For tens of 1000s of fathers in Ontario, “Fathers Day” is sad and bitter. Many may never get to see their children again.
David Warren, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Sunday, June 15, 2008
For some tens of thousands of fathers, in this Canadian province alone, “Father’s Day” is an especially bitter occasion. These are the men separated from their children by court order, many never to see them again. Each knows that his children have been subjected to vicious propaganda against him, that in many cases a child’s own mother – a woman the father once trusted enough to marry – has turned the child’s heart against him. (I know of many cases.)
It could be worse: for the father may have been replaced in his own household by a new man, or even a new woman. Someone who will never care for his children as he did, however badly he may have expressed it; who will at least be lacking the biological compulsion to look out for one’s own flesh and blood.
In a further twist, whether or not mom has found a new squeeze, the ostracized dad may be making court-ordered spousal support payments sufficiently onerous to put him on a cot in some closet – hounded by process servers, and under the threat of jail if his payments fall behind. (I know this experience at first hand.)
There is no cure for it. The legal papers make clear – go to lengths to make clear – that he will be hounded until the day he dies. Male suicide rates, not only in this province but across North America, are at their highest level since the depth of the Depression in the 1930s. They are four times higher than the female suicide rate, and while no government has the guts to gather statistics on this, it is an easy guess that family court disasters lie behind a large proportion of them.
The legacy of feminism has been to make us acutely aware of women’s sensibilities, no matter how frivolous; and obtusely indifferent to men’s, no matter how grave. Men are consistently demonized in the feminist propaganda….Full Story (Note 2018 06 14: The link is broken. This one works.)
Internet censorship concerns all Internet users, those who engage in it and impose it, and those who suffer its consequences. Take the example of PragerU:
Obfuscating the identity of the messenger
The link behind that image leads to a vigorous Facebook discussion of Internet censorship. PragerU used the image to lead to a link to a YouTube video, via this:
A consequence of Google censorship and political correctness
You may wonder why that video on the consequences of Google censorship contains nothing that has anything to do with Marissa Streit. The reason, I speculate, is fairly simple. The announcement of the video could declare who is delivering its message. That would have caused a problem. You would most likely not be able to watch the video on YouTube. That is what the video is about. It has James Damore relate some of the experiences he made when he bucked Google’s censorship agenda. He had advised that the sort of censorship Google promotes is counter-productive, that it hurts the advancement of women and women’s rights, within the Google corporation. It is heresy for a Google employee to express such thoughts. That is even though James Damore’s advice was merely for corporate consideration and discussion.
James Damore lost his job with Google on account of expressing those opinions. His peers and superiors deemed them to be politically incorrect.
My experiences with Internet censorship
Much of my time, when writing anything that requires promoting on FB, Twitter and on my website and blog, is spent in determining ways by which to circumvent or avoid censorship. That is, algorithms that the providers of search engines and social media design and apply in exercising their ever tightening censorship of free thought.
I have no way to determine how successful I am with my efforts, except that others are no more successful than I am. YouTube censored dozens of PragerU’s videos. At least as of now, Google has not blocked any of my articles or blog postings. Perhaps I should be happy about that, but I wonder.
Facebook tried to shadow ban some of my comments. Does Google shadow ban me and my web pages?
Shadow banning (also called stealth banning, ghost banning or comment ghosting) is the act of blocking a user or their content from an online community such that the user does not realize that they have been banned.
By making a user’s contributions invisible or less prominent to other members of the service, the hope is that in the absence of reactions to their comments, the problematic user will become bored or frustrated and leave the site.
Shadow banning is used by providers of social media. Facebook used it a number of times. That is, I detected it in a few instances I found, with comments I had posted to Facebook and that vanished from discussion forums. Members of those discussion forums never saw them.
The low website rankings assigned by Google to politically incorrect websites is essentially a form of shadow banning as well. Low website rankings condemn politically incorrect web pages to the nether regions of search-return listings. Low rankings are being assigned by web crawler services, such as Alexa.com, and there is a rub. Alexa.com is being controlled by Google. All search engine providers who subscribe to Alexa.com for the rankings of entries on search returns listings are being affected by what Google determines makes popular web pages. Add to that another handicap, namely the censorship algorithms that Google employs when anyone uses their search engine.
Identical searches produce different results with different search engines
There are substantial differences in the outcomes of identical searches when using different search engines searching for politically incorrect topics.. The problem for search engine users is that they have no way of knowing what the rules are for measuring degrees of political incorrectness. They do not know what sort of standards are being used for measuring that. A search engine user knows only one ting in that regard. When searching for specific topics or subjects, identical searches cause different results from search engine to search engine. Here is an example:
Consider the search results for site-specific searches (at fathersforlife.org) for the term fatherlessness, using various search engines:
Websites that mention the search term often and on many web pages should obviously rank high on a given search-return list. With respect to the term fatherlessness, the website of Fathers for Life should always be listed as one of the first few entries on such a list. If there are many websites that use the term fatherlessness, then the list of entries on the search return list should be long.
Freefind: #2 of 690 entries on the list of results. More…
Duck Duck Go: #2 of 178 entries on the list of results. More…
Bing: #3 of 813 entries on the list of results. More…
Ask: #111 of 129 entries on the list of results; More…
Google: #202 out of 297 entries on the list of results. More…
Close to a 1000 of my blog postings needed improvements to meet requirements for search engine optimization (SEO). For the past few months I put much effort into doing that. About 80 percent of that is complete. Still, I don’t have the slightest reason to believe that the effort is doing much at all to improve the search engine ranking for my blog.
That does not mean that I am giving up on making the effort. I like that it gives a more professional quality to my existing blog postings and the ones I am adding as time goes by.
My website and blog receive a fair amount of traffic. That is primarily on account of a large number of websites linking in. It is not because of a large amount of traffic directed by search engines to my Internet domains. Mind you, that is not necessarily all bad.
Typically, for search-engine directed traffic, the bounce rate is high (75.20%), the daily page views per visitor are low (1.5), and the average time per visit is low (2:58). The vast majority of traffic coming to my two domains of concern (http://fathersforlife.org and http://blog.fathersforlife.org) is the result of visitors coming through direct links. The average quality of those visits is much better: the bounce rate is low (12.10%), the daily page views per visitor high (20.0), and the average time per visit is high as well (82:11). That is what counts when trying to get information and ideas to people. An hour and 22 minutes of reading per average visit leaves a lot of impressions.
In the absence of search engine censorship of my website and blog, about 60% of the traffic coming to it would be directed by search engines to my Internet domains. Instead, no more than 4.4% of traffic to my website and blog is being directed there through search engines. A few months ago only 3.2% of traffic to the website and blog came through search engines. Still, “the improvement” in search-engine-directed traffic to my domain is imperceptible.
Relative traffic rank for fathersforlife.org Source: Alexa.com
The figure of 4.4% of all website traffic directed through search engines is a relatively large improvement. In absolute terms it isn’t. When a large percentage of visitors is directed through a search engine to a given website, many bounces (visits that last only a few seconds) happen. Still, it also causes a larger number of visitors to return (time and again, one hopes). Thereby, a high percentage helps to add to a steadily growing volume of traffic.
It is doubtful that Google will ever permit that portion of the traffic to climb back to where it once was, around 60%. At that time (in 2007), the website had 1.5 million visits. Now is has considerably fewer visitors, annually. Its rank has fallen from 270,000th (in 2007) to 650,000th place (in 2018) in the world. That is even though the quality of articles steadily improved since then. It happened even though I spent a very large amount of time and effort during the last 12 months to improve the site for search engine optimization (SEO).
So, I will muddle on with my SEO efforts, for my own satisfaction, and just to see what Google will do next.
Aspects of the impact of Internet censorship
The tale of my experiences of Internet censorship over the years can use a bit of rounding out. Here is a link to a list of more than eighty commentaries I wrote and published about various instances of censorship (the first or second item happens to be in German, but I think that is the only German-language item on the list): More…
If nothing else, those commentaries provide insight into the enormous scope of the impact of censorship, just from the perspective of a single individual.
Many people feel that Google or Facebook have the right to censor. I wonder about that. The services of search engine providers and providers of the social media depend on the good faith of their clients. Their clients should have the right to exercise their right to freedom of expression, but not only that. Others are a bit more passive in the universal exchange of information. They primarily search for information, to read or study it. They have the right to freedom of access to information. Unfortunately, censorship affects the providers and the users of information, the censored as well as the censors.
Those consideration should take into account. There is the good faith of the clients who trust that a search engine provider will find what they look for, when it can be found. They permit providers of search engines and social media to derive vast fortunes from their mutual presence on the Internet. The absence of censorship will stil permit thoose fortunes to be made.
Internet censorship requires other considerations. Not the least is that, going by my experiences, censorship consumes vast amounts of time, effort and money. For example, a large division of Google (employing about 2,000, I understand) designs and applies search algorithms. Many of those algorithms cater to censorship. Search engine clients provide and use information. Providers of search engines and social media derive their incomes from that. Censorship causes those clients to suffer not only loss of opportunity but often harm. That is at least due to trying to overcome the consequences of censorship. Merely the effort to understand that a specific instant of censorship is taking place takes time. To assess its significance takes more time and effort. To try to overcome the obstacle of censorship takes more time yet.
Conclusion – Internet censorship happens and is not good.
Internet censorship forced me to spend thousands of hours of work over the years. I am only one of billions of people who are – some more, some less – similarly affected by Internet censorship.
It is not a good thing that a large corporation without a legislated mandate and with little control by democratically elected legislators through any regulatory agencies has the enormous extent of power to influence, control and steer what all of the people in the world must think and talk about in their everyday activities. Such power vastly exceeds that of Big Brother described by George Orwell in ‘1984’.
Family Courts (they essentially give marching orders to Child Protective Services) – put in place to solve a growing divorce applications backlog – target men. They also seriously hurt children.
Getting dad out of the picture: The Fatherless Society
Family courts were to mitigate the divorce applications backlog in the regular court system (in the early 1960s, waiting periods for court hearings after divorce applications were three and more years – and rapidly growing longer).
The growing divorce applications backlog was a consequence of the legalization of ‘no-fault’ divorce.
In ‘no-fault’ divorce, the default position is nevertheless that the fault is placed on the shoulders of the men.
All of that works exceedingly well, so that, if they cannot resist the urge to have families and children,
Men will be punished severely for trying, by forcing them to pay for divorces and their consequences, thereby to serve as examples of what is in store for them if they dare, and, even better,
Many more men will be scared to have families and children, and who can blame them for that? They have good reasons to be scared. Every man easily knows dozens of men (fathers, uncles, brothers, sons, cousins, friends, team mates, co-workers, etc.) who, on account of divorces, had been fleeced, put through the wringer, squeezed dry and stripped of everything they had –and even worse – roughly one out of every two men they know. Half of those who pay no heed will get a rude awakening when their turn comes.
Getting rid of Dad: The Fatherless Society
A few articles in the media focused on the issue of the increasingly fatherless society but never did more than scratch the surface of the social problems that were about to happen.
Still, the program for the persecution of men who dare to have families and children proved to be the best combination of effectiveness and profitability of all population control measures ever devised and employed. The powers who engineered that and made it happen saw that it was good and therefore ensure that it will remain so.
After all, the goal is to bring the size of the world population down to between a billion and 300 million people, and much more work of that nature remains to be done.
Canada — suicide rates vs. divorce rates over time (StatCan)
The divorce revolution was obviously as deadly in Canada as it was everywhere else. It must be realized that it was far more deadly for men than it was for women, as is shown in the following graph from an article I wrote and published, “July 1st 2000, Canada Day — Proud Canadians?” It is exceedingly important to recognize one core truth that was not and still is not being discussed very often. Although the divorce revolution that now has all of the developed nations and most other nations in the world in its grips was and still is especially deadly for boys and men, it hardly affected girls and women.
Suicides, a deadly consequence of the divorce revolution, especially for men and boys – but hardly so, of course, for girls and women. (Data Source: StatCan)
The fact that the divorce revolution was (and still is) especially deadly for men and boys (not only in Canada), should all along have been and still be but was not front page news since the 1960s.
Still, while Father State has the power and uses it to expunge loving, caring husbands, fathers, providers and protectors from their families, it is a poor, inferior substitute: impersonal, basically uncaring, unloving and incapable of engaging on a personal level. Therefore, women who choose to be single parents are left with the reality that, instead of having it all, they have to do it all, and they must do it by themselves, alone, and – on average – under ever deteriorating and ever more oppressive conditions.
Survivor hyperbole – Survivors of [insert victimhood category] – is an ever more popular survivor fad. What is it with the growing popularity of the fad that drives ever more people to assert that they are survivors of something or other? If merely being alive is classified as survival, does that make a mundane life heroic?
An old saw goes, “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger,” and another one, “Adversity makes people tough,” or “When the going gets tough, the tough get going.” Nothing is perfect. Not even things that kill do kill everyone, but what about things that are not obviously, extremely rarely or not even logically fatal? Is someone who had a tooth pulled a survivor of a tooth extraction?
Some people are lucky enough to escape potentially fatal circumstances. It can and must be argued that no one should consider himself a ‘survivor’ of experiences that rarely cause death but at worst nothing more than various extents of misery or bad feelings. Being glad that those bad experiences are over is without a doubt enjoyable, but why insist that one survived them, when they were merely unpleasant and never posed a serious threat to one’s life?
Still, what about enjoyable experiences? It stands to reason that those must be survived, too. A popular German adage goes: “Nichts is so schlecht zu ertragen als eine Reihe von guten Tagen” (Nothing is as hard to bear as a row of good days). That can be attested to by everyone who ever came back to work, to recuperate after enjoying a long weekend a little too hard. No doubt, survivor/victimhood will eventually get around to include even enjoyable experiences, before the survivor fad has run its course.
The Inconvenient Truth That No One Wants to Talk About
That does not mean that potentially fatal experiences never kill anyone, or that potentially harmful circumstances do not cause any serious harm to many who experience them. Consider how Jordan Peterson and Warren Farrell put that and identify in this video:
Jordan Peterson and Warren Farrell explain the demographics of the death of our civilization
Peterson and Farrell identify seriously harmful and even fatal outcomes of single motherhood, of fatherlessness, and of the abrogation of the traditional two-parent nuclear family.
The harmful consequences of that not only kill many of our children, they demonstrably are putting an end to the welfare and continued existence of our civilization. The survivors of that ultimate outcome better be strong enough to deal with some very, very tough living conditions, unless they wish to become extinct, too.
All of us would do well to not merely relish that we ‘survived’ our previous experiences, we better be strong enough and sufficiently wise to consider the consequences of the circumstances affecting our children described in this video by Stefan Molyneux, in which a special needs teacher explains why students and society are in danger:
A special needs teacher, a guest of Stefan Molyneux, explains why his student are a danger to themselves and to society.
With virtually all those students being the products of broken families, all are ‘survivors’. A good number of them will survive long enough to become and remain a very real danger to society. That danger will grow. Society cannot endure that unharmed. Some people will remain alive after the decline and fall of our civilization. They will be too busy scavenging from the ruins, rubble and ashes of our civilization to be proud of their survival. That is when survival will no longer be a fad but the primary goal of human existence, just as it was during the age of the cave man as well as after the collapse of every single empire throughout history.
Male rights to procreate (or not) are some of many rights being lost by Indian men in the context of the feminist conquest of India. Female supremacism thus becomes ever more firmly entrenched. Siddharthasankar Mukherjee explained the implications of that in a Facebook posting:
Why not aggrieved men then avoid celebration of so-called Independence day when they are actually dependent on women’s will?
Supreme Court says a woman has unimpeachable right whether she wants to have a baby or wants to abort a baby. Indirectly they are saying that a decision related to having or not having a child is entirely hers and husband has no say in it, putting an official stamp on the feminist theory of #MyBodyMyChoice
But what about autonomy of a man over his decisions? What if he doesn’t want to have a child because he can’t afford to or can take responsibility of but the woman refuses to abort? Then if he refuses to pay for upbringing of child, he is served with court notice under DV Act where he has to part away with his money even though he did not want to.
What if the man wants to feel the bliss of being a father and expects his wife to give him a child but she doesn’t want to bear a child for various reasons ? Can he then exercise his bodily autonomy and go and have a child with some other woman who is willing to give him one?
Which brings me back to the question I have been asking for a long time – what are the “rights” of a man within a marriage now that are recognized by courts? I am not talking about his rights in case of divorce(there also he hardly has any) but rights during subsistence of Marriage….
Can the courts reflect on this?
Even women have rights on the bygone times! Men are only to toil and serve women! Have men any Independence allowed by court?
To drive the point of the abrogation of male procreation rights home within the context of the feminist conquest of India, Siddharthasankar Mukherjee closed his commentary with a link to a commentary on the latest Supreme Court of India decision on female supremacism over Indian men after divorce:
[India] Supreme Court states that women can file complaints against ex-husbands under domestic violence law even after divorce — FIRSTPOST.COM
That implies, of course, that – because the law explicitly grants only women that right – men do not have the right to freedom of choice in matters of procreation.
Special rights are being granted only to women, whereby – with each such special right granted – female supremacism becomes ever more firmly entrenched.
Yesterday I found out that the Fort Saskatchewan Solo Liquor Store (the one right next to Giant Tiger, the one with the big sign on the store front that reads “Solo Liquor Discounts”) does not deliver what it promises but tries to bamboozle its customers by charging a higher price at the till than what the label on the shelf indicates for an item.
Does that Solo Liquor ad adhere to truth in advertising? Not when one goes by what I found out yesterday.
Ruth and I had finished with running our chores in Fort Saskatchewan – medical tests, having a quick bite to eat after a long fast, shopping…. The last stop we made was at Giant Tiger. I noticed that the space next to Giant Tiger, in the former Safeway Store, was now occupied by a Solo Liquor Store. It was the first time I had seen that store and decided to give it a visit. I walked in, to the shelves with the Scotch and found what I wanted, a 750 ml bottle of “Johnny Walker, Red Label”, labelled with a shelf price of $29.99, and carried it to the check-out counter, to pay.
I used my credit card to pay and noticed that the price I was supposed to pay was $31.59, $1.60 more than what the price label at the shelf had indicated. “Just a moment,” I said, “aren’t you giving me a senior’s discount?”
The man at the cash register told me, “No. All the items are discounted already,” to which I responded: “I can get the very same bottle for a lower price in Bruderheim.” He asked, “How much of a discount do they give you?” I said, “I don’t know the exact amount, but the last time I bought one of these in Bruderheim, I paid $28-something, a bit under $29.00, but tell me. What sort of deal is this? You advertise this on your shelf as being priced at $29.99 and then you charge me $31.59 when I pay for it. I think I’ll make my purchase where I can get it at a better price” and pulled my credit card out of the reader.
Not all things are cheaper to buy in Bruderheim, but Scotch is.
Back in Bruderheim, I went to Spirit of Bruderheim and bought the same bottle for for $29.12, $2.47 cheaper.
Unfortunately, groceries cannot be bought cheaper in Bruderheim than elsewhere. Many grocery items sell at substantially higher prices than what they cost in Fort Saskatchewan. You will most definitely experience that Bruderheim sales prices for groceries are inflated at the till by a factor of often close to 2. You need to pay attention at the till in Bruderheim, or you will be sorry, but that is a different story that has a lot of aspects.
A shady deal involving Canadian Atlantic Fishery (h/t Jeff Rowsell)
Something is rotten with the state of the fishery in Canada’s Atlantic provinces and family members of Canada’s Liberal Party using a back-room deal to corner a lucrative chunk of the harvest of Arctic surf clams, giving indigenous interests competition by non-indigenous interests.
It is not that federal Fisheries Minister Dominic LeBlanc did not know about the shady deal being made:
Tories ask ethics commissioner to probe fishery bid they say favours Liberal insiders
Company behind winning bid is run by the brother of Nova Scotia Liberal MP Darrell Samson
John Paul Tasker · CBC News · Posted: May 07, 2018 6:10 PM ET
Last Updated: May 7
….In his letter to Mario Dion, the newly appointed ethics watchdog, Cariboo-Prince George MP Todd Doherty alleges the government’s effort to diversify ownership in the fishery — by clawing back part of an existing quota held by Clearwater Foods and handing it to a group with Indigenous representation — violates the Commons conflict of interest code because it enriches the brother of a sitting Liberal MP and a former Liberal MP.
“I am concerned that the relationship between Five Nations Clam Company and its partner, Premium Seafoods, could have played a role in (federal Fisheries Minister Dominic) LeBlanc’s decision,” Doherty wrote in his letter to the commissioner, obtained by CBC News.
“For one, Premium Seafoods president and CEO, Edgar Samson, is the brother of Nova Scotia Liberal MP Darrell Samson. Moreover, the president of NunatuKavut, the First Nations partner in Labrador, was only announced weeks after Five Nations won the bid, and is former Liberal MP Todd Russell.” More….
That is not all.
“We are talking about a group of Liberal family members who had no boat and were not even incorporated until after the announcement was made.” – Conservative MP Todd Doherty
Can things with that deal really be that bad? Perhaps not, because Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau condones those machinations and insists that,
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives’ habit of pitting Canadians against indigenous Canadians is, quite frankly, disgusting.
Our decision to increase indigenous participation in fishing is based on our government’s commitment to developing a renewed relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples. Enhancing access to the Arctic surf clam fishery broadens the distribution of benefits from this public resource and is a powerful step toward reconciliation. This will significantly enhance indigenous participation in the offshore fisheries in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, and allow the benefits of this lucrative fishery to flow to more Canadians.” —Justin Trudeau, Fisheries and Oceans – Oral Questions, March 28th, 2018 / 3 p.m.
There you you have it, right out of the mouth of a trusted politicians, the top-ranking one in Canada. The deal is on the up and up. It is not to enrich relatives of sitting members of the Liberal Party. It will instead “significantly enhance indigenous participation in the offshore fisheries in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, and allow the benefits of this lucrative fishery,” by giving it a handicap in the form of some real competition from outside, non-indigenous interests under the control and ownership of relatives of sitting members of the Liberal Party.
Even Justin Trudeau says so. Therefore, it must be true. Surely, no one can be so dense as not to be able to see the truth of that. 😉
The weather forecast accuracy, or rather the persistent lack of it, has been bothering me for a long time. I had wanted to get an appreciation of what I had suspected and what is virtually never mentioned, namely that weather forecasts consistently miss their mark and by how much. That is a fairly important issue, it seems. After all, if forecasters cannot accurately predict what local weather conditions will be a few days or even only one day in advance, what hope is there that climate change for the end of the century can be predicted with a credible or even only reasonable degree of accuracy for the end of the century?
Many people love the dog-and-pony show presented by various weather forecasters, who ultimately all get their meteorological information on which they base their forecasts – indeed, even the forecasts themselves – from the same sources, satellite measurements. Local variations and circumstances are provided to some extent by local weather stations, whose measurement data is fed back to national weather services. The latter feed all of those data into their computers, do the number crunching, and then send the results of the calculations back to local weather forecasters.
The forecasters put those results into graphic format that they make available to the public in the presentations during the news hour and on the Internet. The members of the public who are the consumers of that information are eager and happy to have the latest information on the weather – never mind that what they get to see of the forecast components are the results of calculations on data that is a few hours old and is never or at best rarely and even then only coincidentally accurate.
The following three screen shots of weather forecast results are a case in point. They are for Edmonton, Canada and for nearby Elk Island National Park (the latter is identified in the graphs by the designation of its weather station, CWFE). They cover a few of the attributes of forecast and actual attributes of weather conditions that weather forecasters and their fans relish and revel in.
Forecast and actual conditions for Edmonton and nearby Elk Island National Park:
2018 05 04:
Weather forecast and actual conditions Edmonton, Canada and Elk Island National Park 2018 05 04 11 pm
2018 05 07:
Weather forecast and actual conditions Edmonton, Canada and Elk Island National Park 2018 05 07 11 pm
2018 05 10:
Weather forecast and actual conditions Edmonton, Canada and Elk Island National Park 2018 05 10 9 am
The comparing of forecasts and actual conditions is a bit difficult, when using those three screen shots, but by rearranging the components according to attributes (Temperature, Cloud Cover, Conditions (rain), and Precipitation Rate), visual comparisons are easier.
Weather Attributes — Forecast vs. Actual Edmonton, Canada and nearby Elk Island Park (CWFE) May 4 to 10, 2018
Four attributes are indicated in the images: temperature, cloud cover, conditions (rain), and precipitation rate per hour. Only one of those, temperature, was persistently forecast with reasonable accuracy. The forecasts for the others were consistently proved wrong by reality.
That performance is nothing to be proud of. Don’t take bets on the weather forecasts, especially not on whether it will be cloudy, raining or raining much or little. It appears likely that the opposite will happen from what the forecast called for. Even if the forecast was made just one or two days earlier.
Regardless of how wrong or useless weather forecasts are, they do serve a purpose. They attract large viewing audiences and are a sure-fire method for conveying many TV commercials to a captive audience.
Rente retten – Dieser Auftrag einer neuen Kommission von zehn Experten macht Claudia Kirn Sorgen, und sie (mit allen anderen Rentnern in Deutschland, wie auch in allen anderen entwickelten Staaten) ist berechtigt sich darüber Sorgen zu machen.
“Die deutsche Gesellschaft überaltert, vor allem wegen der stark steigenden Lebenserwartung,” stellt der Spiegel Artikel fest. Nee, wirklich? Ist das Problem nicht, dass nicht mehr genügend Arbeitnehmer produziert werden oder dass sie ungenügende Steuern zahlen, weil die Arbeitsstellen nach Südost Asien and andere Länder exportiert wurden?
Was die stark steigende Lebenserwartung angeht, die Behauptung ist leider stark übertrieben, da die Realität sehr stark von den übertriebenen Erwartungen abweicht.
Nach dem Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation hörten die ”stark steigenden Lebenserwartungen” in Deutschland schon 2015 auf anzusteigen. Es wäre besser gesagt, dass schon wenigstens seit 1990 die aktuellen deutschen Lebensdauern viel schneller als die geschätzten Lebenserwartungen anstiegen, obwohl die Lebensdauern in 2015 ein Niveau erreichten welches sie möglicherweise nicht mehr überschreiten, und von dem sie sehr wahrscheinlich nun anfangen werden abzufallen.
Mehr: http://www.healthdata.org/germany Davon:
Wie lange leben die Menschen (in Deutschland)?
Ein Vergleich von deutschen Lebenserwartungen und Lebensdauern
Sonst aber ist es ganz gut, dass man sich über solche Sachen nun endlich Sorgen macht. Es wäre nicht notwendig das Rad wieder zu erfinden. Man könnte sehr wahrscheinlich etwas von den Japanern oder den Chinesen lernen, da diese sich über solche Sachen schon seit langer Weile Sorgen machten. Man würde dadurch wohl keine guten Lösungen finden, aber wenigstens würden solche Erwägungen es ermöglichen die Alternativen auszumerzen, die keine praktischen Lösungen bringen können.
Hier (von dem Artikel im Spiegel) ist das fallende Rentenniveau von dem Claudia Kirn sprach:
Rentenniveau – unsichere Prognose
Claudia Kirn machte dann noch eine weitere Bemerkung:
Claudia Kirn’s weitere Anmerkung
Worauf ich dann noch Dieses festzustellen hatte (welches ich früh am Morgen in den Diskussionsfaden gestellt hatte, worauf es ohne Warnung der Zensur zum Opfer fiel, wonach ich es noch einmal versuchte):
Claudia Kirn, man hatte wohl meinen Kommentar unbequem gefunden, weshalb er ausradiert wurde? Deshalb werde ich ihn noch einmal zeigen:
»Es wird sich alles von selbst lösen. Deutschland ist einer von 39 Staaten oder Gebieten deren Bevölkerungen schrumpfen (trotz der vielen Einwanderer).
Mehr: [CIA: THE WORLD FACTBOOK — COUNTRY COMPARISON :: POPULATION GROWTH RATE]
Es gibt noch eine andere wichtige Überlegung, in dem Zusammenhang. Wenn die eingeborenen Deutschen sich zögern ihre Rentner zu versorgen, warum sollte man erwarten, dass die Einwanderer es fröhlicher tun? Es scheint als ob sie sich eher weigern werden.«
Wenn ein Versicherungsunternehmen es gewagt hätte, in die Fonds einzusteigen, die seine Auszahlungsbeträge aus seinen Versicherungsverträgen in Höhe von 700 Milliarden Euro sichern, würde sich sein Gesamtverwaltungsrat ins Gefängnis bringen. Regierungen haben einen Vorteil. Wenn sie solche schweren Verbrechen begehen oder begehen wollen, können sie die legalisieren und routinemäßig begehen, ohne sich Sorgen über die Folgen für die Straftäter zu machen, da irgenwelche Folgen nicht zu befürchten sind. Der Spiegel Artikel schlägt Lösungen vor:
Um auf diese Entwicklung zu reagieren, bleiben im Grunde nur vier Stellschrauben:
der Beitragssatz, um die Einnahmen innerhalb des Systems zu erhöhen,
das Rentenniveau, um die Ausgaben innerhalb des Systems zu senken,
das Eintrittsalter, um den Altenquotienten zu senken und
die Höhe des Steuerzuschusses, um die Einnahmen außerhalb des Systems zu erhöhen.
So werden solche enorme Defizite dann zur Strecke gebracht, indem man die Steuerzahler damit bürdet and man sie streckt bis sie brechen.
Größere Lebensdauern waren ein gewünschtes Ziel. Nicht so sehr daraus ergab sich dann das Problem dass man nun lösen möchte. Es sind aber nicht die größeren Lebensdauern, sondern dass ”seit Jahrzehnten zu wenig Kinder geboren werden” was das Problem verursacht. Dass wirklich größte Problem ist dass man alles Mögliche versucht die sehr einfache Lösung für die Ursache des Problems nicht sehen zu wollen und noch nicht einmal erwähnt. Das wäre (und hätte schon vor Jahrzehnten gefördert werden sollen):
Die deutschen Geburtenziffern müssen höher gebracht werden.
Margaret Thatcher war eine begeisterte Leserin von Friedrich von Hayeks Schriften und studierte sie. Ein Ergebnis davon war einer ihrer berühmtesten Sprüche: “Das Problem mit dem Sozialismus ist, dass eventuell das Geld anderer Leute nicht mehr ausreicht.”
Deutschland will nicht nur seine Ersparnisse and das Zahlungsvermögen gegenwärtiger and zukünftiger Steuerzahler erschöpfen, es will sich außerdem noch zu den Kindern von Eltern in anderen Teilen der Welt helfen, bis dann auch keine Kinder anderer Leute mehr zu haben sind.
Christin Mathew Philip | TNN | Updated: Jul 1, 2014, 12:46 IST
That article states: “According to NCRB data, there is a gradual increase in the number of rapes reported in India – from 24,923 in 2012 to 33,707 in 2013.”
Dividing 365 into 33,707 results in 92.35 women being raped each day. Rounded down, that would be 92 women, not 93 women being raped each day, but why quibble over a little rounding error, in a country with 1.3 billion inhabitants, things happen.
The Wikipedia article, in the section, “By country,” contains a table,
“Rape at the national level, number of police-recorded offenses,” that shows NCRB rape statistics for India, as shown here:
Why does the Wikipedia article not contain the latest NCRB data? The latest NCRB rape statistics would have been reported in 2017 for the year 2016.
The Wikipedia article states:
“The National Crime Records Bureau of India suggests a reported rape rate of 2 per 100,000 people, much lower than reported rape incidence rate in the local Indian media. However, Times of India reported the data by National Crime Records Bureau unveiling that 93 women are being raped in India every day
How can one believe statements such as “The National Crime Records Bureau of India suggests a reported rape rate of 2 per 100,000 people”? The NCRB suggests nothing of the sort! The rape incidence rates identified by the NCRB for 2004 to 2010 quite clearly state that in not one of the indicated years is the rape incidence rate higher than 1.8 per 100,000 (10 1 Lakh) population, by far one of the lowest rape incidence rates of all countries in the world. That is worth celebrating! It shows that, in a country with close to 1.3 billion residents things happen. They happen more often than they do in countries with much smaller populations, but in India they happen far less often than is the norm in the world!
It shows that, compared to rape incidence rates in the rest of the world, India’s women are some of the least-likely of all to be raped! Why does no one ever mention that? That leads people to assume that India’s politicians and officials – in concert with the Indian media – are engaged in a systematic program of vilifying and deprecating India’s men.
Yet, one other aspect in relation to the undeserved focus on India’s women in regard to rape statistics glares by its absence. Where are the statistics that show how many Indian men are being raped?
Do not think for a moment that no men are being raped, or that men can only be raped by other men.
Here are some circumstances in the U.S. that should make India’s public officials and policy makers take a closer look at Indian rape statistics.
After all, Indians are human, too. They live on the same planet as do other humans. Indians have human failings as all other humans do. It is a great injustice to one half of India’s population, the male half, to misrepresent the crimes it commits and to ignore the crimes committed against its members.
What are Indian men’s rights activists doing to illustrate the NCRB data in ways the NCRB does not, to show crimes against men and crimes against women, side by side, so clearly and so easily comprehensible that the Indian media and the media of the world use it as their first place to go to when they collect information on articles for any selected victim group of their choice?
Do Indian men’s rights activists plan to take the leadership in becoming the most reliable and most trusted source of such information? It needs to be nothing more than better presentation of official crime statistics, with links to articles that present corrections of misrepresentations of crime statistics by India’s official source of such statistics, namely the NCRB.
Let there be no mistake. India’s NCRB does lie about its own statistics. The NCRB has a long record of misrepresenting accurate statistics in ways that turn public perceptions about who comprises the major victim group (men) on their head, so that women are being perceived to be the primary victims of crimes and discrimination.
_________ Commenting on this posting: Why not leave a comment at Siddharthasankar Mukherjee‘s FB discussion thread that caused this posting to be made?
An orderly blog needs blog rules. There can be no order without rules. Without rules there is chaos.
This is a moderated blog. At the present time, individual blog entries are open to comment for no longer than 30 days, each, and are closed to comments after that interval. The interval may be expanded indefinitely if I manage to get the problem of spammer-subscriptions under control. For now, that problem is the overwhelmingly primary reason dads & things is a moderated blog. Some spam gets through spam detection, I still receive close to 100 spammer subscription a day, and I just finished deleting 32,000 of them. Moderation permits me to stay on top of that issue. No one would like the looks of the blog unless it is moderated.
The blog is closed for comments, but I can be reached at FaceBook. I may not respond immediately but will try. If you wish to have something posted at the blog that should be seen by others, send it to my FB address, but make sure to follow the blog rules listed here:
Keep your comments short. Consider that a longer posting should, and may perhaps require to, be posted as a guest-post, so that it can become the beginning of a new discussion thread.
When making a comment, stay on topic. The title of the initiating posting usually states what the topic is.
Make no ad-hominem attacks (any statement that: a. appeals to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect, or b. is marked by or is an attack on an opponent’s character rather than being a response to the contentions made).
Do not swear or use vile language.
Do not call for revolutions or assassinations.
Do not deprecate ethnic or racial origins.
Use facts and logic in your comments.
You will not be permitted to point to any location of information without stating which specific item of information at that location it is that you refer to and wish the reader to look up. In addition to that, you must also state sufficient details that will enable anyone to find with ease the exact location of a specific item of information you are using to illustrate or support your point of view.
Do not base your comments on political correctness. (Political correctness usually precludes logic and facts and is generally based on unsubstantiated opinions.)
Do not troll or pile on (to pile on is to respond to an argument without properly answering a point that was made but to offer instead more opinions that are not or at best only remotely related to the contention).
Postings may not contain or point to advertising, so as to promote a product or service, but they may identify advertising to illustrate a point under discussion, if the advertising is used to deprecate or slander fathers and families.
In general, this blog permits freedom of speech. With the ever-intensifying promotion of more self-centeredness, especially through the education system during the last few generations, it has come to pass that many people now see freedom of speech as the right to say anything they want, without regard to whether what they say is true or a violation of the standards of civility. That is not a view that is tolerated here.
At dads & things freedom of speech is encouraged, but it is constrained by the obligation to express the truth that can be backed up by information from credible sources and by the obligation to extend common decency to others.
Rights bring responsibilities and obligations. Without duties and responsibilities no rights can be exercised or enjoyed. Without that there will be mob rule and chaos.
A comment that does not meet all of the preceding rules will not be posted.
My other half and I hope that you will be able to subscribe to the blog, so that you can contribute to making this blog a success in support of fathers and families, because they are what it is all about. As long as FB reigns in its greed for the power to socially engineer society and to mold it into the shape it wants, as long as FB permits people to write to me, that is, as long as FB does not censor me, get in touch with Dads & Things @ FB (the same blog rules apply there).
Yes, the website for Fathers for Life and its affiliated blogs are being slandered and censored.
Whether you are a fathers-rights activist, a pro-family activist or a skeptic of environmental alarmism, it is quite likely that your website or blog is being slandered and censored, too. It is being done on the sly. No one will tell you about it. If it happened, you will have been found guilty and were sentenced in the Star-Chamber court of a multinational corporation (by an obscure clerk, in an obscure office), and it is not likely that you will be able to appeal.
Check the rating of your website or blog.
I had asked O2 to review and explain their website rating policy in regard to Fathers for Life. They did not respond.