We have been told again and again that there is a gender wage gap--that women are somehow underpaid in our economy. For instance, here is 1998 paper from the Clinton administration Council of Economic Advisers on the subject. I mention the Clinton Administration because in personal conversation a 1999 Clinton appointee to the Council of Economic Advisers,Kathryn Shaw, told me that the gender gap in wages is nonsense. Shaw is a labor economist. But it still get perpetuated. And today, I found an exciting new fact about the issue & it was hidden in the fashiion section of the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/fashion/23whopays.html?_r=4&pagewanted=1&n=Top%2f&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
It turns out that "for the first time, women in their 20s who work full time in several American cities — New York, Chicago, Boston and Minneapolis — are earning higher wages than men in the same age range, according to a recent analysis of 2005 census data by Andrew Beveridge." Yet, no doubt that in the coming months the alleged gender wage gap will be trotted out by the Democrats.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Then End of Senator Brownback's Presidential Bid
The presidential bid of Senator Brownback(R-KS) was always a longshot, but Brownback today basically called it quits. He voted for amnesty and we have seen how Republican primary voters feel about supporters of amnesty in Senator McCain's plummet in the polls. Brownback is not so stupid that he couldn't be aware that his vote sinks his unlikely campaign.
Why his vote? I suggest his vote simply reflects Brownback principles as a convert to Catholicism. This would surprise many people if thought about it. Most people think of Catholics as those normal people around us all the time who say they are Catholics. We forget these normal people Catholics knew next to nothing about Catholic doctrine and aren't interested in learning more. For instance, my fitness instructor calls herself a devout Catholic. We talk about gay romance often. I asked her if she felt any conflict between being open to gays and her Catholicism. Her pitiful attempts at answering indicated that the question hadn't even occurred to her. She ended up saying "you can't take all that stuff seriously." However, when people convert as Brownback did, they take the values seriously, and this means following Catholic moral teaching--even at the cost of a long-shot presidential bid.
I wish to pursue further the theme of what Catholicism may inspire people to do in further posts, but let me tell you where I'm going. Catholicism becomes a suicidal ideology when confronted with a jihadist religion like Islam. Catholicism has lost it Medieval survival instinct. Obviously, the Catholic Church did a lot of evil back during the Middle Ages, but we should always be conscience that the Crusades were not one of them. The Catholic Church finally decided to fight back after a few centuries of Islamic aggression. The decision to fight back against evil can only be considered good--even if Christiandom implemented the decision to fight back rather poorly.
Since Catholicism will not save us, we need either conservative protestantism or a militant secularism to save us. I hope we can pursue both paths, because both conservative protestantism and militant secularism have done so much to make the West a great place to live. Yet, as a militant secularlist, I'm forced to admit that at the current time secularism, like Catholicism, is failing to defend us from the Muslim savages. Conservative protestantism may be our best hope for decent societies for the future. It brothers me not at all to say,"Onward, Christian Soldiers". Really, Pat Robertson's America is not that bad of a place. The Christian Broadcasting Network has some great recipes!
Why his vote? I suggest his vote simply reflects Brownback principles as a convert to Catholicism. This would surprise many people if thought about it. Most people think of Catholics as those normal people around us all the time who say they are Catholics. We forget these normal people Catholics knew next to nothing about Catholic doctrine and aren't interested in learning more. For instance, my fitness instructor calls herself a devout Catholic. We talk about gay romance often. I asked her if she felt any conflict between being open to gays and her Catholicism. Her pitiful attempts at answering indicated that the question hadn't even occurred to her. She ended up saying "you can't take all that stuff seriously." However, when people convert as Brownback did, they take the values seriously, and this means following Catholic moral teaching--even at the cost of a long-shot presidential bid.
I wish to pursue further the theme of what Catholicism may inspire people to do in further posts, but let me tell you where I'm going. Catholicism becomes a suicidal ideology when confronted with a jihadist religion like Islam. Catholicism has lost it Medieval survival instinct. Obviously, the Catholic Church did a lot of evil back during the Middle Ages, but we should always be conscience that the Crusades were not one of them. The Catholic Church finally decided to fight back after a few centuries of Islamic aggression. The decision to fight back against evil can only be considered good--even if Christiandom implemented the decision to fight back rather poorly.
Since Catholicism will not save us, we need either conservative protestantism or a militant secularism to save us. I hope we can pursue both paths, because both conservative protestantism and militant secularism have done so much to make the West a great place to live. Yet, as a militant secularlist, I'm forced to admit that at the current time secularism, like Catholicism, is failing to defend us from the Muslim savages. Conservative protestantism may be our best hope for decent societies for the future. It brothers me not at all to say,"Onward, Christian Soldiers". Really, Pat Robertson's America is not that bad of a place. The Christian Broadcasting Network has some great recipes!
Thursday, June 21, 2007
The Empty Minds of the Political Elite
Senator Trent Lott must have been trying to make some point when he illustrated immigration issues with his troubles in keeping his goats on his property, but no one is quite sure what it is. The honours committee that selected Salmon Rushdie for knighthood claims to be startled that the selection of Salmon Rushdie caused a furore in the Islamic world. There is of course the well known lack of subtly and depth in U.S. president George W. Bush or the socialist French President candidate Ségolène Royal, who was luckily defeated, but still got 47% of the vote. Utter cluelessness transcends nation and political philosophy in Western nations. Why?
The ability to think about political issues is intimately related to the ability to think about moral issues. Morality addresses the question of how we are live together in a shared world. Sadly we are not taught to think about morality. Instead, we learn the morality consist of simple rules. On the left, we have "All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten" by Fulghum and such feel good rot. On the right, we have simple-mindedness posing as intellectual depth in discussion of "objective morality". Let's pause for a second on the "intellectually deep" right talk about objective morality. Objective morality is the idea that morality consists of the simple minded application of a small set of rules without any consideration of context. It sounds intellectually to me. In discourse, the right loves to criticize the left for having a relative morality, yet leftist "anti-racism" is as objective as morality gets. Furthermore, the right does think about moral context, except when it doesn't. It depends on the context. We are lucky that the right gets over it objective morality insanity that killing anything homo sapien--even fetuses--when it comes to war.
Instead, of simple mindedness, we need honest conversation about morality so we can have honest political conversation. Of course, part of this is simply get over simple minded hatefulness like assuming that either George Bush or Hilary Clinton are wrong about everything. (I do believe both are wrong about almost everything, but I'm aware of how hard it is to be right.)
For us to have serious political conversation where we address the many complex facets around each issues, in which we admit that have to compromise and that some bad as will as some good will come out of the compromise, we need to start by learning to talk about morality. We should teach logical argumentation about morality in our high school literature classes. Most literature has serious moral components and people can learn to enjoy talking about them. Obviously, high school students will come to many bad answers, but once they learn to think about the questions, they can do a better job as they age. It will take a long time for this program to change society, but the empty headedness of our political elite suggests we can only go up.
The ability to think about political issues is intimately related to the ability to think about moral issues. Morality addresses the question of how we are live together in a shared world. Sadly we are not taught to think about morality. Instead, we learn the morality consist of simple rules. On the left, we have "All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten" by Fulghum and such feel good rot. On the right, we have simple-mindedness posing as intellectual depth in discussion of "objective morality". Let's pause for a second on the "intellectually deep" right talk about objective morality. Objective morality is the idea that morality consists of the simple minded application of a small set of rules without any consideration of context. It sounds intellectually to me. In discourse, the right loves to criticize the left for having a relative morality, yet leftist "anti-racism" is as objective as morality gets. Furthermore, the right does think about moral context, except when it doesn't. It depends on the context. We are lucky that the right gets over it objective morality insanity that killing anything homo sapien--even fetuses--when it comes to war.
Instead, of simple mindedness, we need honest conversation about morality so we can have honest political conversation. Of course, part of this is simply get over simple minded hatefulness like assuming that either George Bush or Hilary Clinton are wrong about everything. (I do believe both are wrong about almost everything, but I'm aware of how hard it is to be right.)
For us to have serious political conversation where we address the many complex facets around each issues, in which we admit that have to compromise and that some bad as will as some good will come out of the compromise, we need to start by learning to talk about morality. We should teach logical argumentation about morality in our high school literature classes. Most literature has serious moral components and people can learn to enjoy talking about them. Obviously, high school students will come to many bad answers, but once they learn to think about the questions, they can do a better job as they age. It will take a long time for this program to change society, but the empty headedness of our political elite suggests we can only go up.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Immigration and What the Voters Want
Since it looks like the Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty bill will get through the Senate, I just called Congressman Doyle's office to express my opposition to the Amnesty Bill. I asked if there had many calls about the Amnesty bill. The intern girl said she had received many, many calls. I asked her how many she had received in favor of the Amnesty bill. She said none. Doyle is a moderate Democrat who will probably vote in favor of the amnesty bill.
The intern girl mentioned the issue of families. In her mind, it seems because one child was born on American soil that an entire family is entitled to live in America. She says we can't break up families. I asked why the child couldn't go back with the parents to Mexico or wherever. She said because the child is an American. Now, I'm a patriotic American, but I can't help but notice that people have someway managed to survive in other countries. It's not like Mexico has some horrible government that routinely tortures its citizens to keep its grip on power, like say Cuba is. Yet, we sent back Elian Gonzoles. I supported sending back Elian Gonzoles to Cuba, and so my feelings about reuniting families in Mexico is even stronger.
The intern girl mentioned the issue of families. In her mind, it seems because one child was born on American soil that an entire family is entitled to live in America. She says we can't break up families. I asked why the child couldn't go back with the parents to Mexico or wherever. She said because the child is an American. Now, I'm a patriotic American, but I can't help but notice that people have someway managed to survive in other countries. It's not like Mexico has some horrible government that routinely tortures its citizens to keep its grip on power, like say Cuba is. Yet, we sent back Elian Gonzoles. I supported sending back Elian Gonzoles to Cuba, and so my feelings about reuniting families in Mexico is even stronger.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Acts of War Are not Terrorism
Some muslims in New Jersey are accused of terrorism, because they wanted to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey. I strongly object to describing their plans as terrorism and don't think they should face any trial. These muslims are simply soldiers attacking a legitimate military target. As such, they are prisoners of war and should be treated as such.
These Islamic soldiers should not pay the price for our refusal to listen to the clear muslim declarations of war. Instead, this would be a good time for us to start listening to muslims. And in the process of listening, we may observe that we have a large number of enemy combatants on our soil. We need to encourage these combatants to find countries more suited for their lifestyle, like say, Sudan.
These Islamic soldiers should not pay the price for our refusal to listen to the clear muslim declarations of war. Instead, this would be a good time for us to start listening to muslims. And in the process of listening, we may observe that we have a large number of enemy combatants on our soil. We need to encourage these combatants to find countries more suited for their lifestyle, like say, Sudan.
Friday, April 20, 2007
A Division of Labour Argument for Defending the Second Amendment
Given recent events, I thought it worthwhile to point out gun control opponents sometimes make arguments that do their cause more harm than good. I have sometimes encountered the "gun nut" who argues that self-defense is a personal responsibility, and for this reason that we have the right to bear arms. While I'm a big fan of personal responsibility, this argument has the repulsive implication that everyone should have a gun to defend themselves. Some "gun nuts" will even state this explicitly.
There are many people who do not desire this responsiblity. They see self-defense as annoying chore which they wish evade. Their evasion is not a bad thing for our interest in defending the Second Amendment, if we get them to view it properly.
Let's admit that people vary wildly in their desire for self-defense. Some people, usually men, think all the time about physical fights and self-defense. To be crude, but accurate, they get a hard-on carrying a gun (and probably would be the ones who would most stridently deny this). Other people have little interest in self-defense. We should view the Second Amendment as empowering those interested in self-defense to defend not only themselves, but also the innocents about them. The people who aren't so enamoured by self-defense still get something out of the Second Amendment-a safer society. It is for this reason they should be glad to support the Second Amendment. They receive the benefits of a public service. But if we castigate them as shirkers, they will feel resentful. Nor should any gun owner feel exploited. I'm sure many of the non-gun owners make their contributions to society. It's simply a sensible division of labour.
I myself have little interest in self-defense. Admittedly, my honest conversation about Islam has made it necessary for me to buy a gun. I know how to use it and wouldn't hesitate to wound or kill if I were attacked. Still, it is unnatural burden for me. If I weren't saying bad things about a pack of religious psychopaths, I wouldn't own a gun.
People like me usually don't own guns, but we still vote. There is no reason to annoy us with the argument about responsibility. Instead, we should point out that if many people carry concealed weapons, then criminals can not be certain who has a gun. The guns will deter crime for everyone whether they carry a gun or not. Without explicitly stating it, we should try to encourage non gun owners to be thankful for those who carry guns--just like rational folks are thankful for non-corrupt, non-abusive policemen. Gratitude, not resentment, will defend the Second Amendment.
There are many people who do not desire this responsiblity. They see self-defense as annoying chore which they wish evade. Their evasion is not a bad thing for our interest in defending the Second Amendment, if we get them to view it properly.
Let's admit that people vary wildly in their desire for self-defense. Some people, usually men, think all the time about physical fights and self-defense. To be crude, but accurate, they get a hard-on carrying a gun (and probably would be the ones who would most stridently deny this). Other people have little interest in self-defense. We should view the Second Amendment as empowering those interested in self-defense to defend not only themselves, but also the innocents about them. The people who aren't so enamoured by self-defense still get something out of the Second Amendment-a safer society. It is for this reason they should be glad to support the Second Amendment. They receive the benefits of a public service. But if we castigate them as shirkers, they will feel resentful. Nor should any gun owner feel exploited. I'm sure many of the non-gun owners make their contributions to society. It's simply a sensible division of labour.
I myself have little interest in self-defense. Admittedly, my honest conversation about Islam has made it necessary for me to buy a gun. I know how to use it and wouldn't hesitate to wound or kill if I were attacked. Still, it is unnatural burden for me. If I weren't saying bad things about a pack of religious psychopaths, I wouldn't own a gun.
People like me usually don't own guns, but we still vote. There is no reason to annoy us with the argument about responsibility. Instead, we should point out that if many people carry concealed weapons, then criminals can not be certain who has a gun. The guns will deter crime for everyone whether they carry a gun or not. Without explicitly stating it, we should try to encourage non gun owners to be thankful for those who carry guns--just like rational folks are thankful for non-corrupt, non-abusive policemen. Gratitude, not resentment, will defend the Second Amendment.
Monday, April 09, 2007
The 15 Brits Captured by Iran
After a recent post about the need for more manly virtue in our society, I was at a loss to know what to think about the 15 Brits captured by Iran. I don't wish to understate my ignorance relative to this topic, but I have come to some tentative conclusions.
Should I condemn these Brits for caving in too easily to the Iranian government? For instance, Ralph Peters goes so far as to call for their court martial. These detractors compare the mild treatment of the Brits compared to what James Stockdale and John McCain endured in Vietnam. The Brits should be more tough. They also complain that the Brit soldiers should not have surrendered when surrounded by overwhelming Iranian force. These same people think Britain suffered a national humiliation for this soldiers being captured and ransomed.
I have some sympathy for that point of view. I was quite uncomfortable about seeing the Brits smile while in captivity. What ever happened to stiff upper lip? But should one restrain one happiness before cameras on seeing your comrades undamaged? We've never had cameras in such situations before.
Playing into my interpretation of these soldiers is that I've always admired the figure of the trickster, starting with a childhood fascination with the trickster pagan gods, Hermes and Loki. Yes, it may be less than manly in that the trickster uses brain not brawn to get out of a situation. Is that really so bad? Why shouldn't one lie and write meaningless statements to get out of evil clutches?
No, I don't think the problem for the West is the behavior of the Brit soldiers. The Iranians only got some PR of dubious value at best.
The problem is much more the moral myth that it is always evil to kill--the myth that stops us from killing more of the muslims. When we fought World War II, we killed Germans. We bombed German cities causing widespread civilian death. Consider our firebombing of Dresden. We didn't stop to analyze how much a particular German supported the Nazi regime. At most, forty percent of the Germans were Nazi enthusiasts--at least judging from the last vote of the Weimer Republic. We cannot afford to treat muslims any differently. We can't be squeamish and girlish over the slaughter of muslims, but we can forgive a few soldiers who did their best to save their lives.
In the big picture, our actions in World War II were just. Even the Germans who hated Nazism were still instrumental in keeping Nazi Germany going. The same is true for the secretly atheist or Christian, liberal person in muslim lands. They enable the muslim evil to continue and are legitimate targets, as much as we may lament that fact. In war, there is not time for subtle judgments about the enemy.
Should I condemn these Brits for caving in too easily to the Iranian government? For instance, Ralph Peters goes so far as to call for their court martial. These detractors compare the mild treatment of the Brits compared to what James Stockdale and John McCain endured in Vietnam. The Brits should be more tough. They also complain that the Brit soldiers should not have surrendered when surrounded by overwhelming Iranian force. These same people think Britain suffered a national humiliation for this soldiers being captured and ransomed.
I have some sympathy for that point of view. I was quite uncomfortable about seeing the Brits smile while in captivity. What ever happened to stiff upper lip? But should one restrain one happiness before cameras on seeing your comrades undamaged? We've never had cameras in such situations before.
Playing into my interpretation of these soldiers is that I've always admired the figure of the trickster, starting with a childhood fascination with the trickster pagan gods, Hermes and Loki. Yes, it may be less than manly in that the trickster uses brain not brawn to get out of a situation. Is that really so bad? Why shouldn't one lie and write meaningless statements to get out of evil clutches?
No, I don't think the problem for the West is the behavior of the Brit soldiers. The Iranians only got some PR of dubious value at best.
The problem is much more the moral myth that it is always evil to kill--the myth that stops us from killing more of the muslims. When we fought World War II, we killed Germans. We bombed German cities causing widespread civilian death. Consider our firebombing of Dresden. We didn't stop to analyze how much a particular German supported the Nazi regime. At most, forty percent of the Germans were Nazi enthusiasts--at least judging from the last vote of the Weimer Republic. We cannot afford to treat muslims any differently. We can't be squeamish and girlish over the slaughter of muslims, but we can forgive a few soldiers who did their best to save their lives.
In the big picture, our actions in World War II were just. Even the Germans who hated Nazism were still instrumental in keeping Nazi Germany going. The same is true for the secretly atheist or Christian, liberal person in muslim lands. They enable the muslim evil to continue and are legitimate targets, as much as we may lament that fact. In war, there is not time for subtle judgments about the enemy.
Dafur and NASCAR
It has been argued that the murder and mayhem in Dafur is a bad thing, but most people making such arguments want to have it both ways. They also want to condemn cultural imperialism, but it's surely cultural imperialism to stop muslims from their number one favorite hobby.
I suggest channeling all that political energy about Dafur into a better cause. We should attempt to outlaw NASCAR for environmental reasons. How much greenhouse gases are produced in one race? While we could be accused of cultural imperialism towards Southern Baptists, NASCAR is not encouraged by the Bible. Murder and mayhem is encouraged by the Koran. Read the ninth chapter. So, let's stop being busy bodies in the Sudan. Let the muslims be muslims--at least when they aren't killing us.
I suggest channeling all that political energy about Dafur into a better cause. We should attempt to outlaw NASCAR for environmental reasons. How much greenhouse gases are produced in one race? While we could be accused of cultural imperialism towards Southern Baptists, NASCAR is not encouraged by the Bible. Murder and mayhem is encouraged by the Koran. Read the ninth chapter. So, let's stop being busy bodies in the Sudan. Let the muslims be muslims--at least when they aren't killing us.
some hope
I've been worried not so much about Iran trying to get nuclear weapons, but the rest of the world doing nothing to stop them. The idea that a nuclear armed Iran won't use it nuclear weapons goes against the entire history of the Islamic world. (Yes, I know Pakistan has nukes, but Musharraf is reasonable guy. What about Pakistan's next government? Would you want to relocate to New Delhi?)
Well, it seems that at least some common women here in America get what we are up against. A groups of mother's of soldiers, the Moms of Fury, visited Paul Hodes(D-NH) congressional office and talked about the Iraq occupation. For the most part, the talk is about the Iraq war. I'm not in complete agreement. They think we can pacify Iraq. I disagree since genocide is to Islam what vomiting is to a bulimic. But what is more important the Moms of Fury seem to understand the big geopolitical picture. We either fight over there or the muslims will bring the fighting here.
Well, it seems that at least some common women here in America get what we are up against. A groups of mother's of soldiers, the Moms of Fury, visited Paul Hodes(D-NH) congressional office and talked about the Iraq occupation. For the most part, the talk is about the Iraq war. I'm not in complete agreement. They think we can pacify Iraq. I disagree since genocide is to Islam what vomiting is to a bulimic. But what is more important the Moms of Fury seem to understand the big geopolitical picture. We either fight over there or the muslims will bring the fighting here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
