Long viewed as payment for life, divorce settlements are facing strict new limits as some ex-spouses�primarily men�protest the endless support of a former partner. For richer, for poorer, forever?
Amy Alkon: on Mira Sorvino's Stinky T-Shirt:
Amy lets the writer of the email in on a little secret (sure, one that everyone should know, but pretend not to)--her stats are false. See Amy's response here.
On a superficial note, I am not a "gal pal," nor do I have "gal pals," and if I did, I'd be too busy throwing up to have much contact with them. Got this icky-toned e-mail last month, and I was a bit behind due to book-related stuff, so I'm only posting it now:
Subject: Re: Mira Sorvino Wants You To Tell a Gal P.A.L.
In a message dated 9/30/09 3:40:25 PM, Jamie.Dammrich@zenogroup.com writes:
Hi Amy,
As gal pals, we talk about everything. Yet there's one subject that often goes unsaid - domestic violence. Did you know that one in four women reports being abused by a husband or partner in her lifetime?....
Amy lets the writer of the email in on a little secret (sure, one that everyone should know, but pretend not to)--her stats are false. See Amy's response here.
"...the only way to assert your human dignity is to walk away."
Stuart Schneiderman: Is America Going John Galt?:
They do not know and do not care that the productive human beings who make the economy run are about to walk away from it all. They are not seeing things in terms of human beings and in terms of policies that might or might not work. They are seeing a golden opportunity to right what they perceive as a decades-old wrong. They are not going to miss the chance.
So,the new governing class is constantly attacking the productive class, vilifying them, disrespecting them, doing everything possible to lower their status. When someone is taking away the fruits of your labor and using you as their whipping boy the only way to assert your human dignity is to walk away.
Maybe men "should take back the night"
I found it sort of (okay, really) ironic after reading a news article about University of Tennessee women at a "Take back the night" rally to highlight violence against women that two of the stories linked to this story were about....women's violence against men.
In the first story, a teacher is arrested with the statutory rape of a male student:
In the second news story, a woman is just now serving time (not much) for shooting her boyfriend through the head in 2005:
This murderer will have to serve only 35 percent of the 10 year prison sentence. I understand this is due to a technicality but 10 years wasn't much to begin with. And I wonder how this murder was counted? As a woman murdering a man? As some lesser crime due to it being voluntary manslaughter? Was it entered in the national data base at all as a woman killing a man?
Maybe it's time men who have been affected by female sexual and physical violence to"take back the night" but that will never happen. Men will rarely stand up for themselves and society sees their lives as expendable, especially when taken by a woman. Men will continue to be abused and will suffer or die in silence, or with the frequent sneer that "he deserved it."
Update: Here is yet another story linked from the same news site (WVLT) about a woman who killed her boyfriend (Good grief, how many are there?). Naturally, she again got only voluntary manslaughter and here is what she served:
In May 2008, the defendant pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter in that case and was sentenced to three years in prison as a standard offender. According to her sentencing report, she was to serve 120 days in the county jail in 20-day increments -- with the remainder of her sentence as supervised probation.
Women just say the word, "domestic violence" and they are given a pass for killing, as in this case. When women's groups shout non-stop about domestic violence and violence against women, they plant the seeds in the culture that men are never victims. This is not true but people listen, despite evidence to the contrary.
Update II: DADvocate points out another case where a woman stabbed her husband 193 times, gets 25 years and has the verdict overturned (via Althouse blog). The case sounded familiar and I realized it was that of Susan Wright, one of the women profiled on the Oxygen show "Snapped" that I was on as an expert in 2004. The show is coming to the Biography channel soon according to a promo. That's the thing about cable. The shows are recycled forever.
In the first story, a teacher is arrested with the statutory rape of a male student:
FENTRESS COUNTY, Tenn. (WVLT) -- The Fentress County Grand Jury has indicted a high school teacher for allegedly having sex with a 16-year-old student.
Lindsey Seymour, 27 of Allardt turned herself in to Fentress County authorities on Thursday afternoon. She was officially charged with eight counts of statutory rape.
Seymour allegedly had the sexual encounters with the male student between June 2009 and September 2009. In late September, the teen�s parents complained to the district attorney about the contact.
In the second news story, a woman is just now serving time (not much) for shooting her boyfriend through the head in 2005:
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (WVLT) � The Blount County woman who gunned down her live-in boyfriend in June 2005 will begin serving her sentence on Monday.
April Jennifer Warren, 38 pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter on April 8th, 2008. According to police, she killed Charles Russell, 32 with a single shotgun blast to his head following an argument in their home on June 13th, 2005. Court records indicated she was performing CPR on Russell when police arrived on the scene.
Warren was sentenced to 10 years in prison on May 28th, 2008, but later appealed when it came out that Judge Mike Meares had contacted the family of the victim about the verdict. After sentencing Warren, Judge Meares apparently told Russell�s family that he gave her the maximum penalty with them in mind and asked that they support him in his upcoming election.
This murderer will have to serve only 35 percent of the 10 year prison sentence. I understand this is due to a technicality but 10 years wasn't much to begin with. And I wonder how this murder was counted? As a woman murdering a man? As some lesser crime due to it being voluntary manslaughter? Was it entered in the national data base at all as a woman killing a man?
Maybe it's time men who have been affected by female sexual and physical violence to"take back the night" but that will never happen. Men will rarely stand up for themselves and society sees their lives as expendable, especially when taken by a woman. Men will continue to be abused and will suffer or die in silence, or with the frequent sneer that "he deserved it."
Update: Here is yet another story linked from the same news site (WVLT) about a woman who killed her boyfriend (Good grief, how many are there?). Naturally, she again got only voluntary manslaughter and here is what she served:
In May 2008, the defendant pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter in that case and was sentenced to three years in prison as a standard offender. According to her sentencing report, she was to serve 120 days in the county jail in 20-day increments -- with the remainder of her sentence as supervised probation.
Women just say the word, "domestic violence" and they are given a pass for killing, as in this case. When women's groups shout non-stop about domestic violence and violence against women, they plant the seeds in the culture that men are never victims. This is not true but people listen, despite evidence to the contrary.
Update II: DADvocate points out another case where a woman stabbed her husband 193 times, gets 25 years and has the verdict overturned (via Althouse blog). The case sounded familiar and I realized it was that of Susan Wright, one of the women profiled on the Oxygen show "Snapped" that I was on as an expert in 2004. The show is coming to the Biography channel soon according to a promo. That's the thing about cable. The shows are recycled forever.
I talked to WVLT-TV here in Knoxville about the Christian/Newsom case and what it might feel like to be a father in that court room.
You can see the video here. Or below.
You can see the video here. Or below.
PJM column: Obama and His Good Ol� Boys
I have a column up at PJM about Obama's all-male athletic outings:
You can read it here.
Golf without women present? Alert the media!
You can read it here.
John Hawkins has an interview up with Robert Spencer, the author of a new book, The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran.
Kids and pop culture, men's issues and domestic violence
I talked about all of these issues today on George Korda's show "State Your Case" on NewsTalk 100 WNOX in Knoxville from 12:00 until 1:00. Callers called in to talk about the unfairness of the courts, their divorce and/or the treatment of men in the media. It made for an interesting afternoon and made me realize how many more resources are needed out there to provide men with a platform for some of their concerns.
Obama to tax ICDs, pacemakers
I just read this story over at The Hill:
Funny, I just now finished reading physician David Gratzer's new book,Why Obama's Government Takeover of Health Care Will Be a Disaster
which states that if Barack Obama has his way, the American health care system is headed for a train wreck. The train wreck is here, folks, and if we don't continue to fight back, those of us with severe medical problems will pay the price.
The more the fiscal details of the healthcare bills emerge, the more appalling they seem. The Senate Finance Committee bill includes a broad provision taxing all manner of medical devices. This tax includes such frivolous luxuries as pacemakers, stents, artificial heart valves, defibrillators, automated wheelchairs, mechanized artificial limbs, replacement hips and knees, surgical gurneys, laparoscopic equipment and the like.
Funny, I just now finished reading physician David Gratzer's new book,Why Obama's Government Takeover of Health Care Will Be a Disaster
which states that if Barack Obama has his way, the American health care system is headed for a train wreck. The train wreck is here, folks, and if we don't continue to fight back, those of us with severe medical problems will pay the price.
Is shouting the new spanking?
The New York Times has an article about shouting being the new spanking (via Instapundit):
Call in the troops, 88% of parents in a study dared to shout or yell at a kid at least once in a previous year. Does anyone out there find the extreme concern over this behavior by parents concerning itself? While yelling or shouting in an inconsistent manner is not a good way to discipline, yelling to show displeasure once in a while is hardly a sin. Screaming just to scream is not helpful but asking in an angry tone why a child did something wrong seems, well...normal. A parent's displeasure can sometimes teach little Jane or Johnnie how to act--and sometimes, gasp! that might call for a displeased tone.
Spanking is considered child abuse, now shouting is frowned upon. Is there anything parents can do to correct their child that places like the New York Times don't despise, besides timeout which merely teaches a child that hitting his or her sibling gets the same lame punishment as making a mess on the floor?
Update: The Last Psychiatrist has more on Shouting vs. Spanking.
One study that did take a look at the topic � a paper on the �psychological aggression by American parents� published in the Journal of Marriage and Family in 2003 � found that parental yelling was a near-universal occurrence. Of 991 families interviewed, in 88 percent of them a parent acknowledged shouting, screaming or yelling at the kids at least once (though it didn�t specify how many did it more often) in the previous year.
�We are so accustomed to this that we just think parents get carried away and that it�s not harmful,� said one of the study�s lead authors, Murray A. Straus, a sociologist who is a director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire. �But it affects a child. If someone yelled at you at work, you�d find that pretty jarring. We don�t apply that standard to children.�
Call in the troops, 88% of parents in a study dared to shout or yell at a kid at least once in a previous year. Does anyone out there find the extreme concern over this behavior by parents concerning itself? While yelling or shouting in an inconsistent manner is not a good way to discipline, yelling to show displeasure once in a while is hardly a sin. Screaming just to scream is not helpful but asking in an angry tone why a child did something wrong seems, well...normal. A parent's displeasure can sometimes teach little Jane or Johnnie how to act--and sometimes, gasp! that might call for a displeased tone.
Spanking is considered child abuse, now shouting is frowned upon. Is there anything parents can do to correct their child that places like the New York Times don't despise, besides timeout which merely teaches a child that hitting his or her sibling gets the same lame punishment as making a mess on the floor?
Update: The Last Psychiatrist has more on Shouting vs. Spanking.
Some good news...
Trudy Schuett: Shreveport Times recognizes domestic violence is not a gender issue.
David Harsanyi: "...if this administration can't handle one cable station's opposition, what does that tell the American people about its mettle on issues that matter?"
Is modern man a wimp?
That's a resounding "yes" according to Australian anthropologist Peter McAllister:
It seems to me that living longer and developing the technology to lead a better life than a Neanderthal means that modern humans are hardly wimps. It depends how one defines the term.
LONDON (Reuters) - Many prehistoric Australian aboriginals could have outrun world 100 and 200 meters record holder Usain Bolt in modern conditions.
Some Tutsi men in Rwanda exceeded the current world high jump record of 2.45 meters during initiation ceremonies in which they had to jump at least their own height to progress to manhood.
Any Neanderthal woman could have beaten former bodybuilder and current California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in an arm wrestle.
These and other eye-catching claims are detailed in a book by Australian anthropologist Peter McAllister entitled "Manthropology" and provocatively sub-titled "The Science of the Inadequate Modern Male."
It seems to me that living longer and developing the technology to lead a better life than a Neanderthal means that modern humans are hardly wimps. It depends how one defines the term.
Would you show up to support prostate cancer?
Jeff Jarvis talks about what it is like to have prostate cancer (via Althouse):
Honestly, I don't think it's too much information (TMI). I think men don't talk about these health issues and they get overlooked. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that.
I recently was in a local spa and they were raving about doing services for breast cancer awareness week that were donated to that cause. I applauded them but asked if they would be doing anything for prostate cancer. "Sure!" said the owner. Just let us know when." The problem is that no one takes up much of a cause for prostate cancer but I think it is partly because men wouldn't show up. Women all over had organized the spa event and made it a success. I realize that men would need something more than a spa event.
What would it take to get you to show up and help support the cause?
You may not want to read this post. It defines TMI. But in the interest of continuing to chronicle the saga of my prostate cancer � for the benefit, I hope, of those who follow � the time has come to write about my penis. Specifically, what it doesn�t do.
Incontinence and impotence are two frightening words for a grown man but they are the side-effects of removing the prostate and its cancer with it. Worth the price, or at least that�s the calculation one makes beforehand: Cancer or erections? Cancer or dry underwear? Cancer loses.
Honestly, I don't think it's too much information (TMI). I think men don't talk about these health issues and they get overlooked. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that.
I recently was in a local spa and they were raving about doing services for breast cancer awareness week that were donated to that cause. I applauded them but asked if they would be doing anything for prostate cancer. "Sure!" said the owner. Just let us know when." The problem is that no one takes up much of a cause for prostate cancer but I think it is partly because men wouldn't show up. Women all over had organized the spa event and made it a success. I realize that men would need something more than a spa event.
What would it take to get you to show up and help support the cause?
How important is charisma?
This morning, I started reading a new book, The Presentation Secrets of Steve Jobs: How to Be Insanely Great in Front of Any Audience
after noticing the title. The book is written by Carmine Gallow, a columnist at Businessweek.com. I like reading anything that improves my communication skills, so I thought I would give it a try.
But rather than sifting through the book to learn how to give a better presentation, I focused on one paragraph describing "charisma" and I decided to share my thoughts (more like free associations) with you. The paragraph is as follows:
I have been thinking about the quality of "charisma" lately and I really have more questions than answers. What sets some people apart from others? What is it about some people that commands better treatment, more people listening to them and a higher level of social status? Is it charisma or some other trait or appearance?
But more importantly, why do some people attribute others with charisma with supernatural or superhuman powers when they are only....human? I believe it is dangerous to attribute human beings with exceptional powers, for none are deserving of this. It's great that Jobs develops so many great products that help the world but that only makes him a human being who makes good products, not a god.
My husband says that perhaps this trait, to see people as superhuman and charismatic is genetic and like all things genetic, there are variations. But then how do we break those people who see political leaders and others as godlike when they are anything but? Sure, charisma can sometimes be a positive force, but it can also be a very dangerous one, getting people to go along with a con artist, a narcissist, or a psychopath. What if some people can't tell the difference?
after noticing the title. The book is written by Carmine Gallow, a columnist at Businessweek.com. I like reading anything that improves my communication skills, so I thought I would give it a try.But rather than sifting through the book to learn how to give a better presentation, I focused on one paragraph describing "charisma" and I decided to share my thoughts (more like free associations) with you. The paragraph is as follows:
What you'll learn is that Jobs is a magnetic pitchman who sells his ideas with a flair that turns prospects into customers and customers into evangelists. He has charisma, defined by the German sociologist, Max Weber as "a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary people and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities." Jobs has become superhuman among his most loyal fans. But Weber got one thing wrong. Weber believed that charisma was not "accessible to the ordinary person." Once you learn exactly how Jobs crafts and delivers one of his famous presentations, you will realize that these exceptional powers are available to you as well....
I have been thinking about the quality of "charisma" lately and I really have more questions than answers. What sets some people apart from others? What is it about some people that commands better treatment, more people listening to them and a higher level of social status? Is it charisma or some other trait or appearance?
But more importantly, why do some people attribute others with charisma with supernatural or superhuman powers when they are only....human? I believe it is dangerous to attribute human beings with exceptional powers, for none are deserving of this. It's great that Jobs develops so many great products that help the world but that only makes him a human being who makes good products, not a god.
My husband says that perhaps this trait, to see people as superhuman and charismatic is genetic and like all things genetic, there are variations. But then how do we break those people who see political leaders and others as godlike when they are anything but? Sure, charisma can sometimes be a positive force, but it can also be a very dangerous one, getting people to go along with a con artist, a narcissist, or a psychopath. What if some people can't tell the difference?
"Human nature does not reform itself via such milquetoast and good intentions."
Binky over at the Free Canuckistan! blog has an insightful post on schools and "pointy dangerous owwies" (scroll down). Here is what he tells his kids about the real world:
PC types often forget that the real world is different from the utopia that they envision. We can wish that the world was full of ponies and pretty flowers (actually, I don't, that sounds really boring), but the reality is, someone who wants to do harm others will not be stopped by all the PC nonsense. In fact, it will be seen by those who are potentially dangerous as hypocrisy and stupidity. Maybe teaching kids how to be responsible for their actions by demonstrating that adults are responsible for theirs would be a start.
Update: Thanks to the commenters who pointed out that I incorrectly attributed the above post to Mark Steyn rather than the blogger who writes the Free Canuckistan!blog. It's now corrected.
I tell them to defend themselves and others as needed, and to hit back, ask questions later. The bizarro world of the 2009 politically correct school-yard means you get anti-bullying lectures and pledges and coloured rubber bracelets.. but look out in the schoolyard, because you�ll still get you�re ass kicked when the teachers are out of view. Human nature does not reform itself via such milquetoast and good intentions. It�s 'The Dangerous Book for Boys,'real world.
PC types often forget that the real world is different from the utopia that they envision. We can wish that the world was full of ponies and pretty flowers (actually, I don't, that sounds really boring), but the reality is, someone who wants to do harm others will not be stopped by all the PC nonsense. In fact, it will be seen by those who are potentially dangerous as hypocrisy and stupidity. Maybe teaching kids how to be responsible for their actions by demonstrating that adults are responsible for theirs would be a start.
Update: Thanks to the commenters who pointed out that I incorrectly attributed the above post to Mark Steyn rather than the blogger who writes the Free Canuckistan!blog. It's now corrected.
When I read cases like the one in the New York Times about six year old Zachary being suspended and now facing 45 days in the district�s reform school, I no longer blink an eye. It's not that I don't care. It's just that the truth is that no one really gives a damn about school violence and focuses instead on innocent kids like Zachary who did nothing wrong. The authorities will use the Zacharys of the world to show that they are doing something about violence when in reality, they are doing anything but.
I learned a long time ago in working with hundreds of troubled kids and their schools that school authorities do not want to be responsible for the real trouble-makers and do not want to take the time to teach kids about consequences. Instead, they trot out "zero tolerance" so they don't have to think. Teaching kids how to be decent human beings is hard and requires long periods of time and dedication. Zero tolerance is easy and mostly, ineffective. In a bureaucracy where no one wants to take responsibility and make decisions they may be held accountable for, guess which path they take?
Update: As one of the commenters pointed out, Zachary is back in school.
I learned a long time ago in working with hundreds of troubled kids and their schools that school authorities do not want to be responsible for the real trouble-makers and do not want to take the time to teach kids about consequences. Instead, they trot out "zero tolerance" so they don't have to think. Teaching kids how to be decent human beings is hard and requires long periods of time and dedication. Zero tolerance is easy and mostly, ineffective. In a bureaucracy where no one wants to take responsibility and make decisions they may be held accountable for, guess which path they take?
Update: As one of the commenters pointed out, Zachary is back in school.
I was listening to Rush Limbaugh just now and he said he does not like giving speeches. He is not scared, he says, he just thinks so quickly that it is hard to put all of his thoughts on paper and he simply does not feel that he can do as good a job as the audience might expect. I have seen Rush Limbaugh give a speech and he has nothing to worry about.
However, for those out there who may, like me, feel nervous about giving speeches, it's kind of comforting to know we are not alone and that even those being paid for speaking, have a bit of trouble. The other interesting tidbit Limbaugh also threw out was that he does not take a dime for giving talks to groups. Have you noticed that those accused of being the most heartless, are usually the most generous?
However, for those out there who may, like me, feel nervous about giving speeches, it's kind of comforting to know we are not alone and that even those being paid for speaking, have a bit of trouble. The other interesting tidbit Limbaugh also threw out was that he does not take a dime for giving talks to groups. Have you noticed that those accused of being the most heartless, are usually the most generous?
Working class men, freedom and Tea Parties
CNBC had an article (by Reuters) I read yesterday on working class men who (gasp!) may blame Democrats for the recession:
A perplexing situation? Not really--it's just that many working class men understand better than the government that when the government "bites the hand that feeds them," they are not better off. If the government puts a stranglehold on business, the businesses in turn can't hire them. Unlike the "perplexed" Democrats who have no concept, (or choose not to) of how business works, the working class men themselves understand simple economics.
And finally, I love this misinterpretation by a political scientist of why working-class men go to Tea parties:
Sure, that's why the Tea Parties are often held on the weekend, because everyone is out of a job and is desperate. Most of the parties I have seen or attended are filled with many freedom-loving men (and women) who have jobs and can't get the day off during the week. And many of those without a job are retired.
When it comes to the Tea Parties, the MSM wants to make the participants out to be a bunch of white jobless men ready to proclaim allegiance to the KKK with just a bit of coaxing. What they don't understand or pretend not to, is that the Tea Parties are a symbol of hard-working Americans who still believe (perhaps naively) that they have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, without excessive government interference. Michael Patrick Leahy, in his book Rules for Conservative Radicals,
captures the reason of many who go to the Tea Parties: "As a nation, we've lost our way, not because we can't see the path, but because we've allowed a small group in the political class to usurp the natural rights assigned for us in the Constitution."
When this administration and its useful idiots realize that the right to run their own lives is more important to working-class men than government hand-outs, then maybe they will have something to talk to these men about. In the meantime, let the Tea Partying continue.
Working-class males have been among the biggest U.S. losers in this recession.
Does that mean that President Barack Obama's Democratic Party will be the big loser in the 2010 congressional elections? Some analysts say yes, even though blue-collar white males have been leaning Republican for decades and have been a shrinking percentage of the U.S. electorate....
The male unemployment rate rose to 11 percent in September from 6.8 percent in the same month last year, according to data from the U.S. Department of Labor. The overall rate has gone to 9.8 percent from 6.2 percent over the same 12 months.
For white men over the age of 20 unemployment has almost doubled over that period to 9.6 percent from 5.5 percent....
White working-class males have been turning their backs on the Democratic Party for decades�a perplexing situation in the eyes of some as a vote for the pro-business Republican Party is seen as a vote against their economic interests.
A perplexing situation? Not really--it's just that many working class men understand better than the government that when the government "bites the hand that feeds them," they are not better off. If the government puts a stranglehold on business, the businesses in turn can't hire them. Unlike the "perplexed" Democrats who have no concept, (or choose not to) of how business works, the working class men themselves understand simple economics.
And finally, I love this misinterpretation by a political scientist of why working-class men go to Tea parties:
"Many have lost jobs and working-class white men have difficulty doing things they saw their fathers do which they cannot do and so it is easy to go swing sign at a Tea Party," said Jillson.
Sure, that's why the Tea Parties are often held on the weekend, because everyone is out of a job and is desperate. Most of the parties I have seen or attended are filled with many freedom-loving men (and women) who have jobs and can't get the day off during the week. And many of those without a job are retired.
When it comes to the Tea Parties, the MSM wants to make the participants out to be a bunch of white jobless men ready to proclaim allegiance to the KKK with just a bit of coaxing. What they don't understand or pretend not to, is that the Tea Parties are a symbol of hard-working Americans who still believe (perhaps naively) that they have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, without excessive government interference. Michael Patrick Leahy, in his book Rules for Conservative Radicals,
captures the reason of many who go to the Tea Parties: "As a nation, we've lost our way, not because we can't see the path, but because we've allowed a small group in the political class to usurp the natural rights assigned for us in the Constitution." When this administration and its useful idiots realize that the right to run their own lives is more important to working-class men than government hand-outs, then maybe they will have something to talk to these men about. In the meantime, let the Tea Partying continue.
Surviving the Economic Collapse
So I started reading a new book last night by survivalist Fernando Aguirre entitled, The Modern Survival Manual: Surviving the Economic Collapse.
The book is based on his first-hand experience of the 2001 economic collapse in Argentina and I must say, it's been an interesting read. {Disclosure: Glenn bought the book from Amazon.com and if you follow the above link and buy it, I get a small commission--around 6-8%. I know, FTC rules don't start until Dec. but I am getting started early. There is also an Amazon ad in my sidebar that has been there for years that should tip readers off that I am an Amazon affiliate}.
Anyway, the first thing that caught my eye is that the book is not edited much and English is the author's second language. Some might be put off by this but I found it refreshing and it made the book more authentic. In a section on "What to Expect from this Book," Aguirre states that "if it's quality literature that you want, this is not it." He points out that his book is free from filtering and the book is self published. "The only editor that showed any interest in publishing said that the book was 'too aggressive' for their target readers."
I did not find the book particularly "aggressive," whatever that means. The author basically tells you to stop being a wimp and learn to think through what you would do physically and psychologically should the "shit hit the fan" (what he refers to as SHTF). He starts by explaining what happened in Argentina after December of 2001 with the economic collapse and the ensuing crisis leading to high unemployment, high crime, poverty and a (short) period of anarchy. What do you do? How do you survive in these conditions?
Aguirre gives tips on where to live (hint: the country may not be the best place as it is easier to rob or get away with a home invasion there. He says a small town or community is best), home security (think like a burglar, install security lights etc.), how to identify threats (don't look for action movie "stereotypes" of bad guys. Look instead for people who are out of place or people who look nervous) and even has advice on cars and how to drive defensively. For example, when buying a car, "Don't think fancy, think common, inexpensive, and readily available." That way, if you need it fixed in an economic collapse, there will be more mechanics who will know the model and brand and parts will be easier and cheaper to find. He also notes that "A guy in an expensive car is still in danger not because of his car, but because the bad guys may think he is rich and kidnap him."
The book is chock-full of a number of helpful tips, and if nothing else, really gets your mind set to thinking about solving problems that are less salient than an economic collapse in your own life. One thing Aguirre points out is that if you are not up to thinking in this manner emotionally and the thought of thinking through these issues keeps you up at night, it's best to let it go. But for those of us who find that a lack of preparation keeps us up at night, this book, along with practice and forethought, might just help us sleep more soundly.
The book is based on his first-hand experience of the 2001 economic collapse in Argentina and I must say, it's been an interesting read. {Disclosure: Glenn bought the book from Amazon.com and if you follow the above link and buy it, I get a small commission--around 6-8%. I know, FTC rules don't start until Dec. but I am getting started early. There is also an Amazon ad in my sidebar that has been there for years that should tip readers off that I am an Amazon affiliate}.Anyway, the first thing that caught my eye is that the book is not edited much and English is the author's second language. Some might be put off by this but I found it refreshing and it made the book more authentic. In a section on "What to Expect from this Book," Aguirre states that "if it's quality literature that you want, this is not it." He points out that his book is free from filtering and the book is self published. "The only editor that showed any interest in publishing said that the book was 'too aggressive' for their target readers."
I did not find the book particularly "aggressive," whatever that means. The author basically tells you to stop being a wimp and learn to think through what you would do physically and psychologically should the "shit hit the fan" (what he refers to as SHTF). He starts by explaining what happened in Argentina after December of 2001 with the economic collapse and the ensuing crisis leading to high unemployment, high crime, poverty and a (short) period of anarchy. What do you do? How do you survive in these conditions?
Aguirre gives tips on where to live (hint: the country may not be the best place as it is easier to rob or get away with a home invasion there. He says a small town or community is best), home security (think like a burglar, install security lights etc.), how to identify threats (don't look for action movie "stereotypes" of bad guys. Look instead for people who are out of place or people who look nervous) and even has advice on cars and how to drive defensively. For example, when buying a car, "Don't think fancy, think common, inexpensive, and readily available." That way, if you need it fixed in an economic collapse, there will be more mechanics who will know the model and brand and parts will be easier and cheaper to find. He also notes that "A guy in an expensive car is still in danger not because of his car, but because the bad guys may think he is rich and kidnap him."
The book is chock-full of a number of helpful tips, and if nothing else, really gets your mind set to thinking about solving problems that are less salient than an economic collapse in your own life. One thing Aguirre points out is that if you are not up to thinking in this manner emotionally and the thought of thinking through these issues keeps you up at night, it's best to let it go. But for those of us who find that a lack of preparation keeps us up at night, this book, along with practice and forethought, might just help us sleep more soundly.
Will small business "Going Galt" be Obama's downfall?
As I read about the unemployment numbers going up, now to 9.8%, I can't help but wonder if small businesses will be the catalyst that brings down this administration. The commenters to a blog post at Don Surber's Daily Mail blog seem to be on the right track in understanding why small businesses are not hiring:
Many business owners I have talked with say they are scaling back and not hiring because of the uncertainty of this political climate. Even if the economy recovers, many small business owners will stay on the sidelines because it may be too expensive for them to do otherwise. It's a capital strike as described in Amity Shlaes' excellent book, The Forgotten Man.
For example, a man who owns a painting business recently told me that his workers comp costs just went up making each employee more expensive. He is unsure how much worse it will get in the future. The result to this uncertainty? Fewer workers will be hired. The current administration's hostility towards small business may be their downfall. And as small business provides most of new jobs in the US, it should be. For how long will the citizens of this country stand for roughly 10% or higher unemployment?
Commenter Sean says:
Businesses aren�t hiring because no one knows what in the hell our economic system is going to look like 5 years, or even 5 months, from now.
Will �Cap and Trade� get implemented as the Democrats hope?
How much of an upheaval will �Healthcare Reform� end up being?
Is the administration and Congress done overhauling regulation of the Financial Industry?
No prudent investor is going to bet their money (i.e., invest in growth) when it is conceivable that the government is going to radically alter how 50% of this nation�s economy functions.
Commenter RJGatorEsq. responds to Sean:
Sean is absolutely correct. I am an employer. I know a lot of other small business owners. I, and they, are just about unanimous: �I need some help, but I am not going to hire until I see what Obama is planning to do to us.�
Another commenter responds:
Sean is spot-on, but misses the potential for union mischief with the passage of EFCA. How many entrepreneurs are going to pour their money and effort into starting or expanding companies when a handful of union thugs can show up, bully their way into organizing your firm and then you have to spend two years with an Obama Labor Dept. telling you how much you have to pay your employees?
And finally, another says:
Exactly. Add to that Obama and the Congressional Democrats treating capitalism and every successful business like criminal enterprises to be plundered and you have a manufactured crisis.
Many business owners I have talked with say they are scaling back and not hiring because of the uncertainty of this political climate. Even if the economy recovers, many small business owners will stay on the sidelines because it may be too expensive for them to do otherwise. It's a capital strike as described in Amity Shlaes' excellent book, The Forgotten Man.
For example, a man who owns a painting business recently told me that his workers comp costs just went up making each employee more expensive. He is unsure how much worse it will get in the future. The result to this uncertainty? Fewer workers will be hired. The current administration's hostility towards small business may be their downfall. And as small business provides most of new jobs in the US, it should be. For how long will the citizens of this country stand for roughly 10% or higher unemployment?
Should we stop saying that the market is efficient?
No, we should not stop saying that the market is efficient. We should stop saying that, because the market is efficient, the most efficient firms prevail. Because they do not. And that is because there are always multiple markets going on at the same time.
Take a firm in any market of your choice, and then consider this firm�s internal labor market. It often is a very competitive race who is going to be the CEO of the company. Yet, the characteristics that make a person more likely to win this race do not necessarily make him or her a good person to lead the company. Let me explain.
An interesting line of research in social anthropology analyzed what type of person is more likely to rise through the ranks to become the headman of a tribe. Often, this would be the most fierce, ambitious and aggressive warrior, who would be willing to take on all his opponents in the quest for leadership. Yet, interestingly, although characteristics such as fierceness and ambition would be helpful in becoming tribe leader, these characteristics were not necessarily positive for the future of the settlement, since these type of leaders were prone to take the tribe to war. This would ultimately take its toll on the size, strength and survival chances of the tribe. Thus, the same characteristics that would make people more likely to become the headman were likely to get the tribe in to trouble.
CEOs might not be all that different. Those people who are ambitious, risk-seeking and aggressive enough to be able to rise to the ultimate spot of CEO, just might be the same people who, once they�re there, take their firm on a conquest. Take acquisitions. They often offer the thrill of the chase. You select a target, mobilize resources and lead the attack. Sometimes there are others eyeing your prey but skilful maneuvering and a fierce battle will make you come out victorious again. And another victory means pictures in the newspapers, popping champagne, and a larger tribe to rule and command.
Yet, we have seen many firms going on an acquisition spree, inspired by their ambitious new CEO, who not for long went down in a blaze without much glory. The aggressiveness, boldness, and risk-taking behavior of the person at the helm had brought him or her to that position, but it didn�t translate well into a sensible corporate strategy.
Markets are in some form or another efficient, whether they are internal labor markets or markets for corporate control. But they may not be aligned, and victory in one may very well lead to defeat in another.
Take a firm in any market of your choice, and then consider this firm�s internal labor market. It often is a very competitive race who is going to be the CEO of the company. Yet, the characteristics that make a person more likely to win this race do not necessarily make him or her a good person to lead the company. Let me explain.
An interesting line of research in social anthropology analyzed what type of person is more likely to rise through the ranks to become the headman of a tribe. Often, this would be the most fierce, ambitious and aggressive warrior, who would be willing to take on all his opponents in the quest for leadership. Yet, interestingly, although characteristics such as fierceness and ambition would be helpful in becoming tribe leader, these characteristics were not necessarily positive for the future of the settlement, since these type of leaders were prone to take the tribe to war. This would ultimately take its toll on the size, strength and survival chances of the tribe. Thus, the same characteristics that would make people more likely to become the headman were likely to get the tribe in to trouble.
CEOs might not be all that different. Those people who are ambitious, risk-seeking and aggressive enough to be able to rise to the ultimate spot of CEO, just might be the same people who, once they�re there, take their firm on a conquest. Take acquisitions. They often offer the thrill of the chase. You select a target, mobilize resources and lead the attack. Sometimes there are others eyeing your prey but skilful maneuvering and a fierce battle will make you come out victorious again. And another victory means pictures in the newspapers, popping champagne, and a larger tribe to rule and command.
Yet, we have seen many firms going on an acquisition spree, inspired by their ambitious new CEO, who not for long went down in a blaze without much glory. The aggressiveness, boldness, and risk-taking behavior of the person at the helm had brought him or her to that position, but it didn�t translate well into a sensible corporate strategy.
Markets are in some form or another efficient, whether they are internal labor markets or markets for corporate control. But they may not be aligned, and victory in one may very well lead to defeat in another.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)