Smarter Than Thou!

IF IT IS SAID OFTEN ENOUGH...

   AS Hitler knew, if something is said often enough, some people may come to believe what is said, no matter how stupid it is.  The technique was called The Big Lie.  This one goes like this:  “For every dollar a man earns a woman earns 79 (or 63, or 57, or 45) cents…” (or she even has to pay her employer simply to go to enter the workplace).  What do the words really mean?  Suppose that for “every hour” a man works, a woman works 20 minutes, and they are paid the percentages cited above.  By this standard she (that is, everywoman) actually is getting paid at a much higher rate.  Are these differences comparing hourly rates, or total income, or piecework, or negotiated private services?  Does this “unfairness” include people who are paid by commission?  Without knowing such facts these expressions are as statistically meaningless as “high” or “far.” 

    Is this comparison a lifelong type of measurement of total gross income, or does it apply only to last what was earned last Tuesday?  Does the pattern go back to the times of the Roman Empire, or does it apply to the 20^th and not to the 21^st Century?  Who knows?  Consider the lifetime concept.  Suppose that a woman (which one?)---in her entire lifetime!---earns about 80% of what a man---in his entire lifetime!---earns.  So what?   This difference has relevance if and only if the man and woman worked exactly the same jobs, for exactly the same amount of time, and performed exactly as well as each other.  In other words, unless they had exactly the same career(s), the words (and the numbers!) are meaningless.  No two people can. 

    Often the official stupidity adds that “for doing exactly the same job” women get paid less than one penny while men get several gazillion dollars, in gold, daily, plus health care.  I admit that---in theory!---there could be jobs, maybe, where workers can do “exactly” the same job.  These would be occupations such as: assembly line tasks; button pushers; meter watchers; etc.  Maybe---maybe!---two people might actually be able to do the same work in these jobs. 

    However, there are other things involved in being a worker, such as reliability, attitude, honesty, etc.  So someone should, in justice, get paid more, if he were a better person, even if he does the job equally as well.  The ONLY way to identify as unjust any pay inequality in such cases would be to examine each individual worker, and then analyze all the facts.  And NO HUMAN has the time or ability to determine these facts. 

    An immense number of jobs have a fixed salary.  That is, the pay is determined by some abstract, gender neutral, contract.  Civil service and union jobs are such.  When a woman is, officially, in the same status as a man, then she automatically gets the same pay.  Should she get 79 cents for his dollar then she has a good lawsuit, and will win. 

    Like a lot of things said about, and by, women, hardly anyone pays attention to what is really being said.  I thought that you should know this.  Next week I shall comment on the connection this issue has to the abortion issue. 

    And if you read the A&E then you will be unequal, namely, superior to your friends.  Try it. 

 

 

IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS

   I offer the following as examples of what I call “argument by absurdity.”  It involves the use of analogy, to identify principle (and/or blind bigotry) so the two issues with which I really want to deal are not, at first, obvious.  I believe that why I use this approach will become obvious.  I am indirectly dealing with some of the more controversial current social issues, although this may not seem to be so. 

    Argument #1.  Burglaries are not a highly desirable thing.  However, the easiest way to deal with them is not to endure one.  That is, if you do not want to be a victim then do not become one.  This would even reduce the overall number of burglaries, which is what you want.  Remove the temptation by making your house invulnerable to entry without permission.  However, should anyone else, somewhere else, choose to have a burglary, or to be a burglar, this is not really your business.  After all, a burglary at another house does not cost you anything, and causes no damage in any way to you.  So, when it comes to burglaries, avoid them if you wish, but mind your own business, please! 

    Argument #2.  Whit regard to the illegal immigrants there is an aspect that you should consider.  Although you may find it difficult to accept such people as a normal part of your society, you should understand that they are simply seeking a lifestyle like you already have.  And they are illegal only because of words on paper, which then deny to them the same right as you (to live here legally).  So, if they should live next to you, in a vacant lot, in a tent, in openly unsanitary conditions, etc, then you should not be bothered.  As long as they stay there, and live their own lives, they are no threat to you.  In fact, as long as you keep your door locked, and show your children that living in a nice house is preferable, they will not have any “negative” influence on the members of your family.  Get some tolerance, will you!

    You may wish to re-read the two arguments.  Now for the first one, replace burglary with abortion.  For illegal immigrant, substitute single gender marriage.  You need to change a few more key words, of course.  If the same principles outlined in the above paragraphs were not valid in both sets of arguments, then the alleged principles do not exist, as principles apply in every applicable case.  This is what principles are.  And knowing how to identify real and counterfeit principles is a useful skill, and weapon, to have.  Now you have it.  

    And the principals of your high school probably subscribe to the A&E.  And, arguing by analogy, so should you

 

 

SARAH AND LADY MACBETH(S)

   THERE is a strong belief that the Liberal Media is obsessed with Sarah Palin, and in destroying her.  I accept this as a fact, and offer the following insight to explain why this is so. 

    Shakespeare’s Lady Macbeth prays to the demons to “de-sex” her.  She wants to convince her husband to murder the king, while he is a guest in their home.  To be his partner, and to gain politically, she needs to eliminate all her feminine qualities, and become savage, indifferent, ambitious---that is mannish.  She wills to give up the natural way of being a woman.  That is, she needs to become (a) Hillary Clinton. 

    A long time ago a (real) woman pointed out to me that Clinton (and her type) have one child (and hate it!), only so that they later can begin speeches with “as a mother myself…”  They want to be pro-abortion Lady Macbeth types.  However (assuming that they are human), they still have the natural female inclinations.  They still want to be pretty, to receive complimentary male attention, and are jealous of women who are, and who receive it. 

  So in an attempt to ease their misery, and justify their choices, they offer the following.  “I have de-sexed myself so that:  I am taken seriously; I am not judged primarily by my appearance; I can advance serious causes; etc.  I have given up being a happy woman in order to function effectively within the world of men.” 

   Then along comes Sarah.  She smiles, laughs, is good looking and shapely.  She clearly uses cosmetics, and dresses like a woman (unlike Clinton who looks like a large size Ms Potato-Head).  She smiles all the time, giving the impression that she actually likes being a woman.  She has lots of children, and is happily married (for if she were not we would hear about it, hourly).  In other words, she is like the good women in Shakespeare, while most other public women are like untamed ugly shrews. 

   Misery may love company.  But it hates those who are happy.  And women act out of jealousy almost all the time.  They are jealous of the pretty high school girl, but seriously hate her if she gets good marks, and is happily dating someone.  Sarah is that girl, squared.  A woman who looks good, and who men actually listen to (possibly only because she looks good) is too much for the others.  And this explains their antagonism. 

   P.S.  I know that the Mass Media is not dominated by women.  However, most of the males who run it are quite effeminate, so the analysis applies.  

 

THE "ONLY" ARGUMENT THAT DESTROYS ITSELF

   VERY frequently advocates of Liberal policies use the following argument.  “The USA is the only industrial (or Western) nation without:  free health care; 17 years of maternity leave; mandatory and universal abortion; single gender inter-species marriages; mercy murders for everyone over 35; etc.  The (sometimes) unspoken implication is this.  What everyone else is doing must be right, for otherwise they would not ALL be doing it. 

    Ignore for a moment that this is exactly the argument used by most teenagers to get their parents to approve of them holding up the local 7-11 store.  “But Billy’s parents already brought him a gun for his birthday!”  The so called rational basis is that the majority knows what it right.  In fact, there is an argument to be made that what most people agree upon is acceptable… at times!  However, this is not one of those times. 

    I shall call this defense “the only argument.”  It is based upon the position that the exceptional is wrong.  Abstract the argument, in order to analyze it.  It goes like this.  X (a policy) is wrong because X is advocated by Y (the odd country), which is the only one among Z (a larger group of states).  The key thing to consider is that even if policy X is a rejection of a proposal it is still an affirmative policy.  That is, to reject universal health care is to advocate the DENIAL of universal health care.  To lack something is to have its opposite.  To decline to end the war in Iraq is to extend the war in Iraq. 

    Now reconsider the argument in terms of historic reality.  Some nation, Y, had to be the first to institute X (e.g. health care).  That is, at one time, Y was the “only” one among Z.  And, as we saw before, the principle here was that to be alone among Z is wrong, automatically.  So, logically, these Liberals have to admit that the first nation was wrong, and thus the policy was wrong.  Recall the exceptional policy is ALWAYS wrong.  If it were exceptional and wrong then it is wrong now, because it did not change, only the other nations did.    

    So why are they advocating wrong things?  The answer is that this is the ONLY thing that Liberals do.  

And to learn the answers to almost everything, subscribe to "A&E."