Sunday, November 27, 2016

In America, Men DIE 7 Years Earlier Than Women

In the industrialized world, Men DIE between 5 years and 10 years earlier than women. In America, Men DIE 7 years earlier than women.

I would like to repeat that because I think that a life and death statistic is vaguely important:

In America, Men DIE 7 years earlier than women!

I am not talking about money here. Or respect. Or sensitivity. Or whatever the heck it is that has compelled someone to internalize the belief that society is dominated by men at the expense of women.

I am talking about Life. And DEATH.

How many countless articles and news programs produced by the AFC party (Authoritarian, Feminist, Collectivist Democrat party) have we endured about a gender "wage gap"??!! Hundreds of Thousands! And no one is interested in the gender "life gap"? How can that even possibly be true? Isn't Life more important than money?

Not to the AFC.

94% of the people that die from injuries/misadventure "on the job" are MEN. Have you seen a single article about how we can increase the rate of women dying on the job relative to men?

THIS is the AFC. THIS is who they are. Fairness, facts, accuracy, balance, reality are all dismissed the moment that those things do not support their narrative. The AFC's begin with a conclusion or conclusions, and then search for the facts that will fit the narrative of their conclusions and dismiss any and all facts that contradict their conclusions.

Is there any other way to see this in light of the fact that Men DIE 7 years earlier than Women and no one seems to be concerned about that? Seems to me that that would be a statistic that we as a society might work on.

We might even find out that it is completely natural for men to die earlier and to earn more money in any particular year.

But here is the real kicker here:

We might also find out that lifetime "earnings", including inheritances, divorce settlements, alimony, child support, of women exceed that of men. Somehow I doubt that is a study that the AFC is interested in funding (with other people's money).


Friday, November 25, 2016

America is ANGRY - Here's Why

Watch any news program. Eavesdrop on any FaceBook political discussion. Watch regular people in public: Americans are angry, even furious. Walking time bombs. And it is no wonder. We, the American people, have been suffering under the relentless pounding of a withering barrage of insults and allegations from the MainStream Media of "wedge issues" created and promulgated by the Authoritarian, Feminist, and Collectivist Democrat party. These "issues" are not "real". They do not affect your day to day life. We cannot even remember the source of the things many of us seem to believe. ALL of these wedge issues are creations of the political strategists of the Democrat party.

The Democrats have been planting the seeds for Hillary Clinton's (now failed) presidential campaign since she was still First Lady back in the 1990's. They threw ethics, and morality, and human decency under the bus in their effort to instill anger and rage. Only they called it "raising awareness".

The Democrats have convinced a significant minority of Americans that women are actually paid less then men for the same work. Male school teachers, police officers, judges, stockbrokers, investment bankers, bakers, welders, fishermen, lumber-jacks, farmers, miners, waiters et al earn more money per unit of production/hour of work than their female counterparts. THAT is the allegation! And somehow a stunning percentage of Americans believe that. When asked to go line by line through the list of occupations at the U.S. Federal Government's Bureau of Labor Statistics and point out exactly in which occupations this is occurring those making this silly assertion move on to some other wedge issue that offends them. Damn you and your statistics! Everyone knows this is true! It is settled science (politics?)!!

The Democrats went on to convince the African American community that ALL African Americans were the victims of "White Privilege". Not "Establishment" privilege, mind you. And that this was true despite the personal history of the conduct and efforts of the individuals under discussion. You see, there were no individuals, only "African Americans". No one succeeded or failed because of their personal behavior, conduct, diction, effort, education, or motivation. They succeeded or failed because they were "Black" or "White" (or because they were Male or Female, but that has ben addressed above). The problem was that ALL "white men" - even coal miners, poultry plant workers, irrigation ditch diggers, and men banging nails with hammers up on roofs - were privileged characters. And ALL African Americans were members of an oppressed people - even President Barak Obama's children. Well, as a young man I dug irrigation ditches in the Florida sun and banged nails up on those roofs, among other unpleasant jobs, I can tell you with absolute certainty that I was not privileged. In fact, I was the only guy around willing to do it. (I needed the money.) African Americans were beyond reproach and not subject to individual examination.  African Americans are a singular group with universal traits (damn you!), not individuals, and only a racist would see them as individuals or question the Democrats and their narrative.

But that wedge issue was not the Authoritarian, Feminist, Collectivist Democrats' biggest manufactured lie/"wedge issue". The National College Campus Rape Crisis MYTH takes the cake for national disgrace by a political party.

The crime rate in the United States has been in a steep decline since the 70's and the per capita rate of sexual assault has been in free fall. But never mind the U.S. Department of Justice statistics! The professors of America's Women's Studies programs have the Truth (and more and better facts than the DOJ). After all, they have been watching Heterosexual pornography movies and tallying up the various sex acts taking place and have determined that men are evil and women are victims and we need to engage in systemic governmental censorship to protect women (you just can't make this stuff up).

But this time the Feminists did something really, really dangerous. The rules of logic state that the burden of proof lies with the party making the assertion. So, knowing that people would demand empirical evidence, the University Feminists arranged for "studies" - funded by the federal government no less - that set out - in advance - to prove a preconceived outcome of their biased agenda. Not to discover any Truth (or facts). When the women they interviewed declined to view their experience as that of a victim the interviewers then decided that the individuals were not competent enough to determine whether or not they had been assaulted. So the interviewers would make that determination for the women, unilaterally, based on some really bizarre criteria.

Every woman in America and every person self-identifying as "African American" has been the target of the largest, most advanced, and most improbable propaganda effort since Germany's experience in the 1930's.  Joseph Goebbels simply pales as a rank amateur when compared with the Feminists at the American University "Women's Studies" programs and their legions of "Agenda Editors". Sadly, every American woman and African American has been an unqualified victim of these Feminists. We can see it in the despair of Women in general, with 1/3 requiring anti-depressants at some point and another 11% (give or take) requiring anti-psychotics just to cope, to say nothing of the hopelessness and poor outcomes that plagues the African American community (and I HATE to lump people together like that as they are individuals and not a community, but I am speaking in "Liberalish" here).  The rage and hopelessness that these individuals have been infected with came to them courtesy of the Feminists running the Women's Studies programs and the various Radical Feminist organizations (read: groups of women that do not socialize with men). The MainStream Media was the sole disease vector.

After 20 years of this, few young and middle aged adults even remember what life was like before the epidemic of misery that we have all been subjected to. Many actually believe these infections to be some form of objective Truth despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and the loss of the U.S. House of Representative, the U.S. Senate (and after a class 3 election cycle, no less), the White House, 31 Governorships, and 33 state legislatures!

But I do. I actually remember when American men and women liked each other. The current state of affairs is a national disgrace, and are the unintended consequences of the efforts of the Authoritarian, Feminist, Collectivist Democrats that has nearly brought our society to its knees and our government to the brink of war. The Democrats own that. I have no idea what the new administration will or will not do, but I am very, very confident that we have dodged a bullet - for now.

This is not the time to let up. We, the American People still in control of our faculties, must not allow the infected lunatics another opportunity at running the asylum. We do need viable opposition parties and a fair and independent press - but we don't have them now and we must not pretend that we do. Eight years from now the electorate will look very, very different. We desperately need that time to let the incorrigible fade away or die out. The young will mature, but the infected elders are beyond the reach of reason. The American people need the Democrat party to once again be a viable opposition party comprised of responsible adults that are not in the business of creating (wedge) issues. The reborn Democrat party will be comprised of responsible adults that are in the business of solving issues.


Monday, November 21, 2016

Dependence vs. Freedom

What if I told you that having "health insurance" does not increase your lifespan when compared to large groups of Americans that forego "health insurance"? If "health insurance" does not increase lifespan, which is very measurable, or healthspan (the time of life without chronic conditions), which is less measurable, what purpose does it serve?

If you are able to get past the idea that "health insurance" does not increase lifespan or healthspan you might argue that "health insurance" protects people from a medical bill that would "bankrupt" an unfortunate individual. But what if it is the existence of "health insurance" that inflates those medical bills? Of course, it is all much more complicated than that - but only at the margins (chronic and disabling conditions) and at the end of life. And those complications exist because of structural issues within our society. More on that soon.

There are over 500,000 Americans that do not have health insurance, do not want health insurance, and have an exemption from and do not have to participate in "Obamacare", Medicare, and Social Security. These are America's Amish, Mennonite, and Hutterite communities; the Plain People. Despite having no "health insurance" these groups have the same or better life expectancy as other Americans of Northwestern European heritage.

NO HEALTH INSURANCE. SAME LIFESPAN.

Their "healthspan" simply blows ours away, but that has to do with their active lifestyle and the absence of TV's influence on diet, family, and political beliefs.

Let's get back to the critical comparison. These people DO NOT participate in insurance of any fashion - no homeowners insurance, no life insurance, no health insurance, no disability insurance. If you really think about it, the average American labors under an oppressive burden in the form of the costs of "insurance". Oh, you might think you have it better than these people because in addition to those burdens you also have the benefit of air conditioning, refrigeration, etc... but this cost/benefit difference is not translating into discernibly different lifespans. The lifestyle differences are personal and subjective. The average wealth accumulation comparison is not.

While the average denizen of the rural American landscape is overweight, has few children, is medicated, uses tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drugs (and as far as I am concerned they have every right to live this way) and has essentially no savings and little net worth; the average Plain Person is fit, has many children, is not medicated, some use tobacco, most do not use alcohol or illicit drugs, and by 50 have accumulated enough assets to get them through their old age without eating dog food and get their many children started in this manner of living. While many are now starting to work "off farm", and I think that will create challenges for these communities in the future, the previous generation worked "on farm" in various capacities (there is not much farming to do in Winter and Summer) accumulating land, livestock, timberland, and productive capital goods (farming equipment, implements, and trade tools). While the average American facing retirement has $106,000 saved the average family in these Plain People communities have significantly greater assets/net worth and far fewer bills. They also remain relatively productive until they become infirm, at which point their strong families see to the needs of the elderly.  During their old age they typically move out of their home and the youngest son and his family take it over and buy out the other siblings, some of whom are a generation older than the youngest son is. A small cottage - often called a "dowdy house" - is built on the family land for the old folks. Heroic end of life treatments are not sought out. These people die at home, in the company of their family. Their funeral, complete with casket and burial, costs $500 or so.

Americans participating in the industrial/information/governmental economy must place their elderly, and their children, in the care of the State because they must spend 50, 60, even 70 hours per week commuting and working in order to pay for all of the insurance products that our system demands that we buy.

And despite the "lack of access" from being "uninsured" and living far from healthcare facilities and without a motor vehicles to drive back and forth to "medical care" and "medical treatment" there is no discernible difference in lifespan.

Why? How can that possibly be?

Simple. "Diagnostic services" are not necessarily curative and most do not improve health or increase lifespan. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that the belief in the value of those services removes incentive to engage in healthy and productive behaviors. Knowing what it is that is going to end your life or destroy your quality of life does not seem to change the outcome or our  lifespan. In fact, there is no "seem" about it. There is no evidence that these incredible interventions do anything to extend lifespan across the entire American population. The tremendous gains in lifespan during the 20th and 21st centuries are almost entirely attributable to vaccines, antibiotics, nutrition, sanitation/hygiene, and improved surgical techniques. And most of that does not cost very much. Yes, we are much better at treating trauma, and it is a good thing, too, because our industrial goods - particularly automobiles - inflict an enormous amount of trauma injuries onto the population and roughly 2% of us will meet our destiny in an automobile crash.

Is there some other conclusion that can be drawn from the fact that life expectancies are the same for the 500,000 Plain People that eschew health insurance and the typical American who has health insurance? Isn't 500,000 people a large enough sample? The amount of unnecessary "treatment" or "care" generated in order to consume 18% of American GDP, twice the level of the rest of the industrial world's GDP/healthcare spending, to wind up at the exact same place must simply be seen for what it is - a never ending series of human experiments that enrich people working in one industry at the expense of the health, wellbeing, and financial security of everybody else.

The answer is not "health insurance". The answer is to let The People operate in a Free Market of liberty and enlightened self-interest. People will make intelligent decisions and calculations regarding the cost/benefit of personal healthcare spending. The result will be less oppressive healthcare costs and a population that is rewarded with greater freedom and autonomy. And maybe a longer "healthspan" even if there is no material improvement in lifespan.


Sunday, November 20, 2016

The Democrats are not Inclusive when it comes to Marriage and Family

The Democrats being interviewed across the Web cannot get through a sentence without hurling accusations of Racism and Sexism at anyone and everyone outside of their camp. So, I undertook a study of the White Male Members of the 114th Congress (Congress and Senate) and the Cabinet members of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations.

I was unable to find a single example of a White Male Democrat that was married to a Black Female. I am not willing to say that I am absolutely certain about every single political spouse's racial background, but I spent a enough time looking at smiling family pictures that I feel reasonably confident that my conclusion is correct. If there is an example I have missed, please comment below and I will make the necessary correction.

I did find a White Male/Black female interracial marriage in an elected and appointed official. William Cohen, a Republican Senator from Maine and the Secretary of Defense in the Clinton Administration is married to an African-American. I found no other examples of Republican White Males married to Black Females. Once again, I cannot state 100% confidence in the data. Perhaps 99.5%. If there is an example I have missed, please comment below and I will make the necessary correction.

People tend to marry people in their social orbit that they consider their equals in attractiveness and socio/economic status with men tilting towards the former and women toward the latter. Clearly, the White Men at the top of the Democrat party either do not have Black Women in their social orbit, and/or they do not consider them attractive or of sufficient socio/economic status, but since men are less interested in socio/economic status... In short, by their OWN definition the upper strata White Men of the Democrat party appear to be racists and definitely are zeros by the "Inclusivity" measure.

People talk a great deal about race and racism but I think the best measure of their true sense of this is who they date and marry, and who they have children with. There is certainly a lot going on here. Maybe people are hard wired to prefer people that look like they do - though the rate of White Male/Asian Female marriage/dating is so high that that assertion just does not hold up to scrutiny.

Of course, marriage itself is the perusal of the upper strata of our society. Poor people in general and African Americans in particular marry at much lower rates than the affluent and European Americans do.

One politically correct Liberal on my FB list asserted that African American women simply don't want to marry European American men, and cited as evidence that only 5% of that demographic marries someone of a different race. That assertion does not make sense to me. In fact, that assertion seems to say that European Men are interested in marrying African American Women but those African American Women are rebuffing the European American Men that have been pursuing them. Wouldn't those in the lower socio/economic strata want to "marry up"? Especially women? Especially to Liberal Democrat Men? After all, those men, according to our media, are far more educated, cultured, and enlightened than the Troglodytes that voted for Trump. Why would African American Women refuse to marry into that?

Of course, that is just plain silly. It is just too painful for people in the Democrat camp to examine this honestly. Racism will only end when America stops this separate but equal nonsense of multiculturalism. A common people with a common sense of values and a common set of expectations from our countrymen will be more accepting of each other - and more likely to marry each other. Do we expect men to marry the mothers of their children and that these couples will work together to raise their families with an eye to the future? Or is marriage a commitment for women only until the first moment they are unsatisfied, at which point they may extort and enslave men while generously allowing the father to see his own children every other weekend? Or are we to end marriage and the family, Iceland style, with lots of baby-daddies with the State as father/provider? No need to compromise! The State will be happy to use violence on fathers at the behest of mothers.

The sad current state of affairs is a creation of the very people that refuse to socialize and marry outside of their race and religion, but need the votes of those they refuse to associate with in order to remain relevant.

That is madness.