Can’t you tell feminists are just such peaceful, lovable women? You only think feminists are vulgar idiots because the vast conspiracy of the Patriarchy told you so.
You might be wondering why the police didn’t intervene. The reason given is a hilariously ironic repudiation of feminism:
The police reportedly told the media they were unable to intervene because “they are women.”
Can you say
male female privilege?
As someone who earned useful STEM degrees (Bachelor’s and Master’s in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science) and has openly mocked feminism it should be no surprise that I consider Gender Studies and similar degrees to be worthless. But don’t just take my word for it. Courtesy The Other McCain a feminist about to receive a Master’s in Gender Studies has realized the same thing:
I have a honors BA and I’m defending my MA thesis in two weeks. I am also apply for jobs and I can only find stuff in the service industry. I applied for a Hotel Front Desk Clerk job today. My degrees mean NOTHING. I am at the end of my rope.
Obviously, The Patriarchy is to blame. Actually, a Gender Studies degree is worth less than nothing because you have to pay a college or university to “educate” you in
Gender Studies blaming The Patriarchy — if you’re thinking of getting a degree in Gender Studies you’re better off skipping college and getting some work experience and a paycheck instead.
It’s getting very difficult to suppress laughter of pure schadenfreude these days. Fresh off the news that the unions which supported Obamacare are now turning against it comes news that the New York Times has sold the Boston Globe for only $70 million after purchasing it for $1.1 billion. That works out to a 93% loss without even adjusting for inflation. As if that wasn’t bad enough, the New York Times is still responsible for the Boston Globe’s pension liabilities, which are estimated at more than $100 million. In other words, the New York Times has sold the Boston Globe for the privilege of only losing an additional $30 million (the difference between the $70 million sale price and $100 million in liabilities) on top of the total loss of $1.1 billion.
Why the schadenfreude? In case it wasn’t obvious, the New York Times is one of the most leftist news organizations of the leftist-biased media (H/T Wintery Knight). That means that the New York Times, which as a news organization should at least try to report the truth, is committed to trying to distort reality to make it appear more favorable to the leftist worldview. The New York Times often expresses its leftist bias in the form of shoddy analysis (like this example from Wintery Knight) or subtly biased “news” articles (which other news organizations with a leftist bias have a tendency to do). In case all that reality distortion in the ostensibly fact-based news sections isn’t enough to protect leftist readers from the truth, the Times acts as a mouthpiece for loony lefties like Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman (you’d think if he was worth his salt that an economist like Krugman could advise his company on how to avoid losing more than a billion dollars on a dumb purchase).
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is an argument for theism. It argues that the universe was created (“caused”) and that it had to have been created by a being “outside” of the universe (since a being which is part of the universe would not exist in order to create it), which we call God. The argument is:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a common argument for theism used by Christian philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig. Dr. Craig has used the argument in many of his debates, but he has now posted on Youtube an excellent short video explaining the argument (H/T Hard-core Christianity):
The Wall Street Journal has posted a letter written by three union leaders (H/T Wintery Knight) asking Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) to make changes to Obamacare, which unions widely supported when it was passed. Here are some excerpts of the letter with my comments:
When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat.
Yes, your health plan will change, whether you like it or not. Why are you surprised? We conservatives did try to warn you.
Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.
Can you guess why the 40 hour work week will be affected? More on that in a minute…
We have been strong supporters of the notion that all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care. We have also been strong supporters of you. In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision.
Yes, remember that these unions supported Obama, Democrats, and Obamacare (though the latter is nothing like “quality, affordable health care”).
Now this vision has come back to haunt us.
If only they’d listened when we were warning them…
Time is running out: Congress wrote this law; we voted for you. We have a problem; you need to fix it.
Again, remember these unions supported this monstrosity and Congress passed it. Of course, the unions didn’t see any problems at the time.
The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios:
Did you just fall out of your chair? Because I did. Leftists are acknowledging unintended consequences! They are aware of such a thing as a perverse incentive!
First, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.
Here’s where that 40 hour work week problem comes in. Obamacare requires large employers to provide health care benefits to their full-time employees (defined as an employee who works 30 hours or more per week) or pay a stiff new penalty. So what happens? Employers reduce or eliminate these new costs imposed on them by only allowing employees to work less than 30 hours per week. This means these employees are “part-time” and their employer doesn’t have to pay a penalty even without providing them with benefits. The result, as the union leaders point out, is that former full-time employees get fewer hours (which of course means less pay) and they still don’t get benefits. Great job, Democrats! Government mandates like those in Obamacare cannot escape economic realities — to paraphrase Dr. Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park: the market finds a way.
We continue to stand behind real health care reform, but the law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans including the members of our respective unions.
Quoted for truth. Unfortunately, tweaking Obamacare will not fix the problem — the entire behemoth of economic stupidity, unintended consequences, and perverse incentives must be scrapped.
As a salaried, non-union employee who has a good health plan (for now) I’m very much tempted to let out a hearty laugh of schadenfreude over this union letter. But I won’t do that because
The Wall Street Journal recently published an article on a small study which found that
while math and science majors drew the most interest initially, not many students finished with degrees in those subjects. More students dropped out of math and science majors and fewer students switched into them than any other area of study, including professional programs, social sciences, humanities and business.
The survey results also showed that the students who dropped out didn’t do so because they discovered an unexpected amount of the work. In fact, students who expressed interest initially anticipated more work than other majors.
The students switched out because they were dissatisfied with their grades. “Students knew science was hard to begin with, but for a lot of them it turned out to be much worse than what they expected,” said Todd R. Stinebrickner, one of the paper’s authors. “What they didn’t expect is that even if they work hard, they still won’t do well.”
The good news is that STEM subjects draw a lot of initial interest (probably because STEM jobs generally pay well), but the bad news is that many students appear to be unprepared for college level math and science. The researchers’ recommendation for reducing this problem of students dropping out of STEM majors is
If more science graduates are desired, the findings suggest the importance of policies at younger ages that lead students to enter college better prepared to study science.
I do think that college preparation before college is very important — particularly for STEM — since science and engineering depend heavily on good math skills, and math skills build significantly from simpler math techniques which are (or should be) learned before college. In my case, I was blessed with very good math and science teachers — especially at my high school, which has a very strong advanced studies program for college prep. Through my high school’s advanced studies program I had an opportunity to take both single-variable and multi-variable calculus at the local university during my senior year of high school, though of course I could only do this because I had been well taught even before that. Many of my fellow MIT students similarly had an opportunity to take college level classes in high school, so I think it’s clear that students must prepare for STEM subjects even before getting to college.
Fortunately, colleges are more than willing to charge full tuition for easy and useless majors like Women’s and Gender Studies (where the answer to any question about who is responsible for any problem is always The Patriarchy). There’s no college prep or math necessary there, and we know this since feminists are utterly incapable of calculating the (nearly non-existent) “gender wage gap”.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi has long insisted that she is a practicing and faithful Catholic despite the fact that she publicly supports a variety of policies which are contrary to Catholic teaching (most notably legalized abortion and same-sex marriage). In fact, Pelosi often (falsely) claims that Catholicism compels her to support such policies. For some reason the Catholic Church has been reluctant to publicly repudiate these claims and/or excommunicate her for her complete failure to practice Catholicism, but finally the Priests For Life have written an open letter rebuking Pelosi for her false representation of Catholicism. The open letter was triggered by Pelosi’s response to a reporter’s questions about Kermit Gosnell and his abortion/murder of live babies:
Last Thursday, June 13, you were asked a question in a press briefing that you declined to answer. The question was, “What is the moral difference between what Dr. Gosnell did to a baby born alive at 23 weeks and aborting her moments before birth?”
…you stated at the press briefing on June 13, “As a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this. I don’t think it should have anything to do with politics.”
With this statement, you make a mockery of the Catholic faith and of the tens of millions of Americans who consider themselves “practicing and respectful Catholics” and who find the killing of children — whether inside or outside the womb — reprehensible.
You speak here of Catholic faith as if it is supposed to hide us from reality instead of lead us to face reality, as if it is supposed to confuse basic moral truths instead of clarify them, and as if it is supposed to help us escape the hard moral questions of life rather than help us confront them.
Whatever Catholic faith you claim to respect and practice, it is not the faith that the Catholic Church teaches. And I speak for countless Catholics when I say that it’s time for you to stop speaking as if it were.
Abortion is not sacred ground; it is sacrilegious ground. To imagine God giving the slightest approval to an act that dismembers a child he created is offensive to both faith and reason.
And to say that a question about the difference between a legal medical procedure and murder should not “have anything to do with politics” reveals a profound failure to understand your own political responsibilities, which start with the duty to secure the God-given right to life of every citizen.
Mrs. Pelosi, for decades you have gotten away with betraying and misrepresenting the Catholic faith as well as the responsibilities of public office. We have had enough of it. Either exercise your duties as a public servant and a Catholic, or have the honesty to formally renounce them.
I agree wholeheartedly with this letter.