Monthly Archives: April 2013

Hot Women, Cold Ca$h

[Or: “Me So Warm-y”]

From The Hill

Several House Democrats are calling on Congress to recognize that climate change is hurting women more than men, and could even drive poor women to “transactional sex” for survival.

The resolution, from Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and a dozen other Democrats, says the results of climate change include drought and reduced agricultural output. It says these changes can be particularly harmful for women.

“[F]ood insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health,” it says.

Climate change will make women into prostitutes. Of course. Why couldn’t anyone see it before now? It will be so hot in here, women will be forced to take off their clothes to stay alive.

I’m not sure how transactional sex would increase the rate of STIs and unplanned pregnancies any higher than the present climate (heh) of uncontrolled recreational sex is now. In fact, the dreaded early marriage may even serve to reduce the occurrence rate of disease and unplanned pregnancy, by limiting the number of sex partners people have.

Also, whatever legitimate concerns there may be about climate change,* this shines a high powered neon spotlight on how climate change has become a prop for the most nakedly transparent political nitwittery –

In a statement to The Hill, Lee said women are critically underrepresented in the development of climate change policy.

“My resolution will affirm the commitment to include and empower women in economic development planning and international climate change policies and practices,” she said.

…The resolution calls on Congress to recognize the effects on women, and to use “gender-specific frameworks in developing policies to address climate change.”

Lastly, Rep. Lee has shown she doesn’t consider climate change to be a real problem that needs solving, but an excuse for social engineering. No one would be worrying about gender-specific frameworks during a real disaster. Except maybe in Hollywood…

Gen. Eric Militarybuffoon – “The nuclear space asteroids are headed directly for Earth! We don’t have enough missiles to stop them all! The world is doomed!”

Smarttinkerer Nebbishly – “Sir! I’ve developed an asteroid-destroying ray that will save the planet!”

GNEM – “Did any women assist you in building that ray?”

SN – “Uh…. no…?”

GNEM – “Were any women involved in the development and design stages?”

SN – Can’t say that there were…”

GNEM – “Did your mother at least bring coffee down to the basement for you?”

SN – “…no…”

GNEM – “Sorry, can’t let you use that device. H. Con. Res. 36 states that we need an integrated gender approach in climate change prevention policies.”

SN – “This isn’t climate change, this is nuclear space asteroids about to vaporize the Earth!”

“GNEM “That would change the climate rather drastically, wouldn’t you say?”

SN – “….”

GNEM – “How many poor and disadvantaged women have turned to prostitution and early marriage because you didn’t hire them to help with your Earth-saving contraption?”

______________________________________________________

*There aren’t any.

Advertisements

So Fake It’s Real

Totally shameless swipe from Carnivore’s Cave

Find more here.

Economics For The Citizen

In 2005, economist Walter Williams of George Mason University wrote ten short essays titled Economics For The Citizen, explaining basic economic concepts for those unfamiliar with them. These should be required reading for everyone. Especially politicians and other know-nothing busybodies who insist on telling people how to do their business. An excerpt –

The essence of exchange is the transfer of title. Here’s the essence of what happens when I buy a gallon of milk from my grocer. I tell him that I hold title to these three dollars and he holds title to the gallon of milk. Then, I offer: If you transfer your title to that gallon of milk, I will transfer title to these three dollars.

Whenever there’s voluntary exchange, the only clear conclusion that a third party can make is that both parties, in their opinion, perceived themselves as better off as a result of the exchange; otherwise, they wouldn’t have exchanged. I was free to keep my three dollars, and the grocer was free to keep his milk. If you think it’s obvious that both parties benefit from voluntary exchange, then how come we hear pronouncements about worker exploitation?

Say you offer me a wage of $2 an hour. I’m free to either accept or reject your offer. So what can be concluded if I’m seen working for you at $2 an hour? One clear conclusion is that I must have seen myself as being better off taking your offer than my next best alternative. All other alternatives were less valuable, or else why would I have accepted the $2 offer? How appropriate is it to say that you’re exploiting me when you’ve given me my best offer? Rather than using the term exploitation, you might say you wish I had more desirable alternatives.

While people might characterize $2 an hour as exploitation, they wouldn’t say the same about $50 an hour. Therefore, for the most part, when people use the term exploitation in reference to voluntary exchange, they simply disagree with the price. If we equate price disagreement with exploitation, then exploitation is everywhere. For example, I not only disagree with my salary, I also disagree with the prices of Gulfstream private jets.

By no means do I suggest that you purge your vocabulary of the term exploitation. It’s an emotionally valuable term to use to trick others, but in the process of tricking others, one need not trick himself.

Pass this along to any recent liberal arts graduates you might know.

Gaia Pride Parade

Happy Earth Day. Go save the planet.

Don't let your SUV catch fire in the collision - that would be a lot of carbon emission and smoke, which is bad and spontaneously kills puppies up to 15 miles away.

Don’t let your SUV catch fire in the collision – that would be a lot of carbon emission and smoke, which is bad and spontaneously kills puppies up to 15 miles away.

Shout-out to The American and Benjamin Zycher, who lists Dogbert as one of his favorite philosophers.

How Old Is That In Kryptonian Years?

[Or: “Red Letter ‘S’ Day”]

Apparently yesterday was Superman’s 75th birthday…

bdaycard

 

… although he is rather difficult to shop for.

He's got an entire Fortress in the Arctic filled with souvenirs, confiscated weapons, even an entire miniature city. What are ya gonna find at the Wal-Mart to top that?

He’s got an entire Fortress in the Arctic filled with souvenirs, confiscated weapons, even an entire miniature city. What are ya gonna find at the Wal-Mart to top that?

 

 

 

Repeatedly Offending

Totally swiping from The Adaptive Curmudgeon again with this morally questionable but catchy libertarian tune. Hey, it’s not illegal.

King Solomon Had The Right Idea After All

From Reason.com

Melissa Harris-Perry says that children belong to the community, not their parents.

No, really. I’m not paraphrasing, that’s what she said.

“We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we have this private notion of children. ‘Your kid is yours, and totally your responsibility.’ We haven’t had a very collective notion of ‘these are our children.’ So part of it is to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.

“Once it’s everybody’s responsibility, and not just the household’s, then we start making better investments.”

There’s another video of her at Newsbusters where she dismisses a fertilized egg as nonhuman and opines thusly –

[T]he reality is that if this turns into a person, right, there are economic consequences, right? The cost to raise a child, $10,000 a year up to $20,000 a year. When you’re talking about what it actually costs to have this thing turn into a human, why not allow women to make the best choices that we can with as many resources and options instead of trying to come in and regulate this process?

This is a purely materialist worldview, and a zero-sum one at that. On top of that, despite her claim of the process being “regulated,” she in in fact proposing a system of that can only function by mechanism of regulation. Collective child-raising has to have rules and regulations, determining whose turn it is to handle which duty and when.
By pure coincidence, right after I found this, I read this column by John Hawkins about Margaret Thatcher. This quote struck me in sharp contrast to everything Harris-Perry stated –
“I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand ‘I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!’ or ‘I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!’ ‘I am homeless, the Government must house me!’ and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first… There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.”
People taking care of themselves and their own. Such a radical, selfish concept, isn’t it?

Taking A Shat

Apparently The Adaptive Curmudgeon hates everyone with such a passion he would drop a raccoon turd on your dinner plate if he could, but since he doesn’t have a couple billion of the masked critters to aim and squeeze at Dollar Menu entrees, he posted this instead –

It was moderately amusing for me (for me, for meee), but then I find things like Late Night Mistakes and Batman vs. Donkey Kong to be High Art, so I don’t think I qualify as an arbiter of crimes against culture. In fact, I’m quite likely a repeat offender.

Which is a good enough segue as any to drop these classy bits from LNM…

june28_2

Dude, smile! You’re harshing the mellow at this party

aug1_2

…and a thousand hentai jokes were launched

"Drink up, mates!" indeed

“Drink up, mates!” indeed