Is Justin Trudeau a Disingenuous Prick?

Is Justin Trudeau a Disingenuous Prick?

 

Mac Daddy Justin Trudeau who has recently been accused of sexual assault regarding his behavior with a young lady reporter in British Columbia when he was younger is once again finding himself on the stinky end of a stick that has poked its way through endless piles of feces. The beleaguered PM has been uncharacteristically quiet regarding the shooting in Toronto July 22, 2018, in which 15 people were shot and injured with two females being murdered, one being a 10-year old.

 

On January 5, 2018, Trudeau promptly chastised Canadians stating that “Canada is an open and welcoming country and incidents like this cannot be tolerated.” This statement was in response to a 11-year old’s claim that an Asian man attacked her and cut her hijab while walking home from school. The entire incident was a lie.

 

As the attack was on a Muslim girl, Trudeau’s virtue signally anti-islamicphobic feminism kicked into full swing. However, regarding this recent attack by a Muslim Canadians have found the PM mute with no official response leaving one of Trudeau’s former fans from Toronto to heckle the PM calling him a disingenuous prick.

The problem is that even though the criticism seems to be harsh, many tend to agree with the sentiments. My question to you is, do you think Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is a disingenuous prick?

 

 

 

Can Women Choose to do Whatever they Want?

Can Women Choose to do Whatever they Want?

I hear it everywhere in the media, in the streets and at the universities I participate at, women can be and do whatever they want. Should men ever standup and say no, enough is enough?

Firstly, I do not think men or rather traditionally ‘masculine’ men think they can do and be whatever they want. I believe that traditional men understand they have realistic limits. I do think we can expand on limits, but I also think we have limitations. I like to dream that we can do anything or that at some point in time we will be able to do anything like being able to fly, read minds and live for 1,000 years.

With that said, the current attitude that women espouse, that women can do anything is a nice platitude but if taken seriously, then very naïve. If women were to collectively decide they did not want to have children, should men stand up and say enough is enough? If women collectively decided to not bear children would it be OK for men to forcibly impregnate and imprison women until that time, not so far in the future mind you, that men no longer need women to have children?

Currently there is an artificial womb and artificial eggs and it will soon (within 50 years or less) be able to have children without the need of women.  However, the question still stands, if women collectively decided to not have babies would it be acceptable for men to impregnate women against their will and imprison them until their baby was safely born?

I am very interested in your opinions and comments. Thank you.

Do you Have Free Speech?

Do you Have Free Speech?

Firstly, if you do not live in the US then you are not guaranteed free speech. Many people do not realize that the US is the only, the ONLY country on earth that is guaranteed free speech. Even if you do live in the US you are aware that free speech is under attack. I do not agree with the concept of hate speech. Love and hate are subjective terms and you either have free speech or you do not. Hate speech laws are opposed to free speech.

Is some speech offensive? Yes. But being offensive, even though we called crimes offenses, is not a crime. Oddly, one of the things that the concept of free speech does is bring people with opposing views together in a bid to protect free speech. What I mean is even though I might not agree with your view points, specifically what you say, I will fight to the end for your right to say it.

Tommy Robinson was released from prison yesterday in London and his contempt finding was tossed out of court. I suspect his initial charge which allowed police to arrest him for doing nothing a month ago will also be thrown out as I am of the understanding that that charge is also being appealed, however, I might be wrong with that statement.

I find that England’s law where you are not allowed to comment on an ongoing trial has good intent where every person should have a fair trial, however the implementation where the entire population of a country is not allowed to comment or talk about a current trial which is contemporary culture is draconian. A fair trial can easily be afforded to any defendant by sequestering the jury.

I believe that implementation of law in England recently is not to uphold the law but to manipulate and subjugate the citizenry and intimidate people. We see this more and more as the left manipulations laws, regulations and media with the classifying of many conservatives in England as persona non grata such as was done with Lauren Southern.

Free speech is so much more important than some persons subjective feelings. Snowflakes melt over time and free speech should not.

Is the Middle Class Disappearing in America?

Is the Middle Class Disappearing in America?

 

In 1970, about 15% of US households earned today’s equivalent of $15,000 US income or less. 11% earned the equivalent today of $15,00 to $25,000 income, 11% earned $25,000 to $35,000 income, 17% earned $35,000 to $50,000 income. The largest demographic at 24% earned $50,000 to $75.000, 12% earned $75,000 to $100,000, 7% earned $100,000 to $150,000, 2% earned $150,000 to $200,000 and about 1% earned over $200,000.   All the figures above are adjusted for inflation.

 

In 1980, we seen slight declines in the under $15,000 group, the $35,000 to $50,000 group and the $50,000 to $75,000 group.

 

The $15,000, to $25,000 group, the $25,000 to $35, 000 group, the $75,000 to $100,000, the $100,000 to $150,000, the $150,000 to $200,000 and the over $200,000 groups all seen slight increases in the percentages of households occupying those demographics.

In 1990, we seen decreases in the number of households occupying the first 5 groups. The $75,000 to $100,000 group remained the same and the $100,000 to $150,000 group, the $150,000 to $200,000, and the over $200,000 groups all seen increases in the representation of households occupying those demographics.

In 2000, we seen the first 5 groups decline, the 6th remain the same and the last three gain household representation identical to the 1990 data.

In 2010, the first three groups seen an increase for the first time in 30 years of household representation, the 4th and 5th groups seen a decrease in household representations, and the 6th, 7th , 8th and 9th groups seen increases in house hold reorientation.

In 2013, the first three groups remained the same, the 4th groups increased a little, the 5th and 6th groups remained the same, the 7th group degreased while the 8th and 9th groups increased slightly.

A pattern emerges amongst the poorest or lowest income groups as we see far fewer households occupying those demographics over time than in 1970.

Amongst the middle-income group there are fewer households than in 1970. Therefore, the middle class is shrinking and disappearing.

However, the poor classes are also shrinking and disappearing. At this point it must be noted that from 1970 to the present the trend is that over time and adjusting for inflation, Americans are leaving the poor income groups, they are leaving the middle-income group and appearing in the rich groups. Of course, there are exceptions to this, the truth is that the middle class is disappearing. It is joining the upper classes.

Do you Understand what Inequality is?

Do you Understand what Inequality is?

What inequality is not, is poverty. When people talk about inequality they usually try to sway people by tugging on their emotions and showing poverty-stricken children suffering as they try and obtain or beg for food. However, they are not suffering because of inequality, they are suffering because of poverty, because they are poor.

We often myopically focus on inequality and conflate poverty and inequality, running the risk of missing the real problem which is poverty. When we focus on examples of inequality, we usually focus on some snapshot in time and summarize what is shown in that snapshot as inequality.  For instance, if we were to look at 100 people, we would find that there are several people that earn 30K or less, some earn 40K, some 50K, some 60K and so forth. The inequality abounds. This is the main argument in the wage gap that most of the population has been sheepishly hoodwinked into believing by ill informed or dangerous feminists.

However, if we take the time to imagine for one moment that each of these people no matter how much they earn are on a conveyor belt running through the various aspects and stages of their careers. The people earning the least are just starting their careers, the people in the middle-income brackets are mid-level in their careers and the people earning the most are furthest along in their careers with the most experience, have the most time in the work force and have achieved the most education.

People just about to enter the conveyor belt are students who are learning skills and preparing to enter the work force as they finish their education. There is inequality everywhere we look and is constant and persistent. However, as time moves along, and our conveyor belts moves along, we see that each person at some point moves through one category to another and by they time they finish their career or the ride on the conveyor belt, each person earns over $500,000 or so.

In this example we have persistent inequality at every point in time, but over time, for the most part, everyone is equal. Of course, there is inequality of outcome, some people earn more than others, but when we talk about inequality, we usually look at a snapshot in time and see people with low incomes, moderate incomes and substantial incomes and say look at all the inequality.

The correct way to observe inequality is to look at it over time and observe over time how people move, some from one category up to another while others move from a category down to another. By looking for inequality over time, we still see inequality, but we see markedly less inequality than when we just view a snapshot in time.

 

Additionally, when we focus on inequality, invariably we tend to see a focus on the flow of money and ignore the flow of good and services. If you ask a room of lecture participants how many have $50,000 or even $25,000 in the bank, very few will respond positively, raising their hands. However, when you ask how many have a smart phone, or surf the Internet daily or even how many have an Internet package hooked up to their smart phone, then we seen that almost 100% raise their hands. When we look at money, we see inequality, but when we look at the good and services that arise in response to that money, we see overwhelming equality.

One of the most commonly used measurements of inequality is the Gini coefficient which is a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income or wealth distribution of a nation’s residents. 0 on the Gini Index means everyone is equal and 1.0 means that one person is rich and everyone else is poor. The two most equal countries according to the Gini Index are Sweden (0.272) and Afghanistan (0.278). These two countries are the most equal regarding the dispersion of income among their residents as it gets on planet earth.

Residents in Sweden on average earn USD 30,553 and in Afghanistan USD 410. Equality does not mean we are well off. Equality can mean that we are equally miserable. Focusing on false understandings of inequality will divert our attention from real problems, namely poverty. People can be persistently unequal yet be perfectly equal over time. Contemporary discussions of inequality usually ignore half of the economy and only focuses on money. Further, equality is not necessarily good in the first place.

Typically, we confuse inequality that exists at one point in time over an inequality that is much less over time and we tend to think that equality is good when in fact it may not be.