Category: Uncategorized

The Telegraph again, this time on children versus career:

Women who have children earlier in life forgo hundreds of thousands of pounds in lost earnings and “seriously harm” their career prospects, a new report warns today.

The survey, by the Institute for Public Policy Research, claims that British women face a rising “fertility penalty” the earlier they have their first baby. After giving birth, almost one third return to a less well-paid job. The report states, however, that the trend of putting off having children until the late thirties is bad for the economy because falling fertility rates mean that taxes will have to go up.

I find it interesting that the mainstream media – at least in the UK – is beginning to wake up to the fact that the child-career tradeoff faced by women is not only real, but that there are detrimental societal effects when a woman chooses a career. I’ve yet to see anyone follow my lead on the negative effect on wages, however, even though that is far more obvious and easily provable than the positive effect on taxes.

I don’t know why women have such a hard time accepting the obvious. Life is about nothing so much as opportunity costs. When a man marries, he gives up your opportunity to live the care-free life of the hedonistic bachelor. When a man becomes a father, he almost always has to trade in the Porsche or the Miata, whatever, for the minivan. But since women insist that men who refuse to embrace the idea of marriage, family and paternal responsibility as being pathetic, immature Peter Pans, why do they not likewise view career women as similarly pathetic, immature creatures clinging to their vanishing girlhood?

Aside from the one-third of women who work out of pure necessity, I tend to view career women as neutered worker-ants, but then, I don’t share the view that a man has to be immature in order to wish to avoid the lion’s mouth that is government-granted “marriage” in modern America.

From the Telegraph:

Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country, a survey reveals today.

The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the “feelings and motives” of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity. 50pc said interracial relations were worsening

Overall, the findings depict a Muslim community becoming more radical and feeling more alienated from mainstream society, even though 91 per cent still say they feel loyal to Britain.

The multicultural facade is crumbling fast, and those who stand by it like Bush and Blair are going to be swept away by the nativist tide. Which reminds me of something I’ve been meaning to point out for quite some time. If Bush is a genuine conservative in ANY way, then why are his policies inevitably mimicked – when they aren’t anticipated – by the leader of the British Labour party, which is more socialist than the American Democrats?

You were sold snake oil, my Republican friends. Venomous snake oil.

Gordon Prather on the war drums:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated, “It is obvious that if Iran cannot be brought to live up to its international obligations, in fact, the IAEA Statute would indicate that Iran would have to be referred to the U.N. Security Council.”

OK, what “international obligations” is Condi talking about? Well, it’s not clear. But Condi does refer to the IAEA Statute. So, the House assumes she must be referring to the safeguards agreement that Iran concluded with the IAEA way back in 1973.

Whereas on Feb. 4, 2006, the IAEA Board of Governors reported Iran’s noncompliance with its IAEA safeguards obligations to the Security Council …

But, the House is mistaken. The IAEA Board didn’t report any such thing. In fact, the Board didn’t “report” anything.

So, again it appears that the administration is knowingly being deceitful about its reasons for acting. What I don’t understand is those who believe ANYTHING the administration says, given that it has repeatedly demonstrated its disdain for the truth. There is a long and ignoble list of the president’s deceptions dating back to his first presidential campaign, why does anyone put any more trust in him than they would in Bill Clinton? It’s pretty clear by now that Bush is the better liar.

I just wonder if Three Monkey Republicans are as eager to accept a similar level of dishonesty in their friends and family members.

Highlights from the Wash Post’s online forum with Vanilla Ice:

Minneapolis, Minn.: Yo Vanilla — do you still rock the mic like a vandal?

Vanilla Ice: Oh, of course, that’ll never stop. A lot of people don’t remember anything since Ice Ice Baby, but I’ve got 3 records out since then and they’re all successes — but not commercially…

There’s a lot of people in Minneapolis, but I know a White Buffalo when I see one.

From the Washington Times:

The White House is obviously not listening to the congressional uproar over Dubai Ports World. Lawmakers want to know why a federal panel allowed a state-owned United Arab Emirates shipping firm to pay $6.8 billion to acquire six major American ports — including critical ones in New York, Baltimore and Philadelphia — despite its home country’s glaring ties to international terrorism. But the White House is yawning.

The issue interrupted this week’s House Ways and Means Committee hearings on the budget, and Treasury Secretary John Snow’s non-answer — he explained to curt questioning from Rep. Mark Foley, Florida Republican, that the Commission on Foreign Investment in the United States followed its regular processes — simply won’t cut it. Yesterday, Stewart Baker, an assistant secretary in the Department of Homeland Security, asserted flatly that “We came to the conclusion that the transaction should not be halted.” National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said that it was “rigorously reviewed.” In other words, the White House considers it a done deal.

But why? Why must the United States let a state-owned firm from a hotbed of radicalism own the major ports of the Eastern seaboard? No one has answered this to our satisfaction.

Occam’s Razor states that the simplest logical answer is usually the correct one. In this case, it would indicate either that the adminstration is in favor of terrorism in the United States, presumably because it would allow the government to speed up its current centralization program, or that it knows for a certainty that turning over the ports to the Islamists will create no genuine risk to the American people.

In an old essay published in his Apocalypse Postponed collection, Umberto Eco wrote about the symbiotic relationship between government and terrorist. He was writing about the European governments and the Red Brigades at the time, but the same logic appears to be increasingly at work here in the United States.

I’m not impressed by those who aren’t willing to at least consider the possibility that American presidents are less than perfectly loyal to their country. Clinton was in bed with China, Bush appears to be even more closely bound to his Wahhabist friends. I’m quite open to listen to alternative explanations, but instead, all I ever hear are assertions of how impossible it is that the current administration could possibly have anything but the best interests of the American people at heart. Even the most staunch Three Monkey must admit, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that the president has proven to be utterly disloyal to the Constitution he swore to defend.

This is, of course, laughable to anyone who has studied a decent amount of history and knows how unusual it is for any government of any type to harbor even a minimal amount of concern for its population, so long as they remain passive.

Only the sexy people:

Not only are physically unattractive teenagers likely to be stay-at-homes on prom night, they’re also more likely to grow up to be criminals, say two economists who tracked the life course of young people from high school through early adulthood.

“We find that unattractive individuals commit more crime in comparison to average-looking ones, and very attractive individuals commit less crime in comparison to those who are average-looking,” claim Naci Mocan of the University of Colorado and Erdal Tekin of Georgia State University.

Mocan and Tekin analyzed data from a federally sponsored survey of 15,000 high-schoolers who were interviewed in 1994 and again in 1996 and 2002. One question asked interviewers to rate the physical appearance of the student on a five-point scale ranging from “very attractive” to “very unattractive.”

These economists found that the long-term consequences of being young and ugly were small but consistent. Cute guys were uniformly less likely than averages would indicate to have committed seven crimes including burglary and selling drugs, while the unhandsome were consistently more likely to have broken the law.

So much for that “you are beautiful, no matter what they say” theory. Then again, pop music has never been the most reliable of life guides.

Houston’s police chief is suggesting putting surveillance cameras in apartment complexes, downtown streets and even private homes.

So, you still think the police are on your side? Do you still think it’s just a problem of “a few bad apples”? Never forget, one can’t have a police state without the police.

Sure, the good ones may be dedicated to fighting crime. But who defines what is and is not a crime? And at the end of the day, the “good” policeman is going to follow his orders, regardless of what they might be.

From the Washington Times:

Commercial photos show Chinese nuke buildup

Commercial satellite photos made public recently provide a new look at China’s nuclear forces and bases — images that include the first view of a secret underwater submarine tunnel. A Pentagon official said the photograph of the tunnel entrance reveals for the first time a key element of China’s hidden military buildup. Similar but more detailed intelligence photos of the entrance are highly classified within the U.S. government, the official said.

This reminds me of our 9/11 response. After being attacked by Saudi jihadist led by a wealthy Saudi, we invaded Iraq. Now the second-largest military power and a self-declared enemy of the United States is building up its nukes, so naturally we’re preparing to attack Iran.

I never thought I’d say it, but this administration makes the Clinton administration look almost sane.

It’s beginning to look like someone is planning to take advantage of an occupied American military, doesn’t it? No doubt if we do attack Iran and the attack goes awry thanks to China pulling something, the media will be full of stories about how no one could possibly have seen it coming and so forth.

Whatever.

A good Frater drinks to the deceased:

Interesting news. A pill designed to kill is doing just that–to the women who take it. The unusual and sudden deaths of four California women after they took the abortion pill RU-486 has prompted the federal government to hold a daylong scientific meeting on the topic in May.

So they are trying to off their baby and get offed themselves in the process?

(Seinfeld voice) That’s a shame. *takes swig of juice*

I wonder if the federal government would also be moved to hold a meeting if other filicidal killings went similarly awry, a partial-birth abortion, for example. “Yah, I meant to jab the scissors in the kid’s head, but I slipped and got her femoral artery by mistake. That’s a shame!”

I find the whole “coathanger” theme that one still occasionally sees at abortionette rallies to be downright amusing. I feel less sympathy for the largely mythical pre-1973 “victims” than I do for those Waffen SS death camp guards who were lined up against a wall and machine-gunned by American soldiers in clear violation of the Geneva Convention. At least the Waffen SS were acting on orders, the abortionettes simply want to kill children on behalf of their momentary desires.

Anyone who thinks that God is inclined to bless America these days can’t be paying much attention to His attitude towards those who sacrifice children and otherwise abuse them. I’m no prophet, but if I had to place a bet, it would be a heavy one on the side of judgment, not blessing.