Thursday, March 26, 2015

Don't Put The Dogsitter on a Pedestal

I have a friend who calls once a week. He was a good college friend who has become a great friend despite living far apart. Football season is text season, where our texting is like a 140 character limit color commentary for games. Other than that our phone calls revolve around sports, history, books, geopolitics and women. Last month, he brought up those annoying but wonderfully buxom Snorg Tees models on the web. His favorite was the brunette that will need a breast reduction in a few years when her back starts to give. We laughed about the idea of getting into modeling and the work you get is “use your jugs to sell snarky, nerd shirts”. As he put it, “Whatever happens to these women?”

Mark's Favorite
They get pedastalized by the thirsty men of the Internet out there. It’s like being famous to 15 minutes worth of people. These guys are not pathetic like Tumblr guys who buy things off the Amazon wish lists of Tumblr girls that post nudes. They are your regular guy who digs a model and maybe gets weird about it. Guys, men, please, remember they look great in front of the camera, and yes, there are plenty of women out there that look like them, but they might just be a dog sitter, or a housesitter, or a babysitter. Yes, that house sitter was the redhead Snorg Tees girl. Redhead sexiness is inversely correlated to the number of freckles they have. If you don't recall her quirky ad pics on Zero Hedge, these may jolt your memory.

Key to sexy gingers is no freckles

So quirky and nerdy, look at that nerd shirt!

Weird. I have not seen her anywhere else since. Must just be house sitting in the Miami area. With how pale she is, she must use SPF 100 to not burst into flames.

Pretty girl when not wearing nerd shirts

Don't care if they're real, they look spectacular

This is my blog, of course I'd have all angles covered.

Have a great weekend.

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Be a Pot Friendly Banker to Corner a Market

Colorado is seeing plenty of marijuana sell through the new legal dispensaries. The media trumpets all the money pouring into the schools. See kids, sin taxes and condoning drugs are okay as along as the money is doled out by the progressive government for schools. Someone has to make sure the weed stores are meeting government approved rules and regulations. Tough thing for the stores are the banking handcuffs they are in per the federal government and the stigma of doing business with these stores. In an age where monopolies yield huge earnings, someone should corner the weed banking market.

Right now legal weed stores have limited banking options. The banks that operate in multiple states want to stay away because of the crossing state lines and incurring federal wrath. Other banks are just nervous because of the old stigma of doing business with “those kind of people”. Some stores have found small credit unions that will work with them. The state of Colorado tried to help by setting up a pot bank co-op, but the feds never came through with approval. The stores have tons of cash for their transactions so the cash management becomes an issue. Banks give a fake concern over the extra problem of handling such large amounts of cash. It is a fake concern because on a weekly basis, it’s no more cash than what an armed guard could take care of with a truck. The real concern is the Feds shutting it all down. What do the stores do now for payments and bigger transactions? They use certified checks and money orders for everything. Every single vendor, whether goods supplier or services vendor, they have they use a certified check or money order. My company passed on doing business with them due to this.

The longer Colorado goes without any major crime flare up, the longer the stores stay in operation and have no “THEY SOLD IT TO KIDS” headlines, the more concrete the stores existence will be. The Feds could end this all quickly, sure, but without a massive media campaign about its dangers, they will look awful. It would be hard to raid stores as well as the left is pushing marijuana legalization virtually everywhere. Why? It’s a get out the vote scheme for battleground states. It also is a nice soothing thing for the peasants as they get screwed over more and more. The viability of the pot stores is there, so why not corner the market and open a compliant bank that is heavy of the pot store business? One could build an in-state monopoly and mint a fortune.

There is a problem with every safeguard we put in for banks that started way back in the 1930s. Glass-Steagall was nice for separating banking (or so would FDR's financial backers have me believe), but I am talking about the FDIC. Once everyone knew their deposits were covered by government insurance, the individual customer had nothing to chase but yields for savings and rates for loans. The ideas of a bank’s stability, trustworthiness and history as a factor in the competition for customers were thrown out the window. Banks did not have to compete on intangibles, so they had to be cutthroat on the hard numbers. Follow this through, and of course bigger banks were going to gobble up smaller banks due to cost advantages they enjoyed and to pick up market share before the other big guy. This is why we are where we are and why the big banks dove head first into derivatives, but that is the subject for another post.

By dealing with a tougher industry that everyone else is shying away from, a bank could suddenly have a moat for their business. Their underwriters on loans could charge these weed stores higher rates. They can play hardball with these stores on fees and other items, all the while playing normal bank to their other customers. No money laundering required, these stores just need simple business services and easy records for tax purposes. This is why it is staggering that no small, Colorado bank has made the leap to try to do this. Bank consolidation has probably eliminated many small Colorado banks, but still, why not start one up? A bank would not have to turn weed stores into 90% of their clientele, but even a 50% number would allow for fatter profit margins. There would be higher costs to doing business due to the security precautions for dealing with all of that cash, plus there is the regulatory risk.

This is America, and I am shocked no one has tried this. Maybe we have sucked all the entrepreneurial spirit out of competent people by making them so scared of the Litigation Hostage System. Countless financial service firms will focus on specific industries that others do not touch or are cautious about because of this same phenomenon. Some insurance firms turn attorneys, doctors or even municipalities into 15%-40% of their business because no one else wants to deal with them. Several years back, Sun Life bought a bloc of physician only insurance business from a firm that solely dealt with doctors. Sun Life had no expertise with medical risk, and wanted to grow their doctor bloc but were afraid of a slow growth plan hurting their overall bloc. By buying the bloc, they suddenly picked up expertise in dealing with physicians so they could then organically grow that sector. Now marijuana legislation will pick up steam with the help of the progressive steamroller. Build up your little bank that specializes in weed stores. You will make plenty of money. When the day comes where the Feds re-schedule marijuana, JPMorganChase will come knocking on your door with an attractive offer to buy your book of business.

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

The Modern World, Boomers and Hockey

When an athlete writes a book, it can be horrendous. Even when the book is written by someone else, it can read like a twelve year old decided to sit down and tell you their life. Considering modern athletes, this might not be far from the truth. I recently read one sports memoir due to a recommendation of a reformed and rehabbed alcoholic, and it reminded me of another great sports book due to its specific sport: hockey. These books are a bit dated as the athlete-writers were playing decades ago, but if anything, they are great windows into the massive change in our post-'68 culture and the monetization of sports. These are sports guy books, but check out The Game by Ken Dryden and Crossing the Line by Derek Sanderson.

The Game was written by Ken Dryden as he retired from playing goalie for the Montreal Canadiens. It is the best book written by an athlete. Dryden is also one of the few athletes to be the best at his position and one of the best ever and also an Ivy Leaguer with a law degree, which might explain the book's quality. Dryden does a good job of explaining the road grind, simple "being a goalie" during a game, money, the media, what hockey means to Canadians and what it takes to win. A couple of things stand out. The Summit Series was a special event orchestrated by the Canadians and Soviets for a series of friendlies. It was best against best, and with Canada's creation of hockey as a sport, tons of national pride was on the line. Dryden builds up the significance by discussing growing up in Canada where hockey is "the game". Nothing else comes close. It is weird to think of national pride being wrapped up in a game, but it makes the players' behavior during the series have much more meaning. 


Dryden's other great bit was on endorsements and the media. Dryden did one endorsement and did not like it. He did not do others. He also mentions how easy it is to manipulate the media to earn a reputation and sway coverage. Mention a couple books you've read and they think you're a scholar. Mention doing some charity work, and they'll say you've got a great heart. Little tidbits to reporters could mold the entire sports' view of you for a lifetime. His one giant miss is at the end; he does not see how player salaries and revenues can keep rising for the sport. Dryden realized what flim-flam professional sports was/is, but he did not see how marketing could tap into the national identity and obsession of hockey to build it bigger. Television, especially cable television, and Gretzky changed everything. The Game is a good read.

The book I recently finished, which reminded me of The Game, was Crossing the Line by Derek Sanderson. This is not as well written. Is Sanderson a colorful character who is entertaining as hell? Yes. This reads like your buddy from high school making the NHL. Sanderson is also a recovering alcoholic. He pulls no punches and does not blame his childhood, parents or anything else. He is honest about his drinking, drugging and being an all around douchebag that threw away a career. Sanderson eventually gets to his rock bottom. He goes the Christian route for recovery, so there is a thread of Christianity throughout the book. Similar to Dryden's book, Sanderson explains how hockey means so much to Canadians. It is thoroughly weird. This is beyond Brazil and soccer since they did not invent it, nor is it England and soccer since England has other passions and once ruled the world. Canada's identity seems to be two items: "not America" and "hockey". 


Sanderson's great nugget though is on the changes in broader society showing up on the team. Sanderson started with the Bruins in '68. He was different than the older guys. Gone were the crew cut, blazer wearing, professional look of players. Sanderson brought "style". It was change but Sanderson never stops to ask if it was good. His horrific journey was the outcome of that change and the ascendancy of the sex and drug infused culture of the post-'68 West. His teammate, and legend, Bobby Orr was two years younger than him but played by the rules and dressed appropriately. You can guess who saves who later in life. Sanderson is a Boomer through and through, so while he is a wild child, NHL original, he is just another Boomer who screwed a lot of people but hey, he's cleaned up and okay now. All is forgiven, right? I was funny, right? It is an entertaining, easy read. It is good for an airplane flight and layover in an airport terminal.

Besides Orr, these two athlete-authors, Dryden and Sanderson, are two Boomers. They both came from two parent homes. They both had parents who encouraged their hockey careers from an early stage. They both played on championship teams and enjoyed great success. Sanderson made serious bank as did Dryden, but Sanderson gave into the temptations around him at every turn. Dryden did not. This is something those Boomers who have wrecked their loved ones lives or even just burdened them do not understand. It is great when someone cleans up, but why did you have to do it in the first place? In Sanderson, and many others', instance, why did you have to throw away second and third chances? Why could you not think beyond yourself? As much as the Boomers dislike the "Me Generation" label, it fits so well. Genes do come into play, but so does the broader framework of society. Like hockey, you set up the rules with penalties, goals, and zones. Our permissiveness and liberalization might have been okay for people with amazing self control and discipline, but it is not for everyone. We see this everywhere. Even the people who embody the negative consequences of the great unraveling are blind to it. Like many other Boomers, Sanderson could never admit that he was miserable because he was free.

Monday, March 23, 2015

Carving an Exit - Apply NYC Co-op Rules Elsewhere

"Honey, the neighborhoods in Avon are a mix of newer construction and some older neighborhoods with good finishing touches."

"What about the schools?"

"It's a closer commute for you, and we can get more for our dollar."

>Checks website< "Schools are 90% white, mix of everything else for the remainder. Ha! Almost as many Asian-white mixed kids as black-white. Maybe this will work."

"No private schools. See! Let's do it."

"You forgot one last check... the NY Times 2010 census maps with race filters on and 2010 to 2000 comparison percentages."

"Dammit!"

"You almost talked me into that one."

Seriously, for being a race of horrible, evil backwoods morons who appropriate everything, whites sure do attract non-whites to their schools. In Indianapolis, the devolution has been: "Well the IPS schools went bad, but we can escape to Lawrence and Washington Township schools. Oh well, now Lawrence is bad, and my kids might not graduate from North Central in Washington Township, but there is always Fishers. Oooh yeah, let's move to Fishers for the good schools!" Blacks will always always follow, no matter how often the newspapers invoke the legacy of the Klan in Indiana. How could you stop this? How does New York City stop it? Start treating your developments like housing co-ops, and craft your suburb or exurb appropriately to defend your territory.

This sounds like going overboard, brah, why go to such a length? Because housing developments in our current era have a giant, exploitable hole. We live in the democratization of credit era. Your home that you bought in 1990 with an 8.5% mortgage, 20% down payment and strict underwriting rules can be bought with a 4% mortgage, 0% down and anything goes. Forget federal rules for housing diversity, the simple use of credit and the ever lowering of underwriting standards broke down any barrier money may have formed. One would need an incredibly tight market like an island (hmm, Manhattan is an island), harassing cops, maybe a history of racist, tough whites and zoning laws like those used liberally by blue states to keep the tide at bay. You have to practically have an area that is 50% above the media average home in your state to create a super zip. Homeowner association fees are partly a protection against this, but leverage just makes it a slightly higher hurdle to jump.

I use Indiana as a backdrop since it is where I live, but I already know Fishers will have problems within 25 years unless they find a way to jack up housing prices and block apartment building development. Carmel should be okay since it is so expensive in relation, but you never can be sure. Fishers growth is all in the last 20 years, with an order of magnitude population jump from 1995 to 2005. Fishers development was haywire with developments thrown up non-stop with strip malls to follow. This was developer heaven as all they had to buy was buy up farmland with easy money and promise "good schools, safe schools, 2400 square feet for less than Marion County". This is churn and burn work. Put the development up fast, sell the lots, and move on to the next one with cheap money. This is not for longevity.

A longer term view would go the co-op route. Co-ops in New York City are notoriously picky about who moves into their buildings. They pick you. You buy in. They can set the requirements they want. They do not have to give reasons for declining you. President Nixon was rejected by a co-op. It could be an easy switch to move the legal and contractual mechanics of a an apartment building to a development. The key is an owner who would incorporate and be invested for the long haul. The potential buyers would have to be invested for the community for a long term time horizon, not simple "home is an investment" thinking. This is why this co-op idea would be a winner though as the suburbs and family living are suited for the long term.

People wanting to buy for the school system, safe neighborhood and for their children's future are the kind of people you could talk into this idea. People might decry the lack of individuality one may have with their home per whatever rules, but look around you fools at the Edward Scissorhands suburbs you are in. People do buy into HOA developments often, so this is just taking another step. The time to start this idea would be an exurb or suburb in the making. Not an "on the boom" now location. It must be the "next" one people will flee to, because you'd have to get in with the small town's council to set this up, and to set this up with every other developer that shows plans for that town. One would have to pitch it to the natives and old timers of that community. A pitch could even be, "do you want your town strip malled and overgrown only to be destroyed by the dark tide that follows?"

One would have to be cautious and careful with this, but if the oddity that is the co-op declination system can work in NYC, it should work elsewhere. There will always be complaints, but give enough realtors incentives (cash in envelopes), and they will steer the wrong home buyers to other areas. One could even conjure up the weirdest conspiracy theories because certain, ahem, communities are prone to believing the wildest urban legends. Keep acceptance numbers slightly below regional demographic representation, a few donations to the UNCF and there will always be plausible deniability. That deniability is key because if the sovereign media did take a flashlight to your system, wouldn't they have to evaluate and scrutinize the long standing tradition of co-ops in NYC? Copying NYC behavior might as well be a deflector shield because they cannot have their precious system changed. The USG system is failing, start carving enclaves from within.

Sunday, March 22, 2015

Carving an Exit - A Thede Union

The search now is for exit. We realize our voice is meaningless because our donations are not in the millions, so exit is what we seek. Not just the few who read this but widespread. I run into more and more people, Gen-X and Millenials who want to unplug. Not go off the grid, but they want to be able to escape the broken down circus that is America. It is the old Howard Beale desire from Network of just leave me alone. These are not dummies nor are they totally traditional anti-poz fighters. It is a circle of people just aware that all is not right in America as Weimerica grows uglier by the month. How do you give someone an exit? Here is my wonky idea at an attempt. 


A Thede Union


I have not figured out a name, and what I am dreaming up I do not think has a name. I will leave that to the marketing department. Please pick this idea apart. Only through constructive criticism can an odd idea be made better. What I envision is this: a nonprofit charity crossed with an REIT crossed with a union crossed with a universal basic income (UBI). 

Mechanics of the idea is a pool of capital used for real estate investment to generate income. Nothing flashy, simply seeking decent cap-ex rates of return. Primary concern is on safety of capital, not reaching for yield. Now an REIT has shares one purchases to receive disbursements and the distributions must be 90% of the earnings. Our version of REIT distributions would be sent to Thede Union members. By being a nonprofit charity, we could dodge a taxation issue for the organization as well as "hide" motives. Every year, the members get their UBI. Basically this is a charity with massive real estate holdings that distributes proceeds to it's members who are designated as recipients of charity. 

Our thede. Not their thede. Strict enforcement of who is let in. I envision the covenants that go into co-ops in NYC or possibly setting it up like annual, renewable grants. Signing up for the thede union is not simple signing the paperwork, one must read it and live it. Like any union, their are duties one would have to satisfy to receive benefits. Hell, if some union members wanted to make an election in December not to receive their UBI but to reinvest it into the charity, we could do that. Think of the thede. How often do parents complain about "safe" things for entertainment for their kids? Couldn't some thede members curate or create thede reinforcing books, essays and whatnot for consumption by others in the thede. How many in the thede homeschool? Could you provide home schooling materials, essays, research, whatnot that we could distribute for use by the thede or even for "non-whig history". I am talking small numbers, so why not consider the non-financial support for a thede member expecting a child? Can you cook? We could figure out what we need and call upon different thede members like the Godfather. Could we bump thede members additional UBI if they do things we consider positive, like having a kid, marriage, work within the group or even outside the group? I'm brainstorming here, but consider the idea of building a society that is quasi-outside society. 

Nancy Pelosi once said something that touches on why this Thede Union UBI could build outside while destroying the current system. Nancy Pelosi gave a rationale for health care reform of (paraphrased), "think of how many more artists we could have without worry of health care". Now conservakin made fun of the frozen faced witch, but she was getting at kernel of truth in the modern trap. How many Americans work a job they don't want or are improperly used because they need health care? Pelosi could have rephrased it to, "No one should have to work a crummy job they don't want just for health care," and a lot of people would have clapped, nodded their heads, andagreed. She used the artist thing because that's the SWPLs dream. A UBI works similar for our thede in a few ways. "No one should have to work a sh*tty job just to exist in a safe space in crumbling America." I'm just going to number a bunch of ways I could see this helping.. 

1. Even if it is small, it could supplement or cover child care if you went that route.
2. If a woman wanted to take years off to stay home with the kids, the UBI gives a cushion for the financial calculation part of that decision. "Gee honey we save by not paying for day care and the UBI makes up for some of my lost income!"
3. If the UBI was even 5K per year, what does the gap between having a BA and not having a BA shrink down to? Maybe more people go into trades rather than college if they know they'll get an extra 5K a year and NOT have college debt. Added bonus is fewer people go into the college indoctrination system. We could keep our thede away from progressive poisoning. Starve the university dragon to death.
4. This would kind of act like insurance in the event of unpersoning by the SJWs. it isn't going to make up for a 100K salary, but a blue collar worker making 20-35K annually would have some security with a 5K annual UBI.
5. This UBI allows for people to rearrange their work schedules. What if 20 hours a week to The Man is all you want as you build a life outside the system. Stop chasing shekels! Life is more than economics. "I am not a number, I am a free man!"
6. Live in a great area that has crummy schools because the apartment buildings 3 miles away that are stuffed with the underclass and UN refugees? I bet that 5K UBI would help tremendously for making a decision on should we stay and go private schools or should we sell and bug out.
7. If you were starting a business, you could operate at a slight loss because the UBI would subsidize you.


Does it end there? No it doesn't have to. The current regime's system has created a mess of things, and we can find loopholes to build around it. Here's something that the homosexuals have helped us with in this instance that they never intended. The gays and their straight enablers have barked up a storm for marriage. Well, this is because they did not realize how a government marriage is all they were getting. What does a government marriage get you? You would be shocked to find out how many health care, financial and other institutions are open to domestic partners and other beneficiary designations. What does government marriage get you gays? It gets you access to family court. Gays now go through that ringer. What if the Thede Union had provisions for its married members? What if a marriage of thede members getting a UBI had some financial disincentives for the ones who break the covenant? What if you could avoid government marriage, get married in the Thede Union for the UBI bonus, and a divorce wouldn't have government meddling since it was not a government marriage. You would subject your divorce assessment to the Thede arbitration unit. This wouldn't be insanity. The current system is insanity, and everyone but whorrible women know it is broken (deliberate misspelling). We do not have to have a perfect system, but we could easily divide property in a reasonable fashion appealing to many. You can still get the frivolous divorce, but you now do not get your UBI anymore. I hear our Thede has some lawyers, and their services to the Union would be a part of collecting their UBI. An actual easier leap would be to set up a Thede bank outside the FDIC/Federal Reserve system along Austrian lines or at a minimum a Thede life insurance policy so no one would be unable to pay for a proper burial. Let's stick to just the UBI though for this idea before I go off too far.

Our Thede actually has a really good core basis for setting this up. You'd be shocked how much the real estate bubble missed red states and flyover country. The cathedral's eye would not be as aware of quiet, small moves. I would not limit this purely to turning a REIT based on rental properties, but it'd be a base, but what about Timber land holdings? Farmland is a different matter, and I'd avoid. You could use a little leverage at the near zero rates to expand the base quickly. The red state zones offer great ROI for starting up, plus the leech possibilities on the current system. Instead of the parasites sucking out money from us, which will happen regardless, why not explicitly target real estate holdings that have section 8 tenants? The transfer of wealth would be from all US taxpayers, Asian-Oil-FED lending to our Thede through the conduit of section 8. The underclass becomes a financial conduit for our Thede Union. Bwahaha, maniacal laughter as we find a way to use the underclass against the system for our group. That is roughly what McDonald's is now, so why not do it for us? 

Now the world is still going to go on around you. You will interact with it and live your life. We're just trying to divorce you from the addiction of the monthly paycheck to stay in their system. If the progs have spent decades now destroying any institution that could create competing bonds like the family, the churchs, the private clubs, then why not create a competing bond that is more aligned with our thede's interest so it takes care of the asabiyah issue while providing a bit of financial replacement for their system. Here is another item why I walk down the charity route. President Nixon and Daniel Patrick Moynihan saw the value of a UBI. Part of it was reducing costs and sending a higher percentage of every government dollar to the recipient. Another part of it was doing away with the corrosive social workers who did more to enable the underclass or push borderline people into the underclass to secure their jobs. How separate from the underclass are the middle to upper middle class donors from it? This is like the old mutual aid societies of yore.


This is a changing piece to charity in society. Scale has allowed charity to be removed from church and community to large corporations that are umbrellas for the wide reaching social workers. That divide mentality has only grown, and now how do you fell about charities? They are all pozzed. Every single "Day of Caring" that my company does with the United Way turns off a few volunteers from ever donating money again. Once you see who is getting it or where it is going, you get a bit disturbed. My division moved away from toys at Christmas for the needy to simply food drives. If I can set it up as a real estate holding CHARITY that acts like a union, suddenly those of the thede who might feel the drive to give to those less fortunate have an outlet. It is an outlet that would be tax free to the IRS. It is an outlet that they would know their money is going to their people. Once again, using the system's loopholes to build a program to help people get outside their system.

Part of this dawned on me while researching Nixon's UBI attempt. Another part was learning the money mechanics of a mega-non-denominational church in Indiana. The foundation of their funding was a core of five, wealthy families. That is all. The church grew rapidly and into a massive community. The physical structure was giant, and they had a lot of programs for their community. The church borrowed money, thinking more and bigger would placate their egos honor God. Didn't work out, and now they are reshuffling things and going through a massive transition. It dawned on me. Why the hell didn't those five families keep things simple and small, but consider massive charitable outreach to their church members to help them along, especially after the financial crisis? Jesus wants big screen plasmas with the sing along words scrolling, not charity to your neighbor. Why not be a security net to help their community through that time and hopefully stay on the straight and narrow? It got me thinking: why the hell doesn't someone figure out how to do this?

I know this sounds a bit odd and pie in the sky, but so is hoping for secession. I am trying to think differently for an exit. You only lost your time or might have strained your eyes rolling them at the idea if you made it this far. I am trying to find an economic escape, which is basically all that is holding the US together, with a ethnic component relating to the thede. This all goes back to my view that Christianity provided an exit and some voice for Roman subjects from the dying, corrupt empire. The early Church carved out enclaves for people by providing them basic food, some care and a sense of community and voice within their community that they could not find in Rome. It offered a chance to build something worthy of their hopes as well as picking good parts of their past. Christian patches sprouted within the Empire early on, and built a viable community that could not only survive but swallow the dying Empire. In the end, the foundations of said patchwork formed what sprouted across Europe. I'm not saying this is a huge idea that could rebuild Western Civilization. I'm not that ambitious with this as I know the parts that build it but have not figured out exactly what it is. I'm just trying to find you an exit. 

Thursday, March 19, 2015

Promise and Reality of Immigration

Immigration in two pictures.

Sexy enough for any man to want, wearing a cowboy hat because she wants to assimilate, and the beach beckons us all on the Golden Coast.
The Promise

Santa Muerte, an even odder Catholicism than the Irish, and not really caring about assimilating because the television told them not to bother.

Reality

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Documentary Review - Fed Up

What are the SWPLs watching on Netflix? It’s now a matter of time at any SWPL party before someone brings up the “d” word: documentary. I will admit the Hogocaust scene in a food documentary had me spooked out for weeks, and I will honor the pigs that die in gas chambers by eating bacon. I am not going to go full SWPL, and build a party small talk persona around watching one life changing documentary. My wife saw a preview for “Fed Up”, and was intrigued by the idea. It was one of those documentaries on food and obesity. Would it go the whole way and lay much of the problem at government policies? Sort of, but the quality production values are the cue that no way will deeper problems be touched.

The documentary is narrated by Katie Couric and has interviewees like Michael Bloomberg and Bill Clinton. There is no way that a documentary with that star power is upsetting the apple cart. This documentary does tackle some obvious villains like food industry lobbyists, capitalism and grrr, bought off, corrupt physicians. My God! Sugar is the big villain here, which is a good thing. The documentary follows three teens who are obese and their struggles. A fat white guy who has two thin siblings. A fat white girl who looks like she has a deeper disorder since her face looks like she is in pain and misshapen, and a fat black kid with the voice of a 60 year old man. We’re not told the whole story about them or shown it because something seems up. There’s just a few too many steps one could take that the documentary will not do. This is standard Narrative talk with a focus on sugar being the bad guy.

One problem they dance around is carbohydrates. The doc mentions how guidelines were manipulated to not talk about scaling back eating, but I was alive in the ‘80s and ‘90s and remember the “reduce red meat” propaganda. Beef lobbyists fought that one but lost. If the documentary wants to say the government did not recommend that or set the tone, okay, but we know the media did, and well, it's more proof that the media is sovereign. The film has a speaker who states that the carbs in cereal get turned right into sugar by the digestive system yet the documentary does not them follow the line for the major shift in dietary guidelines starting in the ‘80s. They show the food pyramid but do not fill it in because if they did, they’d show you a diet based on more and more carbs. Those fat teens dieting looked to be scarfing down carb heavy foods on film. Sure, it is “healthy” to normies who buy the standard dietary narrative. This documentary had Gary Taubes as an interviewee, yet did not let him hammer home the point on fat and protein that he is being vindicated on with new research. This film is not going there because the progressive blessed food guidelines would be shown as a sham, and then, what else that they say is a sham?

Some other problems that the documentary would never ever touch are our national mental crack up, scale and our political system. We cannot touch on the emptiness of modern life in drug documentaries, did anyone think this one would tackle it with food? I've spoken to gastric bypass patients, and their descriptions of the dessert they miss the most sound like a heroin addict describing the rush. The sheer scale of “America” the entity makes these kinds of problems practically unsolvable. The documentary kept harping on how big food chains and fast food has entered our school systems. Well, what kind of tight budgeting are school systems facing and who is going to be the low cost provider? Keep ratcheting up school spending elsewhere and there will be less for food. How weird is the importance of schools providing food? Did the documentary want to avoid the free lunch explosion in America? The problem of lobbyists and fiddling with national policy and guidelines is from the government getting into farming policy with FDR. Money only fiddles with government because government messes with the economy. Agricultural policy is what it is because people once needed the votes, and now the system can be used for looting and graft.

Is this documentary just another “Big Food is Big Evil” documentary? Yes. Humans have little agency, advertising destroys their decision making ability and this film follows the Supersize Me format of treating people as automatons who have no power. Katie Couric, Bill Clinton and Mike Bloomberg are not going to be involved in a probing documentary. Clinton even does his sad eyes, bite the lip, "I'm sorry" face when asked about '90s food policy. This is just enough to get people mad at Big Food and create an external villain, "sugar". There is something weird with one family eating the same but not everyone gets puffed out fat. Why not explore any genetic reason? Why not wonder if there is a biochemistry reaction to food that differs? Is there something in the food? While this documentary mentions multiple items, it really focuses on sugar as the bad guy we need to eliminate. "Attack sugar and it all gets better!" sounds like a retread of "Get rid of fat!". Our global obesity problem is a multivariable problem. No one solution will fit. Even if we had the solution or fixes, would our system allow them? While this documentary is a nice one to watch, it is frustrating for the two steps it takes rather than the ten steps it could.