From the foreign press, we learn that Honduras is struggling to reduce rampant crime. A week or so ago, Honduran leaders outlined a series of measures intended to “crackdown” on gang crimes. A state of emergency has existed in Honduras since 2022 — it’s time to build a mega-prison.
How Mega, you ask. Large enough for 20,000 prisoners. Honduras is following the example of neighboring El Salvador. Honduras President Xiomara Castro has directed security forces to implement urgent intervention nationwide. What is the extent of the problem? Gang-related crimes, murder for hire, drug and firearm trafficking, extortion, kidnapping, and money laundering. Castro said the new prison would double the capacity of the country’s current prison system. The government currently has some 21,000 inmates spread across 30 detention facilities.
Castro also said the penal code must be reformed to allow drug traffickers and members of criminal gangs who commit crimes like those listed by Castro to be designated as “terrorists.” This would mean they could face collective trials.
Security forces will also carry out operations targeting plantations where coca leaf — used in producing cocaine — and marijuana are grown, along with hubs where illegal drugs are processed. Currently, Honduras has a homicide rate almost six times the global average, with 34 people per 100,000 being killed in 2023.
Ninety percent of the Honduran people are Mestizo (mixed-race European/Indian). With a population of 9.5 million, the annual murder rate is 332,500 people. It’s almost as bad as Chicago, Illinois.
Our question should be, given the murder rate and current national prison population, what will a mega-prison do for Honduras? If the government intends to increase the national population above its current 21,000 inmates, how will an additional capacity of 20,000 help? Maybe I misread the report, but in case I haven’t, what is the cost of feeding and housing 41,000 criminals who have nothing to lose by creating a gangster land inside the prison – you know, like in every state prison in the United States?
It is a fantastic proposition. A murder rate of 332,500 people annually, even when 21,000 are already locked up — wow. Yet, according to Señor German McNeil of the National Penitentiary Institute, as published by the International Development Law Organization, “It is now obligatory for the penitentiary system to have doctors, legal counselors, social workers, and psychologists who directly contribute to the treatment of people deprived of their liberty.”
Let me translate the preceding information: Honduras’s crime problem is about to worsen. Suppose gang-related crimes, such as murder for hire, drug and firearm trafficking, extortion, kidnapping, and money laundering, are to be classified as domestic terrorism. What will doctors, lawyers, social workers, and psychologists do to remedy this problem? Over how many years? How able are the people of Honduras to pay in taxes what it will take to build and run this mega-prison?
Let me begin by encapsulating what the experts are drumming into our heads:
People have racist attitudes because they tend to take on the views of people around them.
We only hang out with people like us.
We’re too quick to judge others.
We tend to blame others for our problems.
There are no reasons or excuses for racism. It’s just wrong.
Historically, our understanding of racism has focused on individual psychology and how an individuals’ beliefs and behaviors drive it. Then we were told that the problem was that some people were quite intelligent, while others were dumb as rocks — the smart ones being white. Looking around, I have to say that white people have no claim on innate intelligence.
Modern researchers say this is all wrong. Instead, we must seek to understand racism through cultural psychology — that is, through practices and behavioral patterns embedded in culture. This is significant because the “researchers” now intend to focus on changing the behaviors of entire cultures. Good luck with that.
God forbid, I’m not saying the experts are wrong. I am saying, “Give me a break.”
The thing to know about these experts is that they develop their careers (and a gratifying income) by teaching, leading research teams, applying for and receiving research grants, publishing findings, paid lectures, etc., from racism. The longer this topic remains a hot-button issue, the more money they stand to make.
So, to ensure that their careers become and remain robust, the experts coordinate their efforts with people who can help them propagate their claims: journalists, activists, community organizers, and justice warriors. The buzzwords supporting their popular propositions include racism, racialism, white privilege, and so forth. One may recall something Vladimir Lenin told us back in 1923: the more you tell a lie, the more people believe it’s the unvarnished truth. Quite soon, before anyone realizes it, every white person is a racist, every successful white person, and every wealthy white person has gained an unfair advantage over his black brother or sister — all because of skin color.
All of the preceding propositions are generalizations — and, as with all such claims, they are oversimplifications. Of course, there is some truth to what they say, but no cigar. Why? Because most people (regardless of skin color) are not racists. There are plenty of reasons for blacks to resent whites that have nothing to do with skin color — and the same is true about whites not having much interest in black culture.
Look — people are not racist simply because they don’t have any “different-skinned” neighbors or because they don’t bowl on Tuesday night with minority members of society. Racism is a peculiar psychological dysfunction, and it is patently stupid to accuse everyone of being a racist. The problem is that all these experts and their journalist/activist co-conspirators are making matters worse — and profiting from it.
Here’s my contention: People who make outlandish claims about white privilege are exhibiting racist behaviors. Blaming white people for their whiteness, their social position, their educational attainments, and the size of their bank accounts — is not only racist but also unfounded. So what we have here is a condition where the experts have become racists to help society deal with racism.
How bizarre is this — ?
A journalist was speaking about the concept of white privilege, the belief that being white comes with unearned advantages. He asked a white retiree if he believed in white privilege, and the man said no, but he did believe in black privilege. Aghast, the black journalist demanded to know one perk that a black man enjoyed that the retiree didn’t. The man answered, “Black History Month.” The journalist observed that this proves whites are becoming the new blacks in America.
Need more proof? Black people can belong to clubs and organizations that cater specifically to blacks; white people can’t do that. Moreover, there is no such thing as a National Association for the Advancement of White People. That would be racist. Any white person suggesting the observance of white history month would be skewered by every federal bureaucrat and community organizer north of the Mason-Dixon line. Black people can refer to whites as Honky and an expletive with the abbreviation M. F., but if a white person uses the word nigger, Katie Bar the Door.
What this is — is stupid. In such cases as I’ve described, there is no sign of mutual respect, and yet the experts on racism claim that this is all the fault of white society. The word for such conclusions is dumb.
Yes, there are racial and ethnic disparities in our society. It may even be true that the wealth of white households is thirteen times the median wealth of black households — but whose fault is that?
Fact: Leaving school before graduation dramatically affects future employment, earnings, health, and overall well-being. According to the U.S. Department of Labor (2018), high school dropouts are over three times more likely unemployed than college graduates.
Fact: Even when employed, high school dropouts earn about $10,500 a year less than high school graduates and approximately $35,000 less than college graduates (U.S. Department of Labor, 2017).
Fact: In some locations, the dropout rate among black students remains steady at just under 10%. Nationally, black children represent around 18% of preschool enrollments and around 50% of children with multiple suspensions from school. Why is that? How is this a white-people problem? How is it a white-people problem when dozens of blacks descend on a department store and mob rob it?
And maybe the statistics, as horrible as they are, do not reflect any inherent racism at all. Do members of the black community strive to assimilate mainstream culture, or are they happy to remain within the margins of society? If education is the pathway to success in life, why aren’t black communities embracing it? Why aren’t black fathers staying home with their children and modeling for them what it is to be a good man?
I agree that we have a lot of work to do to improve our society. We were better off in that regard before Bobo Obama came along with his racist rhetoric and programs, but that’s water over the dam. But if we need to restart race relations, let’s stop calling each other silly names.
According to the National Museum of African American History and Culture, “On “Freedom’s Eve,” or the eve of January 1, 1863, the first Watch Night services took place. On that night, enslaved and free African Americans gathered in churches and private homes all across the country, awaiting news that the Emancipation Proclamation had taken effect. At the stroke of midnight, prayers were answered as all enslaved people in the Confederate States were declared legally free. Union soldiers, many of whom were black, marched onto plantations and across cities in the South, reading small copies of the Emancipation Proclamation and spreading the news of freedom in the Confederate States.”
The preceding paragraph is inaccurate.
Fact: The Emancipation Proclamation was a military strategy, not a legislative act. It was pure politics; moreover, it only applied in states the Union did not control in 1863: Confederate States. And since the Confederates controlled their states, there was no “emancipation” in the South.
Fact: Black people living in the North and the border states remained enslaved. Emancipation only applied to Southern blacks but had no effect.
No Black American was free until ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment on 6 December 1865. As for all those black soldiers who marched onto Southern plantations to read the Emancipation Proclamation to illiterate blacks, that deserves at least 4 Pinocchio’s. In total, 179,000 black men served in the U.S. Army during the American Civil War. They comprised ten percent of the Union Army. Of those, 40,000 men died throughout the war, most from illness and disease. No more than 10,000 black soldiers died in combat. Of the total of number of Union soldiers killed in action (320,222) black troops were around three percent.
So now, let me address that ignorant-sounding federal holiday blacks call Juneteenth. It must be Ebonics. On 19 June 1865, 2,000 Union troops arrived in Galveston Bay, Texas. The commander of those troops announced that blacks living in the state of Texas were thereby freed. This was dishonest and stupid because those people were not “freed.” They were released but had nowhere to go. They had no way to feed themselves. They had no shelter in the night or from weather. They had no way to earn an income. If anything, releasing them prematurely (that is, before the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified) was an act of criminal negligence.
Under-educated people today are celebrating as if something extraordinary happened on 19 June 1865. It may have been an important event, but there was nothing remarkable. It was the beginning of 100 years of suffering within Black communities, coast to coast.
We can thank dunderheaded Republicans through 1877 and evil Democrats through 1965. After that, for fifty-nine years, we can thank blacks for choosing to remain on the Democrat’s Plantation of low expectations.
Why is anyone gleefully celebrating Juneteenth? It’s not even a word, and there is nothing for anyone to celebrate — except, perhaps, for high-fiving revisionist history.
I don’t understand how black people can be satisfied with anything less than the truth. Step one for a better America: tell the truth about our past.
Developing economics is a branch of economics that focuses its attention on improving fiscal, economic, and social conditions in developing countries. It considers such factors as health, education, working conditions, domestic and international policies, and market conditions with a stated interest in improving conditions in the world’s worst-off countries. One problem with this is that most theoretical economists have never worked in any field and base all their arguments on unproven hypotheses.
Absent here, in the rush to judge how great their ideas are, economists lose sight of how the scientific method of investigation is supposed to work. It’s pretty simple, actually. First, one establishes facts through long-term observation of behavior, forming a hypothesis, predicting the likely outcome of that hypothesis, validating the hypothesis through experimentation, and carefully analyzing the results of one’s work. Skipping over steps or accelerating the process only damages the process of intelligent investigation.
Let’s investigate this further by looking at government subsidies: A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business, or institution — usually by the government. It can be direct (such as cash payments) or indirect (such as tax breaks). The subsidy is typically given to remove some burden, and it is often considered to be in the overall interest of the public, given to promote a social good or an economic policy.
There are many forms of government subsidies, the most common of which are welfare payments and unemployment benefits. Presumably, these types of subsidies aim to help people temporarily suffering economically. However, This argument fails when many people are permanently enrolled in such programs and their socio-economic situation remains perpetually unchanged. Another example of government subsidy is the subsidized interest rates on student loans. These are offered to people to further their education. The word education may only partially describe what goes on in institutions of higher education. It makes the casual observer wonder, “What, exactly, are we subsidizing?” People graduating with degrees in gender studies do not contribute to the American economy — and if that’s true, then why does the government (taxpayers) subsidize clownishness?
The argument supporting government subsidies to businesses is that some businesses struggle against unfair competition in domestic and international markets — so the government steps in to level the playing field. This has always been a slippery slope because what happens, from a practical standpoint, is that the government picks and chooses who the “winners” are. Black-owned businesses and those owned and operated by women (of any color) receive government assistance, while those operated by white people, particularly white males, do not. How fair is this? It isn’t fair, and it’s un-American, and some people will argue that if a business needs a government subsidy, it shouldn’t be in business in the first place.
To take the issue of subsidy to the next level, certain politicians propose canceling all student loans. Free education — and we all know the value of something we didn’t pay for or work for. I do not understand the thinking that supports “free college education.”
Democrats (and other communists) are now arguing that government intervention is justified (and necessary) because some (for whom higher education is productive) are unable to finance education loans because of imperfections in private credit markets. Alternatively, owing $60,000 (or more) for a degree in African or gender studies may have been a colossally dumb move. It is time for people to make better decisions for their future by thinking through the problem before leaping into a financial abyss.
We know from practical experience that subsidies encourage the wrong kinds of excesses. Anyone seeking a degree in a field of study without jobs makes no sense. None. We might even ask universities that offer such degrees to explain why they offer them. We may find out, after further investigation, that the government subsidizes universities to offer such degrees. I have no problem with “gender studies” at the graduate level, so long as there is no government subsidy to pay for them.
Why is the government offering to forgive and pay for these loans (at the taxpayer’s expense)? It is entirely political — which means patently dishonest. The federal government has no legitimate role in the educational loan business. Indeed, the federal government has no legitimate role in most subsidies. My conclusion is subjective, of course. No one has provided any scientific justification for choosing winners and losers in a society that used to and should again, exist on merit.
Are there people who are intellectually gifted but economically challenged? Of course. And there are already in place programs that address these people. Student loans are possible, along with educational grants and scholarships. These must be awarded based on merit, not skin color or gender. No person should have a college degree because of an athletic skill set. They shouldn’t be in college if they cannot be accepted into a college or university because of their intellectual ability.
Otherwise, college degrees are worthless no matter how much the government subsidizes them. We all know this — even Democratic politicians (and other communists). In the United States, this topic is all about getting young people to vote for Democrats — and this is a bad idea because even people with degrees in African pottery know that Democrats have never had an idea that advanced Americanism.
What is the fraud of educational subsidies? It is that the government picks and chooses winners and losers. This is not the business of government. Not in America, anyway, and it is time for Democrats to stop treating the American people as if they are living in a developing economy.
In the too-often feeble minds of many Americans, Abraham Lincoln is not only a historic leader but also a great defender of democratic virtue. He accomplished this by describing our government as being “ … of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Thanks to under-educated teachers who turn our children’s minds into mush, this is what most people today think about their relationship with the government of the United States.
Now, here we are again, approaching a general election, and the advocates for democratic action are out and about with their inane demands and pernicious claims: Power to the People! Republicans are trying to keep minorities from voting by demanding they have a voter identification card!
Some people even demand that we abolish our founding institutions, such as the Electoral College, or block certain high court nominees because they believe in strict Constitutionalism. It is deceitful as hell, but it works. The Seventeenth Amendment is proof of that.
People who claim that the United States isn’t democratic enough have a different idea about how the country should be run — something like Russia, France, or China. They demand that we respond to the will of the majority so that they can better control the minority, and that’s all fine and dandy unless you are part of the minority.
Those who demand more democracy and less republicanism argue that responding to the majority’s will demonstrates that people value their politics very highly. But anyone who makes that argument is very, very wrong — and foolish — because, contrary to catchy slogans and clever electioneering, the government of the United States was never intended as a democracy. Some of our cleverest philosophers steadfastly opposed democracy because it is easy for the majority to become tyrants over the minority. The institutions of a Republic were particularly designed to safeguard Americans from the anti-democratic designs of those who demanded democracy. Pure democracy is patently dangerous to a free people. Please note:
Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments,” Alexander Hamilton wrote. “If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy or some other form of dictatorship.”
Thomas Jefferson lamented, “ … a democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49.”
James Madison argued that democracies “ … have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
John Adams concluded that democracy “ … never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
Despite what many of today’s activists would have us believe, the anti-democratic institutions of the American Republic are just as vital now as they were over 200 years ago.
For example, the Electoral College ensures that individuals elected to the presidency have the support of not only the population-heavy coasts but also broad support throughout the entire country. The function of the Electoral College is to respect and represent the states as sovereign entities within our federal system.
Likewise, each state is represented equally in the U.S. Senate, irrespective of population, size, or prestige. The Senate was even more effective as a check upon democratic extremes before the ill-advised enactment of the Seventeenth Amendment (1913), which subjected Senators to direct election by voters rather than individual state legislatures.
Of all our institutions, the United States Supreme Court is the least democratic. The court’s members are given lifetime appointments by presidents elected by the Electoral College, subject to no democratic oversight or election. Justices are called upon to decide cases and controversies according to what the law demands, not according to their personal preferences or preferences or the passions and prejudices of the electorate.
President Lincoln understood the role of U.S. institutions in tempering democracy’s excesses and ensuring deliberation, balance, and stability. In his address of 1856, he noted, “Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties. And not to Democrats alone do I make this appeal, but to all who love these great and true principles.”
The advocates for increased democracy would do well to remember Mr. Lincoln’s warning. Their demand for more democracy may stem from genuine concern and a desire for “progress.” Still, in seeking to undermine less democratic institutions of the American system, they demonstrate a mind-numbing misunderstanding of our unique system of government. This would not be possible were it not for under-education and unqualified classroom teachers in American public schools. In the United States of America — the people rule, but only through institutions designed to protect the individual and minority from the tyranny of the majority. Stop listening to what Democrats tell you. They are pursuing an un-American agenda. Our Republic, as our founding fathers designed it, is worth protecting and preserving.