Category Archives: EPIC FAIL

In. Equality

Hot on the heels of April Fools’ Day, apparently today is “Equal Pay Day”. It is not to be confused with “Equality Day”, which is in August. How many more of these feel-good political-BS Hallmark™-Holidays do we need? But I digress…

According to USA today, “Women make up roughly half the workforce. But in 2015, female full-time, year-round workers made only 80 cents for every dollar earned by men, a gender wage gap of 20%… Tuesday is Equal Pay Day, a symbolic day for advocates in the U.S. to show support for women in the workforce and draw attention to the gender pay gap.”

Close but no cigar

It is my contention that we don’t have a gender pay gap, we have a gender work gap. While it is true that the *average* man earns more than the *average* woman, this is a misleading fact: Think about it: the average schoolteacher/nurse/clerical government worker (mostly women) earns less than the average roofer/plumber/truck driver/oil rig worker (mostly men)… which is why the pay gap is bogus. Women choose jobs and careers that are less stressful, more convenient and provide better benefits. Men do most of the dirty/difficult/dangerous jobs, which, naturally pay more. And what thanks do they get? “Waaaah!

Even within the same professions, men and women make different choices, in the medical profession, most dermatologists (9-5, low risk, predictable workload, no emergencies) are female, while most ER Trauma surgeons (blood, guts, bullets and screams at 3AM) are male. Women tend to gravitate toward comfortable, air-conditioned, predictable office jobs. They do not generally want to work in hazardous environments, out in the elements or at night. Men to be drawn to high-paying jobs, often in unsanitary or triple-D (Dirty/Difficult/Dangerous).

Do not misunderstand me here: If a man and a woman do the same job with equal effort and competence, they should receive the same rewards. But there is a saying in the financial markets: “It’s all in the price“. What this means is that the price of a stock reflects all that is know about the performance of the underlying company, its values and its reputation.

Let’s take a look at the sporting world: Among professional tennis players, the men move faster, hit harder and have more stamina than the women. A men’s match is best of five sets, a women’s match is best of three. Men attract bigger crowds and bigger sponsorship deals. And yet there are some who think that women tennis players should be paid the same as men. But competitive sports are a meritocracy – the fact that the women players may “work harder” than men is irrelevant; it’s all in the price. It’s not all one-sided though; as an extreme example females in the porn industry get paid five times more than their male counterparts.

Once you control for the same job, the “pay gap” drops to less than 5%, and in some cities (Atlanta and Chicago, among others) women actually out-earn their male counterparts. Is there a pay gap? Perhaps, but it is not as bad as people like to think that it is, and government intervention won’t fix it, in the same way that they couldn’t fix poverty or drugs. But even when two people do the same job, there are differences: For one thing, women are less likely to ask for a raise; sorry girls, but if you don’t ask, you don’t get.

For another thing, men tend to work longer hours than women. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2014

“…even among full-time workers (those usually working 35 hours or more per week), men worked longer than women—8.4 hours compared with 7.8 hours.”.

That’s three hours a week, or 7.5% more hours. So if the men are working 7.5% more hours and getting paid 5% more, who is really getting the sharp end of the stick here? This can be seen in most office buildings: take a walk around the floor at 6PM. How many men are working late? How many women?

Even Forbes magazine admits what most of us already know: Men work longer hours than women. Of course, those who insist that women do the same work as men for 20% less forget about one crucial point: If profit-driven, greedy corporations know that women are cheaper and just as good, why don’t they replace their men with cheaper women? That’s a question that the pay-gap-advocates cannot answer and continually avoid. Indeed, one female CEO has gone on record to say that she will not hire women. Why? Short answer: Men get things done, women create drama. If a man had the temerity to say such a thing in public, he would be ostracized, disgraced and probably jailed. Equality. Yeah, right.

It seems that women have plenty of advantages as it is; there are almost twice as many female students in the US as male (great for guys who like chasing girls, lousy for girls looking for a M.R.S. to go with her B.A.). Women get more grants, loans and government help than men, who are beginning to look more and more disadvantaged. But the majority of less-useful degrees are pursued my women.

Why are so many women taking Psychology  and Sociology, and so few are studying Philosophy and Physics? This is reason why there is a dearth of women taking STEM subjects; for precisely the same reason that only 2% of Chess Grand Masters are female; not because of some vast conspiracy to keep them out of the winner’s circle, but simply because they don’t want to.

And let us not forget that married men make more money than single men – for precisely the same reason; they will work longer, less convenient hours, and put in extra time and effort. Yet you never hear single men complain that they are “victims” need government-level “help” and “encouragement” in order to achieve “equality”; they’re probably too busy drinking beer, watching games, chasing girls and enjoying life – and good luck to them.

Bottom line: Life isn’t fair. But it is not as systematically unfair as you would like to wish it were. So make your choices, and live with them. It’s all in the price.

TAXI!!

This morning, I got this email from Lyft, a company with whom I have an account that I have had for over a year but never actively used:

lyft

Let’s disassemble that, shall we?

“We created Lyft to be a model for the type of community we want our world to be.”
And there was me thinking that you created Lyft to make money. How altruistic of you. And what’s with the “community” talk? I thought you were a business.

“…diverse…”
We already have enough diversity. How about some unity?

“…inclusive…”
Inclusive of whom? Inclusive of illegals who have no business being here? Inclusive of Islamic Jihadists who want us converted or dead? Inclusive of Muslim Moderates who resolve their confusion and turmoil by shooting up scores of homosexuals in a club? Tell me more about this “inclusivity” thing; I’m not sure I understand.

“…and safe.”
Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” America is not, and was never intended to be, a safe space.

“This weekend, Trump closed the country’s borders to refugees, immigrants, and even documented residents from around the world based on their country of origin.”
You obviously haven’t read the executive order. It does no such thing. Here are some of the highlights:

  • “The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.”
  • The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.
  • The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security’s determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.
  • Immediately upon receipt of the report… the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.
  • After the 60-day period… expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.
  • “…the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.”

As you can see, it is by no means a blanket ban; it is an invitation for other nations to either help us, or be counted among the enemy. It is a “put-up-or-shut-up” challenge. But let’s continue:

  • I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.
  • I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.
  • Notwithstanding the temporary suspension… the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest — including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship — and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.

AS you can see, there are specifically crafted exceptions. Nothing to see here folks, move along. Now back to the good people at Lyft…

“Banning people of a particular faith or creed, race or identity, sexuality or ethnicity, from entering the U.S. is antithetical to both Lyft’s and our nation’s core values.”
And accepting mass immigration from nations who hate us is not exactly smart. Oh, and “our nation’s core” values are binding on American Citizens and Legal Residents and no one else.

“We stand firmly against these actions, and will not be silent on issues that threaten the values of our community.”
That’s nice. And there is that lovely word “Community” again. Even nicer. But where were you when Hillary was calling me and half of the country “a basket of deplorables“? Where was your “Community Spirit” then? Were you standing firmly then? No, all we heard from you lot was *crickets*.

“We know this directly impacts many of our community members, their families, and friends.”
There is your favorite word again. You’re not a social club, you are a business. Start acting like one.

“We stand with you, and are donating $1,000,000 over the next four years to the ACLU to defend our constitution. We ask that you continue to be there for each other – and together, continue proving the power of community.”
You really love that word, don’t you? Can’t you come up with at least one synonym for “Community“?

There is a fine line between loyal opposition and insurrection. When a person does that, it is called protest, and is the right of any individual. When a publicly-traded corporation does it, it looks a lot like treason.

What you do with your personal share of the profits is entirely up to you (as long as you don’t donate money to the wrong causes). Whether your company gets any of that money from me is up to me.

The Un-personing of Milo

Or: Twitter, your slip is showing

Milo

I discovered Milo Yiannopoulos online last year. He’s an irreverent, unflappable, vibrant contradiction in terms — a British Gay Conservative, who writes for Breitbart news, and speaks out on the stupidity of political correctness and the insanity of third-wave campus feminism. While I am sometimes concerned by his excessive swearing (it doesn’t bother me, but it makes it difficult for me to share his ideas with friends and family who may be easily offended) I enjoy his style of writing and unabashedly self-promoting YouTube videos highly enjoyable. I find his ability to state the blindingly-obvious-but-politically-incorrect quite refreshing, including:

In particular, I love his sense of fun, particularly the way he can poke fun at liberals while taking cover behind what he calls  “gay privilege”. This allows him to get away with many things that straight people would be pilloried for.

He is currently in the middle ot a series of speaking engagement at US universities, which he cheekily dubbed “The Dangerous Faggot Tour“, which clearly showed that too many of America’s Colleges, far from being bastions of free speech had an aversion to it when a Conservative speaker says something that challenged their preconceived beliefs — in particular, one rather obese young woman who had a meltdown at one of his talks, then when it went viral, tried to assert that she had a right to privacy after misbehaving in a public place. I will not link to her, just Google “Trigglypuff” if you want to know what I am talking about.

Naturally, his unique brand of mischief-making did not go unopposed. Twitter, in particular, has made it obvious that they’ve got it in for him. Some months ago, Twitter “unverified” him. Verification is a process by which a Celebrity can protect themselves from impersonators by having their “genuine” account identified by a blue checkmark. Milo’s response was to put a red cross where the blue checkmark used to be.

Twitter’s official story was that he was “harassing” other Twitter users. This was strange, as many far more offensive speakers remained verified; I am sure that the fact that all of these miscreants were liberals and Milo was a conservative had nothing to do with it. Yeah, right.

Any road up, the “unverification” did not hurt Milo; his following and his stock continued to go from strength to strength.

Ghost. Busted.

Things came to a head, however, when he wrote a bad review of the new old movie “Ghostbusters”. Like most, this one panned the movie, which has gone on to become an almighty flop. He did not attack any of the actors personally. However, others did so, and a series of vitriolic tweets aimed at Leslie Jones, resulted in her making a complaint to Twitter. She complained, and Milo was banned from Twitter.

Milo’s account was “permanently suspended”, and all of his tweets, past and present, have been removed. Leslie Jones has said that she is leaving Twitter, but thus far, her tweets are still up. To quote Ariana Rowlands: “Twitter will permanently ban popular conservatives for jokes but will leave up ISIS accounts actively recruiting terrorists, and does not equally apply its rules and their punishments” (Source)

The saddest thing about this whole mess is that Twitter loses, Leslie Jones loses, Sony pictures loses, and the only person who wins is… Milo.

And so I concluded with a couple of open letters: one to Leslie Jones, one to Twitter. Enjoy!


Dear Leslie

As Milo so eloquently put it. You are the star of a Hollywood Blockbuster movie. Act like one. You are now a public persona, and will reap the benefits – and the brickbats- that go with it. Some are warranted, some are not. It doesn’t matter. But getting upset about mean things that people say to and about you reeks of insecurity, not Star Quality. Free Speech requires a Thick Skin; “Mean Tweets” does not equate to Harassment. People have opinions. They will call you ugly. They will tell you that you look like a man.They may or may not be right. *It doesn’t matter*. You have a block and a report button; use them- or even better, you can retweet/repost them publicly for all the world to see. Sunlight, after all, is the best disinfectant.

Finally, I would advise you to observe the golden rule. Your tweets about white people are every bit as racist as the ones aimed at you. You don’t get to launch arrows at others and then go running to Mommy when a hail of arrows comes back at you.


Dear Twitter

One of the reasons that I am on Twitter but not on FakesBook Stalkbook Facebook is because of your transparency. But that transparency is disappearing; lately I have seen more and more left-leaning bias creeping into the platform. Conservatives are censured in a way that liberals are not. Hashtags like #KillAllWhiteMen are considered acceptable, while #KillAllBlackMen would not be. To most well-balanced minds, both are equally racist and should be treated the same way.

The reason for this is simple: A lack of clear bright-line rules that apply to all people, all the time.

  • No Direct Physical Threats. Insults whether warranted or not, are not threats or harassment.
  • A clear reporting, complaints. grievance and sanctioning procedure.
  • Clear definitions for what sanctions will be employed and under what circumstances.
  • Sanctions for those who mis-use the complaints procedure for nuisance and censorship purposes.
  • A mechanism for warning sanctioned users as to exactly what they did wrong, as opposed to the usual woolly statement like “you breached our community guidelines”.
  • A clear explanation as to why someone was sanctioned and a clear and transparent presentation of the evidence.

Clarity and transparency are crucial here; anything less will be rightly perceived as editorial bias. When you removed Milo’s checkmark, others whose transgressions were far more egregious remained unpunished. This kind of bias is becoming obvious; it has already led yo your demise, and if left unchecked, it will lead to your eventual demise as a platform and as a commercial enterprise.

Holding Milo responsible for what others have done is wrong on so many levels. Hold people responsible for what they say, but is is wrong to hold them responsible for the actions of others. We have seen some of the vehemence and death threats that angry people (mostly feminists and liberals) have aimed at him; they remain unpunished while he is banned. Please explain this discrepancy.

Your shabby treatment of Milo has done you no favors and won you no fans, while his following has gone from strength to strength. When you ban someone like him, you deprive us of the diversity that we find most enjoyable about your product. It you want to know the real reason why your stock price is taking a dump, that’s it. Remember, Conservatives are wealthier and more generous than liberals. And when they leave, they take that money with them.

When Security Isn’t

Windows Update is Microsoft’s mechanism for keeping Windows secure. Each month, they release a bunch of patches that plug newly-identified holes that they have found. But from time to time they sneak in updates that are not related to security. One famous example is when they introduce a new version of Internet Explorer (“The best browser… for downloading a better browser”). It is perfectly fine to introduce these under “Optional Updates”or even “Recommended Updates”, but to present them as “Important” is disingenuous at best.

But wait! There’s more!

In the middle of last year, users of Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 started getting pop-ups urging them to “reserve your copy of Windows 10”. This was so odd and unexpected that many suspected that it was some form of malware, particularly when you realize that Windows 7 is supported my Microsoft until 2020, and Windows 8 even later than that. Which begs the question: So why is Microsoft pushing a free upgrade on its users so hard? But that is another story for another time… here’s what you need to know: Windows Update KB3035583 is the “update” that makes this happen. . remove this update and prevent it from reinstalling if you don’t need Windows 10 (here a hint: you don’t). Also download and install GWX Control Panel to remove the gigabytes of disk space Microsoft has stolen for the Windows 10 upgrade files.

But it gets even better. One of the biggest objections to the “free” Windows 10 upgrade is that it trades away your privacy, but that was not enough for Microsoft. The data-gathering “telemetry” functionality in Windows 10 was subsequently retro-fitted into Windows 7 and 8.1 (See KB3068708, KB3022345, KB3075249, and KB3080149).

So… if are running Windows 7 or 8 and you don’t want Microsoft snooping around in your computer and gathering information about your activities, all you have to do is to remove these updates. The following text in a batch file (run as administrator) will remove the “telemetry” updates along with the Windows 10 update mechanism from your computer:

start /w wusa.exe /uninstall /kb:3075249 /quiet /norestart
start /w wusa.exe /uninstall /kb:3080149 /quiet /norestart
start /w wusa.exe /uninstall /kb:3021917  /quiet /norestart
start /w wusa.exe /uninstall /kb:3022345 /quiet /norestart
start /w wusa.exe /uninstall /kb:3068708 /quiet /norestart
start /w wusa.exe /uninstall /kb:3035583 /quiet /norestart
pause

Once that is done, you will have to go into Windows Update and “Hide” these updates so they don’t get “accidentally” reinstalled. If you are not sure, you can always re-run the batch file as a preemptive measure.

Microsoft: quit abusing “Windows Updates” as an underhanded mechanism to get us to install stuff that isn’t security-related.

 

Light Bulb Moment

20140507_191008

May 2014

 

October 2015

October 2015

 

Careless Talk Costs Lives

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Ashley Madison hack, here are the details:

  • Ashley Madison (“A-M”) is a dating website that specializes in extra-marital affairs.
  • Their business model is likely aimed at men, who are willing to pay for access to available – and presumably attractive – females.
  • Personal Data from A-M was exfiltrated, apparently by an insider who no longer works there according to AM executives.
  • This data includes personal email addresses, names and credit card details of millions of A-M members.
  • A group calling themselves the “Impact Team” have threatened to publish this data unless A-M ceases operations.
  • A-M have not ceased operations.

I am not going to moralize, criticize or look for someone to blame; that’s above my pay grade. I am not going to say how stupid these folks were (they were) or how easy it would have been to avoid giving out personal information (it is). What I will say is that given the number of high-level people who are likely current of former customers of A-M, this information represents the greatest vehicle for extortion that has ever existed in the history of the world.

  • Not every person who signed up for an account with A-M has availed themselves of their services.
  • Not everyone who has paid them money got anything in return.
  • It would be relatively easy to ruin a completely innocent person by inserting their details into the published information.
  • Anyone who pays money to a blackmailer to suppress publication of their information will likely face repeated demands for payment from them or others who happen upon that information in the future.

Like so many of the portents of our time, the existence and success of A-M not the problem. Just like pornography, promiscuity, the marriage strike, or “herbivore culture”, it is but a symptom of the world that we have created for ourselves. We can choose to attack A-M, but they are evidently meeting a need that millions appear to have.It would be easy to dismiss every husband with a wandering eye as a “cheater”, but there are at least two sides to every story – three if you count the truth. Incidentally, why is it that a philandering husband is always vilified and castigated, but the behavior of a cuckolding wife is so often pinned on him as well? But I digress…

When the A-M hack was announced a few weeks ago, it was greeted with much cackling and merriment, mostly from the distaff side. I was a little more sanguine, and opined that the cost of such a disclosure would be measured in lives. So imagine my surprise when I hear that there have been at least two suicides because of the A-M hack…

I’m sick of being right.

Full disclosure: While I am aware of A-M, and have a superficial understanding of how their business works, I have never been a member or signed up for any of their services. Even if I were inclined, their premise – that there are attractive married women who are itching to get a little action on the side with little old me – sounds to good to be true.

And if there is a lesson to be learned here, it is that if is something is to good to be true, it probably is.

In praise of Traditional Marriage – Part 3

Or: Where do we go from here?

Part One Part Two

The Story So Far: (source)

  • Step 1: Tell two generations of men they are sexist, brutish, scum of the earth who will forever be inferior to women.
  • Step 2: Give women massive privilege in obtaining scholarships and jobs.
  • Step 3: Indoctrinate generations of women into perceiving every man as a vile monster, and that being “strong and independent” requires being hateful to men.
  • Step 4: Rig divorce and child custody laws to make marriage a hideous trap for men.
  • Step 5: Dehumanize men to the point that we believe their only role is to be a servant to women.
  • Step 6: Act surprised when men give women the middle finger.

Feminism, the culture and some truly horrible changes in the law have made marriage such an unpalatable option for men that large portions of the population are simply eschewing marriage, if not avoiding women entirely. The same changes that freed women from men also freed men from women.

Action, meet consequence.

Let me be clear: I am happily married, enjoy being married, and hope to remain so all the days of my life. But should I find myself unexpectedly single, I would not rush back to the altar, nor would I encourage today’s young men to marry. Partly because the institution has been ruined, but mostly because most women make poor wife material.

Many are the Varnish, few are the Wood.

From up here in the cheap seats, it seems to me that most women are looking for a man who is Tall, Handsome, Muscular, Masculine, Confident, Competent, Charming, Charismatic… and rich. So 80% of the women are eying up the top 5% of the men. Nothing wrong with that, but statistically speaking, most of those women are doomed to disappointment; “settling” for either a lesser man, or a collection of cats.

So what is a marriage-minded man to do?

Here are a few ideas and words of advice:

  • Cultivate Awesomeness: be a whole man whose body, mind and spirit are in balance.
  • Build Wealth: All other things being equal, a man with a paid-for car and enough cash in the bank to live for a year will be far more desirable to women that one who does not have these things.
  • Live Frugally: Don’t buy useless crap.
  • Dress well. Whether you like it or not, clothes make the man, and are among the first thing that people notice.
  • Out Yourself: Make yourself available. Be out in public. Watch for opportunities to make new friends.
  • Approach women. If you’re shy, do it anyway.
  • Project power: Women are attracted to powerful men. This is why thugs and “gangstas” never lack for female company. Your dress, posture and demeanor signal to women that you are a high-value man.
  • Stay Strong. Women are attracted to strength; this is simple biology. Stay fit, be strong, keep a good posture, do not slouch.
  • No Need: Don’t act needy. If you are always free to see her, she will realize that you are not high value and will lose attraction — and once you lose that, it’s a one-way trip to the dreaded friend-zone, if she doesn’t ignore you and move on. Don’t return texts immediately.
  • Be Brief: Keep text message exchanges short. The purpose of texting is to arrange a date, not to share life stories. Don’t waste your time on women who don’t want to meet.
  • Friends First: Or, as the saying goes, “Bro’s before Ho’s” — never allow a woman to decided how you spend your time, and with who. At the same time, cultivate friendships with other high-quality men — don’t hang out with losers or trifling men. Remember that you are the average of your five closest friends.
  • Talk Proper: Keep your mouthpiece crisp: Men are generally turned on by images. Women are generally turned on by words. This is why men watch porn and women read romance novels. Learn to speak well.
  • Be Content: Be irrationally confident, playful and fun. Women don’t want to be around miserable men.
  • You Win: Make it clear that she is not the prize, you are.

In the last part, I detailed some of the attributes of men that women find attractive. But what about the women?

“A woman of good character, who can find? Her value is more than rubies”, is how King Solomon put it nearly three millennia ago. And this is as true today as it was back then. Western women are in the main, not very marriage-minded.

But women are really good at hiding the negative aspects of their nature (deceitful, conniving, manipulative, moody) from a man until he has signed on the dotted line and can’t walk — or run — out the door. This is yet another reason why men prefer younger women — they have had fewer opportunities to ruin themselves.

And what about her? What is a man to look for in a woman?

  • Younger is better: If you want to have a bunch of children, a woman past her prime years (18-24) is simply a bad bet. And if you don’t want to have children, why are you getting married in the first place?
  • Cut out the fat: Unless you are into bigger girls (most men aren’t), avoid them entirely. They will rant and rave and yell and scream and call you names and foam at the mouth and flop on the floor. Just leave them there. And hope they like cats.
  • Pick religious/moral/disciplined over cute/hot/sexy. If she reads Cosmo, move on.
  • Go for wife skills: Is she good with kids? Can she cook? Does she think being a wife and mother is a chore or a calling?
  • Avoid girls with tattoos, piercings or brightly-colored hair. These are all “slut tells”, and may point to a troubled past. Girls with one or more of these tells will vehemently deny this. Don’t believe them. Women lie to look better than they actually are, as the multi billion-dollar fashion and cosmetics industries mutely testify.
  • Single Mom? Just say No: It is an indication of how sick Western Society has become that single mothers are held in such high regard. There are three kinds of “single mothers”: Widows (ok, but you may end up living in another man’s shadow), Divorcees (a crap-shoot; remember, the divorce is never her fault) and Baby Mamas (Hell to the no – leave them to the consequences of their misbehavior). As if that is not enough, single mothers will generally put their kids before you, which is never good recipe for a healthy marriage. You never want to find yourself in a position where you have all the responsibility and none of the authority.
  • What about Daddy? Are her parents married? Does she have a healthy, respectful relationship with her father?
  • Too much education? Nothing wrong with a girl having qualifications or even a good job. But the brutal, simple truth is that she chose those things over marriage in her prime years, which means that you are more likely to be a must-have fashion accessory than the most important thing in her life.
  • Watch for impulsive traits: Debt means that may be looking for an ATM to bail her out of her current troubles.
  • Doubly so for Addictions, medical problems or previous trauma, such as child molestation or rape. No, it’s not her fault, but you are not her therapist. You cannot fix her. She may try to play the damsel in distress to appeal to every good man’s protective instinct. Don’t be fooled by this act.
  • Run, don’t walk, away from women with any kind of mental health issues (depression/anxiety/BPD/BSC) — you don’t want to be shackled to a nutter for the rest of your life, nor do you want one for the mother of your children.
  • Does she have a servant’s heart? Men want a wife who is respectful, pleasant and submissive. If she even mentions Feminism — unless it is followed by the words “… is rubbish” — leave her be. Spending your life shackled to a “strong, independent woman” is a bad idea that rarely ends well.
  • Ignore what she says, watch what she does. If its all about her, there will never been room in her life for you.
  • Trust but verify: Demand open access to her medical, financial and sexual history. Make is a requirement that she gives you the password to her Social Media accounts (without giving her time to hide the evidence) and look for evidence of misbehavior.
  • Demand a lie-detector test. Don’t be afraid to ask the hard questions. Don’t be like the man who found out a year into the marriage that his “low-mileage” wife (4 previous partners) turned out to be the “village bicycle” (37).
  • If there is a financial imbalance, demand a pre-nuptual agreement. If she balks, you just found a gold-digger.
  • Avoid One-Itis. There is no “The One” for you. Run the numbers — there are about a million girls born every year — that means another girl turns 18 every 31.5 seconds. There are literally two born every minute.

SCOTUS Screws Up

This is a long-overdue post, but I didn’t want to expound on this subject without giving it some serious thought, as it is a highly controversial subject.

The Supreme Court has ruled that Gay Marriage is now legal in every state of the Union.

Short answer: This is wrong on so many levels.

Longer answer:

  • There is nothing in the Constitution that suggests that Gay Marriage is a constitutional right. You do not have the *right* to marry anyone.
  • There is nothing in the Constitution that gives any of the three branches of the Federal Government any power over marriage.
  • Marriage has always been a free exercise of religion — an area where the Federal Government is explicitly ordered to keep out.
  • Since the Federal Government has no explicit constitutional mandate to police marriage, this responsibility clearly falls to the States, which is where it was before five Supreme Court Judges (including, unsurprisingly, all three women on the court) decided to usurp that power.

Women on top

This ruling is a logical and expected consequence of giving women the vote. That sounds like a horrible, sexist thing to say, but it is nonetheless true. Two-thirds of the six men on the Supreme Court voted against this measure; had the court been all-male, the measure would have been soundly defeated 6-3. But there were also three women on the court, and that made all the difference.

This is hardly surprising; women in general overwhelmingly vote for progressive/liberal/democratic causes and candidates; they also tend to vote for legislation and social programs that benefit them at the expense of others (such as affirmative action, free birth control and other female-only benefits), as opposed to the population in general. They also, as a rule, tend to prioritize feelings over unpleasant truths. It comes as no surprise, then, that all three women on the court voted in favor of recognizing Gay Marriage, and that was enough to squeak out a 5 to 4 victory — the narrowest possible.

It’s not over till it’s over

I have noticed that whenever Liberals win a victory over the Conservatives — such as in this situation — the former instruct the latter in no uncertain terms to sit down and shut up, as the question has been settled for all time. But when the latter takes place — such as California’s Proposition 8, where the majority of Californians voted against gay marriage, or the Hobby Lobby Abortifactants ruling — the result is cry of the losers is invariably a rallying battle-cry of “This is not over! We shall fight on until victory is ours!

Well folks, this is not over. And there will be consequences.

With Marriage comes Divorce

Yes, Gay marriage is now legal in all fifty states, for good or ill. I suspect that there will be quite a lot of ill. For one thing, when you get marriage, you also get divorce. And given that gay men are generally more promiscuous than straight men, I suspect that we will be seeing a lot of those. With Divorce comes property and custody battles; with the added wrinkle that identifying the “mother” or the “father” is impossible in this case, which will make the jobs of the family courts far more difficult than the current “man-bad-woman-good” model currently allows. Still, given that gays are generally more affluent than straights, the divorce lawyers must be rubbing their hands together in delightful anticipation of the windfall that is to come.

The Beatings will continue until morale improves

With marriage also comes a higher level of domestic violence, and studies have shown that lifetime Domestic Violence statistics among homosexuals is significantly higher than among heterosexuals (7.1% for men, 20% for women). Gay men report 21% Domestic Violence, Lesbians report an incredible 35% — and that was before they were allowed to marry. Given that Domestic Violence is less prevalent outside of marriage on the premise that either partner can walk away at any time, one can only assume that once marriage enters the picture, things will get worse.

Unholy Matrimony

While it is true that Homosexuals now have the right to marry, it has not yet been decided whether they can force a given minister, church or denomination to marry them. And if the primary goal of gay marriage proponents is social acceptance, that is going to be a major sticking point. The US Constitution States that “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion and the free exercise thereof“. If marriage within the church is an exercise of religion (Hint: it is), this means that Congress cannot compel a church to marry anybody.

In the real world, ministers can, and do, refuse to marry heterosexual couples — for a variety of reasons — every doo-dah-ding-dong-day. And many will flatly refuse to marry homosexuals, claiming (rightly) that the Bible does not have a single positive thing to say about homosexuality. That is their prerogative — both legally and morally.

And even those churches that choose to marry homosexuals (Which is the bride? Which is the groom?) may find their pews emptying as folks leave in disgust — particularly the older ones, whose tithes and offerings keep the doors open and the preacher in paid employment. Hopefully the happy couple have enough rich friends who will step in and take up the slack.

Disagreement is not Homophobia

There are some who will read this and label me as some sort of bible-thumping homophobe. You are welcome to your opinion, as I am welcome to mine. We can agree to disagree. But you understand this: disagreement is not hatred or fear. To my gay readers out there, live your lives as you see fit; the Constitution guarantees you the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Do what you want to do with whom you want to do it, as long as nobody gets hurt it is no concern of mine. If you need specific legal rights — survivorship, beneficiary, custody, etc — you can have them in a Civil Union. I have no problem with that.

But when you mess with Marriage, you mess with God. And He has an annoying habit of having the last word.

And that’s all I have to say about that.

Disillusioned

I am a creature of many passions, two of which are playing games and writing. So last year I decided to combine those two passions and write a book about a game that I enjoyed playing. And so the Assassins’ Creed: Pirates Game Guide was born.

I originally released it in two versions: a free version and a paid version with ten extra pages of personal research and information that was not available anywhere else. I figured that if folks liked the free version that they would pay a few dollars for the paid version.

I was wrong.

The free version got hundreds of downloads, but in spite of my lowering the price from $4.99 to $2.99, there were only a handful of sales. The market has spoken. Or more specifically, the freeloaders have made their point. I made a mistake, one that I will not make again.

As a result, I am reducing the free version to a “preview” version that features only the first twenty-five pages of the book.

This will doubtless upset some people; you may thank the huge number of freeloaders who do not value the many hours of work I have put into writing and publishing this book.

Don’t blame me, blame the freeloaders.

Choices, Changes and Consequences

I don’t normally comment on a book without reading it, but one of my founding values is to “never reward incompetence with your purchasing dollars” — and the lessons drawn from this one made it too good to pass up.

The story began here, and was featured in the New York Post. This led me to a book review in the Washington Post (I was tickled at the title: She took a year off from her marriage to sleep with strangers. What could go wrong?) which summarizes thusly:

  • After eighteen years of marriage, she’s bored, suddenly decides that she wants a baby
  • Her husband doesn’t, and never has.
  • He does what any self-respecting dude would do when his wife gets “baby-rabies”, and gets a vasectomy.
  • She goes off and has sex with twelve strangers over the next twelve months — two of whom were women.
  • At the end of her “year off”, their marriage falls apart (surprise!).
  • Then she writes a book about it.

Lesson 1: Women change, men don’t

Let’s start by looking for the genesis of this debacle.

Over time, Rinaldi decided a baby would add purpose to their lives, but Scott wouldn’t change his mind. “I wanted a child, but only with him,” she explains. “He didn’t want a child but wanted to keep me.” When Scott opted for a vasectomy, she demanded an open marriage.

Let’s read the salient bits out loud, shall we? She decided… he wouldn’t. “I wanted”… he didn’t. He opted… She demanded. Seeing a pattern here?

Here’s how I think it played out.: When they married, neither of them wanted children. Twelve years later, her biological clock goes BOOM! and suddenly she changes her mind and wants a baby. But that’s OK, because it’s always a lady’s prerogative to change her mind. He’s expected to go along with it, because happy wife and all that, but for some strange reason he doesn’t (consistency being a masculine virtue). But in her mind it’s his fault. Because.

But wait! There’s more! Evidently he knew or suspected that she was not above getting “accidentally” pregnant in order to get her own way regardless of his feelings, because he had a vasectomy (the bad, bad man is bad, bad, bad!) and there go her nascent dreams of mommyhood. But Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, so out come the “demands” and off she goes on her “voyage of discovery”.

He supports her (like he has a choice in the matter?), but at the end of her “year off”, their marriage collapses under the strain.

Lesson 2: It’s different for girls

The biological truth is that a high number of partners is not generally good for women. It has been proven that the more partners a woman has before marriage, the less attractive she is to men and the higher the chance of divorce. One reason for this is that sexuality and emotions are more tightly integrated in women than in men, who are far more capable of separating their sexuality from their emotions. Double standard? No, two completely different standards.

Lesson 3: Sauce for the goose?

What amazes me about this is not what she did; men and women do stupid stuff for the flimsiest of reasons all the time. No, what surprises me is that instead of hanging her head in shame, she wrote a book about her stupidity and loudly trumpeted it from the rooftops.

Imagine if the situation was reversed, and it was the husband who had a mid-life crisis instead of her. Then when he couldn’t get what he wanted, decided to “take a year of to explore himself”, presumably with a dozen women who were younger and hotter than her. Somehow I don’t think that publishers would be lining up to offer him a book deal. No, men and women (but mostly women) would be lining up to call him out on his behavior and smite him with locusts and frogs.

Does that sound like equality to you?

Lesson 4: Women can rationalize anything

It is comical listening to a person trying to rationalize a mistake, but women seem to be past masters at it. I have yet to hear a woman admit that the failure of their marriage was her fault; it was either a mutual decision, or she was the long-suffering heroine and some man was the villain of the piece. But at the end of this particular day, when all is said and done, it was she who blew up a good marriage because she was bored. They will both have to live with the consequences. And I suspect — nay, hope — that she will be the one bears the brunt of those consequences.

Because, as Oprah was wont to say: “Karma’s a she-dog”