Out with the old, in with the new

Working class, that is.

A small datapoint in favor of Guilluy’s argument that coastal enclaves are importing a new (cheaper and more ethnic) working class and banishing the old one to the periphery. From Tyler Cowen:

As Table 3 shows, eight of the nation’s 12 largest metropolitan areas have lost domestic migrants since 2010. These areas are either pricey coastal regions, or are located in the industrial Midwest. New York, Los Angeles and Chicago have led the nation in domestic out migration for more than three decades. However, because each also receives substantial numbers of international migrants, their overall migration loss for 2010-2016 is minimized. This is also true for other domestic migration losers on the list.

In contrast, Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta registered significant domestic in-migration gains.

That is from William H. Frey, there is much more at the link.  The pointer is from Amy Liu.

Validation for Purple Drift, as well.

Advertisements

Blood Frenzy

Live footage of the MSM reporting on Trump:screamingmin.gif

I’ve always wondered if/when the MSM would tire itself out from it’s daily outrage machine. How many times a day can they stare down an unprecedented (since yesterday) global catastrophe? It’s gotta be exhausting. I figured Trump would basically wait them out and eventually the MSM would return to mundane reporting.

It actually seemed like the MSM had eased up a bit, briefly gloating about healthcare, then turning to mild accusations of genocide-by-Trumpcare, and then genuinely distracted by humdrum ransomware.

And then Comey. Comey. RUSSIA. Comey. RUSSIA. RUSSIA. Comey. Comey. The guy they loved, then hated, and then still hated, but would have preferred better timing. CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS!!!!

When they said Trump would release the animal spirits, I’m not sure this is what they meant. The Comey firing was like blood in the water for dormant sharks.

So let’s review:

Scandal #1: Trump fired Comey to obstruct justice.

Alternative Hypothesis: There is no justice to obstruct. Trump did not fire Comey to stop an investigation because he doesn’t care about the investigation in the slightest. That’s not surprising because Trump knows there is nothing to investigate, which is also why every investigation has come up with absolutely nothing. Yes, it behooves junior staffers to believe that their work is of grave importance and the forces of evil have conspired to stop you, but there’s a tendency to overrate one’s stature in the big scheme of things. Sometimes you’re just collateral damage because you don’t matter enough to be the primary target. It’s a tough pill to swallow, but I’ve witnessed this phenomenon firsthand.

Trump fired Comey because he’s president and gets to appoint the head of the FBI. Trump fired Comey because Comey is not Trump’s guy, cannot control leaks in his department, and arguably bungled the non-scandal emailgate. For all the fevered headlines and leaks, there continues to be zero evidence of anything untoward with Russia . . . just a lot of fevered headlines and leaks. Inserting the adjective “shady” or “shadowy” before “ties” does not make them so. Drawing lots of confusing circles and arrows similarly does not constitute evidence. But if you’re starting assumption is that something shady happened with Russia, then every bit of circumstantial evidence gets a negative inference and becomes additional evidence to validate the original (baseless) assumption that something shady happened with Russia. It’s conspiracy all the way down.

Scandal #2: Trump leaked sensitive Israeli intel to the Russians putting the fate of the universe at risk.

Alternative Hypothesis: Trump dropped a tidbit of intel in a totally routine and unremarkable way.

The MSM is already convinced that Trump perpetrated some grievous injury without knowing what the intel was, whether Russia already knew it, how frequently such sharing occurs, whether Israel cares or whether the source is actually at risk. I mean, if it’s so friggen sensitive, then why is this anonymous source running straight to the press? “Ohmigosh! Trump just told the biggest secret to the Russians. Can you believe it?! If anyone finds out, literally millions of people will die. You won’t tell anyone, right?”

It’s straight out of Mean Girls.

Even Dennis Kucinich, playing the token opposition voice of reason, has weighed in against the MSM and these brave anonymous sources, as reported by none other than Breitbart:

Kucinich went on to say that he had read the Washington Post story very carefully and, based on his 16 years of experience in the U.S. Congress, “tracking all these things that are said about foreign policy,” that “there’s a high BS quotient going on right here.”

He added that the “meter should be going off all over town” and redirected attention to troubling leaks from the intelligence community. He said questions need to be asked about why and who within the intelligence community is leaking this information, “we don’t need to look to Russia for any affirmation here.” Kucinich went on:

Ya know we don’t need to look to Russia for any affirmation here. We need to ask questions about why is this intelligence community trying to upend the President of the United States with these leaks? Here’s the Washington Post story (holds up physical copy of the newspaper) I mean its, and all over town people are saying the President did this and that — look, I disagree with President Trump on a number of issues, but on this one, there can only be one President and somebody in the intelligence community is trying to upend this President in order to pursue a policy direction that puts us in conflict with Russia. The question is why? and who? and we need to find out.

Seriously, what’s worse? Trump “leaking” intelligence at his presidential prerogative with our sorta ally with whom we share much intelligence, or some “white house official” leaking the substance of private meeting between the president and our sorta ally with whom we share much intelligence? At least you have to think about it, right?

Trump did bad stuff with the Russians to erode our democracy.

Like what?

He leaked sensitive emails.

How do you know?

It was leaked by an anonymous inside source.

But experts like James Clapper, happy to be in the news for something other than alleged perjury, have decided (after perusing the Post article) that Trump is a certifiable threat to our national security and no one will share intelligence with us again. OK then kids, just remember to finish your homework and no cookies after 9pm.

Scandal #3: Trump expressed his “hope that [Comey] can let this [Flynn investigation] go” which is also obstruction of justice.

Alternative Hypothesis: Trump expressed his “hope that [Comey] can let this [Flynn investigation] go” because he felt that Flynn was a good guy getting a raw deal being raked over the coals by a paranoid, bloodthirsty and foaming-at-the-mouth press who had gone through the paces of an investigation that turned up absolutely nothing.

Again, to believe that there is anything nefarious about asking Comey to end the Flynn investigation, you have to believe that there is something to the Flynn investigation. If it’s just nonsense, then hoping that nonsense goes away is pretty reasonable.

To be clear, I don’t feel terribly sorry for Trump. He certainly peddled in a non-scandal or two in his day. The point is that peddling in non-scandals is obviously not disqualifying behavior, despite the MSM’s insistence to the contrary. In general, the MSM (and its feverish readers) have zero credibility to criticize anyone for fear-mongering, conspiracy peddling, fake news, bias, hypocrisy, partisanship, obstructionism, lying or undermining democratic processes or institutions.

There is no daylight between the MSM and the Democratic Party. If the political narrative is that Trump is an incompetent, intemperate buffoon who puts his own personal interests ahead of the country such that he will steal the presidency by colluding with our (new) arch-nemesis Russia (and otherwise fumble it away), then that’s the news narrative. That will be the interpretive framework by which all data are collected and analyzed and the feedback loop will be complete. It doesn’t matter that the MSM has been wrong about every one of its fevered predictions about Trump because its fevered predictions are themselves the “facts” that support the inference in favor of more fevered predictions.

There is no other way to explain the levels of cognitive dissonance that permit intelligent and sane people to celebrate bureaucratic mutiny, chant “not our president,” openly #resist and undermine the president at every turn, fulminate over a stolen presidency and count down the days to impeachment all because Trump is the one threatening to undermine our democratic institutions.

Americans Becoming A Punchline?

I’ve written previously that politics — and human behavior generally — is in large part a status game: we care a lot about the way we’re perceived by other people (and ourselves). As Adam Smith observed with respect to charity, our actions are fueled by a desire to be regarded as “lovely.” In politics, we want to be perceived as “better” than the other team. More broadly, we do all kinds of things that are basically performative: look at me, aren’t I smart, wise, trustworthy, funny, cool, confident, modest, etc.? There’s nothing wrong with that — signalling can be functional and rewarding — but of course, sometimes the tail wags the dog (i.e. “virtue signalling”).

Anyways, conventional wisdom has it that the Left has the market cornered on international political status. In other words, one of the upsides of being on the American Team Left, is that folks in far away places hold you in higher esteem. “We sure are embarrassed by Bush Trump, but at least we brought you Obama, amiright?” I remember when folks were so bullish on the status power of leftism that they believed Obama would bring peace to the Middle East, simply by repairing our “bad” reputation cultivated by W.

Overconfidence notwithstanding, there is something rewarding about external validation. In the Left’s debate with the Right, the Left can say “well, everyone else thinks we’re totally better, so boo on you.”

That’s why it’s a good thing for the Lefty psyche that lefties don’t know much about China. It appears (in an article I am taking at face value) that lefties have become something of a punchline in the world’s most populous country:

If you look at any thread about Trump, Islam or immigration on a Chinese social media platform these days, it’s impossible to avoid encountering the term baizuo (白左), or literally, the ‘white left’. It first emerged about two years ago, and yet has quickly become one of the most popular derogatory descriptions for Chinese netizens to discredit their opponents in online debates.

Why is baizuo such a take down? Let the internet tell you:

A thread on “why well-educated elites in the west are seen as naïve “white left” in China” on Zhihu, a question-and-answer website said to have a high percentage of active users who are professionals and intellectuals, might serve as a starting point.

The question has received more than 400 answers from Zhihu users, which include some of the most representative perceptions of the ‘white left’. Although the emphasis varies, baizuo is used generally to describe those who “only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment” and “have no sense of real problems in the real world”; they are hypocritical humanitarians who advocate for peace and equality only to “satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority”; they are “obsessed with political correctness” to the extent that they “tolerate backwards Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism”; they believe in the welfare state that “benefits only the idle and the free riders”; they are the “ignorant and arrogant westerners” who “pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours”.

Sick burn, broheim.

It turns out the Chinese netizens regard lefties with the same contempt as American netizens. To put it mildly, the baizu have the widest possible gap between their self-perceived righteousness and their actual righteousness. At least Don Quixote had the cojones to strap on armor and a sword, even if he was blindly tilting at windmills (and mixing cultural metaphors). The baizu are decidedly not lovable losers.

What’s really interesting is that the Chinese are throwing shade from the peanut gallery — they’ve got no real skin in the game when it comes to this left-right debate — they just think the Left is dumb . . . and making America look bad:

However, Chinese netizens’ fierce attacks against the ‘white left’ seem curiously devoid of experiential motivation, since all these problems that conservatives in the west are concerned about – immigration, multiculturalism, minority rights, and affirmative actions – are largely unknown to Chinese society . . . The stigmatization of the ‘white left’ is driven first and foremost by Chinese netizens’ understanding of ‘western’ problems. It is a symptom and weakness of the Other.

Well, at least we can look forward to the New York Times editorial about how Trump is lifting America’s reputation in China, by far our greatest geopolitical rival.

Ha, no. If the data don’t fit the model, throw ’em out. Better yet, make up new data because the Left is nothing, if not sheltered and parochial:

In May 2016, Amnesty International published their survey results indicating that the most welcoming country for refugees was China. Leaving the reliability of its sample and methodology aside, this finding was not at all taken as a compliment in the Chinese media. Global Times conducted their own online survey in response to Amnesty’s claim, and the results were quite the opposite: 90.3% said ‘no’ to the question ‘would you accept refugees in your own household?’ and 79.6% said ‘no’ to the question ‘would you accept refugees in your city, or would you like to be neighbours with refugees?’. Ironically, Amnesty’s portrayal of China as a welcoming country for displaced people was even read by some netizens as part of a foreign conspiracy, intended to pressure the Chinese government to accept more refugees. A senior researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences commented that this survey was “weird” and seemed to “incite citizens against the government.”

So, Amnesty International made a tried and true appeal to vanity: “even the Chinese think admitting refugees is the right thing to do. See, righties? Everyone agrees we’re right!” However, back in China, not only were the results of Amnesty’s survey facially preposterous, they were interpreted as an insult: “how dumb do you think we are?! Some kind of baizuo?! As if!”

To be clear, this is not just about immigration or refugees. The Chinese seemed to have captured the zeitgeist of American politics perfectly (perhaps a bit too perfectly):

Following the debates in the US, a number of other issues such as welfare reforms, affirmative action and minority rights were introduced into online discussions on the ‘white left’. Baizuo critics now began to identify Obama and Clinton as the new epitome of the ‘white left’, despite the fact that they were neither particularly humanitarian nor particularly kind to migrants. Trump was taken as the champion of everything the ‘white left’ were against, and baizuo critics naturally became his enthusiastic supporters.

So, the Left claims that Trump and his supporters don’t like people of color. Trump and his supporters say that it has nothing to do with people of color and everything to do with the baizuo morons running things into the ground. The Chinese have surveyed the field and their ruling is in: Trump and his supporters are right. Now it’s the Right’s turn to gloat: “See, Lefties, even the Chinese agree that if any skin color is under attack, it’s white, which even you’d agree, is a proxy for the governing elite. Stop calling us racists and just admit that the problem is you, assholes.”

Personally, I’ve always maintained that establishment opposition to Trump is more about the diminished stature of the establishment than anything else. It seems even the Chinese agree with me.

The rest of the article, which purports to explore why the Chinese (yes, ALL the Chinese) are so critical of baizuo, isn’t that interesting. It does, however, reveal the biases of the author, which are decidedly to the left (giving me a bit more comfort to take its findings at face value). To summarize, the Chinese perceive baizuo as precipitating and hastening the demise of Western Civilization because the Chinese are afflicted with “a kind of brutal, demoralized pragmatism in post-socialist China.” They make the mistake of sharing values like “living within your means” and they erroneously believe that inequality is an “inevitable consequence of economic growth, and that inequality is unlikely to give rise to political or social unrest.”

Stupid Chinese with their cool-headed pragmatism — how dare they be at ease with basic economic principles?! Don’t they know the baizuo will whip the less fortunate into a jealous rage that will require more baizou policies just to keep the peace? It’s the downward spiral of civilization that’s inevitable, not inequality!

I guess that’s why the Chinese censor the internet.

If the Chinese take over the world, does that mean McCarthy was right all along?

Whither the Oregon Trail

One of the self-inflicted wounds of anti-immigrant sentiment for the unfashionable working class (i.e. native working class) is the lowering in status of immigrant, or pioneer, narratives. Discussing his book, The Complacent Class, with Russ Roberts, Tyler Cowen describes the immigrant mentality (and its decline) as follows (h/t Kling for the transcription):

In a lot of the late 19th century it’s not even clear according to the numbers that our rate of productivity growth was always so high. Yet American society was not complacent. We had a frontier mentality, an immigrant mentality; we were very likely to move across state lines; we were willing to accept a lot of risk. And that in turn helped us later on, get the rate of productivity growth up higher. But I see today it’s a culture where younger people are more willing to keep on living with their parents, less interested in buying a car, more likely to aspire to being on Disability as a kind of future . . .

Cowen is obviously troubled by contemporary complacency and I agree with him.

Of course, one way to cultivate a more pioneering esprit de corps is to venerate the stories of pioneers: folks who leave discomfort behind to forge a new future in the great unknown, relying on hard work, perseverance, ingenuity and gumption. Some of the best contemporary (and historical) examples of this ethos are, of course, immigrants. However, to the extent immigrants become politically toxic (for reasons unrelated to the pioneering ethos) their stories become toxic, as well. In other words, no matter how much one might admire the rags-to-riches moxie of Yousef the grocer, it’s impossible to provide an account of Yousef’s journey without triggering outrage at “globalization” (and some of Yousef’s other defining features).

Now, neither anti-immigrant sentiment nor the native working class are solely to blame for the diminished stature of a pioneer mentality. What’s really problematic, I think, is that all the various iterations of the pioneer story have taken a beating from one political tribe or another. Call it, pioneering for me, but not for thee. The net result is very few pioneers to cheer for and that’s not good.

Let me explain.

The Blue Collar Frontier?

Consider the 20th century domestic working class pioneer. Nope. You can’t because there isn’t one. For years, the native working class (with the help of the Progressive elite) have relied on symbols and statistics like empty factories and fired workers to make it clear that pioneering is not an option. In this mythology, the greatest virtue is “saving” jobs — keeping the local widget factory open and protecting it from the evil corporate conglomerate.

Naturally, what is invariably missing from these dreary pictures of industrial ghost towns is an account of what happens to everyone when they leave. Heaven forbid a G.M. plant worker loses her job in Detroit for a better one in Toyota Tennessee. Perhaps one ghost town was replaced by an even better boom town in a neighboring state? The Progressive narrator never follows the working man to the end of his story (because the story is, after all, not about the working man, but about his Progressive champion).

For example, Tommy Boy is heroic for keeping his family-run, break pad factory both in the family and local — not for leading his employees, like Joseph Smith, Feivel the Mouse or Anne Hutchinson, to greener pastures. Quite the contrary, even suggesting as much makes one a villain and a traitor. Y’know, like scabs and private equity firms and other change agents. [Later, when the better, more urban and multicultural working class enters the picture, closed factories (which make no sense in coastal enclaves) are replaced by discrimination and “hostile” work environments as the salient evils (and the interventions shift accordingly).]

I don’t mean to trivialize the cost and the trauma of losing one’s job and having to move. It’s really not a great position to be in. That being said, it remains the case that sometimes it’s better to move than to stay. If, for example, housing becomes too expensive, people should move to cheaper neighborhoods. If jobs dry up because of innovation or other changed economics, people should seek out new opportunities elsewhere. If old skills become obsolete, people should endeavor to learn new ones. You’re fooling yourself if you think price controls make a thing less scarce. (They, in fact, do precisely the opposite).

If, however, you suggest that people ought to move if they lose their job or if their housing becomes too expensive, the cultural elite look at you like a heartless monster. Which is weird, because the same cultural elite pride themselves on their mobility and cosmopolitan flair, but I suppose the unwashed masses are too delicate to have new experiences or move to the suburbs.

To be fair, all of that dynamism is harder for the working class, but it’s partly their own fault. It’s what happens when policy makers put a premium on stasis, i.e. keeping one’s job (and staying in one place) above all else. It should be obvious, but if workers are harder to fire, then they become riskier to hire. Anti-discrimination law, disability law, and labor cartel protections (to name just a few interventions) all function to freeze workers in place, including unemployed workers. Likewise, policies like employer-based healthcare and union seniority rules put an even greater premium on the bird-in-hand (relative to the two in the bush). The same goes for rent-control and tenant “protections” — these are lock-in mechanisms that lock-in the haves and lock-out the have-nots. [Again, keeping future workers out of the workforce was the stated intention of the early Progressives; now their stated intention is to replace past workers.]

The point is that the working class pioneer story is culturally toast, done in jointly by the Progressive elite and the native working class (e.g. Unions! Roar!), and then later by the Progressive elite and the new and improved working class (e.g. Discrimination! Wah!). It never really existed in the first place and it’s not likely to start now because policies have made the tale of woe (e.g., losing one’s home/job) something of a self-fulfilled prophesy. Plus, the cultural elite is unlikely to revisit their narrative as “defenders” of the working class any time soon. Tinkerers, builders and homesteaders might have some cultural purchase, but by and large, pioneer inspiration won’t come from the working class.

Immigrants, Settlers and . . . Colonialists?

What about the immigrant pioneer story?

Well, as noted above, the native working class doesn’t care for it much at this point. In theory, the Progressive elite ought to be championing immigrant stories, but while they like immigrants, they don’t care much for pioneering, i.e. success by hard work, perseverance, ingenuity and gumption. If you think that stuff is important, you’re a racist. I’m not exaggerating. According to the Washington Post, you’re racist if you believe that “racial inequalities today are a result of . . . personal lack of effort and irresponsibility” as opposed to “social bias.” Similarly, according to university administrators, it’s a microagression to say that “everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough.” Progressive immigrant stories are books like Americanah, which is actually about how terrible it is to be an immigrant — spoiler alert: the protagonists find happiness in their native Nigeria.

Neo-liberals, which I understand to be ideologically confused members of the governing class who really just want to be friends with both Team Hard Work (liberals) and Team Unfair (Progressives), used to have a version of the immigrant pioneer story, but they’ve taken a cultural and political hit lately and are being forced to choose sides. In the Age of Obama, they swooned for Progressives and they’re finding it hard to say “well, on second thought, maybe hard work is a virtue.”

What about the actual pioneers, like Davey Crockett, and Cowboys and Indians, and the Colonial Americans?

That still has some purchase in flyover country, but the Progressive elite really hate that stuff. Again, hard work and perseverance don’t mean shit because discrimination is everything. Everyone knows that the founding fathers, the pioneers and the greatest generation built their wealth on the backs of slaves, indigenous peoples and redlining. Progressives have worked really hard to rewrite America’s pioneer founding myth; or rather, delete it entirely, including its symbols and its heroes. It is rather more culturally chic to be ashamed of America’s founding than anything else. As the New York Review of Books notes:

Indeed, for decades now, much of the historiography of the founding has presented a complex story, exploring the many ways in which the Revolution, and the people who made it, fell far short of sharing with all people the Spirit of 1776’s indictment of tyranny and calls for liberty and equality.

As with immigrant virtue, on the founding myth front, Progressives were able to drag the Neo-liberals with them (because the long arch of history favors the governing class). In general, stories with white heroes (which describes the majority of American founding stories) are culturally verboten. And if you deign to tell a story about Fredrick Douglass, it better not be how he loved the 2nd Amendment. Same goes with Booker T. Washington and his whole “self reliance” and entrepreneurship thing.

Even modern day urban pioneers get the heel. They’re called gentrifiers and they’re bad for bringing growth to poorly developed areas (which is strange, because they were also bad for perpetrating “white flight” just a few decades ago). Like the native working class tale of woe, when it comes to gentrification, the only image we see are the people displaced and priced out of their homes and shops. Where do they go? No one knows or cares because the important thing is that no one should be allowed to leave or move or go anywhere or change anything! Native citizens have rights to freeze time (so their governing elite can rule in perpetuity)! (Unless you’re a white native citizen, in which case, go to hell, you xenophobic racist asshole.) And urban bourgeois have those same rights too, but y’know, this is really about the PoC!

What about in other parts of the West, like, Israel for example?

Like the U.S., pioneering has (or had) an important place in Israeli culture and the Israeli founding myth. Now, thanks to Progressive reeducation, “settlers” is an epithet and Israel’s founding myth is literally just a myth to cover up exploitation and cruelty. Israelis ought to be ashamed for interfering with the indigenous Arabs’ dream for a homogeneous ethno-religious patrimonial enclave. The start-up nation hangs on to its mythology ever so slightly, literally, with its start ups, but it won’t be long before those get the “capitalist exploitation” treatment from the people’s champs.

Stasis You Can Believe In

So what’s left? Not much.

The 20th century native working class never really had a pioneer story to lose.

Tech entrepreneurship still has some clout, but even the embittered urban bourgeoisie are starting to turn on tech as they realize it’s hard to become a billionaire. It’s easy, by contrast, to say tech bros are being mean to you and treated you so unfairly and isn’t Uber just the worst?! “Whistleblowing” is rapidly gaining more cultural purchase than actually building a company.

Immigration stood a chance insofar as it was the one pioneer story that the Progressive cultural elite could get behind, but now that’s ruined.

Similarly, the American founding myth, including the founding fathers, the greatest generation, and even the first wave 20th century European immigrants (e.g. Feivels) used to be relatively safe territory, but that’s no longer the case either. It’s gotten to the point where elevating the stature of hard work and perseverance is itself racist, regardless of who the hero happens to be.

Finding inspiration abroad isn’t possible because that fight is now just colonialists v. indigenous peoples. I mean, can you imagine if one were to suggest (as I do frequently) that the American native working class start setting up shop in North Africa, the Middle East or India (the way North Africans, Middle Easterners and Indians are encouraged to set up shop in the West)? Yes, the native working class talked themselves out of that years ago, but even if they tried, they would be run out of town and Progressives would cheer every step of the way. There is no high cultural dais for Westerners going East to find their fortune. Quite the contrary, that is extremely low status stuff that is left exclusively to oil companies and the Blackwaters of the world.

To my eyes, the pioneer story has lost nearly all of its cultural purchase, which means people are much less likely to be pioneers. That’s bad. Even worse, it’s been replaced by nativism for me, but not for thee. Nativism, unfortunately, isn’t particularly good for anyone.

 

 

Anecdotes in Media Bias — Immigration Edition

Some people think immigrants, particularly from non-Western parts of the world, are putting the country and its citizens at risk. Other people acknowledge that assimilating foreign folks is not frictionless, but overall, the costs of immigration are overstated and the benefits are underappreciated. [And some people think any limits on immigration are just racist because there is literally no other possible hypothesis . . . more on that later.]

I fall into the second category and generally (but not in all respects) regard restrictions on immigration as consistent with their Progressive provenance, i.e. give-aways to labor cartels at the expense of low wage workers and the population at-large. In other words, I regard immigration as more good than bad for natives and immigrants alike.

A few days ago, however, a Boston couple was tragically and brutally murdered by a West African immigrant who (apparently) was previously convicted twice for robbery. As punishment for those crimes, he received a 364-day sentence because a 365-day sentence would have triggered mandatory deportation.

While this is only a single data point, it is quite plainly a data point in favor of the anti-immigration crowd. An immigrant allegedly did a truly horrible thing and it might have been prevented under a harsher regime.

That presumably explains why the New York Times determined that the story is not worth reporting. Indeed, the only coverage offered by the New York Times was a reprint of an AP story that remarkably referred to the suspect as “30-year-old Bampumim Teixeira, of Chelsea.” That’s consistent with the Washington Post, who also referred to Mr. Teixeira as “a 30-year-old from Chelsea, Mass.” There was no mention of the 364 day sentences.

The Times and Post didn’t bury the story completely, but at the very least they protected their readers from knowing that the suspect was actually from Guinea-Bissau and grew up in Cape Verde, or that a Progressive judge gamed the immigration system to protect Mr. Teixeira from deportation. That data might be used to validate arguments for stricter immigration policy and those are not allowed.  [Consider, by contrast, what the coverage would be like if the victims were PoC and the matter was being investigated as a HATE CRIME.]

If you rely on the MSM to help you make informed decisions on matters of public concern, you’re being misled. For the really important stuff, the MSM decides what you’re supposed to think and it protects your feeble mind from nasty thoughts to the contrary. It’s no wonder that Times and Post readers think anti-immigration types are out-of-their-mind racist (and generally regard their political opponents as a combination of crazy, mean and stupid) because they’re spared from any data that would suggest otherwise.

In the Age of Trump, an independent media is all the more important. Someone better alert the media.