So states Drudge on a developing story. Apparently, this emotional kit is to help people deal with the stress of the financial crisis. Isn't this kind of like an abusive spouse providing you with tips on how to cope with his or her abuse? As Libertarian Harry Browne once said, "Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, "See, if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk."
Update: Fausta's Blog: The government is not here to help.
"Stewart's ex-wife said he had been reaching out recently to family members.."
A man killed 8 people in a nursing home in Carthage, North Carolina Sunday morning, and police have no motive as of yet. What struck me was the information provided by his ex-wife:
Prior to many of these brutal attacks, the perpetrator often tries to reach out to others. Most of the time, no one listens or responds, perhaps with good reason. People want to believe that these attacks "just happen"--and there is nothing anyone can do.
In my experience, this is not true. Anger is sometimes depression and frustration turned outward. If the underlying emotions can be addressed, sometimes tragedy can be averted. I have witnessed this first hand over my career and it is unfortunate that so many people--particularly men--have few places to turn. People are afraid of violent tendencies, especially in men and many fall through the cracks. I am not defending what this man did, for there is no excuse here. But understanding the causes of this type of violence and treating a person prior to a rampage is imperative in stopping it.
While authorities declined to comment on a possible motive, Stewart's ex-wife said he had been reaching out recently to family members, telling them he had cancer and was preparing for a long trip and to "go away." Sue Griffin said she was married to Stewart for 15 years, and while they hadn't spoken since divorcing in 2001, he had been trying to call her during the past week through her son, mother, sister and grandmother.
"He did have some violent tendencies from time to time," Griffin said. "I wouldn't put it past him. I hate to say it, but it is true."
Prior to many of these brutal attacks, the perpetrator often tries to reach out to others. Most of the time, no one listens or responds, perhaps with good reason. People want to believe that these attacks "just happen"--and there is nothing anyone can do.
In my experience, this is not true. Anger is sometimes depression and frustration turned outward. If the underlying emotions can be addressed, sometimes tragedy can be averted. I have witnessed this first hand over my career and it is unfortunate that so many people--particularly men--have few places to turn. People are afraid of violent tendencies, especially in men and many fall through the cracks. I am not defending what this man did, for there is no excuse here. But understanding the causes of this type of violence and treating a person prior to a rampage is imperative in stopping it.
Readership vs. Viewership
Vox Day did a breakdown of various blogs and how many words viewers of a particular blog actually read. Apparently, you all are avid readers!
"It is a society steadily transitioning toward statism."
So says Mark Levin about American government in his new book, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto.
I looked over the book a while back after Glenn received an advanced copy but didn't read it thoroughly due to time constraints. It looked pretty good then but when I saw it was up to #1 on Amazon, I decided to give it a second read. I'm glad I did. For his "Conservative Manifesto" is a wake-up call to all of us who care about individual freedom and resisting the transition to statism.
Mr. Levin gives some thoughts on what conservatives need to be doing. He describes why many conservatives don't become engaged in public matters but explains why it is important to change:
We are already seeing people who have never been politically active taking part in tea parties across the nation. You will often hear that these tea parties "don't matter" but in reality, the tea parties are a "mind hit." That is, they are not what people expect. Lefties form groups and rally--building connections and networks of grassroots activists who can be called on when needed. Conservatives typically stay home. But not anymore. Moms,Dads, business people and others are taking to the streets and forming connections with each other and learning to organize against the statists of the world.
If there is a tea party near you, attend. I plan to.
I looked over the book a while back after Glenn received an advanced copy but didn't read it thoroughly due to time constraints. It looked pretty good then but when I saw it was up to #1 on Amazon, I decided to give it a second read. I'm glad I did. For his "Conservative Manifesto" is a wake-up call to all of us who care about individual freedom and resisting the transition to statism.Mr. Levin gives some thoughts on what conservatives need to be doing. He describes why many conservatives don't become engaged in public matters but explains why it is important to change:
The Conservative must become more engaged in public matters. It is in his nature to live and let live, to attend to his family, to volunteer time with his church and synagogue, and to quietly assist a friend, a neighbor, or even a stranger. These are certainly admirable qualities that contribute to the overall health of the community. But it is no longer enough. The Statist's counterrevolution has turned the instrumentalities of public affairs and public governance against the civil society. They can no longer be left to the devices of the Statist, which is largely the case today.
This will require a new generation of conservative activists, larger in number, shrewder, and more articulate than before, who seek to blunt the Statist's counterrevolution--not imitate it--and gradually and steadily reverse course. More conservatives than before will need to seek elective and appointed office, fill the ranks of administrative state, hold teaching positions in public schools and universities, and find positions in Hollywood and the media where they make a difference in infinite ways. The Statist does not have a birthright ownership to these institutions. The Conservative must fight for them, mold them, and where appropriate, eliminate them where they are destructive to the preservation and improvement of civil society.
We are already seeing people who have never been politically active taking part in tea parties across the nation. You will often hear that these tea parties "don't matter" but in reality, the tea parties are a "mind hit." That is, they are not what people expect. Lefties form groups and rally--building connections and networks of grassroots activists who can be called on when needed. Conservatives typically stay home. But not anymore. Moms,Dads, business people and others are taking to the streets and forming connections with each other and learning to organize against the statists of the world.
If there is a tea party near you, attend. I plan to.
Zonation on PJTV
If you have not checked out AlfonZo Rachel's show, Zonation, on PJTV, do so. He is funny, understands pop culture and is a conservative. His short two minute segments may be amusing, but they are filled with a serious message for conservatives and those on the right. Culture drives politics. If we can change culture, we can change politics. It takes time and effort but Rachel is on the right track.
Take a look at his shows here--they are short, easy to watch and to the point.
Take a look at his shows here--they are short, easy to watch and to the point.
"If you made it yourself,....Why shouldn't you keep it, you made it..."
So says Ayn Rand, in an interview with Phil Donahue (thanks to reader Jeff for the link) when talking about citizens keeping money that they make themselves. Take notice of the audience reaction to Rand's ideas in the clip--people seem to love her. Imagine what would happen if she were on Jon Stewart's show in today's political climate. The boos and hisses would be deafening. Take a listen, it is really interesting:
The double standard of teen "rape"
Reader James (thanks!) emailed a post at Slate that referred to this article from the Daily Beast on "The Teen Rape Double Standard:"
The post from Slate was a response to this article and made the ridiculous argument that cases like this that charge a teen with a felony are okay as long as he is male because he is an aggressor just by lieu of his gender:
Okay, two can play at this game. Experts are always talking about how much more mature teen girls are than boys. If one can use biology as an excuse, then why not use psychology also? Shouldn't a much more mature girl of 17 be held more liable from a psychological standpoint than a boy of 14 since boys are said to lag behind girls socially and emotionally? Isn't it probable that better skills in this area would translate into better persuasion skills to get younger boys to have sex with them? And yes, many young men are harmed by girls and women who force or persuade them against their better wishes to have sex with them.
But I don't believe that sex with one's boyfriend or girlfriend in the teen years is akin to rape, if it is not forced. It is just adolescent sex. But, if the cases are to be charged as rape (and I do not believe they should be)--then they should be tried in a fair manner. Using sex as a basis for charging a person with a felony is a slippery slope to go down. The truth is, currently, boys and men are being punished in our society for their gender as payback by feminists and their enablers, and no one cares except for their families, the men and boys who are harmed by this, and a few good men and women.
After a 17-year-old boy had sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend, he was charged with a felony for statutory rape. When a 17-year-old girl in the same town committed the same crime, she was charged with far less. Was the boy the victim of gender bias?...
The cases caught the attention of the local press, generating a heated debate over whether Alan is being given harsher treatment simply because he is a boy. �After all,� said Purnell, �this isn�t one district attorney in Tennessee and one in New York deciding how to charge these cases. This wasn�t even one district attorney in one county in Wisconsin and another county in Wisconsin. No, this was the same guy who charged these two cases.�
The district attorney�s office refused to comment, but experts say it would not be far-fetched to assume that Alan has been the victim of bias. According to Dr. Marty Klein, author of America's War on Sex,�the double standard is not unusual. It is unusual to find such an extraordinarily clear example of it, but the philosophy behind the phenomenon is very common.�
The post from Slate was a response to this article and made the ridiculous argument that cases like this that charge a teen with a felony are okay as long as he is male because he is an aggressor just by lieu of his gender:
Diaz-Duran asks if the "boy was a victim of gender bias." Certainly it seems that his gender influenced the charge. But maybe that's as it should be. Yes, a 17-year-old female is capable of causing harm to an innocent 14-year-old with her sexuality, just as is her male counterpart. But men tend to be bigger, stronger, and have more parts that they can force into you. That's a crucial difference, and one that explains to some extent why rape laws would (and should) treat the sexes differently.
Okay, two can play at this game. Experts are always talking about how much more mature teen girls are than boys. If one can use biology as an excuse, then why not use psychology also? Shouldn't a much more mature girl of 17 be held more liable from a psychological standpoint than a boy of 14 since boys are said to lag behind girls socially and emotionally? Isn't it probable that better skills in this area would translate into better persuasion skills to get younger boys to have sex with them? And yes, many young men are harmed by girls and women who force or persuade them against their better wishes to have sex with them.
But I don't believe that sex with one's boyfriend or girlfriend in the teen years is akin to rape, if it is not forced. It is just adolescent sex. But, if the cases are to be charged as rape (and I do not believe they should be)--then they should be tried in a fair manner. Using sex as a basis for charging a person with a felony is a slippery slope to go down. The truth is, currently, boys and men are being punished in our society for their gender as payback by feminists and their enablers, and no one cares except for their families, the men and boys who are harmed by this, and a few good men and women.
Vasectomy rates up
Hmmm, this is kind of interesting:
I wonder if when the recession turns around, these men might regret their decision. Perhaps not, many men who get vasectomies generally seem relieved--depending on why they got the vasectomy. Here is a site that has some advice for men considering a vasectomy that looked pretty decent and seemed to indicate that men who thought through their decision felt okay about it. On the other hand, there are books like If It Works, Don't Fix It: What Every Man Should Know Before Having a Vasectomy
that tells the story of a man who had a botched vasectomy but I imagine this is rare. Anyway, if you have an opinion on the topic, share it in the comments.
Doctors around the United States are reporting a sharp increase in the number of vasectomies performed since the economy soured last year, with one noting that many of his clients are from the beleaguered financial industry.
Their best guess is that the trend is due both to a decreased desire to have children because of the expense involved, and an increased desire to get such medical procedures done before their jobs -- and health insurance -- disappear.
Since November, Dr. Marc Goldstein, surgeon-in-chief of male reproductive medicine and surgery at the Cornell Institute for Reproductive Medicine in New York City, said his practice has seen about 48 percent more vasectomy consultations compared to the same time the previous year.
Nearly 50 percent of the patients in 2008 were employed within the financial industry, and more than 36 percent were seen since September, according to unpublished data from the Center for Male Reproductive Medicine and Microsurgery at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center.
I wonder if when the recession turns around, these men might regret their decision. Perhaps not, many men who get vasectomies generally seem relieved--depending on why they got the vasectomy. Here is a site that has some advice for men considering a vasectomy that looked pretty decent and seemed to indicate that men who thought through their decision felt okay about it. On the other hand, there are books like If It Works, Don't Fix It: What Every Man Should Know Before Having a Vasectomy
that tells the story of a man who had a botched vasectomy but I imagine this is rare. Anyway, if you have an opinion on the topic, share it in the comments.
Men are a women's 'issue'
So states Marybeth Hicks in the Washington Times (via Ed Driscoll):
At first, I thought this was a positive piece on men, but no, just a hit piece on how men are pigs and should support women. If Ms. Hicks wonders why men have no interest in a "stable marriage," or commitment, she need only look as far as her own dripping disdain for men and her lack of insight into a culture that holds men responsible, portrays women as victims, and then sets up a "council" to correct a problem that women spend over 30 years in the making. A council on women is about expanding their opportunities. A council on men is about controlling them.
If Mr. Obama wanted to actually do something significant for American's women and girls, he would have created instead a White House Council on Men and Boys.
Just imagine the estrogen-induced response to something so sexist as a council chartered to address the concerns of one gender over another. Oh, wait. That's what this is.
But anyway, his is a council to address the issues of women and girls, so of course it is entirely fair.
Actually, I'm the mother of three girls, and I happen to think Mr. Obama's new council won't win the battle of the sexes. That's because the best thing anyone can do for American women and girls is to encourage men and boys to �man up.�
A council on men and boys would promote stable marriage as the best avenue to improve the lives and living conditions of America's women and families. A council on men and boys would address the crisis in American manhood that results in the scourge of infidelity, divorce, lack of commitment and fatherhood with multiple partners.
At first, I thought this was a positive piece on men, but no, just a hit piece on how men are pigs and should support women. If Ms. Hicks wonders why men have no interest in a "stable marriage," or commitment, she need only look as far as her own dripping disdain for men and her lack of insight into a culture that holds men responsible, portrays women as victims, and then sets up a "council" to correct a problem that women spend over 30 years in the making. A council on women is about expanding their opportunities. A council on men is about controlling them.
Help Save Amy Alkon's column in the Orange County Register
Amy Alkon writes to let me know that her columns, which emphasize fairness to men, will be let go from the Orange County Register unless readers express support for them:
In you are so inclined, write and let them know how you feel or at least click through the link above so that the OC Register will get the gist that the columns are worthwhile. I know I will!
In a world where domestic violence against men is laughed off -- while Mary Winkler blows her husband away and gets away with it...where there's rampant paternity fraud...where men are bled dry in court proceedings that take away access to their children...where men are squeezed out of opportunities (thanks to women-only and minority fellowships in the name of righting discrimination)...where selfish women feel free to become "single mothers by choice," when piles of data show that children need daddies to have a good shot in life...and on and on...I use science and reason -- presented with humor -- to put out a column that is fair to men. In fact, because I'm so outraged by the rampant discrimination I see against men, it's one of my main missions.
With such a dearth of writing out there doing that job, I think that alone is reason my column needs to remain in the Orange County Register.
Two things will save my column:
1. If enough people write to the Register to tell them it's a must-read for them. Write to Life@OCRegister.com
2. If people start reading it online as of Tuesday. The editor has conceded to me that it's been hard to find online (after readers wrote and told me the link was impossible to find).
They've put up a permalink.
More about my column: I work hard to make my column something you can't get anywhere else. I go to the same conferences and read the same journals as Ph.D.'s in psychology, anthropology, and evolutionary psychology. A few of my other big influences: the late Albert Ellis (who was a fan of my work), Nathaniel Branden, John Gottman.
I get piles of mail from OC Reg readers every week, and I think my column is much more popular than they know because people have been reading it in the print edition only since it's been impossible to find online.
If you like and believe in my work, I hope you'll take action to keep my column in the Register -- both by writing to the editor and by starting to read me regularly at the permalink above. All the best,-Amy Alkon, advicegoddess.com
In you are so inclined, write and let them know how you feel or at least click through the link above so that the OC Register will get the gist that the columns are worthwhile. I know I will!
PJTV: Atlas Shrugged continued
PJTV interviews the executive director, Yaron Brook, of the Ayn Rand Institute about Atlas Shrugged,
Rand's philosophy and how it pertains to the current crisis, and "going John Galt."
You can watch the interview here.
Rand's philosophy and how it pertains to the current crisis, and "going John Galt." You can watch the interview here.
"Getting pregnant accidentally on purpose."
A reader emails this article from the Daily Mail about a book, Accidentally on Purpose: A One-Night Stand, My Unplanned Parenthood, and Loving the Best Mistake I Ever Made.
I love the way the author of the article blames men for women's manipulation and irresponsibility:
Sorry, but if a woman plans a "Gotcha pregnancy"--shouldn't she get hit with the "Gotcha child support?" She took the responsiblity to do this, now she should pay for it. And don't give me the baloney about men being involved in the sex and therefore responsible. Men have few or no reproductive rights and were lied to about the birth control. Even if he used a condom and "took responsibility for birth control," a manipulative woman could get the condom out of the trash. I would hope that the man would feel that his child deserved to know him and to be treated well, but that should be his choice, not the state's decision.
The author - single, 39-year-old Mary Pols - got pregnant as a result of unprotected sex on an ill-advised one-night stand, and the book is all about her emotional journey to single mumdom, not to mention her heroic attempts to forge some sort of relationship with the stranger who fathered her child.
In the book, she asks herself whether she conceived 'accidentally on purpose'. The sex in question, she insists, was purely for pleasure. But was there a secret agenda at work?
She was, after all, like the rest of us maturing singletons, in the last-chance saloon as far as her fertility was concerned. True love, marriage and all that was passing her by...
Some of these women approach the task in a far more ruthless manner than Mary Pols did, purposefully going out and sleeping with men when they know they are at their most fertile.
In America, they even have a name for this - they call them 'gotcha' pregnancies. Many of the women involved deliberately avoid birth control and have no intention of letting their unwitting bedfellow know this. ...
I love the way the author of the article blames men for women's manipulation and irresponsibility:
But, seriously, if a man takes a risk like that, he has to face the consequences. The woman, meanwhile, needs to make sure she has unprotected sex with the right kind of man.
Sorry, but if a woman plans a "Gotcha pregnancy"--shouldn't she get hit with the "Gotcha child support?" She took the responsiblity to do this, now she should pay for it. And don't give me the baloney about men being involved in the sex and therefore responsible. Men have few or no reproductive rights and were lied to about the birth control. Even if he used a condom and "took responsibility for birth control," a manipulative woman could get the condom out of the trash. I would hope that the man would feel that his child deserved to know him and to be treated well, but that should be his choice, not the state's decision.
Is Rand relevant?
Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute asks and answers this question in an op-ed in the WSJ:
While many people profess that Rand promotes unhealthy selfishness, that does not appear to be the case according to Brook:
While many people think that others will continue to produce for no other reason than helping others, even if they have to turn over most or all of their earnings to the government, I think we will learn otherwise. Human nature, without a lobotomy, does not change all that much. People will do what is in their interest, though, they will lie through their teeth and tell you otherwise (or do it subconsciously).
Hence, the easy way guys like Geithner talk a good game about how those who are successful must pay more for the greater good, but all the while, cheating on his own taxes. For in our society, claiming to be for the collective is now in vogue. But perhaps the pendulum will swing the other way and the rights of the individual and capitalism will prevail. Crazier things have happened.
Ayn Rand died more than a quarter of a century ago, yet her name appears regularly in discussions of our current economic turmoil. Pundits including Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli urge listeners to read her books, and her magnum opus, "Atlas Shrugged,"
There's a reason. In "Atlas," Rand tells the story of the U.S. economy crumbling under the weight of crushing government interventions and regulations. Meanwhile, blaming greed and the free market, Washington responds with more controls that only deepen the crisis. Sound familiar?
The novel's eerily prophetic nature is no coincidence. "If you understand the dominant philosophy of a society," Rand wrote elsewhere in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal""you can predict its course." Economic crises and runaway government power grabs don't just happen by themselves; they are the product of the philosophical ideas prevalent in a society -- particularly its dominant moral ideas.
While many people profess that Rand promotes unhealthy selfishness, that does not appear to be the case according to Brook:
The message is always the same: "Selfishness is evil; sacrifice for the needs of others is good." But Rand said this message is wrong -- selfishness, rather than being evil, is a virtue. By this she did not mean exploiting others � la Bernie Madoff. Selfishness -- that is, concern with one's genuine, long-range interest -- she wrote, required a man to think, to produce, and to prosper by trading with others voluntarily to mutual benefit.
While many people think that others will continue to produce for no other reason than helping others, even if they have to turn over most or all of their earnings to the government, I think we will learn otherwise. Human nature, without a lobotomy, does not change all that much. People will do what is in their interest, though, they will lie through their teeth and tell you otherwise (or do it subconsciously).
Hence, the easy way guys like Geithner talk a good game about how those who are successful must pay more for the greater good, but all the while, cheating on his own taxes. For in our society, claiming to be for the collective is now in vogue. But perhaps the pendulum will swing the other way and the rights of the individual and capitalism will prevail. Crazier things have happened.
Alec Baldwin: supply-side economist
WSJ: Tax me if you can:
Don't you love the hypocrisy? Small businesses and investors are the bad guys and supposed to pay ever higher tax rates according to liberals like Baldwin, but those in the movie industry think that their work is so worthwhile they should be subsidized by state taxpayers. They say they create jobs so they should have a lower tax rate. Isn't this what small businesses do? What's the difference except that the Hollywood elite think that taxes are for thee and not for me?
And what happened to "spreading the wealth around?" Isn't this the change they voted for?
We're constantly told that taxes don't matter to business and investors, but listen to that noted supply-side economist, Alec Baldwin. The actor recently rebuked New York Governor David Paterson for threatening to try to help close the state's $7 billion budget deficit by canceling a 35% tax credit for films shot in the Big Apple.
"I'm telling you right now," Mr. Baldwin declared, "if these tax breaks are not reinstated into the budget, film production in this town is going to collapse, and television is going to collapse and it's all going to go to California." Well, well. Apparently taxes do matter, at least when it comes to filming "30 Rock" in Manhattan.....
According to the Motion Picture Association of America, nearly 40 states have corporate tax carve outs or generous cash rebates to lure movie studios to their states. In Michigan, producers negotiated a 40% tax credit on their production costs. A bipartisan bill introduced in the Texas legislature last week and supported by Governor Rick Perry would allocate $60 million into the Texas Film Incentive Program. Members of the Screen Actors Guild held a rally last week in front of the state capitol urging the tax breaks.
In some cases these state tax credits exceed a company's tax liabilities, which means that Disney, Dreamworks and others can get a net cash subsidy from state taxpayers. "In many states, today, movie producers actually pay a negative tax," says a Tax Foundation report on the subject.
Don't you love the hypocrisy? Small businesses and investors are the bad guys and supposed to pay ever higher tax rates according to liberals like Baldwin, but those in the movie industry think that their work is so worthwhile they should be subsidized by state taxpayers. They say they create jobs so they should have a lower tax rate. Isn't this what small businesses do? What's the difference except that the Hollywood elite think that taxes are for thee and not for me?
And what happened to "spreading the wealth around?" Isn't this the change they voted for?
Blogger Don Surber asks, "Ok, what if doctors decide to go John Galt?" in a post today. He is referring to doctors in Britain who are being forced to cut their hours. This is not the same as "going Galt" where people do it purposely to reduce the tax burden, of course, but it should give us an example of what is to come should doctors and other professionals decide to "go Galt."
I have talked with people who say that some emergency room doctors are thinking of reducing their hours should taxes be raised and deductions reduced. One remarked, "Let some other sucker out there take over." I even heard one doctor looking forward to nationalized healthcare so he could work less. We should look to Britain to see how well a reduction of doctor's hours will go over for their health care system. Not well, I expect.
I have talked with people who say that some emergency room doctors are thinking of reducing their hours should taxes be raised and deductions reduced. One remarked, "Let some other sucker out there take over." I even heard one doctor looking forward to nationalized healthcare so he could work less. We should look to Britain to see how well a reduction of doctor's hours will go over for their health care system. Not well, I expect.
Don't dismiss the views of a new generation
The Boston Globe has an article today pointing out a survey that shows many Boston teens say Rihanna is at fault for the assault by Chris Brown. I haven't really followed the story much--seems that those in the music business are always fighting, e.g. take a look at Amy Winehouse who admits instigating violence against her boyfriend. I do think that one of the comments following this article made a valid point:
Naturally, the article talks about how health groups are concerned that the Boston teens say that both of the participants were at fault. Maybe they should take that as a sign and help both genders understand that reciprocal violence can lead to injury and problems for both concerned, rather than just tell women they are victims, and men, the perpetrators.
SHE STARTED THE FIGHT AND SHE HIT HIM, GAVE HIM A FAT LIP. IF THE GENDERS WERE REVERSED, SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FIGHTING FOR SELF DEFENSE. THEY ARE BOTH GUILTY. THE IDEA THAT THE MALE HAS TO BE GUILTY IS PART OF THE PROBLEM WITH DV LAW TODAY - THE ONE SIZE FITS ALL APPROACH TO ALL VIOLENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS WERE THE MAN IS ALWAYS GUILTY AND THE WOMEN IS ALWAYS THE VICTIM. FEMINIST THEORY MAKES BAD LAW. THERE ARE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN ACROSS THIS COUNTRY WHO HAVE BEEN ATTACKED BY THESE BIASED HATE LAWS. by PJ1 March 13, 10:55 AM
Naturally, the article talks about how health groups are concerned that the Boston teens say that both of the participants were at fault. Maybe they should take that as a sign and help both genders understand that reciprocal violence can lead to injury and problems for both concerned, rather than just tell women they are victims, and men, the perpetrators.
John Hawkins at RWN has an interview up with Adam Shepard, author of Scratch Beginnings: Me, $25, and the Search for the American Dream.
Glenn and I did a podcast with Mr. Shepard last year and his story is a really fascinating one of personal responsibility and grit.
Glenn and I did a podcast with Mr. Shepard last year and his story is a really fascinating one of personal responsibility and grit.
"Greedy bastard" or selfish?
Colbert talked about "going John Galt" on his show last night (about three minutes in). Naturally he makes fun of it, and does not seem to understand it from either a moral perspective, or as a form of protest. However, at least it is getting some attention. And as threatened as left-leaning types seem to be by the term, it must really strike a chord. It strikes me as odd that if you work and make money, you're a selfish bastard and if you stop working hard and making money, you're a selfish bastard. Which is it?
PJTV: "Going Galt" around the country
Today, econoblogger Megan McArdle from the Atlantic comes on to discuss "going John Galt," Atlas Shrugged,
and why the Obama administration needs to be humble in their approach to the economic crisis. I then talk with some citizens from around the country--from Virginia, Ohio, and California--about their "Going Galt" experiences. Find out what others are doing and hear their suggestions and feelings on the bailouts, tax increases and more (currently free with no registration required). You can watch here.
Why?
I cringed when I saw today's headline on Drudge linking to this story about a man in Alabama who killed nine people and then himself in a rampage:
I can only imagine that this man was seething with anger and wonder what led up to the events. What was going on in this man's mind that he felt these horrible actions were his only way out? Had he been fired from his job at the metal plant? Did he have emotional problems that were not being addressed? Could this have been prevented? I realize that many people don't care about this man's thought process but as a psychologist, I can't help but wonder...
A gunman on a terrifying rampage across two southern Alabama counties killed at least nine people Tuesday, including members of his own family and apparent strangers, and burned down his mother's home before shooting himself at a metals plant, authorities said.
Police were investigating shootings in at least four different locations in several communities, all of which were believed to be the work of a single gunman who had not yet been identified by investigators.
I can only imagine that this man was seething with anger and wonder what led up to the events. What was going on in this man's mind that he felt these horrible actions were his only way out? Had he been fired from his job at the metal plant? Did he have emotional problems that were not being addressed? Could this have been prevented? I realize that many people don't care about this man's thought process but as a psychologist, I can't help but wonder...
"How can we live in a world where the losers in high school are, well, losers for life?"
So asks Cliff Mason at CNBC after reflecting on a new study written about by Steven Levitt, co-author of Freakonomics, 
which says that popular kids make more money in life:
Really, seems to me the "jerks in the polo shirts" (at least the ones in and appointed by the White House) were the nerds...
which says that popular kids make more money in life:Here's his summation of the results:
"They find that each extra close friend in high school is associated with earnings that are 2 percent higher later in life after controlling for other factors. While not a huge effect, it does suggest that either that A) the same factors that make you popular in high school help you in a job setting, or B) that high-school friends can do you favors later in life that will earn you higher wages."
Come on, you've gotta be kidding me.
I thought the geeks were supposed to inherit the earth.
What happened to Revenge of the Nerds? .....
We need some more evidence here. I can't let this stand. How can we live in a world where the losers in high school are, well, losers for life? Man, that's depressing. And the people with lots of close friends who were on the football team?
They get to win?
If "the same factors that make you popular in high school help you in a job setting," it's no wonder we're headed for a repeat of the great depression. We gave the jerks in the polo shirts the keys to the economy.
Really, seems to me the "jerks in the polo shirts" (at least the ones in and appointed by the White House) were the nerds...
Atlas Shrugged makes a comeback
Sales of Atlas Shrugged are up, according to the National Post (via Newsalert):
Perhaps Rand will do for reading what J.K. Rowling did.
are up, according to the National Post (via Newsalert):Banks, automakers and overextended homeowners aren't the only ones who've been helped by massive government bailout packages. Sales of the Libertarian classic Atlas Shrugged have apparently surged and are apparently triple what they were this time last year according to one Libertarian think tank.
The book even cracked the top 40 on Amazon's bestsellers list, briefly besting Barack Obama's memoir The Audacity of Hope.
The Economist tellingly points out that Rand's book seems to do well whenever the government stages massive interventions in the economy:...
Perhaps Rand will do for reading what J.K. Rowling did.
Interesting blog
I recently received an email from Kathleen R. LaBounty who was the woman interviewed in the Houston Press about being a sperm donor child that I mentioned in a previous post "Are you my father?" She let me know that she has a blog, Child of a Stranger: Conception Through Anonymous Sperm Donation that is full of information about what it is like to be the sperm donor child of an anonymous donor:
I especially found this post intriguing.
I am the child of a stranger, produced through an anonymous sperm donation. Despite writing all 600 men from my donor's former medical school yearbooks, receiving 250 responses, and going through 16 DNA tests, I have yet to find my missing family. While many other countries banned anonymous donations by the late 1980s to early 1990s and instead only use donors willing to release their identity, anonymous egg and sperm donations are still allowed and frequently practiced in the United States.
I especially found this post intriguing.
Clemson University has a summer conference on Atlas Shrugged for undergrads that sounds good: The Clemson Institute for Capitalism is proud to announce the theme of our 2009 Student Summer Conference, "Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and the Moral Foundations of Capitalism."
for undergrads that sounds good: The Clemson Institute for Capitalism is proud to announce the theme of our 2009 Student Summer Conference, "Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and the Moral Foundations of Capitalism."
The meme grows....
David Weigel at the Washington Independent interviewed me for an article on "going John Galt":
You can read the whole thing here.
�Do you ever wonder,� wrote Dr. Helen Smith, �after dealing with all that is going on with the economy and the upcoming election, if it�s getting to be time to �go John Galt?��
It is October 12, 2008 and inspired by Barack Obama�s curbside debate with Joe the Plumber � and the likelihood of his election to the presidency � Smith, a forensic psychologist in Knoxville, Tenn., was tossing the readers of her blog a serious question. It had been years since she had read �Atlas Shrugged.� �I had to refresh my memory with the Cliffs Notes,� she said on Thursday in an interview. But the themes of Ayn Rand�s 1957 novel, and the themes of the climactic 40-page speech by self-imposed social outcast �John Galt�, had stuck with her.
The themes had stuck with her readers, too....
You can read the whole thing here.
What cities are the most "manly" in America?
Apparently, if you are a man, the most manly city is Nashville and the least manly is New York (via Newsalert):
Having spent much time in both places, I must concur. What do you think?
Step aside men of Motown, Sin City and the Big Apple. Nashville now ranks as the manliest city in America. Mars Snackfood US announced today the release of "America's Manliest Cities" - a study commissioned by COMBOS(R) Brand in partnership with Bert Sperling, the research expert behind the popular "Best Places to Live" studies.
Via the "America's Manliest Cities" study, COMBOS(R) - the hearty, pretzel and cracker snack made with real cheese - examines what makes a city manly and then ranks 50 major metropolitan areas using criteria such as number of professional major league sports teams, popularity of tools and hardware and frequency of monster truck rallies. Cities also lose ranking points for emasculating characteristics like the abundance of home furnishing stores, high minivan sales and subscription rates to beauty magazines.
Having spent much time in both places, I must concur. What do you think?
Looking for John Galt
We need guests for an upcoming show on PJTV on "going John Galt." I will be interviewing those of you who going John Galt in some way that you could talk about, cutting back your business, starting a vegetable garden, or some creative way (that is legal, of course). If you want to be interviewed, email JohnGalt@PJTV.com
PJTV: The growing rift between men and women
My guest on PJTV today is Dr. Richard Driscoll, a clinical psychologist who just wrote a new book, You Still Don't Understand.
The book and our discussion look at why relationships between men and women are becoming briefer, less satisfying and increasingly bitter. This is not the typical PC fare, but a deeper analysis of the importance of fathers, why men are intimidated by angry women, why that needs to change and much more. Don't miss it. You can watch here.
Update: Some of you have complained in the comments that there is registration and subscription required. I should have mentioned that the first 1500 views were free and it changed to subcription after that. Sorry, if it changes, I will post an update.
"Going Galt" continued...
Michelle Malkin has a thought- provoking article at Townhall up today entitled, "Going Galt: America's Wealth Producers vs. Wealth Redistributors:"
"Going Galt" isn't just about reducing taxable income, it is about getting involved politically. Many people are now carrying signs saying "Atlas will Shrug" or making references to John Galt. A small group can become a movement....
Enough. Last Friday, thousands of Americans turned out to protest reckless government spending in the pork-laden stimulus package, the earmark-clogged budget bill, the massive mortgage-entitlement program and taxpayer-funded corporate rescues. Contrary to false left-wing blog smears that the hastily planned impromptu events were "Astro-turfed," the crowds were packed with first-time grassroots activists. They were people with families and day jobs whose usual definition of "community organizing" involves neighborhood yard sales or their kids' soccer matches. They were members of the silent majority who decided to be silent no more.
"Going Galt" isn't just about reducing taxable income, it is about getting involved politically. Many people are now carrying signs saying "Atlas will Shrug" or making references to John Galt. A small group can become a movement....
"Dodging" is for Tim Geithner, not for honest Americans
I love the negative spin by ABC news when they pose a question to readers about Obama's proposed tax increase on those making over $250,000 (via Michelle Malkin) :
Last time I looked, involuntary servitude was outlawed by the Thirteenth Amendment (but maybe not for long!). No one in the US (yet) can be forced to work just so they can keep paying money to the government and programs they may not want to support. I remember reading an article about an artist who decided to cut back on his hours and live on almost nothing because he did not want to pay taxes to support the war in Iraq under Bush. The article never questioned whether what this man was doing was "fair" or constituted "dodging" taxes.
Now the tables are turned and there are Americans who do not want to support Obama's socialist agenda or who simply do not want to work more for less and less money.
It is their right. We must fight to keep it that way.
Lawyers, dentists and entrepreneurs are among some high-earning professionals brainstorming ways to decrease their pay to dodge [my emphasis] a proposed tax increase on incomes over $250,000.
Is it fair for people to reduce high salaries to sidestep President Obama's tax proposal?
Last time I looked, involuntary servitude was outlawed by the Thirteenth Amendment (but maybe not for long!). No one in the US (yet) can be forced to work just so they can keep paying money to the government and programs they may not want to support. I remember reading an article about an artist who decided to cut back on his hours and live on almost nothing because he did not want to pay taxes to support the war in Iraq under Bush. The article never questioned whether what this man was doing was "fair" or constituted "dodging" taxes.
Now the tables are turned and there are Americans who do not want to support Obama's socialist agenda or who simply do not want to work more for less and less money.
It is their right. We must fight to keep it that way.
Are you my father?
Remember the kid's book, Are You My Mother?
where a confused baby bird tries to find its mother? Now, the UK will have even more confused kids asking, "Are you my father?" Reader Chris emailed this Daily Mail story entitled, "Another blow to fatherhood: IVF mothers can name ANYONE as 'father' on birth certificate." Get a load of this:
Isn't this more than a little confusing? What is the child going to think when he or she grows up and finds out that mom just stuck any old name on his or her birth certificate? I was recently reading an article in the Houston Press on the feelings of children of anonymous sperm donors and found that they already have a host of psychological issues: feelings of loss, not knowing where they came from, feeling robbed of half of their medical history, family and identity. The feelings were summed up by a sperm donor child called Kathleen: "I look in the mirror," she says, "and I don't know whose face is reflected back."
How can these new UK regulations do anything to help kids? At least in the book above, the baby bird happily found its real mother. It sounds like the real life babies in the UK will now have an even harder time finding dad.
where a confused baby bird tries to find its mother? Now, the UK will have even more confused kids asking, "Are you my father?" Reader Chris emailed this Daily Mail story entitled, "Another blow to fatherhood: IVF mothers can name ANYONE as 'father' on birth certificate." Get a load of this:Family values were under attack again last night with the news that single women having IVF will be able to name anyone they like as their baby's father on the birth certificate.
New regulations mean that a mother could nominate another woman to be her child's 'father'.
The 'father' does not need to be genetically related to the baby, nor be in any sort of romantic relationship with the mother.
Isn't this more than a little confusing? What is the child going to think when he or she grows up and finds out that mom just stuck any old name on his or her birth certificate? I was recently reading an article in the Houston Press on the feelings of children of anonymous sperm donors and found that they already have a host of psychological issues: feelings of loss, not knowing where they came from, feeling robbed of half of their medical history, family and identity. The feelings were summed up by a sperm donor child called Kathleen: "I look in the mirror," she says, "and I don't know whose face is reflected back."
How can these new UK regulations do anything to help kids? At least in the book above, the baby bird happily found its real mother. It sounds like the real life babies in the UK will now have an even harder time finding dad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)