Sometimes when I can't sleep, I play mind games with numbers, sort of like counting sheep. I woke up one day last week around 4 AM and couldn't get back to sleep, so I got to thinking about my blog post about children. It occurred to me that, considering what I said about middle class demographics and their birth rate, the number of middle class surnames in this country will rapidly decrease. Here is my reasoning. If the birth rate among the middle class is less that two/family (which it is), there is only a fifty percent chance that the surname of the father will be carried on to children. Assuming that he has a male child, that child has a fifty percent chance of having a male child if he marries and has children at all. If you carry this out over very few generations it means that, starting with the original father, their is a 50/50 chance of his surname being carried over for one generation, a 25% chance that his surname will be carried over for two generations, a 12.5% chance that the surname will last 3 generations, and only a 6% chance that it will carry four generations. In a span of around 80 years, most surnames will be extinct. There are of course some variables. Some women will have children out of wedlock, and carry their surname forward. Some religious faiths Catholics and Mormons for instance tend to have more children, and their will be a few other outliers, but overall with our current birthrate the number of surnames will decrease among the middle class.
As in many of my posts, I am now segue into the real point of my blog. One of my good friends sent me a link to a video about Muslim demographics. Here's the link. http://www.youtube.com/embed/6-3X5hIFXYU Now I tend to be an Islamic apologist, and I don't believe that they are universally out for world domination, are at war with us, or that their world view is all bad. I do have some serious reservations about fundamentalist Muslims just as I am suspicious of fundamentalists of all religions. But, I tell you, this video is a real eye opener. It is obviously an anti-Muslim peace of work, and I'm not sure of the voracity of all the statistics in the video, but I do believe that the overall demographic trends it proposes are generally true. I did look this up, and many of the most outrageous claims are false, and the rate of demographic shift is exaggerated. That is that all of Europe and Russia is destined to soon become completely dominated by people of Islamic faith, and it looks like Canada and the United States may not be far behind.
I can't imagine anything we can do to reverse this trend. It's a basic fact that poor people tend to have more children, doing so has always been a way to provide security for the parents in their old age. At the same time, through our welfare system, we have enabled the poor to have more children. I'm not advocating for any change here, it is unconscionable to consider cutting off benefits to the poor and to their children in order to control their birth rates. As a nation, I guess we could provide financial assistance to increase birth rates among the middle class, but we could not do this exclusively for the middle class, and there is no way that our country is going to embark on such a huge voyage of social engineering. The only thing I can possibly think of to slow or reverse this trend in this country is to bring economic justice to the poor and middle class so that the poor will not need to have large families and the middle class can once again afford to have larger families.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Where are the Children
A week or so ago, I met with a fellow to talk about installing a new door at the house where he grew up, which he now maintains as a rental. When I was young I had friends who lived in this neighborhood, and he and I began comparing notes about all the kids who lived near by. He and I quickly rattled off the names of about a dozen children that lived within a block of his house. I have often thought about the street on which I grew up, and all of the children I knew on this street. In my one block of the street where I grew up, I remember and have counted 26 children. Today, on that same street, there may be three or four children. This is in a town which had a population of less than 10,000 in the late fifties, and has over 50,000 residents today.
This anecdotal demographic shift led me to think about my own family. My mother had three siblings and between the four siblings, they raised a total of seventeen children. All of these seventeen cousins are pretty well past their child rearing ages now, and these seventeen cousins produced, I believe, seventeen off spring. On my father's side, there were six siblings who produced nine children, and my nine cousins and myself only raised, I think, three offspring.
Looking back, I can easily name ten families I knew who had more than four children. Today, I don't personally knew any families with four or more children.
Now I am about to tread very lightly on some very thin ice. Every one I have mentioned up to this point grew up in middle class white families. I don't know how large other ethnic families were back in the fifties, but I suspect their family size mirrored that of the people I knew. The one thing I am certain of is that it has become increasingly difficult for a middle class couple to have a large family. Typically, both spouses work, and neither spouse is willing or able to give up his or her job and stay home with children. The cost of raising children from birth through college has grown astronomically. It seems that the only people who can afford multiple children, are people who are assisted by the government in providing for these children. I suspect that only a very small percentage of these poor children of poor families will have a chance of rising up to middle class prosperity.
Of course declining birth rate is not the only factor in diminishing the size of our middle class. Thousands of people are falling out of the middle class every day due to reduced economic opportunity. As the size of the middle class shrinks, and the poor become poorer, the wealthy in this country continue to see huge increases in their net worth. Perhaps this is the grand plan. To quote Voltaire: "The comfort of the rich requires an abundant supply of the poor."
This anecdotal demographic shift led me to think about my own family. My mother had three siblings and between the four siblings, they raised a total of seventeen children. All of these seventeen cousins are pretty well past their child rearing ages now, and these seventeen cousins produced, I believe, seventeen off spring. On my father's side, there were six siblings who produced nine children, and my nine cousins and myself only raised, I think, three offspring.
Looking back, I can easily name ten families I knew who had more than four children. Today, I don't personally knew any families with four or more children.
Now I am about to tread very lightly on some very thin ice. Every one I have mentioned up to this point grew up in middle class white families. I don't know how large other ethnic families were back in the fifties, but I suspect their family size mirrored that of the people I knew. The one thing I am certain of is that it has become increasingly difficult for a middle class couple to have a large family. Typically, both spouses work, and neither spouse is willing or able to give up his or her job and stay home with children. The cost of raising children from birth through college has grown astronomically. It seems that the only people who can afford multiple children, are people who are assisted by the government in providing for these children. I suspect that only a very small percentage of these poor children of poor families will have a chance of rising up to middle class prosperity.
Of course declining birth rate is not the only factor in diminishing the size of our middle class. Thousands of people are falling out of the middle class every day due to reduced economic opportunity. As the size of the middle class shrinks, and the poor become poorer, the wealthy in this country continue to see huge increases in their net worth. Perhaps this is the grand plan. To quote Voltaire: "The comfort of the rich requires an abundant supply of the poor."
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
June Socrates Cafe
I've been a fairly regular attendee to the monthly Socrates Cafe meetings for about the past year. The basic format of the meeting is that we meet at 6:00 pm the first Tuesday of each month in a private room of a local restaurant, order dinner, and decide what we want to discuss. The floor is opened to anyone to suggest a topic in the form of a question. After a list of questions are taken, there is a round of voting in which you can vote for as many of the questions as you might be interested in. Then the two or three questions receiving the most votes are voted on again, though this time, you can only vote for one question. the winning question becomes the topic of discussion.
The questions tend to be more philosophical than issue related, although there is no set rule. The attendees tend to be fairly liberal, although we do have a few very conservative members that while being conservative, are not dogmatic in there views. I suppose if they were dogmatic, they wouldn't be there. We have one person who serves as a moderator, and he generally does a good job of keeping us on topic, and maintaining order.
Tonight's question was "When does assisting someone become enabling someone" This question was posed by the wife of the most conservative member of our group, but it was one of several questions her husband had written down as potential topics. I immediately felt my hackles rise, because I thought I knew where this question was leading, that is, why should "big government" be involved in social welfare programs. It turned out that I was partially right, there was much discussion about social welfare, but, the lady who posed the question opened the discussion with an anecdote of personal aid and the consequent enabling of the recipient. A good part of the discussion centered around family matters where one member of a family is allowed to continue to exhibit bad behavior because he is aided by the other family members. The general consensus of the group on these micro issues was that a good dose of tough love should be administered.
On the Macro level, however, the issue was not as clear. The conservative view seems to be that generally everyone receiving government assistance is simply gaming the system, and a good dose of tough love should be administered (do away with government assistance), along with shifting the responsibility of caring for the needy to the churches and families of the needy, regardless of the actual existence and where with all of these benevolent factions.
This brings me to my own view of the problem, which I certainly attempted to express at tonight's meeting. Actually, I may have over expressed my opinion, which, unfortunately, I tend to do. Here, is the great thing about writing, now I have an opportunity to put my thoughts into some order, and more clearly express my views.
Of course people game the system, be it welfare, food stamps, or unemployment insurance. I think that it is basic human nature to try to gain advantage in any situation, especially if there is no perceived harm in doing so. The fact that some people take unfair advantage does not take away from the fact that most people who receive assistance from the government need that assistance, and would rather be in a position where they do not need assistance. The answers to reducing government assistance are twofold.
First of all, the government, state federal or local, should do a better job of policing these programs. It is penny wise and pound foolish to save money by reducing the budgets of agencies that monitor these programs, and then cry that the programs are corrupt and should be eliminated.
Secondly, and more importantly, most assistance programs could be greatly reduced by requiring that a living wage be paid to anyone willing to work. As a bit of social engineering, the minimum wage should be drastically increased, and companies should be given disincentives for hiring part time workers.
By the way, here is my theory on "trickle up economics". So, we constantly hear that raising the minimum wage would cause inflation, and result in fewer workers being hired. Raising the minimum wage is somewhat inflationary, but employers, be they retailers or manufacturers, have to be competitive, so they would not automatically pass on all of the increased wage costs to their consumers. In "trickle up economics", when the minimum wage is increased, suddenly a percentage of wage earners above the previous minimum wage would be reduced to the same level as the new minimum wage earners. Because these people generally have more experience (thus more value to the employer), some of them would receive an additional increase in wages to differentiate them from the bottom tier worker. By the same token, some of each higher tier of workers would see an increase in wages for the same reason. This works right on up to the managers and executive members of the organization, and ultimately forces the owner or corporation to accept lower profit margins. Now, because each tier of worker has more disposable income, that money is spent, more goods and services are purchased, more taxes are collected, and more jobs are created. Don't be fooled by the continual Republican rhetoric about job growth being stymied by government regulation or uncertainty, The only real way to increase job growth is to increase demand for products and services.
As I have written before, I am an institutionalist, I see nothing wrong with big government, I just want to see better government. I don't think the churches, families or other charitable institutions have the reach or the finances to provide all the help needed in this country , only good government and good leadership can provide adequate assistance to the needy.
The questions tend to be more philosophical than issue related, although there is no set rule. The attendees tend to be fairly liberal, although we do have a few very conservative members that while being conservative, are not dogmatic in there views. I suppose if they were dogmatic, they wouldn't be there. We have one person who serves as a moderator, and he generally does a good job of keeping us on topic, and maintaining order.
Tonight's question was "When does assisting someone become enabling someone" This question was posed by the wife of the most conservative member of our group, but it was one of several questions her husband had written down as potential topics. I immediately felt my hackles rise, because I thought I knew where this question was leading, that is, why should "big government" be involved in social welfare programs. It turned out that I was partially right, there was much discussion about social welfare, but, the lady who posed the question opened the discussion with an anecdote of personal aid and the consequent enabling of the recipient. A good part of the discussion centered around family matters where one member of a family is allowed to continue to exhibit bad behavior because he is aided by the other family members. The general consensus of the group on these micro issues was that a good dose of tough love should be administered.
On the Macro level, however, the issue was not as clear. The conservative view seems to be that generally everyone receiving government assistance is simply gaming the system, and a good dose of tough love should be administered (do away with government assistance), along with shifting the responsibility of caring for the needy to the churches and families of the needy, regardless of the actual existence and where with all of these benevolent factions.
This brings me to my own view of the problem, which I certainly attempted to express at tonight's meeting. Actually, I may have over expressed my opinion, which, unfortunately, I tend to do. Here, is the great thing about writing, now I have an opportunity to put my thoughts into some order, and more clearly express my views.
Of course people game the system, be it welfare, food stamps, or unemployment insurance. I think that it is basic human nature to try to gain advantage in any situation, especially if there is no perceived harm in doing so. The fact that some people take unfair advantage does not take away from the fact that most people who receive assistance from the government need that assistance, and would rather be in a position where they do not need assistance. The answers to reducing government assistance are twofold.
First of all, the government, state federal or local, should do a better job of policing these programs. It is penny wise and pound foolish to save money by reducing the budgets of agencies that monitor these programs, and then cry that the programs are corrupt and should be eliminated.
Secondly, and more importantly, most assistance programs could be greatly reduced by requiring that a living wage be paid to anyone willing to work. As a bit of social engineering, the minimum wage should be drastically increased, and companies should be given disincentives for hiring part time workers.
By the way, here is my theory on "trickle up economics". So, we constantly hear that raising the minimum wage would cause inflation, and result in fewer workers being hired. Raising the minimum wage is somewhat inflationary, but employers, be they retailers or manufacturers, have to be competitive, so they would not automatically pass on all of the increased wage costs to their consumers. In "trickle up economics", when the minimum wage is increased, suddenly a percentage of wage earners above the previous minimum wage would be reduced to the same level as the new minimum wage earners. Because these people generally have more experience (thus more value to the employer), some of them would receive an additional increase in wages to differentiate them from the bottom tier worker. By the same token, some of each higher tier of workers would see an increase in wages for the same reason. This works right on up to the managers and executive members of the organization, and ultimately forces the owner or corporation to accept lower profit margins. Now, because each tier of worker has more disposable income, that money is spent, more goods and services are purchased, more taxes are collected, and more jobs are created. Don't be fooled by the continual Republican rhetoric about job growth being stymied by government regulation or uncertainty, The only real way to increase job growth is to increase demand for products and services.
As I have written before, I am an institutionalist, I see nothing wrong with big government, I just want to see better government. I don't think the churches, families or other charitable institutions have the reach or the finances to provide all the help needed in this country , only good government and good leadership can provide adequate assistance to the needy.
Monday, April 15, 2013
Ding Dong The Witch is Dead
I know I'm a week late with this post, but I want to post my feelings on the death of Margaret Thatcher. You can probably tell by the title of this post, that I won't miss her. Actually, it's a little sad that millions of people around the world celebrated her death so enthusiastically.
Thatcher became Prime Minister of Great Britain in 1979, and immediately began waging war on the poor and middle class of the United Kingdom. She promoted deregulation, privatisation of public companies, reduced the power of trade unions, and instituted a poll tax on the citizens of the United Kingdom.
I'll paraphrase this summation of Thatcher's rule that I read the other day, (I apologize to the author, I can't remember his name to properly attribute this quote.) "Thatcher came to power by convincing the middle class that the poor were stealing from them, and once in power she began stealing from the poor and middle class and giving it to the wealthy."
This same strategy was adopted by the American Republican Party with the election of Ronald Reagan, and is still the foundation of Republican policy today. This strategy has been so successful that it has even pulled the Democratic Party to the right, witness President Obama's plan for chained-CPI increases for social Security, or President Clinton's Welfare to Work program. The current mantra is that our federal deficit is out of control and massive Federal spending cuts are necessary, and that the poor put upon wealthy cannot be asked to pay more in taxes. Meanwhile, the wealthy in this country have magnified their wealth immensely, while middle class wages have stagnated or, in many cases, disappeared.
Here is the big problem, as I see it. In America, the poor have no voice, and are for the most part too apathetic to even vote. The middle class is content with the status quo. As long as their income is secure, and their health care is paid for by someone else, they see no need for change. When their rug is jerked out from under them, (for instance, when the factory where they work is moved to China) all of a sudden they are no longer middle class, and as stated before, have no voice. So we see the incremental dismantling of the middle class, not because the poor are stealing from them, but because the rich are doing so.
The odd thing about the decline of the middle class is that as a nation we produce more per ca pita today than at any time in our history. According the the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our Gross Domestic Product per ca pita has more than tripled since 1960 when is was about $16,000, to about $48,000 today in adjusted real dollars. I remember when I was young, the general consensus was that as technology improved in manufacturing and automation, we would all benefit from better and cheaper goods, and work less with more pay. Well, technology did it's part, it is possible to produce more and better goods with less labor. The only problem is that the wealthy have skimmed the cream off the milk.
Thatcher became Prime Minister of Great Britain in 1979, and immediately began waging war on the poor and middle class of the United Kingdom. She promoted deregulation, privatisation of public companies, reduced the power of trade unions, and instituted a poll tax on the citizens of the United Kingdom.
I'll paraphrase this summation of Thatcher's rule that I read the other day, (I apologize to the author, I can't remember his name to properly attribute this quote.) "Thatcher came to power by convincing the middle class that the poor were stealing from them, and once in power she began stealing from the poor and middle class and giving it to the wealthy."
This same strategy was adopted by the American Republican Party with the election of Ronald Reagan, and is still the foundation of Republican policy today. This strategy has been so successful that it has even pulled the Democratic Party to the right, witness President Obama's plan for chained-CPI increases for social Security, or President Clinton's Welfare to Work program. The current mantra is that our federal deficit is out of control and massive Federal spending cuts are necessary, and that the poor put upon wealthy cannot be asked to pay more in taxes. Meanwhile, the wealthy in this country have magnified their wealth immensely, while middle class wages have stagnated or, in many cases, disappeared.
Here is the big problem, as I see it. In America, the poor have no voice, and are for the most part too apathetic to even vote. The middle class is content with the status quo. As long as their income is secure, and their health care is paid for by someone else, they see no need for change. When their rug is jerked out from under them, (for instance, when the factory where they work is moved to China) all of a sudden they are no longer middle class, and as stated before, have no voice. So we see the incremental dismantling of the middle class, not because the poor are stealing from them, but because the rich are doing so.
The odd thing about the decline of the middle class is that as a nation we produce more per ca pita today than at any time in our history. According the the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our Gross Domestic Product per ca pita has more than tripled since 1960 when is was about $16,000, to about $48,000 today in adjusted real dollars. I remember when I was young, the general consensus was that as technology improved in manufacturing and automation, we would all benefit from better and cheaper goods, and work less with more pay. Well, technology did it's part, it is possible to produce more and better goods with less labor. The only problem is that the wealthy have skimmed the cream off the milk.
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Breaking Bad
I have lots of time on my hands waiting for my new knee to heal enough to allow me to get out and about. I've been reading and thinking, playing my guitar, and watching TV. Actually, I'm watching Netflix TV shows on my laptop. I'm about 10 episodes into Breaking Bad, which I never got around to on regular TV. For those of you who are not familiar with the show, it's main character is a high school chemistry teacher, who upon discovering that he has lung cancer, begins a second career of making Methamphetamine to pay for his treatments, and to provide for his family after his demise. It's a really good show, gritty and seemingly realistic, and it allows me to segue into what I really want to talk about, which is health care.
I've heard a good deal of talk about an article in Time Magazine by Stephen Brill entitled "Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us". This article came out in the March 4, 2013 edition of the magazine, and is a long 38 page expos'e of hospital costs. The article follows the experiences of six patients faced with understanding and coping with their medical bills. Stephen Brill certainly deserves a Pulitzer Prise for his work on this article, and the article should be a must read for everyone in the country. I urge you to find a copy, read it, and pass it on to someone else.
The article exposes the absolute evil of hospital chains like the one here in our town, which, while providing good health care on the one hand, is administratively bent on wringing every penny possible out of each and every patient with the other. This system is not free market based, it is out and out extortion.
Surprisingly, while exposing the medical care industrial complex, the article provides the best explanation I have ever seen of how well Medicare works , and how it can be improved. The article would be well worth reading just for it's insight into medicare.
After reading the article, you might understand how a show like "Breaking Bad" could almost be true.
I've heard a good deal of talk about an article in Time Magazine by Stephen Brill entitled "Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us". This article came out in the March 4, 2013 edition of the magazine, and is a long 38 page expos'e of hospital costs. The article follows the experiences of six patients faced with understanding and coping with their medical bills. Stephen Brill certainly deserves a Pulitzer Prise for his work on this article, and the article should be a must read for everyone in the country. I urge you to find a copy, read it, and pass it on to someone else.
The article exposes the absolute evil of hospital chains like the one here in our town, which, while providing good health care on the one hand, is administratively bent on wringing every penny possible out of each and every patient with the other. This system is not free market based, it is out and out extortion.
Surprisingly, while exposing the medical care industrial complex, the article provides the best explanation I have ever seen of how well Medicare works , and how it can be improved. The article would be well worth reading just for it's insight into medicare.
After reading the article, you might understand how a show like "Breaking Bad" could almost be true.
Friday, March 22, 2013
Michael Steel should abandon the GOP
When Michael Steel Was the national chairman of the Republican Party, I would watch him with disgust as he reiterated whatever talking point the party was pushing that day. It always galls me to see a Republican minority pundit because I generally feel they are just being trotted out as a token spokesperson. The Republicans like a black or Hispanic pundit, they love a black or Hispanic gay Republican, and they would fall all over themselves for a female black or Hispanic gay republican, if they could find one.
Anyway, Steel has now lost his chairmanship, and often appears on MSNBC and other venues as a Republican Pundit. His views have softened a bit, and while still a fiscal conservative, he has taken the blinders off, and is often critical of the far right in his party. I can forgive Michael for being a fiscal conservative, but I cannot accept his support of his party, even though I think I understand his reasoning.
Over my years of keen observation of the human condition, I've noticed that successful people who come from poor beginnings, often lean to the right, and exhibit an intense disdain for others who are not as successful. They tend to believe that their success is solely the result of their own hard work, and that other people are just lazy, and could be wealthy (.IE successful) also, if only they applied themselves.
I suspect that Michael steel is a poster child for this kind of reasoning. I read a bio of him on Wikipedia, and I know that he was raised by his grandmother under very poor conditions, but that he did well in school, and attended good colleges. I suspect he got a lot of lucky breaks along the way.
I've also come to the conclusion that success is in reality, more a combination of lucky breaks than anything else . In this world their are many of kinds of luck. There is the luck of superior intellect, the luck of family money and connections, good looks, charisma, family values, your age when you start school, support from teachers and other mentors, focus, the luck of having ambition, and, most often, the luck of being in the right place at the right time. These things all aid in success, although, I'm mostly talking about the conservative definition of success, which is wealth and power. No one or even two or three of the things I mentioned guarantee's success, but without some combination of the above, success cannot be achieved.
Unfortunately most people in this world are not endowed with any of the lucky traits, or more commonly only a few. Notice also, that many of the traits involve the help of other people, so, so much for the self made man.
I believe Michael Steel is fundamentally a decent man who just needs to do a little self-evaluation. He should disabuse himself of the notion that his success illustrates the character flaws of others. Then he should consider whether he wants to continue being a black foot soldier for the Confederacy in the on going war between the states. Let me explain that outlandish statement to those of you who don't get it.
After the Civil war no self respecting southerner could sink to being a Republican (The party of Lincoln and the abolition of slavery). These Dixiecrat's only began to switch parties during the end of segregation around the time of Kennedy and especially Johnson. If you look at a 2012 red state/blue state election results map, you will notice that the core of the red states are the states of the old Confederacy, with the exception of Virginia which went for President Obama because of the populous I-95 corridor. (It is also interesting to note that an overlay of a map which shows the states that receive more in Federal funds than they pay in taxes, very closely matches the red state voting map.) (Takers not makers)
So Michael, I call on you to secede from the Republican party. You can still be a moderate fiscal conservative Democrat (There are quite a lot of them), or you can become an independent. Believe me, you will feel good about yourself, and the country will be better off.
Anyway, Steel has now lost his chairmanship, and often appears on MSNBC and other venues as a Republican Pundit. His views have softened a bit, and while still a fiscal conservative, he has taken the blinders off, and is often critical of the far right in his party. I can forgive Michael for being a fiscal conservative, but I cannot accept his support of his party, even though I think I understand his reasoning.
Over my years of keen observation of the human condition, I've noticed that successful people who come from poor beginnings, often lean to the right, and exhibit an intense disdain for others who are not as successful. They tend to believe that their success is solely the result of their own hard work, and that other people are just lazy, and could be wealthy (.IE successful) also, if only they applied themselves.
I suspect that Michael steel is a poster child for this kind of reasoning. I read a bio of him on Wikipedia, and I know that he was raised by his grandmother under very poor conditions, but that he did well in school, and attended good colleges. I suspect he got a lot of lucky breaks along the way.
I've also come to the conclusion that success is in reality, more a combination of lucky breaks than anything else . In this world their are many of kinds of luck. There is the luck of superior intellect, the luck of family money and connections, good looks, charisma, family values, your age when you start school, support from teachers and other mentors, focus, the luck of having ambition, and, most often, the luck of being in the right place at the right time. These things all aid in success, although, I'm mostly talking about the conservative definition of success, which is wealth and power. No one or even two or three of the things I mentioned guarantee's success, but without some combination of the above, success cannot be achieved.
Unfortunately most people in this world are not endowed with any of the lucky traits, or more commonly only a few. Notice also, that many of the traits involve the help of other people, so, so much for the self made man.
I believe Michael Steel is fundamentally a decent man who just needs to do a little self-evaluation. He should disabuse himself of the notion that his success illustrates the character flaws of others. Then he should consider whether he wants to continue being a black foot soldier for the Confederacy in the on going war between the states. Let me explain that outlandish statement to those of you who don't get it.
After the Civil war no self respecting southerner could sink to being a Republican (The party of Lincoln and the abolition of slavery). These Dixiecrat's only began to switch parties during the end of segregation around the time of Kennedy and especially Johnson. If you look at a 2012 red state/blue state election results map, you will notice that the core of the red states are the states of the old Confederacy, with the exception of Virginia which went for President Obama because of the populous I-95 corridor. (It is also interesting to note that an overlay of a map which shows the states that receive more in Federal funds than they pay in taxes, very closely matches the red state voting map.) (Takers not makers)
So Michael, I call on you to secede from the Republican party. You can still be a moderate fiscal conservative Democrat (There are quite a lot of them), or you can become an independent. Believe me, you will feel good about yourself, and the country will be better off.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
The New Reality Update
Here's an update to a post I wrote back in December of 2009. I read this story in the Huffington Post this morning, so I copied the image and posted the link below. This is a picture and story about a new women's personal pleasure product, the "Vibrator/Alarm Clock". I think it does a nice job of reinforcing the slightly tongue in cheek point I tried to make. Men, we best watch out, we can be replaced. And by the way, when it comes to sex toys, we seem to be getting the short end of the stick. A while back, I fell asleep on the sofa, and woke up about three in the morning. I'm not sure why my wife didn't wake me up and tell me to come to bed, but I have my suspicions. Anyway, the TV was still on, and here were these four women, setting around a coffee table extolling the virtues of various sex toys. "This one comes in four exciting colors and three sizes." " This one vibrates, pulsates, and ........... rotates. " "You can keep this discrete miniature model in your purse." I'm thinking, it rotates? That's going to be a hard act to follow. Discrete miniature model? Judging from most infomercials, I always assumed that women just have smaller bladders than men, and sometimes need to repair their makeup. Who knew they talk about stuff like this in the middle of the night. This show was on regular cable, not CBS, but not the Girls Gone Wild pay for view either. I think it might have been the Lifetime Network.
Now, before I go on with my next observation, let me say that this may offend some people. Don't worry, I'm an equal opportunity offender, and I promise that if you are not offended now, you will certainly get your chance in some later posting.
I've long had a theory about homosexuality. I have no data or personal experience to back this theory, but here it is anyway. I don't think that men choose to be homosexuals any more than people choose to be left handed or redheaded. However, I'm not so sure that the same can be said for all lesbians. I think that some women, like their male counterparts, don't have any choice in the matter, but, I think that some women consider it a matter of personal choice. I suspect that in general, women tend to be less inhibited than men, so the actual act doesn't seem so unacceptable to them. Plus, it seems that women are more able and willing to form close relationships with other women, where as men tend to be a lot more reserved in their friendships with other men.
The point I'm trying to make is that we men may be about to become redundant. Between the availability of sex toys, and the abundance of other women, we may be becoming a poor third choice. Look at the line up on any TV network. It's one show after another showing men behaving badly, or portrayed as hapless buffoons. Let's face it, we don't have a good record either. We've done everything possible to insure women's subservience to men for thousands of years. We've restricted their dress, their ability to vote, the practice of religion, you name it, we've held them back. But now, at least in this country, women have gained a lot of independence, and they are beginning to exercise their independence. So, watch out, if we don't do a better job, we can be replaced. Here's the link to the new vibrator/alarm clock. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/11/wake-up-vibe-alarm-clock_n_4764599.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology
Now, before I go on with my next observation, let me say that this may offend some people. Don't worry, I'm an equal opportunity offender, and I promise that if you are not offended now, you will certainly get your chance in some later posting.
I've long had a theory about homosexuality. I have no data or personal experience to back this theory, but here it is anyway. I don't think that men choose to be homosexuals any more than people choose to be left handed or redheaded. However, I'm not so sure that the same can be said for all lesbians. I think that some women, like their male counterparts, don't have any choice in the matter, but, I think that some women consider it a matter of personal choice. I suspect that in general, women tend to be less inhibited than men, so the actual act doesn't seem so unacceptable to them. Plus, it seems that women are more able and willing to form close relationships with other women, where as men tend to be a lot more reserved in their friendships with other men.
The point I'm trying to make is that we men may be about to become redundant. Between the availability of sex toys, and the abundance of other women, we may be becoming a poor third choice. Look at the line up on any TV network. It's one show after another showing men behaving badly, or portrayed as hapless buffoons. Let's face it, we don't have a good record either. We've done everything possible to insure women's subservience to men for thousands of years. We've restricted their dress, their ability to vote, the practice of religion, you name it, we've held them back. But now, at least in this country, women have gained a lot of independence, and they are beginning to exercise their independence. So, watch out, if we don't do a better job, we can be replaced. Here's the link to the new vibrator/alarm clock. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/11/wake-up-vibe-alarm-clock_n_4764599.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
