trends by approximately 0.04 0.03 K (multi-model-mean). For HadGEM3-GC3.1-LL, this accounts for just under one third of the bias in historical temperature trends compared to observations. We see that depending on the model, when substituting in just the Southern Ocean , 12%–29% of the total disparity in global is accounted for between the historical and amip-piForcing experiments. This increases to 18%–57% when other local changes are considered and the Southern Ocean is substituted (Table 1). In the multi-model-mean, substituting all local Southern Ocean processes changes global-mean by 0.25 , whereas substituting just changes global-mean by 0.18 (Table 1), that is, contributes 72% to the total difference over the Southern Ocean.OK, here are my problems with the shear hubris of anyone who claims to have made a working model of the entire Earth's climate***, with this paper as an example:
1) These models have been wrong in predicting the changes in Antarctic sea ice. How much confidence should we have in the rest of these model's predictions?
2) The effect of higher albedos over larger areas (more ice) would have made those models wrong. Is that the one and only input factor in the models that was wrong? Not bloody likely! (Hey, the writers are British, so just trying to relate.)
3) We see the vicious (maybe viscous too) cycle here. The models predict wrong climate changes, somehow.. Those changes result in different conditions for the models to be based on. The models were bound to be wrong from the start. Here, different sea ice extend means higher albedos for certain areas, which would certainly affect the results of any model that took albedo into account, out of hundreds, I'd say, processes that must be modeled VERY PRECISELY for a model to have any chance in hell of predicting ANYTHING!
4) Note the very wide ranges of the values for conclusions here. 0.07 W per square meter per degree K to 0.23, 0.01–0.06°C per decade, 12% to 29%, 18% - 57%, come on! OK, I'm glad the guys are honest with their error ranges, but then don't pretend anyone can predict what's going on.
5) The corrections being made in papers like this are not going back to the basic science and even the real math, the calculus derived from the science. These writers are only using the statistical techniques and fancy functions to fudge the originally derived math to make the models work better. This is not really science - it's fun with math.
6) Five models are compared. I've said this before: If they don't match, one should figure out why. It's what I don't like about "Meta studies", besides that they are a way to avoid doing science/engineering one's self. "On average, the studies yielded value x." OK, but what's wrong with the ones that are not close. Without seeing the errors in the "off" models, how do we know they're not ALL wrong?
... which they ARE, because, again, there is no working model of the entire world's climate!
This Geophysical Research Letter seems like a difficult read on a complex subject, but what I get out of it is that fudging of mathematical climate models is a science in and of itself. Knock yourselves out with this stuff, guys. Just don't go ruining the economies of the world with it. (They don't need your help.)
* Unfortunately NOT under our 2-Part series The melting of Antarctica: More Alarmist Trickery See Part 1 and Part 2. This got me going though, so, thanks, (non-Climate) Alarmist.
** A British name if there ever was one. I really didn't see much on the authors, but the words "Centre" and "Programme" spelled so, gave it away..
*** Peak Stupidity has a series of short posts from over 8 years back, early in our blog history, titled very clearly and adamantly There is no working mathematical model of the world's climate, dammit!: Part 1 - - Part 2 - - Part 3 - - Part 4 - - Part 5.
Comments (10)
Tariffs! Tariffs! Tariffs!
Posted On: Saturday - April 12th 2025 8:22PM MST
In Topics: Trump Pundits Globalists China Economics Big-Biz Stupidity
The Trump tariffs have Americans and foreigners affected in a tizzy. Regular Americans see their 401(k)s dropping and may be fooled again by the "tariffs cause Great Depression" civic mythology. The Globalist elites here have no problem with bad trade deals for America and Americans - they just want to keep the China-made Crap flowing in, shoddier and shoddier by the year, to keep the Big-Biz bottom lines increasing.
There are foreigners, and there are foreigners. Most of them, the Canadians and the Euro's, don't like Trump to begin with and surely don't like him exposing the one-sidedness of our trade with them. America has been a patsy, due to our thinking that we'd be that sole economic superpower forever and our benevolence in lifting up the world won't catch up to us.
Then there are the Chinese foreigners. It's at a whole nother level with China. We have given so much up for China (and Globalist Big Biz profits), our manufacturing and our trade secrets, and experienced a big decline in human capital with absolutely no gratitude given in return. (The CCP doesn't do gratitude.)
One thing that makes Trump helpful to Americans is that he knows bad deals when he sees them, and he doesn't like getting screwed, and he doesn't like America getting screwed. We've been getting screwed for 3 decades by China. Even if we leave behind the revenue aspect, and the most important attempt at bringing manufacturing back, tariffs are a way for us to stop getting screwed.
One may look up numbers on tariff rates, etc., but what the Chinese do is use their bureaucracy to greatly discourage imports from America. I've written about one example (a mistake by said bureaucracy, but a perfect example anyway) from personal knowledge. You're not going to get far getting the Chinese to admit this, but Trump knows, and the Chinese HATE HATE HATE that the President of the US is on to them. Peak Stupidity supports Trump's tariffs for many reasons, but this reason alone is good enough.
Instead of ranting on though, I will point out more reading from pundits the Peak Stupidity readers (commenters, at least) will know, along with a long debate video. Firstly, let me note that I'd forgotten our post from nearly 7 years ago, Tariffs in American history. Yeah, Ben Stein was in it, as one might guess, but it was just a still picture. Our very basic quick take 7 years back:
Pro Free Trade - If you protect industries, consumers will miss out on better deals, like all the cheap China-made crap, but also American industry will find parts and raw materials from abroad more expensive. With the overseas competition stifled, there is definitely an incentive for American manufacturers to make junkier stuff (think US auto industry pre-1980).(There are links in the original post.). If he hasn't already, the reader may want to read E.H. Hail's post Alfred Eckes on the Smoot–Hawley Tariff of 1930 and its long-lasting civic mythology, along with the important chapter of Alfred Eckes book on tariffs presented therein, or the whole book*, for that matter. Mr. Hail pointed out a Pat Buchanan article, but let me point out another one that we've missed, Did Tariffs Make America Great?. Our commenter "The Alarmist" here has a good post on this matter - Trump to Stock Markets: “Drop Dead!“ on his substack site. I love the title, and Alarmist's very readable and enjoyable essay is pro-Trump. I agree!
Pro Protectionism - American consumers can't buy a whole lot when they don't have good jobs to begin with. As Mr. Buchanan quotes many of the Founders and historic American icons of industry saying, along with what I've been saying for years, the wealth of a country is very related to how much manufacturing it does (vs. service industries, including F.I.R.E. ").They'veWe've also said, just based on the country's security, that essentials for the country's existence and prosperity should be made here.
A couple of go-to pundits for Peak Stupidity and readers are John Derbyshire and, of course, Steve Sailer. The former admitted, in his latest (Zman-hosted now) Radio Derb podcast, regarding where he stands on the issue:
Uh, nowhere very firmly. I don’t know much about Economics and am not ashamed to admit it. In fact I have argued previously in this podcast that Economics is a pseudoscience, not to be taken very seriously.I like the honesty, and the same came from Steve Sailer, to be noted shortly. No, Economics is no science at all, by any definition of science. From the little he did write, Mr. Derbyshire is generally in favor of tariffs and also in favor of what Trump in particular is up to. He excerpted a Trump transcription (that's NOT easy!) Speaking of China:
People took advantage of our country and they ripped us off for a very … for decades. I’ve been thinking about this for decades.Steve Sailer admitted in a recent substack post, Procrastination Rules! that he procrastinated about writing about tariffs because he hasn't though much about the subject. He wrote quite a bit to explain how building back manufacturing is no short-term process. I agree. I understand Mr. Sailer's concern about Trump's flip-floppery on tariffs not helping said long-term process. Trump is very much the opposite of a "long-term, slow-burn getting things done"** guy. OTOH, Trump is really fucking with the Chinese, which to me is a very good thing. Mr. Sailer has a hard time praising Trump for anything.
I’ve been … If you ever saw me on television, I was young like these guys. And, er … Those were the good old days, I’ll tell you, Roger. But I was like these guys — young. And I was talking about it. Nothing, nothing changed and nothing was done about it.
Then I did it; in my first term I did it, and did it well. We took in hundreds of billions of dollars from China — and others — and I started the process.
I have only read about 1/2 the comments under that SteveSailer.net post, a few days back - there are 120 now. I feel I must correct an error written by at least one commenter, that this tariff idea is new to Trump. No, as I wrote up top, and per the clip above, this one IS a long-term concern that Trump has been talking about for many years. Additionally, to correct the error, I'll add that Trump did institute one phase or two of what was to be a multi-phase program of levying tariffs on Chinese goods during his last term. People forget, but Peak Stupidity noted this in praise of Trump-45 at the time.
After writing all that above, I ran out of time to even attempt to continue watching the pro/con tariff debate I present here. I did watch the last 30 minutes or so of it live on ZeroHedge*** the other day and then the first couple of minutes of it on youtube.
Peter Schiff, anti-tariffs here, has been a feature of 2 gold v bitcoin debates here.**** The other, pro-tariff, gentleman is one Spencer Morrison, who, hilariously, makes sure in the introductions that the narrator stops mistaking him for an Economist. I get it. Among this ZH crowd, Steve Sailer (though he majored in Econ), John Derbyshire, and your Peak Stupidity writer(s), as much or little as we write about the subject, Economists themselves don't get no respect!
I gotta get those radio diaries filled out, but next week there will be time for plenty of more on, yeah, one more point on tariffs, more on Trump, Steve Sailer (in a good light), eventually that post on Deflation, and whatever stupidity presents itself. Have a happy Sunday, Peakers. Thanks for reading and writing in.
* Thanks again to Adam Smith for providing a few links the whole book online, which can be found under this post of ours.
** If you can guess to what song that line is a lyric, WITHOUT the internet, you ought to win something, I don't know what... a [REDACTED] album?
*** It's not that wow, live! means much for something like this, but ZH had it up, and after it ended it was - pooof! - gone from the site.
**** The 1st one (with our discussion here) is fun, but you won't learn very much on the pros/cons. The 2nd one is a lot better.
Comments (11)
Radio Daze and the Nielson Ratings.
Posted On: Friday - April 11th 2025 11:27PM MST
In Topics: Salesmen Media Stupidity
Look, I am pretty much the opposite of an "early adopter", of anything new. So, if I haven't been listening to radios stations for the last 15 years, who else has? We've got all our iCrap, well, most of us. If these can be used as small-screen TVs, I know they can be used as radios. Hmmm, anyone see any guys in the hood carrying these iPads on their shoulders. That'd be a lot easier on the muscles than ... where are the ghetto blasters of yesteryear?
If we can pull up obscure 1970's Gerry Rafferty, no, even the Humblebees, songs off the internet, of what use is the radio? I have heard of satellite radio in cars and of all the very specific genres or themes they've got. That sounds good, but the subject of my post here does not even include that as "radio".
"How do they know who's watching what on TV?", we wondered, as kids. Our parents explained. I'd heard of these Nielson ratings for TV and radio but never heard FROM them until a few years ago. People have been sending back these "diaries" for over half a century now, so that's how we know. Now, these Nielson people think I'm some honest diligent guy who will report my viewing and/or listening habits. Sure, I am, but I CAN'T!
I wanted to be honest in the TV diaries they sent me a while ago. Would they believe me if I left the whole things blank or figure I want my money for nothing? (They put a few bucks cash in their envelopes each mailing.) I put down a 5 minute stint of watching the weather radar on each of those for one time during the diary week. Now, because I do send stuff back, they have sent me a women's survey which my wife won't fill out, and now 5 radio diaries. What am I to do? Each log entry row has a column for the station ID, frequency (If you're not sure just go ask Kenneth), and check boxes for AM or FM. This is some antiquated, antiquated stuff, people! I think that's what I like about this.
I can, at least, fill out a poll with data that might influence something, but, again, what to write? I have one idea, but I can't put it on all 5 of these: "3:35 PM: Pulled up in my car by some thug with his windows down at the red light. Heard some nasty hip-hop crap yelling at me. Rolled up my window. Listening time: 8 seconds. Station ID unknown.".
Any other suggestions?
PS: Wouldn't all the new "smart" TV's that take expertise to just turn on, keep track and report what we watch? (How about a smart boom box? Do they have those?). Doesn't this make Nielson Ratings even more obsolete?
Comments (13)
EXCUSEs: Means and Motives - Example, JFK, Jr. - Pt 3
Posted On: Friday - April 11th 2025 9:36AM MST
In Topics: General Stupidity History Science
I know the Peak Stupidity readership has been on pins and needles, waiting to know what REALLY happened to John F. Kennedy, Jr. Likely he died in his plane crash due to an all-too-common pilot error, but otherwise I don't know. What a let-down that was... but, again, that wasn't the point of this series of posts* (Part 1 and Part 2). We'll get to the point THIS POST, as promised.
Let me note that I added one more point (8) to the list in Part 2 of how a writer with a supposed EXCUSE (our acronym to replace "conspiracy theory", a term is not used accurately, as a friend recently pointed out) for Kennedy's unnatural and untimely death ruins his theory by being very ignorant of the subject. That subject for this speculation is aviation, specifically single-pilot General Aviation. (I also modified 2 other points re the logbooks and the seats.)
That point (8) was something I'd meant to mention and plain forgot, but the other 2 corrections came from my reading of the Final NTSB report of Kennedy's accident. Why hadn't I read it already? Good question. As I read this Laurent Guyenot's article 6 years ago, I already knew enough to want to correct a lot of ignorant points. The NTSB report is pretty thorough, so I learned a few new things, but nothing that changes my story here. Did Mr. Guyenot read the NTSB report? No, he never linked to it directly - he only referred to people who did read it. He put his trust in those people and made an attempt to sort the many discrepancies out on his own. He failed at that due to his not knowing the subject. He personally CANNOT get the real picture out of the NTSB report, so instead he turned it all into supposed contradictions, subterfuge, and cover-ups. Aviation is most certainly not his specialty, but politics is. Therefore he did a nice job with the motives at least.
I didn't mention the "Israel killed the Kennedies"** section, but I'd lean toward the Clintons. The Hildabeast was (may still be!) one ambitious broad. There are many strange deaths in the Clinton's past. In their style of politics, sometimes you've just gotta off a few folks. However, what kind of complicated assassination would they have done with Mr. Kennedy's Piper Saratoga? Mr. Guyenot freely admitted that there was no evidence, other, of course, that what he figures must have been covered up, which is not real evidence. Were there a corroborated story about some strange guys in the hangar or out on the ramp - it's not easy to be out of prying eyes outside - that might lead to something. Why not just get the usual goons to off JFK, Jr. somewhere in NYC where one might very well get mugged? Maybe, the Hildabeast already had a plan in place, but Mr. Kennedy's unfortunate accident saved her goons the trouble.
Instead this speculator concludes:
In the final analysis, it is the explanation of the crash that is strikingly implausible. As Anthony Hilder [one of Mr. Guyenot's sources who he does not completely believe anyway!] put it: “A finely-tuned, well-kept first-class airplane doesn’t just drop out of the sky and head straight down into the ocean unless it’s blown out of the sky or the pilot deliberately sends it into a dive to kill himself and his passengers.”No. It most certainly can come down fast in a tight "graveyard spiral", a structural failure due to that, or a resulting stall/spin from an attempted recovery. It's not so easy to calm one's self and "make the gauges your world" and go back to that important lessons from the instructors and the reports from the many times this has happened before.
Laurent Guyenot also admitted:
In this whole affair, we cannot prove directly that JFK Jr. was murdered. What we can prove, however, is that federal agencies and mainstream media conspired in a massive fraud, including the concealment of key evidence (the 9:39 call and reports of an explosion), the distortion of facts (visibility and pilot’s ability) and false testimonies (Kyle Bailey and Bob Arnot being the most likely). That can be taken as indirect proof that JFK Jr. was murdered.The rest is bad aviation speculation from someone who knows nothing.
There is evidence of an accumulation of deliberate omissions, lies and false testimonies from the NTSB investigation to mainstream reporting, in order to blame the plane crash on the pilot alone, regardless of inconsistencies. And so, between accident and assassination, I lean strongly toward assassination.You didn't READ the report, and you CAN'T read the report, so I lean strongly toward your being full of it. You can't claim omissions, lies, and false testimony, if you haven't read the report and don't understand the subject yourself.
Let me broaden the point here. A lot of people have some really good motives to "off" a lot of people. As Exhibit A, I present the institute of Marriage. It's often on some lunar cycle of some sort, but there are times the motivation and full moonlight are strong. Usually nothing happens though. When a spouse does die of unnatural cause, when there's some substantial evidence of nefarious means, that's one thing. If not, very realistic motives or not, we figure an accident is an accident, but, also, why go through so much trouble? They got poison, you know. Mostly we try to get along.
For some of the historic events like assassinations of big-time politicians, there are usually a plethora of realistic motives to be considered. Without some solid evidence of wrongdoing though, the next step writers/pundits/podcasters make is to try to throw shade on the "official", but often most likely, story. Contradictions are pointed out. That's a good method if you know the subject matter well. It's all garbage if you don't.
It's highly likely that John F. Kennedy, Jr., his wife, and his sister-in-law, died due to Mr. Kennedy's having inadvertently gotten his airplane into an unusual attitude and not successfully performed a recovery. It's too bad, as I wrote in Part 1, as, just from what I've read, he seemed like one of the more decent of the Kennedies.
Just to get an idea that JFK, Jr's accident is not some strange phenomena, I screenshotted just a couple of days' worth of accident reports off the NTSB site. The field, hobby, or business of General Aviation is now not nearly as big as it was in the 1990s. I didn't look at any current month in this easy-to-use search-by-month feature on the site, but I can tell you there used to be on average 5-6 accidents per day. To guess, 10% or less involve fatalities.
From a ground loop of a tail-dragger on landing to an engine-out landing in a field, to a graveyard spiral like this, things happen, well, every day. It's not often to famous people like John John. People shouldn't get so surprised and suspicious, unless they've got something solid.
Next on the docket - whenever I feel like it - Paul Wellstone and the King Air crash in Minnesota.
* I should have written these last Summer, as it would have been right at a quarter of a century later.
** Doesn't quite jive with the Rolling Stones' Sympathy for the Devil lyrics though...
Comments (7)