Click here for DaTechGuyBlog.com Same Fedoras, Same Cannoli different domain.
Please Help DaTechGuy pay Da Bills
Click for the latest show
Maxine’s in an online friend of mine and used to be one of the Liberal voices on DaTechGuy on DaRadio Panel. She’s a nice lady with a great family.
Every now and then however she illustrates the difference between left and right perfectly like in this exchange about impeachment
Peter, I promise you that the day after the election when the dem president wins & we take both houses of congress. I’ll taunt you & I’ll enjoy it 💃🏿
— Maxine Baptiste (@brownsugar7878) September 28, 2019
Horace Tabor: Wait a minute! You can’t buy a woman for money.
Paint your Wagon 1969
Mad Jack Duncan: You just try and get one without it.
I must admit when I saw this headline at hotair
being a comic at heart my first thought was: “Hell every long married man knows that.”
But when I read the actual piece at Hotair
CBS is conflating two different issues. It was not all that long ago that the societal norm was to postpone sexual activity for marriage, even if the norm was not universally observed at all times. We didn’t fret about too little premarital sex and too much virginity back in those days, and yet that norm produced significant fertility booms, most recently and famously after World War II. Oddly, the later expectation of early and constant sexual activity regardless of marital status, combined with the contraceptive culture that enables it, has produced fertility shortages.
It’s the fertility crisis that’s the issue, not the lack of sexual activity. So what’s causing the fertility crisis? CBS focuses on a lack of job prospects and economic growth in both Japan and other industrialized nations, but the quality of life in these countries is better than ever. We have more access to luxuries and information than any other generation that preceded us. We live in larger spaces than ever. Rather than delay gratification to produce families, we tell ourselves — as one Japanese man does in the above video — that he doesn’t earn enough money to support a wife and family. That’s a choice, not an economic imperative.
…that I realized that the entire problem was about math.
I’m a big fan of math, I love how math is inherently truthful, the equation either adds up or it doesn’t.
So let me put things in a simple mathematical context. Except in cases where people are actually swept away in emotion which despite what people see in TV, movies or romance novels is not how life generally works there are two basic formulas for marriage:
(MP ≥ WP) = MM
A formula where
If a woman decides that a man’s prospects for success are greater than hers that man instantly becomes marriage material because he has the potential to improve that woman’s comfort level and provide for any children they potentially can have together. If a man’s prospects are at least equal to hers than that man is considered at least an acceptable as marriage material because combined said comfort level is at least not going to diminish and with their combined potential might even improve
This is the most common formula for marriage, there is however a 2nd one that covers a specific situation
(MW + MP + MS) ≥ EL = MM
Where
You’ll note that a woman’s wealth doesn’t factor into the equation because a a man is immediately acceptable to most women as a prospect if a guarantee of an easy life comes with him, but this formula covers women whose prospects exceed the norm and especially those who exceed the norm by a high amount and thus are assured of comfort already. As a rule such a woman wants to marry a man who has at least enough wealth and prospects to make an easy life for himself without her (Think Giselle and Tom Brady) but now with comfort already assured Social standing becomes a factor, in some cases a huge factor. Does such a man have a social standing high enough to overcome lack of other prospects or even wealth? Does he come from a famous family? Was he once a sports hero, a famous pol or have some other standing that would enhance a woman’s social standing? If he does then he’s marriage material.
That’s the bottom line math of marriage when it comes to finding a mate for women and that’s why when you have a culture that systematically goes after men’s prospects and potential you end up with a culture where marriage and fertility are gone. This was sold as a panacea to women as a solution to all their problems, but all it did was create a world where the number of men who satisfy the formula that women want for marriage is shrinking away.
May women be happy with the culture they’ve created.
Children today are being bombarded with a consent stream of dire warnings about climate change. The constant stream is causing children a great deal of anxiety, as documented by this Climate Change Dispatch article titled Only A Monster Would Afflict Children With ‘Eco-Anxiety’.
What kind of monster afflicts children with eco-anxiety by telling them they will be dead in 12 years? I’ll tell you who: the child abusers in the establishment media, the environmental movement, and the Democrat Party — that’s who.
What’s especially disturbing is that children are being taught the opposite of empathy. Empathy is the most important value an adult can impart to a child. But what these kids are being encouraged to become is nothing less than wild-eyed, religious fanatics where non-believers are fingered as the enemy, as heretics looking to destroy the world and kill everyone. And this is always the result of such things, of the moral certainty of a zealot mixed with intolerance.
This anxiety has become so widespread it has even been noticed by the American Psychological Association, according to this Ecowatch.com article Climate Change Is Causing Us ‘Eco-Anxiety’
A growing number of people report feelings of loss, grief, worry and despair amid news that climate change is making natural disasters like hurricanes and wildfires worse and more common, that polar ice is melting faster than we thought and that we only have 12 years to prevent the most catastrophic effects of climate change.
The American Psychological Association has come up with a term for these “resounding chronic psychological consequences” related to how we process the climate crisis: eco-anxiety.
Eco-Anxiety, which the APA describes as a “chronic fear of environmental doom,” isn’t listed anywhere in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the handbook for diagnosing mental illnesses
What makes the anxiety caused by fear over climate change even more despicable is the fact it is all based on a lie, a monstrous lie that has reached the level of indoctrination. The American Thinker article Scaring the children on climate is cruel, cynical, and dangerous describes the far reaching nature of this indoctrination.
It is dangerous when teenagers who have been indoctrinated their entire lives are treated as if they have knowledge on climate change and fossil fuels. They are just repeating talking points when trotted out on media outlets and before Congress as if they were experts. They have been discouraged from doing research and critically thinking because they have been told the science is settled. They know that anyone who says the climate is changing and has always changed naturally is de a climate change denier; to get good grades, they need to repeat what they are told.
It is more dangerous when almost all journalists and other Democrats repeat the same talking points instead of doing research and asking questions. Instead of pointing out to the teenagers that temperatures, sea levels, storm activity, droughts and floods have always fluctuated naturally, and previous dire predictions have been 100% wrong, they just go along.
This New York Post article The climate strike is all about indoctrination, not science has much more to about the indoctrination.
Unfortunately for students, the movement is not about education but indoctrination. One of the final demands, “comprehensive climate change education,” is to be aimed at children ages 5 through 14 because “impressionability is high during that developmental stage.”
If the climate threat eventually leads to radical national action, it will only be because the concept is drilled into youngsters “from the beginning.” Of course, it’s unclear why such a long-term strategy is necessary, given that we have only “11 years” left to avert disaster.
Judging from the bizarre, extremist, sloppily composed manifesto, the students who have the city Education Department’s blessing to attend this event clearly won’t be learning much of anything truly “science-based.” The rest of us, however, are learning quite a lot about the climate change movement, and it’s not pretty.
The Breitbart article Watch: Climate Strike Activist Says Climate Change Activism and Socialism Are ‘Inseparable’ explains just why this hoax was originally perpetuated and why it is still being crammed down the throats of children in the United States and across the world.
The fight against climate change is intricately connected to the push for socialism, according to a climate change alarmist who flocked to the nation’s capital to participate in the global climate strike on Friday.
Thousands of activists participated in the Greta Thunberg-inspired global climate strike in Washington, DC — and around the world — on Friday. Participants in D.C. were heard shouting, “Hey hey, ho ho, climate change has got to go,” and, “Don’t eat cows; eat the rich.”
One activist told Breitbart News that he was there to not only fight against climate change but to actively “fight for socialism,” calling the two “inseparable.”
Hate crimes have been rampant under President Trump, amounting to a horrendous rate of 0.005 percent of the incidents tracked by the FBI.
That’s right. Despite the narrative that this administration has ushered in a climate of hate, the number of crimes is almost statistically insignificant.
Although every hate crime is abhorrent, I think it’s important to keep such incidents in perspective.
The most recent statistics from the Department of Justice and the FBI from 2017, an estimated 1,247,321 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 0.2 percent from the 2016 estimate.
Of these incidents, hate crimes represented about 8,000 cases. Murders across the nation were double that. Rapes were 20 times higher. Burglaries were forty times worse.
A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.
Although anti-Islam/Arab incidents rose after 2001, the numbers are relatively small. Moreover, blacks and Jews faced more attacks. Following are the statistics:
In 2017, law enforcement agencies reported that 4,832 single-bias hate crime offenses were motivated by race/ethnicity/ancestry. Of these offenses:
48.8 percent were motivated by anti-black or African-American bias.
17.5 percent stemmed from anti-white bias.
10.9 percent were classified as anti-Hispanic or Latino bias.
5.8 percent were motivated by anti-American Indian or Alaska Native bias.
4.4 percent were a result of bias against groups of individuals consisting of more than one race.
3.1 percent resulted from anti-Asian bias.
2.6 percent were classified as anti-Arab bias.
Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,679 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-biased offenses showed:
58.1 percent were anti-Jewish.
18.7 percent were anti-Islamic (Muslim).
4.5 percent were anti-Catholic.
Simply put, the data don’t back up the narrative presented by the media and Democrats that hate is running rampant in the United States, But neither group has ever let the facts stand in the way of a bad story, particularly when the target is Trump.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 