Idle thoughts of an idle blogger

I haven’t been posting on my blog but I’ve still been thinking about politics and world issues. This is a potpourri of those thoughts.

Does anyone today remember Jerome K. Jerome? He was a Victorian-era author of whimsical books. I believe his best-known book was Three Men in a Boat, a comedy about three men taking a boat trip on the Thames. However, I always preferred Idle Thoughts of an Idle Fellow, a collection of humorous observations. I especially loved the book’s name, which I’ve borrowed for this post.

The Democrats have become Turkish. The Democrats are behaving in a decidedly undemocratic fashion. They’ve used January 6, during which Trump supporters and BLM/Antifa plants behaved like Democrat protesters (the anti-war protests, the Supreme Court hearing protests, the BLM and Antifa protests, etc.), only with less mess and violence, to justify a regime crackdown. January 6 protesters are rotting in prison without due process, D.C. is an armed camp with politicians isolated from the people they are supposed to serve, people engaged in wrong-think (i.e., conservativism) are being silenced, Biden is ruling by executive order, the Second Amendment is on the chopping block, they’re making ready to pack the Supreme Court, the economy is being socialized, etc.

Looking at all that, I realized that the Democrats are following the playbook of Turkish tyrant Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Do you remember what he said? “Democracy is like a train; you get off once you have reached your destination.” The Democrats are pretty sure they’ve reached their destination.

Why teachers won’t go back to their classrooms. Having done the bunny slipper commute for 30 years (meaning that I’ve worked from home during that time), I totally understand the teachers’ reluctance to go back to school. You have more time in your day if you don’t have to travel to work and it’s just more comfortable. I’m not justifying their failing to do the job for which they’re paid; I’m just saying I understand it.

It occurred to me, though, that there’s another factor. The teachers refusing to return all come from big, urban school districts that have been totally taken over by the leftist thinking we’re seeing in the teachers. One aspect of leftist thinking is that it’s racist to discipline minority students, who are a majority in many of these schools. Freed from restraint, these students often physically attack their teachers. Other violence is normal. (A teacher at my kids’ nice suburban school observed that, at the urban school where he used to teach, there was a 911 call every day for violence.)

If you’ve created that kind of dangerous mess at your urban school through your leftist policies, suddenly teaching your students from a big distance, especially if you’re safe at home, becomes a very attractive option. In other words, leftists are may be doing what they always do: Destroying something and then running away from the destruction they created.

They “didn’t deserve to die.” I’ve been seeing that phrasing a lot about Daunte Wright and, as you may recall, it’s often been said about other black men who resisted arrest and ended up dead. I have to disagree — they kind of did deserve to die because they behaved stupidly. They were the equivalent of drunks who got behind the wheels of a Maserati and floored the gas. If you do something insanely stupid that carries with it the risk of death, when you die, it’s your fault.

Having said that, I put a large share of the blame on Democrats with their drumbeat about “driving while black,” “walking while black,” and their claim that American police officers are the functional equivalent of the Gestapo (all data to the contrary). If you’re an innocent young black man with just a few felonies and arrest warrants on your record, wouldn’t you run from the Gestapo if they caught you doing something illegal?

Biden’s red lines are as firm as Obama’s were. Famously, Obama drew a red line in Syria and, then, when Assad walked right over it, Obama said “never mind.” That was bad. Worse is Biden’s drawing red lines for Russia and then saying “never mind.” That’s how strong bad actors know that they can do anything they want — and formerly weak bad actors quickly follow.

Biden should have done what Trump understood you do: If it’s not important to you, keep your mouth shut (which is almost certainly the case for America vis-a-vis Ukraine); and if it is important to you, you better mean what you say. Biden did neither and the world’s in trouble.

We’re seeing a world of people unconstrained. The musical South Pacific was all about race hatred. It included a song saying, “You have to be carefully taught.” The premise was the Anne Frank idea that all people are basically good (the last message she wrote in her diary before the residents of the annex were rounded up). That was whistling in the dark. It’s not true.

My parents had a book on their shelf by Desmond Morris called The Naked Ape. I never read the book but I put my own theory to the name: A large part of our mental make-up hasn’t wandered that far from apedom. If we are not trained and constrained as we develop, we will be nothing but apes, acting from instinct. For the most part, those instincts are pretty brutal. Caring for offspring and fellow apes in the shrewdness is instinctive but it’s paired with brutality unmediated by morals. The violence within a shrewdness or by one shrewdness against another can be completely brutal.

Across America, we’re devolving into that type of unconstrained, morals-free, tribal brutality. We see that in the pack behavior on the internet, in the brutality on the street, and in the perversions of the rich and powerful. The latter may theoretically have been trained in social behavior, but unless they believe that some force greater than themselves is holding them to account (e.g., parents, police, employers, people in their community, voters, God), they do all sorts of bad stuff, from lying, cheating, and stealing, to large-scale political corruption, to sexual perversions, to cannibalism.

To me, Biden and Hunter are both poster children for what happens when you feel you can get away with things. Behind his “hail fellow well met, and trust me I’m stupid” persona, Biden has had the feral intelligence to sell out America across the globe. In addition, his behavior with children in public is itself a form of perversion, with no other evidence needed to justify that word. His public brazenness, though, always leads me to wonder what he got away with in private. Hunter, meanwhile, complained that someone (I forget who it was; maybe Hallie) refused to let him be alone with pubescent girls. I wouldn’t be at all surprised that one of the holds the Chinese have over Biden is that someone in that family did the dirty with children. No proof on my part; just a deep suspicion. That family feels unconstrained and Biden’s Catholicism is simply part of his cover.

And that’s all I’ve got. I thought of something quite brilliant while driving today but have completely forgotten what it was. That’s ridiculously frustrating but it’s what I’ve got (or haven’t got).

 

Modern Monetary Theory is taxation without representation

The Biden administration’s use of Modern Monetary Theory to create intentional inflation is a form of extreme taxation without representation.

If you ask for the fancy definition, this is what you’ll see when you look up Modern Monetary Theory (MMT):

MMT’s main tenets are that a government that issues its own fiat money:

  1. Can pay for goods, services, and financial assets without a need to first collect money in the form of taxes or debt issuance in advance of such purchases;
  2. Cannot be forced to default on debt denominated in its own currency;
  3. Is limited in its money creation and purchases only by inflation, which accelerates once the real resources (labour, capital and natural resources) of the economy are utilized at full employment;
  4. Can control demand-pull inflation by taxation which removes excess money from circulation;
  5. Does not compete with the private sector for scarce savings by issuing bonds. (Footnote omitted.)

Take away the high-flown language and here’s what MMT really says: Money is essentially an illusion. As long as the government controls the printing presses and is the world’s reserve currency, it can print as much money as it needs to fund current projects and pay down debt.

This is utter nonsense. Money is not an illusion. It’s an easy-to-use, fungible representation of a nation’s wealth. In the really old days, pre-money, goods and services were used in trade. We all remember Jack trading his cow for beans, right? That’s how the marketplace worked back in the day. Farmer Jones would have grain but need pigs, and Farmer Smith would have pigs but need grain.

The two farmers would enter into a straightforward deal that was actually fraught with complications. Both pigs and grain are difficult to transport to market. Also, the grain that Farmer Jones had available might be worth only three-and-a-half pigs. Would that require slaughtering a pig? Would Farmer Smith get less grain than he needed? Or would Farmer Smith give up a whole pig, grossly overpaying for the grain.

Also, in times of war (which was a chronic condition in the distant past), it was easy for marauding soldiers to find and confiscate your wealth. You can bury coins in the garden; you can’t do that with pigs or wheat.

Very early in human development, people figured out that they could use representations of their wealth to facilitate trade. The important thing about this early representational unit was that it had intrinsic value, so it had to be either scarce or unique. If it’s something common — e.g., pebbles —  it would be meaningless as a way to ascertain the value of goods and services in trade. Everybody would just fill their pockets with rocks and try to buy things from people whose pockets were equally full.

Enter precious metals: Gold was rare enough that it had intrinsic value. Silver and copper did too. People could easily carry a little chunk of gold or silver. In addition, both metals could be split. It’s easier to split a chunk of gold during a transaction than to cut the pig in half.

The problem, though, was that people had different ideas about the value of a given piece of metal. They realized that the best way to determine the value of money (which, again, has representational, not intrinsic, value) was to have a centralized place that pressed the metal into recognizable shapes with a stable value.

We know that, by the 8th century BC, Greece had figured out the idea of a standardized coin. The government’s imprimatur on a coin was an assurance that the money people were handling was a legitimate precious metal with a standardized value. (If you’ve ever wondered by the ridges along the edges of our dimes and quarters, they’re a remnant of the time when money was actually made from precious metals. People would delicately shave off bits of gold or silver from the edges — “clipping” the coin — until they had enough to make their own coins while debasing the issued coins.)

Gold is heavy, though. Eventually, the idea of a second level of representative wealth came along: Paper money or coins made from a lighter metal, both of which could be easily transported. Always, though, the promise was that these essentially valueless bits of paper and metal were backed by real gold, e.g., “I may be giving you a printed piece of paper but there’s real gold in Fort Knox.” This sense of real value was why so many Americans worried when America abandoned the gold standard — that is, when it disconnected money’s direct relationship to a precious metal.

American money now represents the collective wealth of a nation, bound up in its real property, goods, services, and even its citizens’ potential. Or at least, that’s what it’s supposed to do.

That gets me to inflation. Inflation occurs when the collective wealth remains the same but the government keeps issuing more paper money. Whenever you have more of something, it is worth less. Where it once took 50 cents to buy a candy bar, all that excess of money floating around means it now takes $5 to buy the same bar. The bar hasn’t changed, but money has cheapened because the government keeps flooding it into the marketplace.

MMT gives the government permission to flood the marketplace with money to fund its own schemes and pay its own debts. Maybe that’s a good deal for the government but for ordinary people, who are a nation’s real wealth, it’s a disaster. Their buying power devalues drastically because everything costs more.

Take Grandma Jones, for example. Grandma Jones worked hard all her life. She denied herself many pleasures during her working years so that she could squirrel away money in her savings for her old age. Imagine for this example that she saved $10,000.

When Grandma Jones retired, her monthly shopping trip for food and goods (toilet paper, etc.) cost $100. She anticipated 100 months of shopping, or over 8 years, at that rate. She assumed that she had about six years of life in her, so she’d have supplies until the end and still have something to leave to her children.

There are a lot of people like Grandma Jones in America. When they retire, they expected that their nest eggs will keep a roof over their heads and food in their tummies.

However, right as Grandma Jones stops working, the government discovers MMT and starts printing money like crazy. The available goods and services in the marketplace remain static but cash is raining down from the sky like snowflakes in a blizzard. Because each of these units of money now represents a smaller fraction of the available wealth of America, merchants raise the prices on the goods to reflect their real value.

Thanks to MMT, it now costs Grandma Jones $500 a month to buy the same supplies and, because the government is still printing away, that soon doubles to $1,000. Within less than two years, Grandma Jones has no savings at all. She applies for welfare but a lot of people are doing so as well. The system is overloaded. When she finally gets her EBT card, she discovers that its static value is also overwhelmed by rapidly escalating prices due to inflation. Soon, Grandma Jones is eating cat food. When that runs out, she lies down and quietly dies.

When the government takes money from the people to fund its own spending, that’s a tax. America’s founding was predicated on the notion that a free people cannot be taxed without representation. That’s why decisions about taxes run through the House, which, because it has elections every two years, is the chamber closest to the people’s will.

By intentionally creating inflation, the government is imposing a tax on American’s savings. The government is using MMT to bypass the laborious and unreliable process of getting the House to approve new taxes. 

I’m not sure how to start, but people need to push back hard against MMT. At a theoretical level, it’s nonsense. And at a practical level, it brutally taxes those who can least afford it (people living on savings or fixed incomes), while simultaneously destroying the economy. As a start, I’d suggest writing your Congressman or woman urging that Congress immediately pass a law stopping the government printing presses.

The inevitable consequence of the Ivy Leagues’ racist admission standards

You can’t interfere with a meritocracy and expect the results still to have merit — but that’s what the stupidly woke Ivy Leagues are doing.

This is a slightly older story that I’ve been meaning to write about for a long time; namely, the Ivy League’s attempt to deny admission to any straight white male students if at all possible, with a good sideswipe at straight white female students too. Paul Mirengoff sums up the latest information about the incoming class of 2025:

Princeton has offered admission to its class of 2025 to 1,498 applicants. According to numbers provided by the University, around fourteen percent of them are white American males.

14 percent of the admitted applicants identify as international students. 68 percent of the admitted applicants from the U.S. identify as “persons of color.” 52 percent are female. 48 percent are male.

Putting these numbers together, we see that only around 28 percent of admittees are white Americans. Less than half of that relatively small group are male.

Whites make up much more than one-third of American students. Thus, whites are severely underrepresented in the group of American students Princeton has admitted to the class of 2025. Princeton’s class of domestic students won’t “look like America,” as the saying goes.

In its announcement, Princeton lumps Asian-American together with Blacks and other minority group members as “persons of color.” Thus, we don’t yet know what percentage of those offered admission belong to which minority group.

Based on what I’ve seen at my children’s colleges, I think we can also assume that, of the men admitted, at least half of them will be gay or “trans” (i.e., women who claim to be men or men who claim to be women).

What Princeton just did is to begin the rapid devaluation of its product. Currently, whites, Far East Asians, subcontinent Indians are probably miffed that they’re being denied access to Princeton despite the fact that, statistically, they’re more likely to meet objective, merit-based metrics. However, within ten years (maybe a little more), a Princeton degree will be worth about as much as your local community college degree.

Why do I say that?

Because we know that affirmative action is at work. Leftists constantly tell us that, without affirmative action and generally lowered standards, minorities don’t stand a chance against all those “privileged” white people, especially all those “toxic” white males.

That’s why we know that the people entering Princeton in the Fall will, on average, be less prepared for college. It doesn’t matter whether this is because they’re just less cognitively gifted or because their grades were lower. Whatever the cause, they won’t be able to keep up the intellectual pace. What we’ll see is “academic mismatch” on a university-wide scale.

Pretty soon, the Ivies will get the reputation as a diploma mill. They will churn out marginally educated, incompetent people — more so even than they do now when they take bright students and dis-, mis-, and de-educates them.

Of course, that’s assuming that there is a “ten years from now.” I’ve been reading a lot of material that makes an excellent point: Biden, in three months, has put us on a straight path to being Venezuela. No borders, massive government-created inflation, race-hatred, fights over political spoils, cities turned into Mad Max arenas, the end of the rule of law, different legal standards for favored and disfavored people in society, a military incapable of fighting a war, a climate change policy that is blind to the fact that a Grand Solar Minimum is on the way that will decrease our food supplies, and more.

If this were a novel, this would be the point where the prophetic person says, “Be afraid. Be very afraid.” I know that I am. My response is that I buy canned soup rather compulsively. Whenever it’s on sale, I snatch up more cans. In my mind, they combine protein, liquids, carbohydrates, and mental comfort all in one little can. When the zombies come, I’ll eat the final can of my soup and then go out and make a last stand (presumably armed with my soup ladle).

But back to Princeton. The only thing that differentiates any Ivy League school from a decent second-tier private college or a state school is the school’s cachet. By rejecting a meritocratic admission policy and opting for a racial and otherwise “intersectional” one (gender, race, sexuality, orientation, etc.), Princeton and the other Ivies are closing the door on the students who make that cachet possible. Eventually, these schools will be filled with a bunch of average people in some old buildings. Imagine a school made up entirely of Michelle Obamas (a Princeton alum and, by virtue of her age, probably better educated than the upcoming classes) and you’ll know what I mean.

IMAGE: A Birds-eye view of campus in 1906 by Richard Rummell – Princeton University. Public Domain. 

The wonders of leftist cognitive dissonance

It’s strange that, with full color, x-ray vision into the fetus’s world, leftists can both celebrate that view and still be pro-abortion.

I grew up as a pro-abortion Democrat. I was unable to maintain that attitude when I saw the first ultrasound of my daughter at ten or eleven weeks or so. Her spine was like a little string of pearls. That was when I had that cognitive “click” that a fetus is a baby.

Once she was born, of course, the connection between baby and fetus became overwhelming. Visceral knowledge killed the cognitive dissonance that had allowed me to acknowledge fetal development (remember those black-and-white pictures in the old biology books?) while continuing to assert that there was no connection between a fetus and living, breathing people.

I mention all this because a pro-abortion person I know posted on her Facebook page the following post from IFLScience, a hard left site. It’s an amazing, beautiful, and fascinating video:

I am certain that, despite watching the video, all the people at IFLScience, the leftist who posted the video, and all the fans of IFLScience who watched the video are still pro-abortion. And I don’t understand that. If you’re hit over the head with the fact that the zygote, fetus, and baby are the same thing, how can you justify abortion as a form of birth control?

Incidentally, regarding fetuses, when I was about seven months along with my son, he started hiccuping. It’s a very peculiar feeling to have a baby inside you who is hiccuping. Then, after he was born and for at least his first year, whenever he laughed, he’d start hiccuping. So the question is, was he laughing already when he wasn’t yet born?

The lessons we only learn through pain

Corporations funded the Democrat party and now openly push its policies. It’s time to give them a lesson in economic pain to make them stop.

For anyone hoping that this is some weird S&M post, you’re at the wrong place. Instead, it’s about the fact that, while praising good behavior is an excellent way to encourage it, that doesn’t mean people shouldn’t experience painful consequences for their bad acts. In the political world, we’re seeing this play out in a terrible way across America.

What made me think of this is something my daughter said. I’m a dog person, so she grew up around dogs. Now, though, she’s gotten herself a cat and has learned, somewhat to her surprise, that dogs and cats are very different in terms of their interaction with humans.

The main lesson she’s learned is that cats will let you know in no uncertain terms if they dislike something you’re doing. When she was younger and wanted to carry around or cuddle one of the dogs, if the dog didn’t want that “treat,” it would struggle, leading her to try to subdue it. Eventually, the dog would give up or it would break free. That meant that she either got what she wanted or suffered a small, transient disappointment.

Her cat, she says, has been much more effective at teaching her about an animal’s “personal space.” If my daughter wants to cuddle and the cat doesn’t, the cat scratches her. For my daughter, it was an instant, painful lesson that, just because she wants something, that doesn’t mean the other party to the encounter does. “Pain,” my daughter said, “can be an effective teacher.”

She’s right. As long-time readers know, my mantra as a parent has been “catch them being good.” If you’re a parent who only scolds, your child will stop listening. And while the child knows what incurs a parent’s irritation or outright anger, that’s not a guide to good behavior. After two decades of this kind of parenting, I use “catch them being good” with everyone in my life, whether friends or strangers with whom I interact over the day. If at all possible, I find something good that merits praise, and then give that praise.

However, I never forgot that I was also their teacher. The word “discipline” doesn’t have “pain” or “punish” at its root. Instead, it comes from “discipulus,” the Latin word for “pupil.” Discipline is meant to teach, not to hurt or destroy. However, sometimes teaching requires punitive measures or the pupil never learns the lesson.

Sometimes the consequences are natural. If you tell your child not to touch the stovetop because it will hurt him, that’s merely information. If the child touches a cool stovetop and nothing worse happens than your scolding him for disobeying you, he’s learned only that the stovetop is allied with mom’s wrath, not with a direct consequence from the stovetop. But if your child touches that hot stovetop and is burned (not badly, one hopes), he’ll have learned well a painful lesson.

So, what does this have to do with politics? A lot. First, in leftist world, the leftists are incentivizing and punishing things in a completely bass ackwards way. Before lefties got the bit in their mouth and ran with it, our society had unpleasant consequences for crime. In a pre-modern world, with limited police forces, the consequences were extremely painful: crucifixion, drawing and quartering, hanging, beheading, amputations, whippings, branding, facing wild animals in a stadium, etc. That was the only way to give ordinary, law-abiding citizens some protection from malfeasors. The bad guys knew that, if they got caught, the consequences would be horrific.

As we became more sophisticated at providing policing, offering more protection to ordinary citizens, the punishment became less onerous: Prison. Admittedly, prison is not a nice place. People who are accustomed to “nice” in their lives didn’t want to be there. Likewise, prison is not a safe place, so people who aren’t at the top of the pecking order didn’t want to be there either. Still, it’s better than the old punishments of old. And for some, prison is a reasonable price to pay for a criminal career.

Dissatisfied with even the lesser consequences of our modern prison system, leftists are removing all unpleasant disincentives for crime. In one leftist-run jurisdiction after another, the pain principle for discouraging crime is gone: Police are being defunded and, worse, intimidated. Cash bail, which kept repeat offenders off the street, is vanishing. More jurisdictions are deciding that property crimes aren’t worth dealing with at a criminal level.

The result is that crime is exploding across America. I’m too lazy to look for data, but you don’t have to look too hard to find data showing that assaults, murders, rapes, and property crimes, are skyrocketing everywhere. The punitive lessons that criminals need to learn are no longer being taught.

What will inevitably happen, of course, is vigilante justice. We see that on a regular basis in third-world countries with dysfunctional criminal justice systems. When citizens catch a rapist, murderer, or thief, they will beat or burn the person to death. That’s because what the leftists have forgotten is that one of the reasons our criminal justice system developed was that the system was less punitive than frightened, angry citizens. The system promised the citizens that they’d be kept safe. In return, the system could use lesser amounts of pain to teach bad guys a lesson.

Of course, leftists have a two-tiered justice system. If you’re black or a black ally, and you shout “BLM! Defund the police!” as you loot, assault, rape, and murder, you get a pass. However, if you support conservative values and like President Trump, the smallest deviations from the law will result in hugely punitive outcomes. The point is to cow opposition. And leftists know that nice, middle-class people are easily cowed.

The lack of pain also shows up in the way leftists have been massively rewarded for heinous, anti-democratic, anti-constitutional, deeply unethical behavior over the past five years. Since Trump was elected, leftists have gotten away with weaponizing provably false lies intended in order to destroy a duly-elected president’s ability to function (etc., the Russia Hoax, the Fine People hoax, the Ukrainian phone call hoax, the January 6 hysteria, etc.).

In 2020, in their drive to destroy Trump, leftists got away with destroying the American economy by reacting to COVID as if it were Ebola or the plague, rather than a bad flu that, sadly, struck old people very hard (in part because, in the beginning, doctors treated it wrong). There was an additional, and possibly unexpected, byproduct for them. They learned that a year of fear and imprisonment, rather than angering the American people, brought them to heel. Indeed, in leftist communities, people learned to love their prisons. I’m again too lazy to look, but there have been several articles that leftists have written bemoaning the fact that they have to emerge into the real world as the virus diminishes. It’s Stockholm syndrome on a national scale.

And of course, Leftists got away with election fraud on an epic level. Nothing in the world will ever convince me that 81 million people voted for a corrupt, senile old man who barely left his basement and, when he did hold rallies, was only able to get crowds in the tens to gather for him. And no, I don’t believe that people hated Trump so much that they forced themselves to vote for the perverted, gropy Joe.

Instead, I believe that illegal and unconstitutional changes to election rules allowed leftists to submit tens of thousands of faked ballots and ballots from people who can’t legally vote. In addition, I’m certain that in many areas they double and triple counted ballots. They subtracted Trump votes when possible and transferred them to Biden. They also did other things (such as shutting down the Hunter Biden story) that vaulted a drooling, evil idiot into the White House, along with his cackling, stupid, and America-hating sidekick.

And you know what? None of these criminally and morally evil acts have been punished. Instead, leftists have been rewarded with virtually unlimited power. Their propagandists in the media still have their platforms, still spin their lies, and still collect their big paychecks. Their lackeys in the federal government get massive book deals, which is simply a washed form of bribery.

For leftists in the Pentagon, the military is simply a highway to the highly profitable military-industrial complex. On the road there, the Pentagon’s leftists are turning the military into a vast social justice experiment with troops incapable of waging war. God forbid these troops ever have to face the Chinese because the slaughter will rival what happened when the Soviets threw unarmed soldiers against the Germans for one reason: To absorb German bullets, leaving Germans without weapons and far from their supply chain. Unlike the Russians, though, the Americans won’t win; they’ll just die.

But we, the American people, still have some power to be punitive. The main thing we need to do is embrace a leftist tactic: Boycotts. You see, the money behind all this corruption comes from two major sources: Unions and American corporations. Regarding the latter, we have developed into a nation of pure fascism. This does not mean Naziism. It simply means democracy has been supplanted by an almost all-powerful alliance of governments and corporations.

When it comes to fighting a corrupt government, we’re at a disadvantage. Election fraud, which Democrats are trying to make permanent through killing the filibuster and passing H.R. 1, leaves us disarmed at the ballot box. Our votes no longer count for much.

However, we can still fight the corporations. We do this by hanging onto our money. In Georgia, where Democrats from Biden on down are fighting tooth and nail to prevent voter ID for absentee ballots, the corporations have piled on to support the Democrats. How can you fight this? Don’t fly Delta, don’t drink Coke’s unhealthy products (including those from its subsidiaries), and don’t have anything to do with Major League Baseball. Don’t watch the games so ad revenue dries up; don’t attend the games; and for God’s sake, don’t buy the merchandise.

As far as I’m concerned, at least 81,000,000 Americans voted for Trump — and these were real voters, not phantoms. We still have the power to give the corporations who’ve waded into leftist politics a very painful lesson. And yes, people who work for them will lose their jobs but that doesn’t matter. This is war. Look at my Passover post to understand that, when there is tyranny, people always suffer. The best thing to do is to end the tyranny quickly.

Going back to my daughter’s lesson from the cat, the most important thing we can do is to give a lesson in pain to those corporations that are using their power to destroy America’s constitutional system, substituting in its place a form of crony socialism, aka fascism.

IMAGE: Angry cat from Pexels.

COVID19: Why Are Successful Treatments Being Ignored?

The video below of Dr. Peter McCullough speaking to the Texas Senate HHS Committee regarding his personal experiences treating COVID19 patients must be watched and shared.  A novice to social media, he explains to the Committee how he was driven by his desire to share his clinical knowledge in successfully treating COVID19 patients to create a Youtube video, only to find it quickly scrubbed from the site.  Once Operation Warp Speed began NO ONE pursued treatment options for COVID19 patients and any mention of a treatment was quickly pulled from social media sites.  Sadly, he explained how once a person tests positive for the virus they are essentially sent home and told to quarantine.  Dr. McCullough’s protocols include treating patients with a drug to treat the virus in addition to corticosteroid drugs and other anti-inflammatories along with anti-thrombotic drugs, a combination which has proven to keep 85% of patients from requiring hospitalization at all.  Monoclonal antibodies such as Remdesivir and Regeneron have also proven to be effective in the early treatment of the virus.  Imagine if 85% of the United States COVID19 546,055 deaths (as of March 28, 2021) survived COVID19?  We would have had less than 82,000 deaths in America if we had concentrated on TREATMENT and not merely told patients to go home – leaving them to believe no cure is available and then wait until they get so sick they end up in the hospital.

Dr. McCullough revealed at this point Texas has reached 80% herd immunity.  He also stated that once someone has had the virus they have complete and durable immunity.  There is no reason they should be vaccinated.  There is also NO evidence of asymptomatic spread of the virus.

We have lost focus on treating infected patients.  No single drug works alone, and every individual should be treated based on their symptoms, health condition and comorbidities.

It’s unconscionable that these stories of HOPE and RECOVERY aren’t reaching people due to social media blocking and scrubbing any counter-narrative to the COVID19 government/media driven reports focusing only on the vaccines, which are still experimental and only have FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).

Dr McCullough and his associates have developed an excellent pamphlet for people explaining how to fortify your immune system and minimize COVID19 symptoms if you do contract the virus, along with the treatment protocols they have found successful in caring for their patients.

Click on this link to download the pamphlet A Guide to Home-Based COVID Treatment.

 

 

My annual Passover post, with Biden in Pharaoh’s role this year

Every year, I publish a variation of my Passover post, with the latest enemy of freedom starring as Pharaoh. This year, Biden is Pharaoh.

For roughly 3,500 years, Jews have been telling and retelling the story of Passover — which is also the story of the world’s first revolt against a totalitarian dictatorship. The story remains relevant because each generation sees dangerous tyrants abusing their people and trying to expand their reach beyond their own borders. As we stare down those monsters, the thing to remember is that those atop the tyranny pyramid care about only one thing, which is that their tyranny remains stable and protected. I’m a little late this year (the past three days have been busy), but it’s still Passover work, so it’s time for this year’s iteration of my annual Passover post.

****

There are those who, rather than seeing the Passover ceremony as a celebration of freedom (for it celebrates the world’s first successful slave revolt), justice, and morality (insofar as it gave us the Ten Commandments), deride the whole ceremony as the unconscionable and immoral celebration of the Egyptian people’s genocide. The basis for this theory is the way in which God hardens Pharaoh’s heart after each plague, even as Pharaoh seems about to soften and let the Jews go. This engenders the full cycle of plagues, culminating in the death of the firstborn.

Those familiar with the Bible understand that this objection is predicated upon ignorance. The tenth plague, which saw God strike down the firstborn in every family without the Pascal lamb’s blood above their door, was not a random punishment. It was, instead, divine retribution for the Pharaoh’s own decree, in effect at Moses’s birth, that all firstborn Jewish males should be drowned in the Nile.

Also, I was re-reading Dennis Prager’s superb The Rational Bible: Exodus and was reminded that each one of the plagues essentially attacked one of the Egyptian’s many gods. Only in this way could God demonstrate that they were false idols and that he had the power to control the symbols with which they were associated. Of course, for those who see the Passover story as a neo-Nazi story, even that reasoning isn’t good enough.

One can bypass the whole issue by saying that the many plagues, culminating with the firstborn’s death, are nothing more than dramatic license, meant to increase the tension and danger surrounding the Jew’s escape from Egypt. After all, if the exodus had been easy, it wouldn’t have been much of a story. Imagine if Moses had asked, “Hey, Pharaoh, can we go?” and Pharaoh had answered, “Sure.”

That narrative lacks punch and heroism. More importantly, God’s involvement is minimal or, at least, unexciting. Surely it resonates more strongly with the people reliving the narrative every year to have an escalating series of plagues, with the audience on tenterhooks as to whether those pesky Jewish slaves will actually be able to make a break for it.

But frankly, the above reasoning is silly. The Bible is not so superficial. There is, instead, a much more profound purpose behind the ten plagues, and that is to remind us of the tyrant’s capacity for tolerating others’ suffering, as long as his power remains in place.

What Pharaoh discovered with the first nine plagues is that life can go on, at least for the ruler, no matter the burdens he places upon his people. A blood-filled Nile River may, at first, seem appalling, but the red recedes and life goes on. Pharaoh still holds power. The same is true for each subsequent plague, whether lice, boils, frogs, darkness, or anything else. As long as Pharaoh realizes, after the first panic, that he is still powerful, he will always reconcile himself to his people’s incremental destruction.

Sheltered in his lavish palace, Pharaoh might have a theoretical concern that a starving and frightened populace could turn on him. However, provided that he is assured that his people will continue to fear and worship him, their suffering is irrelevant. It is only when the price becomes too high — when the plague struck Pharaoh in his own palace, killing his firstborn* — that Pharaoh is convinced, even temporarily, to alter his evil ways.

Human nature hasn’t changed in 3,500 years. Think, for example, of both the Nazis and the Japanese at the end of WWII. For the Nazis, it was apparent by December 1944 (the Battle of the Bulge) that the war was over. Hitler, however, was a megalomaniac in the pharaonic mold, and his high command, either from fear or insanity, would not gainsay him. Rather than surrendering, the Nazi high command was not only willing to see its country overrun and its citizens killed, but they went along with Hitler’s demand to continue to divert military supplies to the Holocaust. The war ended only when Hitler, facing personal humiliation, killed himself and the remaining high command, see their lives at stake, finally gave up or committed suicide too. Hitler and his commanders were Pharaoh. Only when they, personally, faced a humiliating death would they stop fighting.

The same held true for the Japanese. Truman did not decide to drop the bomb just for the hell of it. Even impressing the Soviets was an insufficient reason for doing so. What swayed Truman was his advisers telling him (credibly as it turned out) that the Japanese Bushido culture would not allow Japan to surrender. Instead, Truman understood that, despite an inevitable American victory, without drastic action, that victory would take another year, and cost up to 100,000 American lives and as many as 1,000,000 Japanese lives (including Japanese civilians).

Truman had two choices: Wage war for at least another year, killing 100,000 Americans and up to a million Japanese civilians, or end the war instantly, with no more American casualties and an estimated 100,000 civilian Japanese casualties. Put that way, the choice was a no-brainer.  Not only would he save the military, but he would also save tens of thousands of POWs, both military and civilian. One of the Dutch civilian POWs saved was my Mom, who was on the verge of starving to death in a Japanese concentration camp.

The Japanese high command was Pharaoh. No amount of smaller plagues could stop the command from its chosen path. Only a large plague would swiftly lead to the inevitable conclusion.

The only way to destroy an evil institution is to decapitate it. That’s what God did with the 10th plague. That’s what Truman did when he dropped atom bombs on Japan. That’s what the Allies did when they engaged in total war against the Nazis. In each case, the only way to end a tyrant’s rampage of murder, torture, and enslavement was directly hurting the tyrant’s person.

Those who prefer the stability of tyranny to the risks of freedom are the same people who refuse to accept that, under tyranny, the innocents are always going to die, with the only question being whether they will die quickly or slowly. That’s the problem with an evil regime. If you’re unlucky enough to live under that regime, you’re going to end as cannon fodder. Pharaoh will let you die of plagues, and the Nazi and Japanese leadership will let you be bombed and burned, and Biden will open America’s southern border while ramping up the welfare system and pushing Critical Race Theory, a pernicious racial theory every bit as bad as the Nazi’s racial theories. Ensconced in the White House, and surrounded by unelected fanatics, nothing will stop them. The American economy can collapse and whites can become the subjects of actual purges and the Biden administration will continue on its path — as long as the tyrants in charge can retain their power.

People of goodwill must sometimes recognize that the generation raised under tyranny is a lost generation that cannot be saved, whether because it will die under the tyrant’s lash, in the tyrant’s war, or in a war against the tyrant. Sometimes, when slaves finally taste freedom, they fear it. The Bible recognizes this problem, banning the Promised Land to those who were slaves in Egypt. They were a lost generation.

For this reason, when one sees a people groaning under tyranny the most humane thing to do is to destroy the tyranny quickly and decisively even if that process causes people to suffer. Most of them were always going to be lost. Our actions are for the benefit of subsequent generations and, if we are lucky, for those who survived both the tyranny and the liberation.

Protecting freedom for the greatest number of people sometimes demands proactive behavior. And there is nothing more proactive than an overwhelming response when a tyrant starts putting out feelers to see how far he can go. If Chamberlain had done that in 1938, WWII might have been avoided.**

The only way to stop tyranny is to fight tyranny. For liberty-loving people in America, that’s a challenge, because, for the first time in my lifetime, the tyrant is their unfettered government. Still, we have weapons. For one thing, every last one of us needs to stop bowing down before cancel culture. Even non-conservatives need to realize that there is no end to cancel culture. Its practitioners must constantly strive to prove their purity and they can do this only by attacking others.

Today, I put up a post at American Thinker about the push at Oxford University to cancel the entire Western music system (musical notations, Beethoven, Brahms, etc.) because it existed at the same time as the African slave trade. Apparently even then, if Europeans who had nothing to do with and probably no knowledge of the slave trade didn’t speak out, they were complicit! I made a point regarding events at Oxford that I think is relevant here:

I think the Oxford music teachers know this is bunkum. They’re raising it only because they feel that, unless they chime in on the Black Lives Matter issue and show themselves to be on board with it, they will be the next target. Under the tyranny that is BLM, if you’re not with them, you’re against them, and if you’re against them, you will be destroyed in the next purge (and there’s always a next purge).

As I watch the endless waves of BLM stupidity in corporations and academic institutions in the English-speaking world, I’m reminded of nothing so much as the mourners at Kim Jong-il’s funeral. They knew that the secret police were watching and that anyone showing insufficient grief was at risk of being carted off to a concentration camp. That’s why you see videos such as the one below showing thousands of people engaged in hysterical weeping. Yes, they were told that their communist godhead had died, but what you’re seeing in these videos isn’t grief, it’s fear.

We have to stop playing this fear game. When they call us racists, when they subject us to the appalling racist Critical Race Theory, when they use race to justify overthrowing our southern border, we need to speak out even more loudly. We need to fight their ideology at every turn. We need to boycott the woke companies. We need to fund organizations that will handle lawfare for people fired because they exercised their constitutional rights.

Do anything and everything you can think of to push back against this administration. That does not mean violating the laws; it does not mean impoverishing yourself; it does not mean violence. However, it does mean speaking up constantly, withholding what money you can from complicit organizations, and backing down only when your safety is at risk (something, sadly, I know about doing).

With that, I’d like to wish all of you a Chag Sameach (Happy Passover). Whether Jewish or not, I hope that the Pesach celebration serves as an occasion for all of us to remember that, though the price may sometimes be high, both for slave and master, our goal as just and moral human beings must be freedom. So please join with me in saying, as all Jews do at this time of year, “Next Year in Jerusalem.”

____________________

*The fact that Pharaoh survived the last of the ten plagues tells us that he was not his father’s firstborn son. Either an older sibling died or Pharaoh was the younger child in a family unrelated to the Egyptian ruling family and, through a coup, seized the throne.

**And yes, I am aware of the argument that Chamberlain might not have been Hitler’s dupe. Thanks to England’s anti-War fervor after WWI, which led to disarmament and the drawing down of her military, Chamberlain might have believed by 1938 that England could do nothing to stop Hitler. That belief would have led him to choose appeasement as the only option. I don’t agree with this view because bullies will back down quickly if their intended victim fights even minimally, but I’ll give Chamberlain the benefit of the doubt because he was a decent and patriotic man.

IMAGE: Moses and Aaron confront Pharaoh (1537). Master of the Dinteville Allegory. As part of The Met’s Open Access program, the data is available for unrestricted commercial and noncommercial use without permission or fee.

The message in the cold that I caught

I believe that there’s a lesson about masks — and what they’re really good at in today’s world — in the bad cold I caught.

I have a cold, a nasty, snuffly, sore-throat, stuffy-nose, I-feel-sick kind of cold. The same kind of cold that I’ve probably had 200 times before over the course of my life. When my nose isn’t stopped up, my sense of smell is perfect; my blood oxygenation is a marvel of good health; and I’m not running a temperature, so I’m not worried that this is covert COVID. It’s just a cold.

What I find interesting is the fact that I caught a cold in the first place. After all, for the past year, I’ve been practicing good virus hygiene: I work from home so I limit my interactions with other people and, when I go out, I wear an N95 mask (which I bought in a moment of prescience last February). I also keep my hands to myself and disinfect them when I return to the house or the car, always making sure to keep my hands away from my face until I’ve disinfected them.

So how in the world did I catch a cold which, last I heard, is a virus? I have two theories:

Theory Number One: Even an N95 mask will not block viruses or, at least, it won’t block all the particles that come my way. As many have pointed out, when people who work with drywall or other particulate matter take off their N95 masks at the end of the day, their faces under the mask are still covered with fine particulate matter. The mask blocks a lot but not all of the particulates. So, maybe that’s how I got this cold and could be how I’ll still manage to catch COVID, assuming I don’t decide to get a vaccine (and that’s assuming vaccine supplies arrive in my community, which they haven’t yet).

Theory Number Two: The N95 mask gave me the cold. This is my preferred theory.

Masks are meant to be used only once. The reason for that is cross-contamination.

Tear your mind away from the mask for a minute and think in terms of surgical gloves. You’re preparing chicken for dinner and you hate to touch the germy meat (uncooked, chicken is the most germ-laden meat), so you put on some nice surgical-style rubber gloves. When you’re done prepping the chicken, you don’t take your gloves off. Instead, you keep them on as you make the salad, prepare the potatoes, take the chicken out of the oven, and plate the food. After that, you carelessly strip off your gloves and leave them lying by the sink. You pick them up again after dinner, put them on, and use them to wash and dry the dishes.

The next day, you and everyone else in the family is horrifically ill with food poisoning. Should anyone be surprised? All that the gloves did was keep that E. coli away from your hands. In all other ways, they were the perfect vector for spreading the E. coli from the raw chicken to every other raw surface in the kitchen or on your food. The gloves were theater, nothing more.

That is exactly the case with the masks people wear. Ideally, we should all be going through N95 masks at a ferocious rate, several times a day if we’re not home. The way it should work is that, in the car, you disinfect your hands. Then, you put on a brand new N95 mask. You go into the grocery store and do all your shopping. When you get near your car, you strip the mask off and throw it away. You then disinfect your hands before touching anything (e.g., your steering wheel, gear shift, face, etc.). And you do this every time you put on and take off that mask over the course of the day. That’s the only way to prevent cross-contamination.

Of course, that’s not what anyone does. We all have our one mask. We carry it around in our car, purse, or backpack. We put it on and take it off constantly. When we’re with other people, they’ve done the same with their masks. In addition, many people have poorly fitting masks or they feel claustrophobic, so the mask repeatedly ends up below their nose, and then they keep pulling it up over and over.

The cross-contamination is non-stop and renders the masks completely useless — except, perhaps, to contain the big, gloppy droplets when someone with a cold, flu, or allergy sneezes or coughs, and even then that person handles the mask over and over after the fact. Those gloppy particulates are why, if you have a cold, it’s probably polite for you to wear a mask, as the Japanese and South Koreans have done for years.

I discovered the secret of preventing colds a long time ago: Whenever I return to the car, I disinfect my hands. Long before disinfectant mania, I had pump bottles of disinfectant in my car and I used it religiously. That’s because I figured out that the three big cold vectors in my life were shopping cart handles, door handles, and credit card readers (along with those icky pens). If I kept my hands away from my face until I reached my car, and disinfected before I touched anything, I stayed healthy.

Now, though, because of the whole mask thing, despite my hand disinfecting ritual, I’ve still got that mask collecting bacteria and viruses, and following me wherever I go,  It’s a snare and a delusion, as it is for everyone else. Perhaps next time I go to Costco, I’ll buy that big box of generic masks so I can end the cross-contamination game — except, of course, I know that those masks do nothing to stop the free flow of viruses, not to mention the fact that they’ve become a major source of pollution.

In my humble opinion, masks are not the solution; they are one of the problems.

Is there an upside for men hidden in the Equality Act?

Bear with me here, because I’ve got a weird theory about the Equality Act and the whole transwomen (i.e., fake women) thing.

I am and will continue to be second to none in my assertion that there is no such thing as transgenderism — that is, wishing you were or believing you are a member of the opposite sex does not make you one. If you treat me with respect, I will accord you the courtesy of pretending that you are whatever the heck you want to be. However, if you insist that your delusions are real and, worse, insist on remaking all of America and, indeed, all of human society to accommodate your delusions, I’m going to push back very, very hard.

So that’s where I stand on transgenderism and, until there’s actual science to support this leftist societal lunacy (and there isn’t), I’m not budging on the issue. But….

The other day, Abigail Shrier testified before the Senate regarding the ludicrously misnamed Equality Act. Shrier isn’t opposed to transgenderism — or at least, that’s the position she’s taken so that she won’t be shouted down when she talks about her real passion, which is women’s rights. Shrier’s point is that opportunistic men will take advantage of the Equality Act to get into women’s prisons (where they rape actual women), locker rooms and bathrooms (where our daughters are at risk), and university and business spots reserved for women.

As I was listening, it occurred to me that, while I agree with Shrier 100% regarding women’s physical safety, when it comes to those university and business spots reserved for women, it’s the opportunistic men who may have a point. I know, I know! But hear me out.

Men are a minority in college, something that’s happening all over the world, and it’s very bad for men. Before Wuhan virus madness took over the world, even the Washington Post had noticed:

Fifty years ago, 58 percent of U.S. college students were men. Today, 56 percent are women, Education Department estimates show. This year, for the first time, the share of college-educated women in the U.S. workforce passed the share of college-educated men, according to the Pew Research Center.

It’s not just that more women opt for college. It’s that fewer men do, affecting their opportunities and lifetime earnings.

“It’s a crazy cycle,” said Adrian Huerta, an assistant professor of education at the University of Southern California who focuses on college access and gender. “We know that when you have a college education, there are good outcomes with health. You’re more likely to live longer. It matters for employment stability and civic engagement. You’re less likely to rely on social services.”

Men are also being squeezed within colleges. While men are much more likely to engage in college-level sports, Title IX equity forces colleges to spend exactly the same on women’s sports as they do on men’s. Since most colleges can’t spend more on women’s sports, they simply cut back on men’s sports.

And of course, speaking of Title IX, under Obama’s administration, men were presumptively guilty whenever a woman accused them of sexual wrongdoing. Along with that presumption came the denial of the right to speak to parents or attorneys, denial of the right to question witnesses, and denial of any other due process before they were labeled “sexual predators” and kicked to the curb. Trump reinstated due process rights, but Gropey Joe Biden has removed them. Most colleges will be happy because the hard left administrators in charge of allegations of sexual misconduct tend to be “womyn” and “womxns” who truly hate men.

Once out of college, it’s women who are coming to dominate some of the professions that are associated with status and wealth. The majority of medical students are women. In 2016, women also became the majority in law schools. Women have already been the majority of veterinary students for a decade.

At a more general level, at the dawn of the Wuhan virus insanity, women were the majority in the workforce:

Going into 2020, the U.S. economy generally seems strong — especially for women, who hold the majority of jobs for the first time in almost a decade. Women held 50.04% of American jobs as of December, excluding farm workers and the self-employed, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s up from 49.7% just one year ago.

What’s driving the surge in female employment? The two industries that experienced the biggest overall gains, health care and retail, both employ many women and are fueled in part by demand from economically-empowered female consumers, says Amanda Weinstein, assistant professor of economics at the University of Akron.

Meanwhile, as women have gained increased control of spending in American households and entered the workforce over the last century, they’ve helped fuel the rise of the service sector, which includes healthcare, education and retail, all industries with lots of female employment. In turn, services such as daycare, home health care, and food preparation have made it easier for women to join the workforce.

While these statistics look great for women’s libbers, it’s questionable how good they are for families, in general, and children, in specific. It turns out there’s truth to the saying “happy wife; happy life,” and the corollary, although it doesn’t rhyme is “happy mother; healthy, happy children.” When mom is absent or overwhelmed, no one is very happy. But that’s a subject for a different post.

Of course, there are still legions of women who go into the jobs traditionally associated with women — teachers, social workers, child care, dental technicians, nurses — something that inordinately frustrates feminists. Some of it is because women’s interests genuinely lie in those directions. And some of it is because women do want to be mothers to their children and that means jobs with more flexibility. When you’re preparing for trial or are doing your 13 years of training to become a neurosurgeon, there’s no such thing as personal time. But still, when you look at the statistics, men are slowly being squeezed out of the old upper-class professions.

My point is that the societal pendulum has gone way overboard when it comes to promoting women and holding back men. This matters. Let me repeat part of the quotation from the Washington Post, above:

“It’s a crazy cycle,” said Adrian Huerta, an assistant professor of education at the University of Southern California who focuses on college access and gender. “We know that when you have a college education, there are good outcomes with health. You’re more likely to live longer. It matters for employment stability and civic engagement. You’re less likely to rely on social services.”

Huerta could have added that this trend also decreases men’s chances with women. Women tend to look for higher status males. I’m sure leftists will say that this is a cultural artifact, but I think it’s a lizard brain thing. When young women meet a young man, their lizard brain checks out the young man for fathering potential. Lizard brain says that the young man should be physically healthy and should have the potential to be a good provider. What’s cultural is that, for about a century, the white-collar professionals were the good providers. That’s no longer true. Men are losing out in the dating game.

(By the way, the corollary to young women looking for high-earning men is that an enormous number of women who married high-earners, raised families, and then found themselves in the market again for a relationship, surprise themselves when they’re drawn to men who aren’t so Type A/Alpha Male/High Earning. Without lizard brain urging them to find a good provider for their hypothetical children, older women can really get to know the guys — and they discover there’s a virtue to the more mellow ones.)

The ultimate point of all of this is that men have been getting the short end of the educational and employment stick for a long time now. I wouldn’t be surprised if opportunistic men fake transgenderism just to re-level the playing field a bit. That is, it’s not that they want to rape little girls in women’s restrooms. It’s just that they want a chance to go to college, but have noticed that some colleges have such imbalances that their incoming classes are up to 65% female.

What’s glorious for these men under the Equality Act is that they don’t have to behave like women, they don’t need to take hormones, they don’t need destructive surgery, and they don’t need to date men. Instead, they just have to announce that they are women and it’s done. If they continue to act like men…well, they’re “butch.” And if they date women, they’re “lesbians.”

So when young feminists start to complain that men are coming for their positions in academia or at the hospital or big law firm, maybe it will comfort them to know that the men are just swinging the pendulum back a little toward the center.

Photo of transgender flag by Lena Balk on Unsplash; edited by me.

Is there an upside for men hidden in the Equality Act?

Bear with me here, because I’ve got a weird theory about the Equality Act and the whole transwomen (i.e., fake women) thing.

I am and will continue to be second to none in my assertion that there is no such thing as transgenderism — that is, wishing you were or believing you are a member of the opposite sex does not make you one. If you treat me with respect, I will accord you the courtesy of pretending that you are whatever the heck you want to be. However, if you insist that your delusions are real and, worse, insist on remaking all of America and, indeed, all of human society to accommodate your delusions, I’m going to push back very, very hard.

So that’s where I stand on transgenderism and, until there’s actual science to support this leftist societal lunacy (and there isn’t), I’m not budging on the issue. But….

The other day, Abigail Shrier testified before the Senate regarding the ludicrously misnamed Equality Act. Shrier isn’t opposed to transgenderism — or at least, that’s the position she’s taken so that she won’t be shouted down when she talks about her real passion, which is women’s rights. Shrier’s point is that opportunistic men will take advantage of the Equality Act to get into women’s prisons (where they rape actual women), locker rooms and bathrooms (where our daughters are at risk), and university and business spots reserved for women.

As I was listening, it occurred to me that, while I agree with Shrier 100% regarding women’s physical safety, when it comes to those university and business spots reserved for women, it’s the opportunistic men who may have a point. I know, I know! But hear me out.

Men are a minority in college, something that’s happening all over the world, and it’s very bad for men. Before Wuhan virus madness took over the world, even the Washington Post had noticed:

Fifty years ago, 58 percent of U.S. college students were men. Today, 56 percent are women, Education Department estimates show. This year, for the first time, the share of college-educated women in the U.S. workforce passed the share of college-educated men, according to the Pew Research Center.

It’s not just that more women opt for college. It’s that fewer men do, affecting their opportunities and lifetime earnings.

“It’s a crazy cycle,” said Adrian Huerta, an assistant professor of education at the University of Southern California who focuses on college access and gender. “We know that when you have a college education, there are good outcomes with health. You’re more likely to live longer. It matters for employment stability and civic engagement. You’re less likely to rely on social services.”

Men are also being squeezed within colleges. While men are much more likely to engage in college-level sports, Title IX equity forces colleges to spend exactly the same on women’s sports as they do on men’s. Since most colleges can’t spend more on women’s sports, they simply cut back on men’s sports.

And of course, speaking of Title IX, under Obama’s administration, men were presumptively guilty whenever a woman accused them of sexual wrongdoing. Along with that presumption came the denial of the right to speak to parents or attorneys, denial of the right to question witnesses, and denial of any other due process before they were labeled “sexual predators” and kicked to the curb. Trump reinstated due process rights, but Gropey Joe Biden has removed them. Most colleges will be happy because the hard left administrators in charge of allegations of sexual misconduct tend to be “womyn” and “womxns” who truly hate men.

Once out of college, it’s women who are coming to dominate some of the professions that are associated with status and wealth. The majority of medical students are women. In 2016, women also became the majority in law schools. Women have already been the majority of veterinary students for a decade.

At a more general level, at the dawn of the Wuhan virus insanity, women were the majority in the workforce:

Going into 2020, the U.S. economy generally seems strong — especially for women, who hold the majority of jobs for the first time in almost a decade. Women held 50.04% of American jobs as of December, excluding farm workers and the self-employed, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s up from 49.7% just one year ago.

What’s driving the surge in female employment? The two industries that experienced the biggest overall gains, health care and retail, both employ many women and are fueled in part by demand from economically-empowered female consumers, says Amanda Weinstein, assistant professor of economics at the University of Akron.

Meanwhile, as women have gained increased control of spending in American households and entered the workforce over the last century, they’ve helped fuel the rise of the service sector, which includes healthcare, education and retail, all industries with lots of female employment. In turn, services such as daycare, home health care, and food preparation have made it easier for women to join the workforce.

While these statistics look great for women’s libbers, it’s questionable how good they are for families, in general, and children, in specific. It turns out there’s truth to the saying “happy wife; happy life,” and the corollary, although it doesn’t rhyme is “happy mother; healthy, happy children.” When mom is absent or overwhelmed, no one is very happy. But that’s a subject for a different post.

Of course, there are still legions of women who go into the jobs traditionally associated with women — teachers, social workers, child care, dental technicians, nurses — something that inordinately frustrates feminists. Some of it is because women’s interests genuinely lie in those directions. And some of it is because women do want to be mothers to their children and that means jobs with more flexibility. When you’re preparing for trial or are doing your 13 years of training to become a neurosurgeon, there’s no such thing as personal time. But still, when you look at the statistics, men are slowly being squeezed out of the old upper-class professions.

My point is that the societal pendulum has gone way overboard when it comes to promoting women and holding back men. This matters. Let me repeat part of the quotation from the Washington Post, above:

“It’s a crazy cycle,” said Adrian Huerta, an assistant professor of education at the University of Southern California who focuses on college access and gender. “We know that when you have a college education, there are good outcomes with health. You’re more likely to live longer. It matters for employment stability and civic engagement. You’re less likely to rely on social services.”

Huerta could have added that this trend also decreases men’s chances with women. Women tend to look for higher status males. I’m sure leftists will say that this is a cultural artifact, but I think it’s a lizard brain thing. When young women meet a young man, their lizard brain checks out the young man for fathering potential. Lizard brain says that the young man should be physically healthy and should have the potential to be a good provider. What’s cultural is that, for about a century, the white-collar professionals were the good providers. That’s no longer true. Men are losing out in the dating game.

(By the way, the corollary to young women looking for high-earning men is that an enormous number of women who married high-earners, raised families, and then found themselves in the market again for a relationship, surprise themselves when they’re drawn to men who aren’t so Type A/Alpha Male/High Earning. Without lizard brain urging them to find a good provider for their hypothetical children, older women can really get to know the guys — and they discover there’s a virtue to the more mellow ones.)

The ultimate point of all of this is that men have been getting the short end of the educational and employment stick for a long time now. I wouldn’t be surprised if opportunistic men fake transgenderism just to re-level the playing field a bit. That is, it’s not that they want to rape little girls in women’s restrooms. It’s just that they want a chance to go to college, but have noticed that some colleges have such imbalances that their incoming classes are up to 65% female.

What’s glorious for these men under the Equality Act is that they don’t have to behave like women, they don’t need to take hormones, they don’t need destructive surgery, and they don’t need to date men. Instead, they just have to announce that they are women and it’s done. If they continue to act like men…well, they’re “butch.” And if they date women, they’re “lesbians.”

So when young feminists start to complain that men are coming for their positions in academia or at the hospital or big law firm, maybe it will comfort them to know that the men are just swinging the pendulum back a little toward the center.

Photo of transgender flag by Lena Balk on Unsplash; edited by me.