November 5th, 2021

#7884: Yes, of COURSE they are racists!

C'mon: the democrat party is the party of slavery, the KKK, and Jim Crow.

So of course when blacks don't vote the right way, the democrats want to bar them from voting. Interesting, isn't it? Blacks used to vote republican because Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and he was a republican. (Remember: Martin Luther King, Jr was a registered republican.) Somehow the democrats convinced blacks that they were the party that passed the Civil Rights Act (it was passed over their objections) and so blacks started voting democrat.

Oddly enough, part of the Jim Crow phenomenon were laws meant to keep blacks from voting, because they voted republican. The democrats only wanted reliable democrat voters to be allowed to vote, but the Jim Crow voting laws were how they kept blacks away, which meant the democrat candidates only had to get enough votes to overcome the white republican vote.

So, when blacks in the 21st century start voting republican, the democrat answer is that "they shouldn't be allowed to vote! (Again.)"

Because democrats are racists.

Virginia's first black lieutenant governor is a black woman, but democrats are attacking her and calling her a "white supremecist". Because democrats are racists.

The basic democrat attitude towards blacks is this: "You're fine as long as you vote for us, but if you don't, [n-word], you're gonna regret it. Now, get your minds right, and get back on the plantation." If there is anything that the democrat party does not want, it is the black population of America to think for itself.

* * *

Post office failed to deliver three hundred thousand absentee ballots. So the democrats were unable to fortify the election enough to keep control of the state government.

* * *

This is the kind of thing I think of when warmistas claim that "there's no money in climatology". There is a hell of a lot of money in giving government the excuses it wants to justify overregulating everything.

* * *

China's high-speed rail system loses $44 million PER DAY. I thought that was the annual figure, but it's not. The annual figure is sixteen billion dollars.

High-speed passenger rail is totally unnecessary in a world with inexpensive air travel. The infrastructure investment in air travel is considerably lower than what is needed for high-speed passenger rail, and air travel is faster, to boot.

China wants to look like it's advanced and green and forward-thinking, but the simple fact is that China's economic demographics can't support a high-speed rail network even if the people are predisposed to prefer trains to airplanes. The peasants out in the hinterlands can watch the high-speed trains whiz by, but they can't afford to ride them. The rich people in the lowlands can afford them, but they can also afford air travel--and what's in the interior of the country that is a big draw for the urban rich?

I've said it and said it: if high-speed passenger rail were economically necessary in the United States, we would already have it. If we needed it, people could do it, and charge enough for it that they'd earn a profit. Passenger rail does not make money, at least not enough that it can be profitable without extensive government assistance.

Freight still does reasonably well, because railroads can move freight in quantity that aircraft can only dream of; the equivalent number of trucks would be prohibitively expensive since each container must be handled individually. But you can put 400 containers on a train that is then driven by two men. That is vastly more cost-effective.

So, yeah--not surprised that China hasn't quite managed the economic miracle everyone claims for their high-speed rail network.

* * *

"Teachers on their way to save the bully after the quiet kid fights back" and the image is five Marvel superheros running flat out. I fuckin' hate public schools.

* * *

Anyway, it's finally Friday night. I want to go to bed.