I am getting back, one month at a time, a little of the money the federal government confiscated from me throughout my working life. I am talking about Social Security, of course. This year, like last year, there will be no SS cost of living raise. Frankly, I don’t see why there should be. Nevertheless, the President and the senior Democrat leadership want to send me $250 as a compensation for not giving me a raise.
The decision to “adjust” or not is made yearly based on a specific way to to measure inflation, in place for many years. You don’t throw away the tape measure because you don’t like the measurement. It’s this kind of self-indulgent thinking that put us in the trou de caca ( French) we are in. Second, who else gets automatic income inflation adjustment except for a few union members who need to get a life anyway? Third, if you think about it, it’s hard to find an economic category less affected by the current crisis than “seniors.” Most of them are out of mortgage trouble. They don’t have children in school to suffer reductions (if any) in educational expenditures, except for a handful of Hollywood actors on speed. A handful of seniors get laid, as I said, but most seniors can’t get laid off since they are already retired.
President Obama and the Democrat losers want to give me a $250 bribe to buy my November vote. Pathetic! If it passes, I vow to spend the money entirely on tea-party Republican candidates. If the money comes to late for that, I will just send it to Sarah (Palin).
The other day, around 10/10/10, I caught Rush Limbaugh making a big geopolitical mistake on air. It’s a rare event; Limbaugh is usually very well informed. He confused South Sudan, which is about to split from Sudan after a referendum, with Darfur in the west of the country. The slow genocide continues in Darfur. Here is the summary: The Islamist National Congress, in power in the capital, believes it can enslave the southerners because they are not Muslims. It thinks it can enslave the people of the west because they are not Arabs (though Muslim).
Men have more upper body strength than women, almost everyone agrees and they run faster. Often, when you make comparisons between well-defined categories, it’s more useful to look at extremes than at averages. For one thing, there are always real people at the extremes while the “average woman,” for example may not exist; she is just an arithmetic calculation.
The Wall Street Journal has a feature on 10/14/1 about women who run marathons. As a rule, they are given 30 minute handicap over men. This means that the first woman who arrives 30mn after he (invariably male) winner is considered an equal. It also means, in theory, that if a woman arrives 25 minutes after the first man, she should logically be declared the winner. The piece in the WSJ points out that in many recent marathons, the fastest woman was only 15 minutes or so behind the fastest man. And the gap is closing
This, to my mind, is a better measure how much faster than women men are. For one thing, the fastest woman and the fastest man are comparable on other, tacit but nevertheless important, dimensions such as dedication to the sport. Female marathon runners who are in the middle of their pack might be less devoted, or more devoted than men who are in the middle of their pack. Fast women are like fast men: They want to get there first. (I am only referring here to women who run fast, not to the other kind of fast women, another topic altogether.)
All this brings me back to a question I have raised before: Why are there very few female bridge Grand Masters when it is likely that more women play bridge, world-wide, than men? The feminists among you, if any, might get cheap thrills at my expense by showing me either that there are many female Grand Masters or that fewer women than men play bridge. Rough figures will be fine.
And, of course, I have to ask why women and men still play professional chess in different categories. Is it possible that the best women have less than the best men of whatever it takes to succeed at bridge or at chess? One thing I am certain of is that it’s not upper-body strength.
Some questions have become forbidden, many in academia, for sure. Rationalists must hit political correctness in its disdainful and pious mouth wherever and whenever the occasion presents itself. It clouds judgment in every way.
Global warming upon us: the consensus. Below, a formulation I plagiarize from the current issue of Skeptic magazine (vol 16-1. Irwin Silverman, PhD). I hate myself for not having thought about it first.
Hardly anyone had used the term “climatologist” before the current controversy. And the term covers a variety of realities, in terms of training. Those who give themselves the title are linked mostly by ideology, an apocalyptic ideology. To say that 99% of climatologists agree that there is dangerous, man-made global warming is analogous to stating that 99% of Christian ministers believe in God. No shit!