Anyone at the State Department who didn’t pay attention to the advice given here should be stripped of their security clearances and barred from holding sensitive positions in the federal government in the future.
The dumbth continues…
According to the trailer of the film, it teaches that the “three most destructive words” a boy can hear growing up is “be a man.” Experts quoted therein also suggest that violent outbursts are prompted by masculinity pressures because “respect is linked to violence.”
OK, so telling a male to “be a man” is bad. Since a man is what the male would normally be or become, what they’re basically saying is that being normal is bad.
You gotta give these people props for having done a *magnificent* job on tearing down boys and men in the US. By working to eliminate the role of fathers in the education and maturation of whole populations of boys, they have eliminated proper role models for boys, leaving them with either no guide on how to become civilized men, or guides like the anti-male “feminists” that have become so prominent in recent decades. Is it any wonder, then, that so many boys and men have emotional and/or psychological issues?
If full knowledge on the source of all this was ever found, I wonder if it might turn out that a good chunk of this originated as a plan by the KGB to destroy the US from within. This would not surprise me. It would also mean that the people who support this nonsense are actually committing treason.
Ah, anti-science/anti-STEM moronity. Is there no limit to how monumentally idiotic it can get? Apparently not:
University of Cape Town movement says witchcraft is no less valid than Isaac Newton’s theory of gravity.
Just… wow. Behold:
Sure, one can argue that this is just a handful of idiots in a university far, far away. What are the chances that the thinking of clearly crazy people in Capetown, South Africa, will be adopted here in the Enlightened World? Well… consider. The idiots in the video use the same terminology as modern western Social Justice Warriors. They use the same *tactics* as western SJW’s. “Safe space.” “Progressive space.” Demanding apologies from dissenters. “Decolonization.” Feels before reals. Unearned arrogance.
The fact that these anti-science monsters have so successfully adopted the SJW mantras and worldview means that it is quite possible that their particular anti-science goals and objectives could well filter up through the rest of the SJW hive-mind. After all, if you argue with them and tell them that they are wrong… you’re a racist.
Thunderf00t did a good job of explaining why this thinking is teh dumm:
Now, here’s a thought experiment. Let’s say you were ethnically *not* a sub-Saharan African. You are, instead, let’s say, a white guy. And you *despise* sub-Saharan Africans. You don’t want them to progress; you don’t want to see them flying jetliners or colonizing Mars or building new computers or powerplants or cars that will compete with *you.* You don’t want to see them taking advantage of modern medicine and agriculture. You want to see their numbers decrease, their standard of living fall, their hopes and horizons shrink. You want to see a whole continent of people reduced to the level of savage that you think that they are. So, how would you go about making sure that happened? One way would be to launch a genocidal war of conquest and oppression. But, dayum, that’s expensive. On the other hand… if you can convince them to believe *exactly* as the “Fallists” in the video believe, you can get them to replace science with superstition. And once they’ve done that… they will do what you, in your racism and hatred, what to have done to them.
We’ve undoubtedly all heard stories of someone who’s getting by financially, then they win the lottery, go absolutely bugnuts on buying way more stuff than their winning can justify, and end up in worse shape than before they won. But this article details another type of person who goes broke due to the lottery: the neighbors of the winners.
Before I started reading the article, I figured it would detail the sad possibility of your neighbor winnign the lottery, doing a whole lot of improvements to their property and perhaps buying & improving others in the area, consequently drivign up property values and thus tax rates, screwing over the poor schmoes who weren’t involved but who can now no longer afford their homes. But it’s worse than that.
In the case I’d assumed, the poor schmoe is blameless. Just sheer dumb luck to suddenly get gentrified out of house and home. But what the article actually describes is blame that can be laid entirely at the feet of the neighbors.
In short, the cause is envy. Your neighbor wins the lottery and, for some reason, *doesn’t* promptly move away. But they *do* go out and buy a brand new sports car, or SUV, or in-ground swimming pool, or life-size Hulkbuster. And what do *you* do? If you are a rational, wise and self-aware person, you go next door, congratulate them, then go about your life as if nothing has changed… because for you, it hasn’t. But if you are like a more common human being, you see your neighbors neato new stuff, and you decide, ” Hmmm. I should one-up them.”
Which is fine, and helps keep the economy motoring along, but if you *can’t* afford to one-up your neighbors, you’re rather stupidly setting yourself up for financial disaster.
The abstract for the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia working paper that the article is based on has this to say:
We provide new causal evidence that keeping up with the Joneses behavior causes financial distress by examining whether lottery prizes of random dollar magnitudes increase bankruptcy filings of very close neighbors of the winner. We find that a 1% increase in the lottery prize causes a 0.04% rise in subsequent bankruptcies among the winners’ close neighbors. We also provide evidence on conspicuous consumption as a mechanism for this causal relationship. The size of lottery prizes increases the value of visible assets (e.g., houses, cars) but not invisible assets (e.g., cash, financial assets), appearing on the bankruptcy balance sheets of neighboring bankruptcy filers.
So, if your neighbor wins the lottery and as a result you promptly spend yourself into the poorhouse, whose fault is it? It’s not your neighbors; they didn’t force you to spend a dime. It’s not the Lottery’s fault. It’s not the government’s fault, the taxpayers, your other neighbors. It’s not even the fault of the people who sold you stuff (assuming, of course, that they didn’t sell you stuff under false pretenses). It’s *your* fault.
What’s interesting, I think, is that I’d bet that most people would agree. When presented with this as a pure hypothetical about a neighbor buying beyond his means as a result of someone else winning the lottery, they’d agree that it’s the neighbors fault and responsibility. But here’s the thing: change the words a little bit, and instead of the neighbor winning the lottery, it’s the neighbor running a successful business and making a mintload of money. Suddenly we’re talking about “income inequality,” and somehow the neighbor is no longer responsible. Even if the rich guy isn’t at fault exactly for the neighbors plight, many people will still believe it is the role of the government to swoop in and take some of the rich guys money to redistribute it to the neighbor.
The way your neighbor chooses to spend his bags of cash (assuming we’re not talking about buying nightly rock concepts in the back yard or fireworks displays or whatever) has no material effect on you. Heck, let’s say with his new millions he is able to lease time on a time-travelling 100-inch OLED 16K 3D TV and is able to watch in the privacy of his home theater Episodes 8 through 127 of Star Wars, peer into alternate realities and catch up on seasons 2 through 12 of Firefly, and binge-watch “Keeping up with the Scarlett Johansson & Kate Upton Zero-G Naked Fun Time Hour.” Assuming he doesn’t actually spoil those future episodes of Star Wars… how are you harmed by his ability to enjoy things that you cannot? Jealous? You bet. But you not only have no right to what he has, you’re a dumbass if you do self-destructive things you cannot afford, like mortgaging your house to catch a glimpse of the magical TV, or voting for socialist nightmares like Bernie Sanders who promises to take your neighbors stuff because it’s somehow “unfair” that he has what you don’t.
Do what I do when you see someone with something you want but cannot have: grumble, piss and moan, then get on with life. If “getting on with it” means working harder to make more money to earn that which you want, so much the better. Obviously some things that you might want can’t be bought no matter the fatness of your bank account, but destroying yourself over it is just stupid.
Some interesting things seem to have come out. These haven’t been officially confirmed so far as I know, but interesting nonetheless:
“We are close to figuring it out. It might have been formation of solid oxygen in the carbon over-wrap of one of the bottles in the upper stage tanks. If it was liquid it would have been squeezed out but under pressure it could have ignited with the carbon. This is the leading theory right now, but it is subject to confirmation. The other thing we discovered is that we can exactly replicate what happened on the launch pad if someone shoots the rocket. We don’t think that is likely this time around, but we are definitely going to have to take precautions against that in the future. We looked at who would want to blow up a SpaceX rocket. That turned out to be a long list. I think it is unlikely this time, but it is something we need to recognize as a real possibility in the future.”
Two things here.
- The helium pressurant bottles are carbon fiber overwrapped and sit *inside* the liquid oxygen tank. The LOX on the upper stage was sub-cooled… it wasn’t “just below boiling,” it was “just above freezing.” Keeping the LOX as cold as possible keeps it as *dense* as possible, meaning you can squeeze that much more in the tank. Which is fine… except if you blow down any helium in those tanks, due to the laws of thermodynamics the helium in the helium tank will cool off. Which means the wall of the helium tank will cool off. And any liquid oxygen in contact with the tank, or even soaked in between the carbon fibers, already close to the freezing point, may freeze solid. Solid oxygen in among carbon fibers… not a good idea.
- The failure of the Falcon 9 on the pad can be replicated by shooting it with a rifle at long range. In the comments at that Reddit posting, people who are apparently SpaceX employees say they know this because they shot a mockup. And perhaps even more interestingly, they could replicate the results by shooting *at* the rocket… not necessarily by actually hitting it. This would seem to indicate, perhaps unsurprisingly, that the shockwave shed by a presumably big and fast projectile scooting past the fragile outer skin of an upper stage is enough to send a shock into the stage. The shock hits the solid oxygen ice/carbon mixture and *blammo.*
Hmm. As Elon apparently said, they have a long list of groups that would like to see them fail. Competing American launcher companies. Competing European, Russian, Chinese launcher companies. Antagonistic foreign national governments. Religious nuts. Australian anti-STEM trolls. Generic whackjobs. SpaceX had best step up their security game. And about the only way to do that in this case is to make sure that they control all the territory out to probably two miles from the launch site.
If the upper stage can be made to fail like this due to the passage of a bullet *near* it, that may indicate that the marksman was really, really good. It’d no doubt be childs play for a well trained sniper to hit the upper stage. Compared to a human, it’s *huge.* But if you put a bullet through the stage, no doubt there would be considerable forensic evidence left over. The outer skin with a bullet hole would be pretty obvious. The interior components with bullet holes, or scrapings of copper, lead, tungsten where none should be. But if you can successfully pass a bullet within an inch or two of the surface without actually hitting anything… no evidence of the bullet will be left behind. But that’d be an impressive shot, which would *probably* tend to eliminate generic nuts and religious whackos from the list. Someone would have had to have employed a real pro, which means hiring someone really expensive or employing a pro already in your service.
It would be advisable to add a sensor network around the launch facility. Millimeter wave radar can pick up a bullet; audio sensors can nail down the location of the shot. These won’t save your rocket, but they’ll tell you what happened, and if the system is fast enough allow either counter-battery fire or perhaps the unleashing of drones, droids or security guards.
This sort of thing kinda plays into the ideas floated a few days ago re: hurricane Matthew. More launch options means you could get away from people trying to blow up your business.
Most likely it’ll turn out to be a mundane sort of failure. But the fact that after some practical testing they’ve not only *not* discounted sabotage but have actually found evidence *supporting* that explanation, is a bit distressing.
Aged pharmaceuticals floor model Bob Dylan was, rather oddly, awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature today. Eh, whatever… it’s not like it’s one of the good Nobel Prizes like Physics or Chemistry. Like the “Peace” prize, it’s an exercise in… well, let’s let this tweet from the author of “Trainspotting” finish the thought:
Other authors weighed in:
Personally, I can’t say as I’m bothered at all. Look at the list of Nobel Prize/Literature laureates. Who *don’t* you see? Heinlein. Asimov. Leinster. Clarke. Niven. Pournelle. Smith (L. Neill). Brin. Robinson. Steele. Basically, *all* of science fiction. If your prize for literature ignores the most important genre of literature, obviously your prize is of little real importance… so awarding it to Bob “Mumbles” Dylan hardly cheapens it any.
Remember how the election of Barack Obama was going to repair America’s relationship with the rest of the world? Yeah, about that…
Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte orders US forces out of country, cutting 65 years of military ties
“I can always go to China.”
Say, that’s neat.
Here’s a thought experiment. Imagine a “Womens Studies” department at Average University. Who runs it? Who teaches in it? Who promotes it? If you said “people with an interest in women,” I’m pretty sure you’d be right. And by “interest,” I’m pretty sure it *wouldn’t* be “interested in women in the same way Donald Trump is interested in women.” Chances are *real* good that you’d find a whole lot of feminists in that Women’s Studies department.
I don’t think anything I’ve written so far would be seen as being all that controversial or troubling.
But here’s where the thought experiment gets tricky: flip the scrip a bit, and imagine a Men’s Studies department. One that focuses on “Masculinities.” Who’s in on *that* one?
In a rational world, you’d expect that the “Masculinities” department would be filled with people who support the idea of the masculine. You know, manly stuff. Manly men.
Yeah, well, about that. In a rational world, NASA wouldn’t pay people to serve in a PR capacity who publicly advocate *against* manned space exploration, and we’ve seen how that has worked out.
So… Stony Brook University in New York has themselves a Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities. What do you want to bet that it’s filled with people who think that men being men doing manly things like engineering and hard labor and hunting and fishing and fighting when necessary? Well, let’s wander on over to the Center’s blog, and check on the “Editors and Contributors:”
Who’s up first?
Amanda Kennedy is a PhD candidate at Stony Brook University (SUNY). Her BA is in women’s studies and feminist science and technology studies from the Harriet L. Wilkes Honors College of Florida Atlantic University. Her main areas of interest are race, gender, sexuality, and the body, issues she approaches from a critical race/postcolonial feminist perspective.
Cheryl Llewellyn is a Ph.D. candidate in Sociology at Stony Brook University. Her research addresses disparities in immigration policies, particularly asylum and refugee status, across gender, sexuality, race, and nationality. Her most recent publication in the Journal of Homosexuality describes the barriers for gender conforming gay men who apply for sexual orientation based asylum.
Cliff Leek is a PhD student in the Department of Sociology at Stony Brook University (SUNY). He has a BA in US Race and Gender Studies from Willamette University and has worked as Prevention Specialist for the Oregon Attorney General’s Sexual Assault Task Force. His primary research interests are non-governmental organizations (NGOs), violence prevention, race, and gender (with particular attention to the intersections of whiteness and masculinity).
Markus Gerke is a PhD student in the Department of Sociology at Stony Brook University (SUNY), working primarily on issues of race, class and gender, and masculinities more specifically. … His MA thesis deals with constructions of (white middle-class) masculinity in newspaper articles about the so-called ‘boys crisis in education’. In addition to issues of gender and education, his work also explores the intersections of whiteness and masculinity in right-wing politics in the US and Germany, as well as the intersections of masculinity and sports.
Tara Fannon is a PhD student at NUI, Galway. She received her MA in sociology at University College Dublin. Her main research interests are gender, disability and the body-self connection. Her dissertation research uses feminist disability theory to investigate narrative accounts of identity and diversity- specifically the ways in which blind and visually impaired men claim, contest and adapt dominant masculinity and disability narratives to construct a sense of self.
Clay Darcy is a PhD candidate in the School of Sociology, University College Dublin (UCD), and a Lecturer in Sociology of Childhood at St. Nicholas Montessori College, Ireland. His PhD research explores Irish men’s recreational use of illicit drugs and how this may relate to their construct of masculinity.
Andrew Morrison-Gurza is a Disability Awareness Consultant with an MA of Legal Studies from Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, specializing in Persons with Disabilities. Andrew’s passion is “making disability accessible to everyone.” In his work, he highlights the lived experience of Persons with Disabilities to show that disability is a universal experience we can all embrace. Within the LGBTQ+ community, Andrew works to deconstruct our homo-normative, body beautiful ideals and show that Queers with Disabilities deserve representation.
And. So. On. “Iron John” these folks ain’t.
Where on Earth, in the entire history of mankind, has “being a man” been defined as *anything* like what seems to be taught at the Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities? If you read through the bios and take a look at their blog, there is an seriously outsized interest in “queer” studies and the like. Not That There’s Anything Wrong With That, but when you are defining “masculinity” around issues of homosexuality… you’re gonna be kinda outta whack with the bulk of reality.
What exactly does it mean to “be a man?” Cultures differ some on that point. And the majority of cultures have some sort of ritual for becoming a man… some trial that the boy must go through to show to the tribe, the village, the nation that he has turned from a Child into a Man. Women, in a certain sense, have it a bit “easier” here… at the very least, nature lets you know in glorious Technicolor that hey presto, you have become a woman. But without a manhood ritual… how does a boy become a man? *Does* he become a man, or just continue on as an overgrown child? In the United States, becoming a Man often meant leaving home and joining the military. Or at the very least… just leaving home. Striking out on your own. Making your way in a world that is not out to coddle you, to give you want you want simply because you want it. But it seems that this has faded away, especially if you read the bios above. Those PhD candidates… how many of them, do you think, are having to dig ditches to afford their schooling? I’d bet good money that a sizable fraction of them come from money… because who the hell else would focus their schooling on areas so fundamentally useless? Everybody else has to get an education that stands some sort of chance of paying off.
Some of the characteristics that seem to be reasonably universal in the definition of Masculine (i.e. your chances of being a Man are reduced if you don’t have at least most of these): toughness (physical and emotional), bravery (which doesn’t mean you’re not afraid), a willinngess to self-sacrifice if needed (anything from throwing your body on a grenade to save your comrades to working a crappy job to provide for your family), a take-charge/take-responsibility attitude, the ability to be *both* a team player and independent. A common poem that helps to define what it is to be a man is “If” by Rudyard Kipling, who seemed quite good about such matters:
A lot of this basically boils down to genetics and evolutionary pressures. Men aren’t Men because some conclave of cavemen got together and picked out random characteristics from a pot and decided that’s the way things would be from then on. “Masculine” properties are those that help propagate the species. They help a guy to have a bunch of kids, and help that guy make sure that as many of those kids as possible live long enough to have kids of their own.
Look, my own Manliness is in doubt because women don’t dig me. Whatever it is they want, apparently I ain’t got. But I look at the world and while the bulk of humanity baffles me, there are a few things that are abundantly clear. What kind of male do most females want to sire their kids? Do they *really* want the Obamacare Pajama Boy or whiny SJW douchenozzles… or do they want Real Men?
And so… what the hell are schools doing when they try to turn boys into something that goes against evolution and genetics?
She tried to murder two people for hair extensions.
The store owner said her mother turned to run and was shot in the back. When the shop owner’s father went to help his wife, the girl shot him in the abdomen.
The girl then held the couple at gunpoint and demanded they help her open the cash register, the shop owner said, but they couldn’t get up. The girl eventually opened the cash register by throwing it on the floor. Along with the cash, she stole hair extensions.
It’s bad enough that there are monsters like this in the world. What’s worse: that there are so many people who leap to their defense and provide excuses for them, hoping that they will avoid appropriate repercussions for their actions.
I’m old enough to remember the time I thought “Yay! The threat of global thermonuclear war is over!”
Gosh, I guess it’s a good thing that in the coming years the US will be helmed by strong, wise leadership…