Category: Uncategorized

Correcting the gay defect

It would appear that none of the homosexual activists ever thought through the logical ramifications of the so-called “gay gene”:

A hormonal treatment to prevent ambiguous genitalia can now be offered to women who may be carrying such infants. It’s not without health risks, but to its critics those are of small consequence compared with this notable side effect: The treatment might reduce the likelihood that a female with the condition will be homosexual. Further, it seems to increase the chances that she will have what are considered more feminine behavioral traits. That such a treatment would ever be considered, even to prevent genital abnormalities, has outraged gay and lesbian groups, troubled some doctors and fueled bioethicists’ debate about the nature of human sexuality.

First, the fact that any gay groups would be “outraged” over a medical treatment that is intended to prevent serious physical abnormalities shows that their priorities are too solipsistic to be taken seriously. Logic has always dictated that if there was a material cause for orientational challenges, there would always be at least the potential for medical science to successfully address that cause and correct for the defective orientation.

The fact that some unfortunates are born without limbs and manage to live reasonably happy lives despite their birth defect does not make limblessness either normal or desirable, just as the idea that someone has been born orientationally-challenged does not mean that anyone else has to be born that way in the future. I am not entirely convinced that all orientational challenges are birth defects; like most things homosexuality is likely a combination of nature and nurture. But even if we set all moral and religious tradition aside, (the wisdom of which is of course debatable), there can still be no question that to the extent nature is responsible, homosexuality is a birth defect from every relevant secular, material, and sociological perspective. Defective is not synonymous with bad. Blind people aren’t bad and yet scientists seek to give them sight. Deaf people aren’t bad and yet scientists seek to help them hear. So, there is no need to condemn gays in any way in order for scientists to help them achieve sexual normality.

If you are determined to find something to worry about, don’t fret about the possibility that parents will one day be able to select anti-gay therapy for their unborn children. In light of the AGW/CC shenigans, I would be more concerned about the nascent totalitarians in the Gaian movement forcibly mandating pro-gay therapy in the interests of population control. There’s really no rational reason for this to become a political issue anyhow, not in a country where unborn children can be murdered at will by their mothers. It would be impossible to convincingly argue that a parent has the legal right to kill a child but not therapeutically de-homo one.

You might want to check that

The claims of average temperatures rising don’t mean a whole lot when the thermometers don’t work:

US Government admits satellite temperature readings “degraded.” All data taken offline in shock move. Global warming temperatures may be 10 to 15 degrees too high. The fault was first detected after a tip off from an anonymous member of the public to climate skeptic blog, Climate Change Fraud

Caught in the center of the controversy is the beleaguered taxpayer funded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA’s Program Coordinator, Chuck Pistis has now confirmed that the fast spreading story on the respected climate skeptic blog is true….Great Lakes users of the satellite service were the first to blow the whistle on the wildly distorted readings that showed a multitude of impossibly high temperatures. NOAA admits that the machine-generated readings are not continuously monitored so that absurdly high false temperatures could have become hidden amidst the bulk of automated readings.

In one example swiftly taken down by NOAA after my first article, readings for June and July 2010 for Lake Michigan showed crazy temperatures off the scale ranging in the low to mid hundreds – with some parts of the Wisconsin area apparently reaching 612 F. With an increasing number of further errors now coming to light the discredited NOAA removed the entire set from public view.

I found this level of incompetence a little hard to credit, so I checked the link. Sure enough, here was the message: “NOTICE (8/11/2010): Due to degradation of a satellite sensor used by this mapping product, some images have exhibited extreme high and low surface temperatures. Please disregard these images as anomalies.”

Needless to say, restructuring the global economy on the basis of conclusions drawn from data of this sort wouldn’t be so much stupid as absolutely and certifiably insane. As for the so-called “scientific consensus”, remember two things. 1) Most people are idiots. 2) All scientists are people. Ergo, it is safe to assume that most scientists are idiots, especially when one takes into account their apparent inability to understand either a) that science depends upon capitalist wealth not government largess, and, b) that the basic laws of supply and demand apply to their profession as well as their academic credentials.

Marriage: the options

The Dark Lord of the Crimson Arts points out what should now be obvious to everyone who is paying attention:

As it is, our society is at a fork in the road. We can go one of two ways if an end to the divorce industrial complex is your goal:

1. Rescind feminism.

Basically, turn back the clock on the so-called “improvements” in divorce litigation. Put divorce lawyers out of business. Custody of children would be split evenly, half the time with mom and half the time with dad, unless solid evidence of extenuating fault could be found, such as pedophilia or physical abuse. End all affirmative action and favoritism, explicit or implicit, for women. This means no more maternal leave or sexual harassment workshops. Return shame to its rightful place as a molder of human behavior.

2. Follow feminism to its logical conclusion.

Completely gut the traditional notion of marriage by legally establishing polygamy and assorted polyamorous relationships as equally valid unions. (Should be easier now that there is legal justification for gay marriage.) Make divorce as easy as buying a gallon of milk. Reform marriage so that it better reflects the evolutionary disposition of people to fall out of love after seven years (or approximately the time the kids are old enough to function without constant parental supervision.) If we are biologically designed by evolution to weary of our partners after seven to ten years, then why is marriage not arranged in such a way that acknowledges this reality?

Obviously, our suffragized society has chosen the latter goal. How’s that working out for everyone? Bankrupt, divorced and stupid is no way to sustain a civilization.

Yowzers

In which Karl Denninger prison-rapes Paul Krugman’s bizarre meanderings on Social Security:

Seriously. This tripe is so bereft of logic and actual mental acuity that it is unworthy of graduation from elementary school:

“About that math: Legally, Social Security has its own, dedicated funding, via the payroll tax (“FICA” on your pay statement). But it’s also part of the broader federal budget. This dual accounting means that there are two ways Social Security could face financial problems. First, that dedicated funding could prove inadequate, forcing the program either to cut benefits or to turn to Congress for aid. Second, Social Security costs could prove unsupportable for the federal budget as a whole.”

Baloney. This is called fraud in the private-sector. First, there is no dedicated funding. Second, all the money taken in over the years was not “invested”, it was spent.

“Social Security has been running surpluses for the last quarter-century, banking those surpluses in a special account, the so-called trust fund.”

That so-called “trust fund” is a fraud. It does not exist.

Here’s what actually happens (and Krugman knows this, which makes him a damned liar besides):

1. Your tax dollars go to Treasury
2. Treasury keeps them and issues “special” Treasury bonds to the Social Security “trust fund.”
3. Treasury counts these tax receipts against the federal deficit, making it look (much, until the last year) smaller than it really is.

Note the slight-of-hand here. Social Security gets an alleged “bond” but they can’t sell it to anyone but the Treasury. That is, legally it is an IOU, not a bond. A bond can be marketed in the open market to anyone who is willing to buy, for whatever they’re willing to pay. These are unmarketable (intentionally) and thus can only be redeemed in one place – at Treasury.

The problem is that Treasury spent the money and thus doesn’t have anything with which to redeem the IOUs!

Seriously, even people who don’t pay any attention to either politics or economics knows that the Social Security “trust fund” is nonexistent and that Congress has been operating on a pay-as-you-go system all along. I can’t even pretend to understand what Krugman was thinking when he wrote this ridiculous column. The money in the so-called “lock box” isn’t there because the box doesn’t exist either. The money is nothing more than yet another government debt as it was all spent years ago.

Bitch school

Is there a man on the planet who genuinely believes women need to learn to NOT apologize? Or strategies on more effectively getting what they want out of others?

THIS morning’s workshop is central to drama reduction. The topic is apologies.

Ms. Simmons divides these ninth graders into two facing lines. If a statement she reads aloud is true, a girl should cross the room.

“I’m usually the first person to apologize!” (A few girls trade places.)

“I apologize too much!” (More make a move.)

“I only apologize when I really mean it!” (A brave two.)

“I rarely apologize.” (An unapologetic one.)

“I’m more comfortable apologizing in a text than in person.” (Stampede.)

Girls are terrified to face a dispute head on, Ms. Simmons said. “In Girlworld, ‘Can we talk for a sec?’ means ‘OMG the end is near!’ ” she remarks, as the girls sit at desks in a half-circle around her. “But think of a conflict with your friend as an opportunity to negotiate for what you want.”

The issue isn’t that women don’t know how to say they’re sorry. They’re perfectly capable of verbalizing the words. They sometimes even prefer to posture absurdly and claim absolutely everything in the world is their fault in lieu of owning up to responsibility for something tangible. The real problem is that most women dislike taking responsibility for their actions and accepting the consequences for them.

The “sorry, sorry” routine is simply a matter of social submission to a dominant female, it has nothing to do with actual apologizing or modifying future behavior. Of course, social dominance is exactly what the Girls Leadership Institute is attempting to instill in girls, which from the description in the article, will likely have disastrous results for their relationships with the opposite sex.

By the banks, for the banks

Is anyone genuinely surprised that the White House’s foreclosure plan is designed to help the banks, and not the homeowners as advertised?

Banks will get the biggest benefit from an Obama administration housing program designed to help unemployed homeowners escape foreclosure. Housing experts expressed concern that banks, not homeowners, will be helped by the White House’s $3 billion funding infusion — $2 billion from the Treasury Department and another $1 billion from the Housing and Urban Development Department — going to those states hit hardest by the housing market crash and unemployment.

This is exactly the same trickle-down assistance approach that was previously taken by Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve and failed miserably. The fact of the matter is that the only reason foreclosures are a concern to the admininstration and the central bank is because they threaten to expose the insolvency of the banks. As is quite clearly the case, they are indifferent to the fate of the homeowning peasantry, otherwise they would have simply used that trillion in bailout cash to pay off problem mortgages.

WND column

This is what I am referring to in today’s WND column. It succinctly shows the death of Keynesian economics in one simple graph. The empiricists who have rejected the compelling but non-empirical critiques of the Austrian School for eighty years will not find it so easy to dismiss the empirical evidence of the declining marginal utility of debt.

There will be no double-dip but only because the “recession” never ended. It was merely disguised due to the ludicrous metric of GDP which counts government borrowing and spending as economic growth. To insist that GDP growth is economic growth is to confuse the map with the territory.

But how many were saved?

The Wall Street Journal finally begins to notice that there is no economic recovery underlying the March 2009 advance:

The jobs picture is much worse than they’re telling you. Forget the “official” unemployment rate of 9.5%. Alternative measures? Try this: Just 61% of the adult population, age 20 or over, has any kind of job right now. That’s the lowest since the early 1980s — when many women stayed at home through choice, driving the numbers down. Among men today, it’s 66.9%. Back in the ’50s, incidentally, that figure was around 85%, though allowances should be made for the higher number of elderly people alive today. And many of those still working right now can only find part-time work, so just 59% of men age 20 or over currently have a full-time job. This is bullish?

(Today’s bonus question: If a laid-off contractor with two kids, a mortgage and a car loan is working three night shifts a week at his local gas station, how many iPads can he buy for Christmas?)

Any predictions on when the first serious mention of Great Depression 2.0 occurs in the WSJ? This can’t be an airy dismissal, but should be accompanied by an admission that there is no double-dip, it’s all just one giant multi-year contraction.

VPFL 2010

If you’re interested in participating, post your name and email here. Last year’s champions, the Alamo City Spartans, will be joining the permanent league members, Mounds View, Burns, and Greenfield. This year we will also permit the VP-AFL champion to participate, however, he will take over one of last year’s teams just like the other five newcomers.

In tangentially related news, inquiring minds are wondering why the Tarvaris Jackson Experiment is still listed as the Vikings starter.

Just deal with it, fat girl

Needless ex-fatty angst over unexpected male interest:

There’s an intelligent, successful, charming bachelor in his 40s. Let’s call him George Clooney. So George, sick of women throwing themselves at him because he’s rich and famous, decides to go undercover. He grows out his beard, he gains weight, he starts wearing ripped sweatpants wherever he goes. He’s the exact same guy underneath, but it’s really important that a woman want him for him—not just for the dashing image he projects and the life he can provide. I’m Not Attracted To Him: Do I Date Him?

Now, George looks like a homeless man. He still has great knowledge of Darfur, Edward R. Murrow, and the politics behind oil. He can still turn a phrase and crack a joke. He still has an amazing smile…. It would probably not surprise you that George would struggle in his quest for love. He may blame women for not valuing him as a homeless man as much they did as an actor—but he’d be the one losing out.

The problem with the attitude that you should be desired for who you are is that your superficialities are an intrinsic part of you. Sometimes they are an accurate indicator of what lies within, sometimes they are misleading, but they are still a part of you either way. Moreover, no one is ever going to “get to know the real you” if you don’t give them a reason to want to do so in the first place. Weight isn’t like height; the only person the ex-fatty should be annoyed at is herself since clearly she could have lost the weight a long time ago.

However, I’m not entirely unsympathetic with the dilemma of the former fat girl. I once knew a very nice girl who had an incredibly pretty face and a fantastic body but did not have an iota of pretty girl syndrome in her. She really seemed to be bewildered by the idea that she might be attractive at all, let alone highly desirable. It turned out that she had been quite fat in junior high and high school, had never had a boyfriend, didn’t go to college, and was almost completely unprepared for how men would react to her when she lost all the extra weight. But she wasn’t bitter, she was simply scared.

People also tend to forget that more men go through this sort of transformation than women do, since being short for a man is rather like being fat for a woman. But most guys who finally catch up to and surpass the girls in terms of height are simply glad that the situation has changed, they’re not bitter because the opposite sex has finally developed an interest in them.

I wouldn’t get too carried away by the sudden interest if I was an ex-fatty. Let’s face it, the thin girl may have escaped temporarily, but there’s still a fat girl inside waiting to devour her.