Tom’s Big Picture

In my high school, and I assume most high schools, the final study of literature is divided into a two-year course, the first covering American literature and the second in the senior year covering British literature. I enjoyed British literature; I suffered through American literature.

Is this really fair to our country? I don’t think so, given the inordinate amount of time spent on Northeastern “transcendentalist” literature. Emerson, Thoreau, Alcott, etc. From what I could tell, a bunch of universalist Gnostic Yankees walking around the woods barefoot pondering the meaning of life and navel-gazing their emotional states like a 7th grade girl’s diary. There was only one transcendentalist I kind of liked, and that was Nathaniel Hawthorne- but I think I liked him because he was a contrarian to the transcendentalist belief in the fundamental goodness of man, and presented man’s dark and evil nature as a reality in his works (of course, his anti-heroes were often historical Christians, see The Scarlet Letter, etc, as Hawthorne was very eager to malign his Puritan ancestors). Nevertheless, there was more real literature to Hawthorne than any of the other authors- and to his credit, he was a Copperhead, with one of his short stories, The Birthmark, being an allegory for the sectional struggle (this dark short story concerns an obsessive scientist who marries a beautiful woman name Georgiana- Hawthorne’s stories are pretty transparent in their symbolism- who has a birthmark on her face; the physician becomes obsessed with the birthmark to the point of being unable to appreciate her otherwise beautiful appearance- and then proceeds with stronger and stronger “treatments” to “cure” the birthmark- until he kills her).

Hawthorne aside, most of the rest was unbearable. Case in point was Emily Dickinson- this was a lady that needed Prozac more than a publisher. But this promotion of abnormalcy, of spiritual defectiveness, as the measure of true art, continues to this day. You are only qualified to be a poet if you’ve been through some horribly traumatic experience and want to share the entrails of your subconscious with the world; or else, write about unspeakable obscenity and aggression towards the majority culture. The art, the craft of verse has been cast aside- a Kipling in our day would be writing lyrics for country music instead of published poetry.

This analysis, of course, ignores the vast riches of Southern literature, including 19th century contemporaries of the transcendentalists. Men like William Gilmore Simms and Henry Timrod- normal men who married and had children, and generally loved their neighbors and the society into which they were born. Men who didn’t scorn the better in pursuit of the perfect, and thus approached closer to truth in this fallen world.

Of course, I was never exposed to this kind of American literature in high school- the best American writers don’t fit neatly into the mythology of political correctness. 

Before moving into the “heavier” political poems of Timrod, it being Valentine’s Day and all, I thought I would share this one, a piece written from the perspective of a mother upon her daughter’s wedding:

A Mother Gazes Upon Her Daughter by Henry Timrod

Is she not lovely! Oh! when, long ago,
My own dead mother gazed upon my face,
As I stood blushing near in bridal snow,
I had not half her beauty and her grace.

Yet that fond mother praised, the world caressed,
And ONE adored me — how shall HE who soon
Shall wear my gentle flower upon his breast,
Prize to its utmost worth the priceless boon?

Shall he not gird her, guard her, make her rich,
(Not as the world is rich, in outward show,)
With all the love and watchful kindness which
A wise and tender manhood may bestow?

Oh! I shall part from her with many tears,
My earthly treasure, pure and undefiled!
And not without a weight of anxious fears
For the new future of my darling child.

And yet — for well I know that virgin heart –
No wifely duty will she leave undone;
Nor will her love neglect that woman’s art
Which courts and keeps a love already won.

In no light girlish levity she goes
Unto the altar where they wait her now,
But with a thoughtful, prayerful heart that knows
The solemn purport of a marriage vow.

And she will keep, with all her soul’s deep truth,
The lightest pledge which binds her love and life;
And she will be — no less in age than youth
My noble child will be — a noble wife.

And he, her lover! husband! what of him?
Yes, he will shield, I think, my bud from blight!
Yet griefs will come — enough! my eyes are dim
With tears I must not shed — at least, to-night.

Bless thee, my daughter! — Oh! she is so fair! –
Heaven bend above thee with its starriest skies!
And make thee truly all thou dost appear
Unto a lover’s and thy mother’s eyes!

This is a new series of articles where I hope to share some of things I’ve learned in running my own business and successfully extricating myself from Corporate America. While I will not get into the specifics of my businesses, I think I can offer an analytical perspective (that is, information on the basis of facts and reality instead of wishful thinking) absent from most discussions of entrepreneurship. In particular, I have noticed that many of the conservative countercultural types like myself have “engineering” mindsets- it’s almost necessary, as being countercultural means that you can make independent decisions based on objective information, and that you have the moral courage to overcome the herding instinct and take action on your convictions. So that’s why I title the series “Engineers & Entrepreneurship”, because I have a typical engineer personality- but the information will be valuable for anyone of a similar mindset, independent of formal education.

One trend I have noticed is that your typical business owner, while certainly not stupid, is NOT analytically-minded, and more often than not is merely a mediocre study (the “pointy haired boss” in the Dilbert strips, like most stereotypes, is funny because it is a humorous exaggeration of a core truth). I think this is a shame, as the world would be a better place if more businesses were run on the basis of reality rather than the mish-mash of statistical and logical fallacies in your typical business book. If more of my fellow analytically-minded countercultural conservatives were liberated from the cubicle, I see a number of benefits:

A. Higher incomes and flexible schedules enable homeschooling, a positive social good. A higher income also makes it easier to support a large family, another social good among our people.

B. Higher incomes, especially incomes not dependent upon a single employer, can help relieve social status concerns regarding holding countercultural conservative convictions, and enable greater independence of thought, and greater confidence to avoid the herding instinct. While the herding instinct is usually healthy, in a toxic culture such as ours it is counterproductive.

C. The more of our people who are liberated from the cubicle, the more Corporate America will have to pay those that remain. Supply and demand. And the glad-handing salesmen types usually reaping most of the rewards in business cannot run their incredibly complex business empires without an army of engineers, programmers, and other analytical minds behind them. The former have been too richly rewarded relative to their contributions and the latter too stingily.  We see this same unfortunate trend in the church, as the retail salesmen of the faith (megachurch pastors/evangelists) are elevated beyond their capacities (see The Peter Principle) into teaching roles that should be reserved for engineering minds of the faith, or theologians.

D. Not everyone can or will own their own business. Not everyone should- I will even try and provide a framework for making that decision later. But those of us who do own our own businesses can employ similarly-minded people, offering an employment framework more in-line with a counterculturally conservative lifestyle.  This is especially important in light of the preponderance of self-appointed “thought police” who will harass people based on their politically incorrect views by trying to get them fired from their job.  How refreshing it would be for many to be able to speak their mind without fear of losing their job!

So without further introduction, my first offering on the subject:

Why do smart people work for others instead of running their own businesses? According to the book The Millionaire Next Door, the typical millionaire in our country is someone who runs a small business in a small-to-medium size community, who sometimes has a college degree, more often than not with a GPA of around 2.0. When questioned about academics, their attitude is often along the lines of “why try and be smart when you can hire smart people so cheaply?” Why do the 4.0 students end up working for the 2.0 students (even the 4.0 students who are self-employed tend to gravitate towards income-self-limiting trading-time-for-money high-stress occupations like medicine and law- so while some may earn as much as their lesser-skilled analogs in business, they’re working a lot harder for it)? A number of possible reasons:

• 1. First, and foremost, there is survivorship bias. Less intelligent people aren’t as skilled at appraising risk, and are generally more confident and optimistic (yes, ignorance is bliss!). For example, if 100 dumb people go into a risky business with a lot of debt, 95 of them might fail and declare bankruptcy; the other 5 will succeed spectacularly due to random factors. On average, this is a bad bet. However, we only hear about the 5% who succeed, who of course think their success is due to something innate in them, usually their ignorant “think positive” personality orientation, when in fact their success is just an atypically good roll of the dice. I think this is where a lot of the nonsense in the business book section of the bookstore comes from- only people unable (or morally irresponsible enough) to comprehend risk take big gambles, and the few of them who win big from the slot machine attribute it to their risk-taking orientation. Then they put on big seminars where they teach you to internalize their risk-taking orientation…which leads us to the other side of the coin…
• 2. Intelligent people in corporate jobs tend to underestimate their own risk and overestimate the risk of a business. There is no job security in large companies anymore; in fact, I would argue that a small businessperson with a broad base of customers is more secure in his income than a cubicle-dweller in the same industry; there is, of course, no way to prevent against systemic risks in a given industry- but a businessperson at least has the freedom to start another venture in a different, non-correlated industry. I had people tell me when I was first starting out that I was crazy to leave my corporate job because “you can’t get health insurance if you’re self-employed.” Of course, Blue Cross will sell you group health insurance (e.g. a husband and wife both working for the same business qualifies as a “group”- and in Texas at least, BC/BS and other companies are required by law to offer coverage to small groups at a non-discriminatory price) for the right price- a lot more expensive than $1000-a-year company-subsidized insurance, but as long as the income tradeoffs are right, the costs are irrelevant.
• 3. Irrational concerns about social status. As John Derbyshire notes*:

Towering over all these lesser scams is the college racket, a vast money-swollen credentialing machine for lower-middle-class worker bees. American parents are now all resigned to the fact that they must beggar themselves to purchase college diplomas for their offspring, so that said offspring can get low-paid outsource-able office jobs, instead of having to descend to high-paid, un-outsource-able work like plumbing, carpentry, or electrical installation.

Now, I’m not anti-college ideologically as some in homeschooling circles, as I do think a conservative liberal arts education is useful for exceptionally bright children, the top 10%, as college used to be. And it’s necessary for more technical occupations like engineering, medicine, etc. But for most people attending college these days, it’s a game of pretending to a middle-class lifestyle by sitting in a cube instead of making a very respectable living doing real work. This is about the silliest social status game that our people (who are very silly about social status games in general) have ever dreamed up.

An epiphany moment for me occurred in 2001. My wife and I were newlyweds living in Georgia, in an exburb of Atlanta, attending a middle-class church. Most of the young couples we knew had various jobs as middle managers in the highly-service-oriented Atlanta economy. We were first starting out in our little two-bedroom apartment, and most of the couples had been married a good bit longer than us (maybe 5 years or so) and had already bought their first home. We were quite impressed, of course, visiting their various homes, and amazed at the apparent debt people were willing to go into, as Georgia prices are significantly higher than Texas prices. Most of the couples in the class were clearly middle-class in their mannerisms and outlook on life (very focused on advancement up the corporate ladder, getting their MBA’s, etc)- and though I was raised in more of a hybrid working-and-middle class home, I found myself, especially with my new job right out of college as an engineer, adopting this mindset as well. I was very impressed when I heard that just two steps up the management food chain from where I started, someone could make over $100k per year; of course, they worked 90 hours a week, but I wasn’t thinking about that.

Anyway, there was one person in the class who didn’t fit the middle class mold (his wife did, but he didn’t); this person was Jim, who was the third-generation owner of a local tire shop. Jim was about 28-30 years old, and definitely had more “working class” mannerisms and outlooks on life. Jim’s tire shop was the very epitome of a local tire shop- stacks of papers everywhere, grease stains on the floor, five-year-old Car and Driver issues next to an even older coffee pot in the waiting area, with burnt Folgers and a grainy 1980’s-era color TV mounted on the wall. Jim’s shop also offered a “drop off” service for customers where one of his employees would drive you in one of their beater cars (a luxurious chauffeured experience in a 1984 Accord, all the while with the driver smoking a cigarette out the front window) to the local mall or wherever while your car was being worked on. In other words, Jim’s business was about as non-middle-class as you can get.

Well, one day we were invited to Jim’s house for a social. As we followed the directions to get to his house, we immediately noticed something telling about his neighborhood: Jim’s house was on the lake, which in this area meant the lot itself started at $100,000 (this was 2001, so probably more now). And then we pulled in his driveway- huge didn’t even begin to describe the size of the house, at least to my two-bedroom-apartment acclimated eyes back then. After I recovered from the cognitive dissonance of seeing my entire middle-class outlook on life shattered, I eventually got around to asking Jim about his business later that night. I’m sure I wasn’t nearly as slick as I wanted to be, but after Jim dropped some numbers about the number of tires he sells and some simple arithmetic when I got home, I figured a rough estimate of an income of $400,000 per year from his tire shop; that’s income, not sales.

Jim helped me “get my mind right” about the debt-driven middle-class go-to-college-to-get-a-job-so-you-can-earn-and-consume treadmill- there are too many mice eating that cheese. Just by sticking my head out of the cube, he showed me a whole new world of possibilities for those willing to let go of middle class pretensions about social status.

Later that year, I heard some of the men make a couple of snide comments about Jim’s business, from a snooty social status point of view. I didn’t bother to defend Jim, as they just needed to soothe their middle class egos by making fun of him a little bit; he was laughing all the way to the bank anyway.

Which do you value more when it comes down to it?  The social respectability of you middle class salaried job, or your financial freedom?  Most realistic entrepreneurial opportunities will not allow you to retain both.  After all, doesn’t it feel good to claim to work for such-and-such company, to be part of a large organization?  Are you really mentally prepared to be your own employer?  Or is this just an escape fantasy for bad weeks at the office?  Only a burning desire to help plow through the hard work, and a good bit of luck, will suffice.

More to follow…questions/comments welcome.

*Regarding the Derbyshire article linked to: I disagree with Derbyshire’s critical comments about teachers.  Teachers are as much the victims of the problems of our educational system as students.  The benefits accrue to the administrators, union bosses and various other bureaucrats who claim to have “educational” jobs (usually very high-paying ones relative to teachers) that conveniently don’t involve directly interacting with students.

Murderers more likely to win the lottery than get convicted.

One of the most destructive myths about our country is that we are a “nation of immigrants.” This is related to a myth that American culture (not pop culture, but traditional American culture) is an indigenous creation resulting from American institutions and the environment of the country.

The latter myth is exploded by David Hackett Fischer’s authoritative book on the subject, Albion’s Seed. Fischer is a liberal Northerner, and thus his books are a bit biased towards the Puritans and Quakers, but his accounts of the two Southern groups, the Virginians and the Scots-Irish, are valuable. In particular, he shows that all essential parts of American culture can be traced directly back to England. Even something as minor as cuisine (fried chicken comes from South England, where the Virginians came from) or housing (the prevalence of trailer parks in the South is related to the Scots-Irish tendency towards cheap housing, a cultural artifact of having their homes burned and raided in various English/Scottish wars). More importantly, our political traditions, to the extent they remain, of small government and personal liberty are directly descended from Scots-Irish suspicion towards government- the Scots-Irish being the dominant American ethnic group, largely because of their high historical fertility. The state of Texas, in particular, is almost entirely organically Scots-Irish- while other groups might be willing to live near the relatively docile Cherokee and Choctaw Indian tribes, only the Scots-Irish were brave enough to endure the raids of the Apache and Comanche.

Related to the Scots-Irish suspicion of government is the Scots-Irish romanticism of the outlaw. This is understandable since historically so many of them were outlaws- Scottish outlaws in England were forcibly deported to North Ireland, and the worst outlaws of North Ireland were deported to the American frontier. Later on, many outlaws of the frontier made their way to Texas to start a new life. So in Texas we have a founding population that is a triple distillation of the worst outlaws of England, Ireland, and America. Of course, that’s what history tells us, but we know the real story about history from the opening lines of Braveheart: “History is written by those who hang heroes.”

As I talked about in my last post, our people have an abstract notion of right and wrong that supersedes the so-called law. When the laws are written by lying politicians, how can they possibly be right in themselves? No, the laws are just to the extent they are right in the higher sense, and any law that is not can and should be ignored. This is the attitude of the Scots-Irish throughout their history. It was the Scots-Irishman Patrick Henry who said “Give me liberty or give me death”. And the Scots-Irishman William Wallace (at least in the Mel Gibson version) who said “I AM William Wallace! And I see a whole army of my country men, here, in defiance of tyranny. You’ve come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What will you do with that freedom? Will you fight?…Aye, fight and you may die, run, and you’ll live… at least for a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin’ to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they’ll never take… OUR FREEDOM!”

With this knowledge we can understand why “Rob Roy”, or Robert Roy MacGregor is the national folk hero of Scotland and also the quintessential Scots-Irishman according to Fischer. He tried to do right and earn an honest living- but when the law turned against him, he became an outlaw rather than submit to tyranny. To paraphrase the ballad of latter-day pop culture Scots-Irish outlaws: He was just a good old boy, doing the best that he could, but that was just a little bit more than the law would allow.

The following poem by William Wordsworth, describing the philosophy of Rob Roy and the Scots-Irish contempt for unjust law, has a contemporary application. “Burn all the statutes and their shelves” - I can’t think of better advice in an age when we deal with such legal abominations as Roe v. Wade and a thousand other tyrannical rulings and laws.

Rob Roy’s Grave

By William Wordsworth

A famous man is Robin Hood,
The English ballad-singer’s joy!
And Scotland has a thief as good,
An outlaw of as daring mood;
She has her brave ROB ROY!

Then clear the weeds from off his Grave,
And let us chant a passing stave,
In honor of that Hero brave!

Heaven gave Rob Roy a dauntless heart
And wondrous length and strength of arm:
Nor craved he more to quell his foes,
Or keep his friends from harm.

Yet was Rob Roy as wise as brave;
Forgive me if the phrase be strong; –
A Poet worthy of Rob Roy
Must scorn a timid song.

Say, then, that he was wise as brave;
As wise in thought as bold in deed:
For in the principles of things
He sought his moral creed.

Said generous Rob, What need of books?
Burn all the statutes and their shelves:
They stir us up against our kind;
And worse, against ourselves.

We have a passion — make a law,
Too false to guide us or control!
And for the law itself we fight
In bitterness of soul.

And, puzzled, blinded thus, we lose
Distinctions that are plain and few:
These find I graven on my heart:
That tells me what to do.

The creatures see of flood and field,
And those that travel on the wind!
With them no strife can last; they live
In peace, and peace of mind.

For why? — because the good old rule
Sufficeth them, the simple plan,
That they should take, who have the power,
And they should keep who can.

A lesson that is quickly learned,
A signal this which all can see!
Thus nothing here provokes the strong
To wanton cruelty.

All freakishness of mind is checked;
He tamed, who foolishly aspires;
While to the measure of his might
Each fashions his desires.

All kinds, and creatures, stand and fall
By strength of prowess or of wit:
‘Tis God’s appointment who must sway,
And who is to submit.

Since, then, the rule of right is plain,
And longest life is but a day;
To have my ends, maintain my rights,
I’ll take the shortest way.

And thus among these rocks he lived,
Through summer heat and winter snow:
The Eagle, he was lord above,
And Rob was lord below.

So was it — would, at least, have been
But through untowardness of fate;
For Polity was then too strong –
He came an age too late;

Or shall we say an age too soon?
For, were the bold Man living now,
How might he flourish in his pride,
With buds on every bough!

Then rents and factors, rights of chase,
Sheriffs, and lairds and their domains,
Would all have seemed but paltry things,
Not worth a moment’s pains.

Rob Roy had never lingered here,
To these few meagre Vales confined;
But thought how wide the world, the times
How fairly to his mind!

And to his Sword he would have said,
Do Thou my sovereign will enact
From land to land through half the earth!
Judge thou of law and fact!

‘Tis fit that we should do our part,
Becoming, that mankind should learn
That we are not to be surpassed
In fatherly concern.

Of old things all are over old,
Of good things none are good enough: –
We ‘ll show that we can help to frame
A world of other stuff.

I, too, will have my kings that take
From me the sign of life and death:
Kingdoms shall shift about, like clouds,
Obedient to my breath.

And, if the word had been fulfilled,
As might have been, then, thought of joy!
France would have had her present Boast,
And we our own Rob Roy!

Oh! say not so; compare them not;
I would not wrong thee, Champion brave!
Would wrong thee nowhere; least of all
Here standing by thy grave.

For Thou, although with some wild thoughts,
Wild Chieftain of a savage Clan!
Hadst this to boast of; thou didst love
The liberty of man.

And, had it been thy lot to live
With us who now behold the light,
Thou would’st have nobly stirred thyself,
And battled for the Right.

For thou wert still the poor man’s stay,
The poor man’s heart, the poor man’s hand;
And all the oppressed, who wanted strength,
Had thine at their command.

Bear witness many a pensive sigh
Of thoughtful Herdsman when he strays
Alone upon Loch Veol’s heights,
And by Loch Lomond’s braes!

And, far and near, through vale and hill,
Are faces that attest the same;
The proud heart flashing through the eyes,
At sound of ROB ROY’S name.

If you kill somebody in our state, we’re gonna kill you back- even if it’s an unborn child.

Some of you will have seen this already:

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2769639

Observations:

A. Beautiful family. And knowing the media, you know they were trying very hard to find a bad example to feature in this report. It speaks a lot about the people involved that this family was the “worst” the media was able to find.

B. I assume the pastor featured was not the pastor of this family- and the report I believe makes that pretty clear. Dan Scott, the local pastor interviewed, is clearly in “damage contol” mode- as in, “how can I reassure these nice media people that we Christians aren’t weirdos like this family?” And, under pressure, he spills his worldview, referencing “overpopulation” and “limited resources” for reasons not to have lots of children.

Now, in fairness, Scott is merely parroting the received wisdom of our age- but there’s not an “overpopulation” problem with this couple’s children. In contrast, the Western world is going to have a serious underpopulation problem in the next 100 years. Children like these don’t result in “limited resources”, but rather are priceless human capital who will add to the total resources available to the rest of humanity.

Scott, you’ll be interested to know, is pastor of a megachurch in Nashville, and his humanist educational background probably betrays the source of his bias:

Pastor Scott holds a BA in Sociology/History, a Masters of Arts in Humanities, a Master of Arts in Psychology and a post graduate certificate in Trauma and Abuse. Pastor Scott is fluent in Spanish and French and is dedicated to racial reconciliation.

Something tells me Scott would not support politically incorrect solutions to true overpopulation, like mandatory birth control for welfare recipients, but is nevertheless very eager to distance himself from a family populating the world with beautiful, well-adjusted children on their own dime.

C. Depending on which of the offered definitions you take, “quiver full” does not necessarily mean absolutely no birth control (I’ve read somewhere that a quiver in OT times held five arrows, but of course because of high infant mortality they would have had many more than that to ensure 5 survived). The point is to have at least 5 or 6 kids. That’s achievable- what worries me about an absolutist worldview is rolling 1/30 odds for Down Syndrome (and other developmental issues that increase exponentially with maternal age) at age 45. Unless a parent is financially independent enough to provide for a special needs child for life (even past the parent’s death), it would seem irresponsible to intentionally take such a large risk that, if such an outcome occurred, would ultimately put a burden on the taxpayer- not to mention the time and resources that would be taken from the other children. I’m not advocating abortion of course, but I just mean using non-abortive birth control to manage the risk after a certain age. A reasonable inflection point before the risk starts accelerating seems to be age 39 or so. Statistics below:

I’m sure very few people will take this middle position- it seems as if we are wired up for ideology.

And if people must choose an ideology, then the full-on “Quiver Full” philosophy is infinitely preferable for our people to the Culture of Death and its below-replacement birth rates we have now.

As I’ve mentioned before, the late conservative columnist Sam Francis talked about the concept of anarcho-tyranny, the apparent contradiction between anarchy and tyranny in our government’s actions. While illegal alien child molesters are allowed to roam free, small business owners are harassed by the IRS for taking a home office deduction to ease their serfdom-level tax rates.

Francis’ breakthrough was identifying this contradiction as intentional, not as mere incompetence or decadence, as our government hates the founding people of the country and is diligently working to replace us with a different people more to their liking.

It is with this perspective that I view Rick Perry’s decision this week to force all Texas public school female students (and presumably, anyone wanting to attend a state university as well) to receive the vaccine for HPV. While parents can opt-out, it requires filing paperwork (instead of a less tyrannical opt-in policy). Of course, the usual reasons apply here for Perry’s latest betrayal of his conservative base:

Merck is bankrolling efforts to pass laws in state legislatures across the country mandating it Gardasil vaccine for girls as young as 11 or 12. It doubled its lobbying budget in Texas and has funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators around the country.

Perry has several ties to Merck and Women in Government. One of the drug company’s three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, his former chief of staff. His current chief of staff’s mother-in-law, Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, is a state director for Women in Government.

Perry also received $6,000 from Merck’s political action committee during his re-election campaign.

The New Jersey-based drug company could generate billions in sales if Gardasil _ at $360 for the three-shot regimen _ were made mandatory across the country.

Let’s do the math here: there are about 320,000 5th grade students in Texas. Of the 160,000 females, let’s say 150,000 don’t bother to file paperwork to opt-out and receive the vaccine. That’s $54 million dollars a year in sales for Merck. Not a bad little annuity for a $6000 investment in Rick Perry. They used to say Louisiana politicians were the best money could buy, but I think that’s mistaken: a Louisiana politician would have bargained for WAY more than $6,000 on this deal (I’m thinking it’s worth at least $50,000 in campaign funds and a couple million in garbage bags stuffed with $100 bills). Texas politicians are downright bargains. I mean, really, Rick, you’re selling yourself short. You’re not less of a special-interest harlot just because you’re cheap!

Seriously, contrast this tyrannical executive order with Perry’s pro-anarchy view of the border. Is this idiocy or intentional?

The reality is that the historic residents of Texas (at its founding, 95% white and black Anglos, 5% Mexican, most of the latter upper class elites of mainly Spanish ancestry centered around San Antonio) are being displaced by a Third World population. And, as to be expected, they bring with them their Third World standards of morality. The notion that these folks have “family values” is false. They are quickly breeding a permanent underclass.

One of the consequences of an underclass is that the state will end up picking up the tab for their medical care, including cervical cancer treatment that is a direct result of HPV infection incurred by their moral habits. Thus, to save money for the state, the solution is to force everyone to get an HPV vaccine, regardless of the very little we know about its safety.

It all makes perfect sense in the Francis framework. Where it benefits the ruling elites to have anarchy, we have anarchy; where it benefits them to have tyranny, we have tyranny.

The irony is that I believe the vaccine will result in greater health care expense for the state. Let’s not forget that the average IQ of the folks that the HPV vaccine will ostensibly benefit is probably somewhere around 85-90, people whose native cultures believe in all sorts of silly superstitions, like Aztec goddesses appearing as the Virgin Mary and witch doctors making people bulletproof. It won’t take long before the urban tribal grapevine turns the HPV vaccine into a magical talisman representing immunity from all STD’s- or even worse, rumors promote it as a contraceptive. An eradication of HPV won’t compensate the state for the expenses it will incur by giving these people even an inkling of a “have sex for free” card.

And finally, the implication the state is making will erode the morality of all students. The governor is essentially saying, “We know you’re not going to abstain until marriage, because we know nobody does that, so we’re going to give you a shot to help mitigate the consequences of your behavior.”

Rick, here a tip: go talk to the people at Trojan condoms- when the 5th graders are getting their HPV vaccine, they can get a sampler pack of condoms at the same time; after all, if they’re going to get the message that it’s ok to mess around, they might as well be totally protected, as there’s no AIDS or genital warts vaccines yet. I’m sure the folks at Trojan would kick in at least another couple grand to your re-election campaign for that opportunity (bonus tip: talk to Trojan AND Durex- get them into a bidding war to be the “official Rick Perry-endorsed condom for Texas elementary schools”- you might get a match on the $6000, a two-fer to match Merck’s investment)!

Ok, I had way too much fun writing that last paragraph, so I’ll resist the urge to say more…

Ok, this is one of those email forwards going around, but it’s so good I had to share it:

Dear Senator Martinez,

As a native Floridian and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.

My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stem from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill’s provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out .

Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I’m excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.

Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year. Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as “in-state” tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.

Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver’s license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.

If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative. Thank you for your assistance.

Your Loyal Constituent,

Pete McGlaughlin

I don’t think she values diversity enough- she wants in on the Latin American racial politics racket but apparently doesn’t appreciate her Latin American brethrens’ cultural attitude towards women…

I know the Reps in the Texas Legislature don’t like it, but the effective shutdown of legislative business for the first 60 days (as intended by the Texas Constitution for non-emergency bills) can only be a good thing. They’ll have to pass the important bills in the remaining time to please their constituents, and won’t have time for much other monkey business. Texas is blessed with a wonderful Constitutional
limit on legislative mischief- every two years is often enough for politicians to get together. In other states, they can pass unpopular bills in a session right after an election and hope the public forgets- in Texas every session is a fishbowl, since they happen so infrequently…