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.
Posted inPropaganda Exposed|Comments Off on Fort Saskatchewan Solo Liquor Store provides discounts?
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. 😉
Posted inCorruption, Economy|Comments Off on Shady deal involving Canadian Atlantic Fishery
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).
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor, Rich Man, Poor Man, Beggar Man, Thief, Doctor, Lawyer, Merchant, Chief (ahem, that is, bureaucrat). It is not so much the politicians who drive the evolution towards censorship and control by the state. The bureaucrats are the main movers of it. The politicians come and go. Bureaucracies are forever.
Bureaucracies have their own agendas, powerful ones, all-pervasive and intrepid. They are the ones who make the necessary things (and many others besides) happen. Politicians have some influence. Most of them just come along for the ride. The bureaucrats are far more numerous and have much more power that is always being used. The bureaucracy is the wagon that virtually no politicians can steer, but that they happily use to hitch rides.
No doubt, when aiming high, fly high. Why not? Grow the planet and make everyone feel good! (Let’s hope that whoever designed that poster figures out that he is urging the wrong thing to be taxed, before he lights up another toke.)
It is highly unlikely that any elected politician(s) will ever be powerful enough to tell the wagon of the bureaucracy where to go, in other words, be in control of it and drive it (through taxes, censorship, red tape, whatever you may desire or are bothered by). The driving of the wagon that is the bureaucracy is being done by powerful bureaucrats. That helps to ensure that bureaucracies are forever.
Take just one example, Justin Trudeau’s campaign promise that under his term the trade in pot would be legalized. Of course he felt compelled to say that. It was a calculated move that helped to bring a good number of voters to the polls, voters that otherwise would never have bothered. How could Justin Trudeau resist? It is a dream come true, for any bureaucrat worth his salt, to legalize the lively trade of pot in Canada! Nevertheless, promising that it be done is easy, getting it done is hard work. It is work that bureaucrats are made for.
It takes the creation and re-writing of rules and red tape, one consequence of deciding that what was illegal is now legal. That involves:
All and every one of the bureaucratic sectors and departments involved in jurisprudence;
The creation and rewriting of rules for industry and commerce. It must be decided who can do it, who may do it, who must do it, how much of it, how, of what quality, when and where, market studies, audit trails and much more. It must be decided what it will cost (while no bureaucrat can possibly know how much it will cost; don’t think that bureaucrats are all-knowing);
Making an estimate of how much money it will cost the government to produce pot, control it, administer and control the production and trade, and of how much can be raked off in tax revenues;
Travelling by the Prime Minister and many bureaucrats (separate trips, conveyances and accommodations, of course, to drum up foreign trade and to make foreign-trade agreements. There are precedents, fortunately, as Canada once before tried to corner the world market on the production and trade in hemp products (sail cloth and ropes made from hemp, whose production the government heavily subsidized, unfortunately in vain, as the advent of steamships grew to be very detrimental to those plans);
Making more rules for how to collect the taxes. the designing of all the forms, applications, permits and exemptions that will apply, and of course to bring all of that to bear in government budget estimates, do I need to go on?
The legalization of pot, just as the legalization of gambling, tobacco, alcohol or any other vice, is a bureaucrat’s wet dream. That is why the bureaucracy will go along with it and make it go, even if it should break the Country. After all, it is much work and a great boon for employment that presents untold career opportunities for self-respecting bureaucrats. It makes the Canadian bureaucracy a growth industry with plenty of opportunities for growth, a grow-op! Long live the bureaucracy! Bureaucracies are forever.
How do the people manage?
If you wonder where that leaves us, we are the horses that pull the wagon. Between the bureaucrats who tell us where to go, how fast, how long and when, and the politicians who go along for the ride and make us believe that they are our leaders, and that they act in our best interests, we can only hope that we are always told to go into the right direction and that we get fed.
Politicians come and go. If lucky, they will last at least one whole term until the next election comes along. Usually, bureaucrats outlast even the most long-lived politicians. The wagon of the bureaucracy is self-renewing, self-controlling, essentially autonomous (except for the little detail of the tax revenues it consumes to keep the bureaucracy in fine shape). Bureaucracies usually see Politicians as temporary inconveniences, necessary evils, meddlers that must be tolerated, their plans and objectives to be supported if useful for the purposes of the bureaucracy — to be circumvented, opposed and even sabotaged, if seen as being counter-productive to its aims.
The first order of business for a bureaucracy is to create business for itself, business that caters to the self-interests and well-being of the bureaucracy. C. Northcote Parkinson knew a thing or two about bureaucracies. He knew why they grow inexorably. He expressed that in Parkinson’s Law. We owe him eternal gratitude for pointing out that the inevitable cannot be changed, that bureaucracies are forever, that a bureaucracy’s “Work expands so as to fill available time,” and that the unavoidable corollary is that “Expenditure rises to meet income—and tends to surpass it.” That quite nicely demonstrates that there are virtually never any budget surpluses but with virtual certainty always budget overruns. That also never fails to get politicians elected, who – time and again – promise to put an end to what cannot be changed.
Yet, whenever a discussion turns to the consequences of a bureaucracy’s actions and inexorable growth, the thought gets expressed, “How much longer to the next election?” As if that would make a difference! It never did before. After all, the bureaucracy that is the cause of the concern that the hoped-for election is to fix existed since time-immemorial; not because it got elected, but because it never did get elected, it always existed, and it always will. No election will fix that. Bureaucracies are forever and always were.
Do we need to go along with it all? That depends, and we must come to terms with this:
“A government is not the expression of the popular will, but rather the expression of what a nation’s people are willing to endure.”
— Kurt Tucholsky
Many people throughout history tried to fix the problem through revolutions, bloody or administrative, which says nothing about their effectiveness or the extents to which they are harmful or even deadly. Still, the deconstruction of the patriarchy, whenever that was attempted – whether that was through things like the Bolshevik revolution in Russia or revolutions that were to create Utopia in any other country, or on account of the feminist, global re-engineering of civilization, to get rid of the patriarchal family once and for all – it had no effect on the existence of the bureaucracies, other than to increase their power. The bureaucracies survived them all, to become the new law and order, with a vengeance, in every single case, unhindered (because all resistance, protection and hope for opposition had been removed), the Parens Patriae (Latin for “parent of the country”; lit., “parent of the fatherland”), with powers over everyone that were and are far in excess of anything the bureaucracies had before all protection against the rising powers of bureaucracies had been removed.
The hallmark of totalitarian regimes always was and always will be that the powers and the excesses of their bureaucracies, on whom they rely for their existence and effectiveness of the oppression for which the are the tool, is far greater, far more terrible than elsewhere or when, where people could or can enjoy life more because freedom still ruled or rules.
Bureaucracies are forever, even though they can become cancers, ranging from being benign to being extremely malignant. Still, whether a bureaucracy contributed much or little to the untimely demise of the society it lived on, a bureaucracy will be the very last thing that perishes after a nation or civilization exhausted itself while trying to support the bureaucracy that it hosted.
Bureaucracies and civilization are inseparable
Through the cycles of empires – from their births, through feudalism, monarchies, democracies, increasing socialism into totalitarianism and dictatorship, even through conquest by outside forces and the ultimate decline back into chaos – the bureaucracy always is, until the last remnant of humanity expires. For all practical intents and purposes, bureaucracies are forever.
The most important career-decision anyone ever made was when he decided whether he would work for the bureaucracy, or the bureaucracy would work him, for – win or lose – just as with medical doctors or lawyers, as long as there is demand for them (remember and never forget: bureaucracies are forever), bureaucrats will always get paid, for as long as there is someone capable of paying the taxes required for that.
Even Hitler knew that, but that is a different story, although it is much the same, as Hitler, too, managed to turn the bureaucracy of his time into something that could no longer be controlled, by removing the controls that had kept the German bureaucracy in check for about 400 years. He had promised aspiring bureaucrats without employment jobs when he would get into power, if only they would work for him and support him in getting there. They did, and he made good on that promise. Hitler was not as sophisticated as he was honest. His lure was law and order, and employment, not the legalization of illegal substances, but you’ve got to admit, he delivered in spades, because he got the help of the whole bureaucracy, all of it, not just a few portions of it required to legalize just one illegal substance.
With the help of a German bureaucracy that grew to cancerous proportions, Hitler managed in an interval of about six years to change Germany’s fortunes from rags to riches. Within about another six years he blew all of it and left Germany in ruins, rubble and ashes, and he could have done neither without the help of a bureaucracy that he had caused to grow to cancerous proportions.
Hitler died by his own hand, at the end of that, but the bureaucracy he used to make that roller coaster ride happen survived, unscathed, uncontrolled, uncontrollable and more of a cancer than ever before, with the bureaucracy now changing its strategy: If Germany and its bureaucracy cannot conquer the world, invite the world (at least the people of the poor third world nations) to come and conquer Germany. That is no skin off the back of the German bureaucrats. Their bureaucracy will still be around, and its bureaucrats will still get paid. The bureaucracy does not care who the taxpayers are that feed it, as long as they consume goods and services, and as long as they pay taxes.
Justin Trudeau’s Dad knew how well total control works in that respect, because, he once remarked to his dear friend, Fidel Castro, that it would be much easier to accomplish reforms in Canada, if only he could do them the way Fidel Castro did them in Cuba.
»Mary McCarthy’s warning that “Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, has become the modern form of despotism,” like Agenda 21, is alive and well.«
—Tim Ball, Ph.D. in the conclusion of his commentary in the following example:
» Actual Average Lifespans Decline — U.S. Women Lose Big « That should have been in the headlines of the front pages for years. It wasn’t. International Women’s Day is not over. It would be over now, largely gone from our minds, if it weren’t for the news. The news during the past few days mentioned much about discrimination against women, about an escalating epidemic of sexual harassment, about the persistent pay gap (entirely mythical, when examined objectively, which is of course never mentioned) that puts women at a disadvantage, and many more things like that which feminists had decided years ago needed to be eradicated to make women more equal.
In all of the news I watched and read during the past few years and especially during the past few days, there was not a word about the very real issue that actual average lifespans decline, and that U.S. women are being seriously affected by that. Do the newscasters, pundits and experts discussing the issues they like to discuss live on the same planet as the rest of us normal mortals, or is it that we normal mortals are not supposed to learn about the important facts of life and death?
After waking up, it usually takes a while before I have the courage to move my feet out of the bed and onto the floor. If the news are on the radio, I listen. That gets me sufficiently riled up to make me want to get up and to begin my search for evidence of reality and of objectivity in relating to it. The news don’t offer much of either.
I wish it was Jordan Peterson or someone like him who is reading the news. Then I would not be trying to make headway with the onerous task of attempting to resist being choked by political correctness that causes the orgy of feeling compassion for the poor, suffering women of the world. The pundits with their commentaries and with their discussions they had with the experts of their liking were ladling it out and laying it on, this morning. They had enough of it to go around. They were obviously full of and bursting with it.
When the whole world looks for evidence of suffering women, it will not fail to find it, and every pundit gets in on the feeding frenzy. The suffering of poor oppressed women is a nice, big, fat, red herring to drag across the trail of human progress and especially of those who have their gender lenses firmly implanted and make a nice living of looking through them. How come they don’t want to see the elephant in the room, the fact that the sum of discrimination of the sexes is expressed quite nicely by their respective actual average lifespans?
Still, in view of what is happening to U.S. women, the beneficiaries of the lion’s share of the blessings bestowed by feminism, how much more equal are women to become? When will enough be enough? What is the objective, when the goal was surpassed a long time ago? The feminists should have quit while women were ahead and still had it good.
No mention during International Women’s Day 2018 that actual average lifespans decline and that US women lose big
David Thomas’ ‘Not Guilty: In Defence of the Modern Man’ (1993) 1 will be the main source of a few quotes I am collecting for the conclusion of my article series, ‘Single-Gender Classes’.2
‘Not Guilty’ contains this gem:
»Armed with their wage packets and fortiﬁed by booze and the new, fashionable female machismo, young women are now taking to the road with all the mad abandon of their boyfriends and beginning to kill themselves with increasing frequency. Before they do, they should consider one important fact which sober, health conscious, emotionally open men have cottoned onto: the traditional male life style is hazardous to your health. It doesn’t carry a government warning, but it should. Once women start to behave like men, and work like men, and earn like men, they may well start to die like them, too.«
— p. 29, second-last par.
That, stated 25 years ago, was not a prediction. It was and still is a statement of fact. In the U.S., where yesterday International Women’s Day was celebrated (and it still is in the news today) with such reckless abandon, women’s actual average lifespans began to decline in 2014, and the rate of decline could well begin to accelerate. A bit of objectivity in celebrating human achievements would have made that fact hit the front pages ever since it became known that it would happen, let alone after it did happen. That is what the pursuit of the Holy Grail of long-sought equality for women is all about. It appears to have come to an end, as it shortens women’s average lifespans! That is of course not to be mentioned, ever, especially not on International Women’s Day.
Lifespans in the United States Was it coincidence that the actual average lifespans reached their plateau and thereafter declined during the Obama years?
So, does anyone know why that statistic is not being discussed, not even on International Women’s Day 2018? The MSM have been silent on that important issue for more than four years already! Do the MSM not have the guts to be honest enough about that the most outstanding achievement of feminism’s pursuit of the agenda for achieving equality for women is that it is shortening women’s average lifespans? What is up with that?
Should it perhaps not be a concern for all those gender warriors – who make a good living off manufacturing concern for poor suffering women – that they should find out whether the advances made by feminism are the reason why the U.S. is leading the pack in the race to gain 1st prize, to bring about the decline of women’s average lifespans, or is it? 3
Addendum (2018 03 14)
The history of the transition of UNICEF, from an organization that had come to save the lives of hundreds of millions of children, to one that made it its primary mission to have children killed before they are born, by the hundreds of millions.
The International Organizations Research Group
THE UNITED NATIONS CHILDREN’S FUND:
WOMEN OR CHILDREN FIRST?
Douglas A. Sylva, Ph.D.
Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute
For decades, the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has enjoyed perhaps the finest reputation of any large international organization. UNICEF earned this reputation through an earnest, unwavering commitment to improve the health and lives of as many children as possible. Unfortunately, this reputation is increasingly at risk, and it is at risk because powerful forces both within the organization and within the larger international community have demanded that UNICEF change, that it alter its traditional child survival programs and that it add new and ever-more controversial programs, that it consciously and consistently embrace a newly dominant ideology in all that it does – the ideology of radical feminism. Radical feminism  has come to define the current UNICEF, even to the possible detriment of UNICEF’s original mandate to help children. The story of UNICEF is a cautionary tale, a tale of how difficult it is for international organizations to retain autonomy, to retain control over their own policies, to remain free from the influence of this powerful ideology. UNICEF still saves many children’s lives, but a reformation of UNICEF programming will be necessary for UNICEF to perform as much good as possible. A reformation in programming – and perhaps personnel – will be necessary for UNICEF to regain its reputation as the world’s pre-eminent child-care organization. «4
Unfortunately, no one responsible for UNICEF outside of or within UNICEF implemented the recommendation with which Douglas A. Sylva closed the introduction to his discussion paper. UNICEF is just as deadly now to the welfare of children and their families as it had become during its usurpation by feminist ideologists decades ago.
The deplorable aspect of that is that, by being deadly to children about to be borne, UNICEF is not kind but sadistically cruel and deadly to the families of the children those families are being deprived of having. In nations without functioning or well-functioning social safety nets, the families intent on having had those children are being deprived of the only viable social safety net available to them. Those parents without children will die when they are sick, disabled or too old to be able to earn their living. Parents without children die!
Parents without children die, usually because they are too weak to go begging. That is even true in developed nations, but there the misery of declining living standards due to a lack of children will take longer to make itself felt, as socialist government largess ensures that the misery of parents without children is being spread out over all people and a longer interval. For that reason it is also taking longer in the developed nations for that truth to sink in. Nevertheless, in both the U.S. and in Canada that truth has already arrived, without anyone having noticed or wanting to mention it.
Average lifespans in the U.S. and Canada reached a plateau in about 2010. In the U.S. they have been declining since 2014. It is to be expected that the average lifespans in Canada and in other developed nation will soon be in steady decline as well, as that is the inexorable consequence of shrinking young, productive population sectors increasingly less able to support the needs of a growing population sector of the elderly.
Gender re-education — If you don’t get it (the gender Newspeak), then you should go to school and take remedial classes, which may permit you to appreciate the difficulties facing new immigrants who try to learn English and a vocabulary they never heard of, let alone imagined, such as in this:
No doubt, SJWs are correct (they must be, how else could we rationalize the validity of political correctness), and children are resilient. Children will be better able to cope with the requirements of the Newspeak than non-English-speaking new immigrants are. Children will be growing up with and into all of it and, with the help of mental giants such as Canada’s relatively new Prime Minister, who insists that people must learn to refrain from using grammatically correct English based on time-honoured traditions, and must instead be so kind as to use proper, legal pronouns for 69 different genders and learn to employ new concepts such as those of his design ( e. g.: he recently blessed us with one of his creation, “peoplekind” instead of “mankind”).
At least our children, if we are still capable to procreate sufficiently well and often enough to have enough of those, will be able to find their way through the maze of Newspeak. That attempt did not pan out well for the ancient Roman Empire. It got up and died, to some extent on account of becoming involved with gender re-education and having to call in the Barbarians to help them out with showing the Romans the proper way to procreate.
The Canadian Prime Minister is a good fellow. He has nice hair and is a man of experience, frequently moved to tears, which process he elevated to an art. After all, his experience was gathered as a snowboard instructor and as a substitute high school drama teacher, a job that served well to make many members of manpeoplekind weep, which job he had practiced for a few months. I am fully confident that he knows what he is talking about. Mind you, he frequently changes his mind (even on aspects of Canadian Newspeak of his own making in this case), which I won’t hold against him, as he always speaks the truth (as he sees it), and Newspeak is hard to master, even for a manperson/individual/figure of his capacity. Still, what is there to worry?
Our children will grow into it. What better way to force them to do that than to make them all use one washroom in the school they must attend. Bathrooms are good places to have children learn what they need to learn. I imagine how difficult it would be to give each group of children of a specific gender orientation a washroom of its own! We could not possibly expect to have enough bathrooms that are as flexible and as numerous as our gender definitions are in every given school. No, it is definitely much more practical to have the students all use just one single washroom in a given school they must attend.
That brings us to how many classrooms a school must have, which relates to whether there should be single-gender classes or not. After all, when there is no need to segregate the sexes in the bathrooms in schools, why should there be a need to have gender-segregated classrooms? That would be counter to all principles of gender re-education.
When there is no perceptible need to segregate students according to probable outcomes in academic achievements, regardless of how likely given students may be able to meet academic qualifications for advancing into Grade II, let alone into any other grade, and if all students are entitled to reach graduation after completing Grade XII, regardless of why, should a simple thing like their genitalia or their sexual preferences be a cause for segregation? No! That would be discriminatory, it would hurt their sensitivities, their hard-won self-esteem.
The students may not learn much, but, by Gosh, they are being protected and coddled and indoctrinated to acquire what they need more than their daily bread for the rest of their lives, which are all hard lessons learned in gender re-education. It is a hard struggle, but they spend twelve long years acquiring self-esteem, and nothing must be done to interfere with that. If nothing else, they will have self-esteem, and nothing will give it to them but to come out of their closets, declare and celebrate their gender differences and thereby acquire in common bathrooms and co-ed classrooms what formerly was kept private, their stigma of being openly declared deviations from the norm, thereby to build their character in spite of being widely known, all-around deviations from the norm. They will be appreciated for that, even loved, and with enough effort, the 98-percent (or 94-percent majority, if one includes those who declare themselves to be bisexual or any other gender of their choice) will come to love them, thereby to become (if that is not too much to hope for) like them, deviations from the norm. When they all deviate, normal is the new deviation.
Gender re-education — Gender-Newspeak Pronouns (When in doubt and in conversation with an individual of unknown gender and unknown pronoun preference, show the sheet and let (insert pronoun) indicate the pronoun that (insert pronoun) prefer(s?).
Besides, having as many genders as possible will soon cure anyone wishing for gender-segregated classes. The gender-reality of that quite simply is that there are neither enough qualified teachers nor enough classrooms to give one to each group of students bothered by their genitalia or gender orientation. It quite simply cannot be done. There is not enough money in the budget for it. It is therefore cheaper and more practical to treat everyone the same. That cannot possibly be done by catering to each individual’s preferences. Consider that the plan was all along to create, bring out, enhance, and celebrate those gender differences, so that there is a good reason to treat everyone the same and to hammer flat all of those pesky gender difference, after which we will all fit into to this brave, new world of gender differences.
Aside from that, have you studied the re-engineered set of pronouns that will fit the brave, new gender-reality? (See Table of Gender-Newspeak Pronouns) You have not yet found the time for that? What are your priorities? You better get with the gender re-education program, before proceeding to the conclusion of this article series.
Make sure to memorize that table, but, for your protection against malicious prosecution, I recommend the use of a cheat-sheet. Print a copy of that table and carry it in your wallet. I suggest that you replace it now and then, to catch up on any updates that are bound to happen, frequently. There does not appear to be a reliable, authoritative source of that information; I don’t know of one. Moreover, the genders we once knew are still under re-construction, wherefore we will need quite some time yet, before our gender re-education is done.
Next to come: The unacceptable solution – Return to simplicity and
Single-sex Classes, one for each sex
Seven genders – why stop there? There were of course people, well-endowed with common sense, who argued against letting anyone get a foot into the door of the time-honoured discussion of Nature vs. Nurture and pointed out that, if
Nature no longer matters;
Gender is a very flexible thing, “a construct”;
The number of sexual orientations need not be limited by choice as much as by human imagination (and no one knows where the limits of that may be);
Gender need not to be cast in stone, and the ever-changing vagaries of human desires – if let loose – would make it very difficult to address any of the aspects of the desires of human diversity to cater to gender preferences that can change at the drop of a hat;
Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) will demand legal recognition for even only one of those gender preferences of choice, let alone that any and all imaginable sexual orientations should require formal, legal recognition, then
There will be a lot of confusion with respect to how people feel about themselves, how others think of them, how social conventions evolve to deal with them, and how the law will eventually come around (after it has been much rewritten) to cope with things that became legal after being illegal, permitted after being forbidden, encouraged after having been discouraged (the latter wherever economies and societies thrived), thereby
Adding an unlimited number of gender orientations to cultural and ethical norms that permitted generally only two sexes for at least the past 10,000 years of existence of civilization will create an extent of confusion and chaos that will bring civilization to an end.
Still, seven genders will not suffice.
Gender pronouns for Lesbians
Consider that some Lesbian SJWs decided, quite some time ago, that there are some 30+ sexual orientations in just the category Female Homosexual:
Female homosexual, and I quote:
Old-school, or classic butch-femme— Refers historically to the well-documented Butch-Femme community that organized in the 50’s. Can also refer to modern day Butches and Femmes who appreciate an/or emulate many of the values from an era when the roles in our community were more clearly defined.
Power Femme—Femme who revels in the power, strength, and mystique of her femininity.
Femme top, Femme bottom, Butch top, or Butch bottom— Didja think all S/M Femmes were bottoms? A Butch bottom might express masculinity and strength through endurance, while a Femme top might express her power through femininity.
Stud And Lady— Old school term for Butch-Femme. Usage is still prevalent in Black lesbian culture.
High Femme— Exhibits hyper-femininity which may manifest itself outwardly in appearance, and inwardly as a a celebration of femininity.
Packing—Butch wearing a “cock” under clothing. This could be a silicone or rubber model readily used for fucking, or a realistically flaccid prothesis which can either be purchased or home-made.
Daddy, grrl, or daddy/grrl— Dynamic in some butch-femme relationshipswhere the Butch takes over the parental or care-taking role, either 24-7, or as occasional age play. Sexually, Daddy/Grrl can be played out in a incestous or S/M fashion where Daddy is irresponsibly “wicked”, or Daddy might be emotionally responsible for nurturing and loving the grrl. This particular dynamic can allow Femmes to freely explore being bratty, playful, independent, innocent, or submissive, etc… and perhaps in some instances, both partners can confront issues surrounding abuse.
Mommy/Boy— Rarely discussed dynamic which exists in some Butch-Femme relationships where the Femme takes on the parental role, either 24-7, or as occasional age play. The Mommy may be loving, or in an S/M context, very demanding. This dynamic an allow the Butch to be adored or punished, be child-like, innocent, boyishly devilish, or rebellious, ect.
Stone Femme— Can define a Femme who is sexually untouchable, a Femme who is “very” femme, a Femme top, or a Femme who is partnered with or attracted to very masculine/stone Butches. “Stone Femme” iis spelled with two words. Online usage often runs the words together because early majordomo-based mailing lists required one word titles.
Stone Butch— Usually means a hard Butch who prefers not to be touched by a partner sexually at all, or in any way that is feminizing. Stone can also mean “very”, as in “very butch” and proud of it. “Stone Butch” is spelled with two words.
Kiki—A somewhat outdated term for a Butch/Femme switch.
Polyamorous— Having pre-negotiated relationships with multiple partners. The opposite of monogamy.
FTM, F2M, or TS— Female to Male transexual. The transition usually involves taking male hormones, sometimes includes top surgery, but doesn’t always indicate bottom surgery. Many feel bottom surgery for F2Ms at this time is not a completely successful resolution. Some Butches may take testosterone and have top surgery, yet don’t consider themselves transexual, or even male-identified.
TG—Transgendered.Many believe that Butches transgress the gender of “woman” or blur traditional gender to such a degree that they are transgendered. Others believe Butch is clearly a gender of it’s own.
Hir, hym, s/he— Various masculine pronouns for Butches. Sometimes Butches online will also call one another “bro” or use traditional male pronouns, much in the same way that queens call one another “she”. Such bending of our limited language isn’t always politically motivated, but often the practice is simply employed as a tidy way of differentiating between the Butches and Femmes online.
Het queer— Controversial phrase used to describe how the power dynamics and polarity of B-F sexuality are closer to heterosexuality than homosexuality.
Fag Butch— Butch into other butches or FTMs; not usually meant as a derogatory term, although some old-school butches may express discomfort with Butch-on-Butch sexuality.
Lipstick lesbian—Media term used to describe feminine lesbians, not normally used to indicate Femmes.
Andro dyke— Mainstrream lesbian style that is deliberately void of either masculinity or femininity, or an androgenous combination of both gender expressions, each crossing the other out. Androgeny can find roots in politics, having originated from feminist beliefs of the 70’s.
Inner faggot— Humorous way to explain a dandy Butch who is fastiduous about style, or a Butch who (although masculine) exhibits other traits common to gay boy, such as a love of theatre or a flair for design.
Baby Butch or baby Femme— Newly-out Butch or Femme, not always related to age.
Binary gender system— Concept that there are two genders: man and woman. Many believe that Butch and Femme disprove the concept of a binary gender system. Some Butches and Femmes claim rights to a third gender.
Saturday night Butch— Expression used to describe lesbians who only “butch-out” at the bar on weekends.
Biology vs. Destiny— Very topical issue in Butch-femme discussion groups. It’s important to distinguish between sex (male/female), gender identity(butch/femme/man/woman/queen, etc), and gender expression(masculine/feminine). Since these three things aren’t dependent and each other, the safest way to navigate is to assume nothing!
As stated there, at the source of the preceding list, “As always, our language has it’s limits…so mileage may vary!” No doubt, and clearly, seven genders are not enough! There is no doubt that the list requires considerable contemplation and much serious thought, of which it received not enough, by far.
There is no possible way to tell how much time or effort should be spent to guarantee satisfaction. It is not possible to establish any standard for determining who needs to be satisfied or when he should or will be. There is no obvious reason why female homosexuality should limit itself to far fewer of those gender preferences, merely to keep the total count for all of humanity down to seven genders.
There is also no doubt that the list sets the stage for the demand that there should be vastly more than seven genders. Good luck to anyone who wishes to design the potentially hundreds and perhaps more gender pronouns that, at first glance, spring to mind. Forget about the hope that anyone will memorize more than a small fraction of those on the list. How many of those that we are in some outre jurisdictions by penalty of the law required to use can anyone not an idiot savant assign to memory, let alone use flawlessly?
No doubt, some will notice that the items on the list of those sexual orientations do not add up to the promised 30+, true, but if that bothers you, you are not paying attention. Logic has nothing to do with this. SJWs and logic are not quite compatible, at best, but we must follow their directions. Reasonable or not, that is the choice we made. Nevertheless, consider that in the description of the last item in that list it is without a doubt specified that the list of 24 “sexual orientations” in the category Female Homosexual has a multiplier, a factor of 3, comprising sex, gender identity, and gender expression. That alone will cause rapid inflation far beyond the specified seven genders.
Therefore, the set of 24 sexual orientations can soon add up to 72. That is just to cater to what the major category Female Homosexual entails. There is of course some duplication in that list, but duplicated definitions of sexual orientations go under different names or labels, which makes it a requirement to consider each and every one of those 72 gender orientations. You see how that works, don’t you? Right! You’ve got it! It is perceptions that count! Reality no longer matters in our brave new world that relocated to Never-Never Land. That is not the end of it.
The bottomless abyss of gendered language
More and more sexual gender orientations have received and are receiving legal (well, as of now mostly legislative) recognition. Many of the laws, rules and regulations require changing, to adapt them — dismantling and reconstructing a civilization is no easy task and should not be hurried. Still, the general principle is that anything goes, although there are a few complications to be resolved, such as how to fit in orientations that have been discussed but not yet very often or very publicly, various fetishisms, bestiality and intergenerational sex (a.k.a. pedophilia), but those are minor details, even if they require some time to be resolved and legalized. With enough determination and lobbying, we are bound to get to the end of it, wherever that may be on our trip down the slippery slope to our culture’s oblivion.
Some refuse to be confused by facts. Still, their perception of reality is even more unreal or surreal in relation to the issues involved than is the perception of someone who insists that all pretense of sexual duality is futile and undesirable, wherefore it needs to be abrogated because, he insists, the only correct interpretation of the gender issue is that there are infinitesimally fine gradations of gender fluidity. If there are to be absolute standards for the assignment or categorization of genders, how many categories should there be? Why or how can the demand for all-inclusiveness possibly stop at seven genders, when there is a so much larger number of gender orientations yet to be embraced?
NY City now officially recognizes 31 genders (as of May, 2016) – How many more?
What is the frame of reference? Should that be a division of our perceptions, social standards as well as moral, ethical and legal standards according to chromosomal categories? Is there a case to be made for or against social, moral, ethical and legal categorization of individuals to fit the greater aspects of society at large? Should individual rights or the greater good of society be king? Should individuals submit to the greater good or should the greater good be the accidental, collective consequence of the rights of individuals? Who should conform, the individuals or society?
Chaos is the absence of order
All of those considerations are complex and difficult enough if one considers just the chromosomal reality of nature.
Incidence Rates of Chromosome Aberrations (Not exhaustive — addresses just the most prevalent categories)
• Overall – 1:700 of live births; • Young Mothers – 1:2,000 of live births, and • Mothers over 40 – 1:50 of live births
? A few males were found in institutions for criminals with subnormal I.Q.
Intersex States (True Hermaphroditism)
? Extremely rare in humans (less then 500 reported cases in the whole world)
Pseudo Hermaphroditism — is not a chromosomal defect. It is due to endocrinal imbalances during gestation and is curable with varying degrees of success through treatment with hydrocortisone and other similar preparations.
Dr. Warne cites an incidence rate of 1:4,500 live births, while inter-sex advocates claim an incidence rate of 1:1,500 live births
Those considerations become far more complex when perceptions, desires and preferences are being brought into play. No right, entitlement or privilege that anyone demands can be enjoyed if all of the others who are to grant it won’t do that, if they will not assume the burden of the obligation to grant it. Must or should the vast majority of humanity be forced to accommodate the wants and desires of a very small minority or even the needs of a minuscule few?
Is it morally right to force the vast majority of society to assume the responsibility of providing for the comforts and self-esteem of members of minuscule minorities? It seems not. It appears that the discussion of gender rights must come to terms with the reality that, beyond tolerance of those who are by nature different, it is simply too much of a stretch to demand that the vastly larger majority of society or humanity caters to those who make a deliberate choice to want to be different.
It is not reasonable to let a few force the vast majority of society to dance to their tune. Common sense dictates that some of the few have a right to be tolerated, but that all of the few are obligated to submit to the vast majority, to the extent that no harm is done, so as to make it possible for the vast majority to grant tolerance, the right to be different. Why ask for more?
Why ask for more? What a question! Because it is all for the asking! The 98-percent majority is silent. It is silent because it has been and is being cowed into silence. It is politically incorrect to speak up. In a free society, free speech permits anyone to speak up about such issues. Unfortunately, going by the reality of censorship, of peer pressure, destroyed careers and destroyed lives, long, drawn-out court battles that leave bad tastes in the mouths of all involved and much money in the pockets or bank accounts of the lawyers and expert witnesses who get paid, regardless of which side loses, many people can no longer afford to speak up. They are not even allowed to joke about any of it anymore. Not even gallows humour is permitted in our so-called free society that is free no longer.
Therefore we must learn what we can, to acquire language skills, the rules for which appear to have been designed by sadists.
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.