What Answer Did You Come Up With?

Continued from Friday, March 28.

Who do you think, as a group, is behaving more intelligently?  The boys or the girls?

Nearly a third of women — 32% — had a bachelor’s at age 27, compared with 24% of men, the Labor Department said Wednesday.

The finding is part of a comprehensive study on employment and education levels of America’s young adults, based on surveys that last occurred in 2012.
A greater share of young women also had at least some college, if not a degree, than did men.
More than two-thirds — 70% — of female 27-year-olds had a bachelor’s or at least attended some college, the report said. That compared to 61% of men.

It’s the girls, right?  More of them are getting college degrees. It’s a no-brainer.

There's much more to this than just the percentage of men and women getting a degree. So 10 percent more women are getting college degrees than men. What good is a college degree if you can’t find a job with a high enough wage or salary, to repay your student loans and still have more disposable income, than if you didn’t attend college?  

Here’s a more meaningful statistic.  What percentage of women are getting worthwhile degrees?  The answer paints a very different picture than the statistic cited above, and I highlighted it below in yellow.

source: usnews.com

Colleges Work to Retain Women in STEM Majors

STEM fields suffer from an image problem. Often seen as a boys club or a path for geeks, colleges struggle to attract and retain women in science, technology, engineering and math majors.
Only about 25 percent of STEM degree holders are women, due largely to a lack of female collegestudents studying engineering, computer science and physical sciences such as physics and chemistry, according to reports.

Here’s more, and this explains Everything.

source: Forbes


It’s quite obvious that a higher percentage of men are majoring in fields that are more likely to result in good paying jobs. (Although there are plenty of men just wasting their time and money on worthless majors too.)  It’s also quite obvious that a high percentage of women didn’t put much thought into what major they chose.  Which brings us to my next point.
How can you tell if the current value of something is not sustainable?  In other words, how can you tell if something is just a “bubble”?  The answer is:  When the uninformed followers start entering the market.  We saw it happen in the housing market, several years ago.  People were buying homes, who had no business buying them.  They’re just doing so, because someone else told them that they should.  Demand went up, prices went up beyond a sustainable level, and a crash followed.  The uninformed followers made up the majority of people who were wiped out.
We got the same thing happening today with college education.  The only person who is going to major in women’s studies is an uninformed follower who is going to college for no other reason other than someone told them “that they should”’.  Have you ever seen a help wanted ad that said “Graduate with degree in women’s studies preferred’?  Can you think of any field where a degree in women’s studies might be helpful?  The same goes for most other liberal arts degrees.  
If we got a higher percentage of women earning college degrees than men, but a large portion of those degrees do not lead to high paying jobs, I would have to say that the men as a group, are acting more intelligently.  Many of the men who didn’t want to deal with the math involved in a STEM degree, entered the workforce out of high school, and have good amount of experience and a couple promotions under their belts after four years, instead of a worthless major, no related job prospects, and a mountain of debt.

Attending college does not, in and of itself, make you intelligent.

Per Day? Per Day?

I saw this article before, and purposely passed over it because I thought it said 22 veterans have committed suicide since the first of the year.  Not hard to believe, I thought, considering how many people have served in the armed services.  But, it's not 22 since January first, it's 22 per day, since then.

                          22 per day?

Isn't this the most shocking thing that's going on right now?  How can this be happening?

source: The Washington Free Beacon

Healing the ‘Invisible Wound’

Feature: Veterans Honor Military Suicide Victims on National Mall
Lt. Col. (Ret.) Dar Place was two feet away when his friend and fellow soldier took his own life during the Gulf War. Two decades later, like so many other veterans, Place is still haunted by the plague of suicide in the military.
“I personally saw my driver after Desert Storm in his tank put a gun underneath his mouth and pull the trigger, while I was no further away from him than I am from you right now,” Place told the Washington Free Beacon at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., on Thursday. He was one of the dozens of activists with Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) who planted thousands of flags to honor veterans who had killed themselves.
By noon, 1,892 American flags graced the Mall, representing the number of veterans who have taken their life this year alone since January 1st—an average of 22 per day.

Top Twelve (thirteen or fourteen) Alternatives to Expensive Classic Muscle Cars

I purposely omitted '73 and later Camaros, Firebirds, and '73 Mustangs because they were too obvious, and I'm going to count '73-'74 Chargers, '73 Roadrunners, '73-74 Challengers, and Barracudas as muscle cars.

12. ‘78-’83 Ford Fairmont/Mercury Zephyr

Extra cheap. Good aftermarket parts availability (Fox Mustang)

11. Any year AMC Gremlin/Hornet
You might have had to grow up near Kenosha, WI to understand.

10. ‘83-’88 Ford Thunderbird/Mercury Cougar
Two words: Fox Mustang.

9. ‘78-’79 Dodge Magnum
Gotta give the Mopar guys some love. You know, now that I see this picture, I might have put these higher on the list.

8. ‘80-’83 Dodge Mirada/Chrysler Cordoba
I think that these cars actually look pretty cool.

7. Ford Maverick/Mercury Comet
One of the smallest, lightest American cars to come from the factory with V8's.

6.5 '74 and '75 Plymouth Roadrunners
6.5? Hey it's an after thought that I added in. So shoot me.

6. ‘76-’80 Dodge Aspen/Plymouth Volare’
Not bad looking cars. Available with V8's, lots of potential.

5. ‘73-’77 GM G Body
Don't think these cars can look tough? Check out mid-'70's NASCAR photos and video.

4. ‘73-’76 Dodge Dart, Demon/Plymouth Valiant, Duster
I'm sure this would be number one for all the Mopar fans.

3. ‘73-’76 Ford Torino/Mercury Cougar
Two reasons: Starsky and Hutch

2. ‘78-’83 GM A body/’78-88 GM G Body
Oh yeah, I'm going to include '73 - '79 Novas and the like (GM X body), here too.

1. Any station wagon or four door that is a model sibling to a classic muscle car.
It's as close as you're ever going to get without actually being there. The two door versions have long since, become too expensive.

It's Fourth and Ten for Business as Usual at Our Colleges and Universities

First of all, we got this:

source: mrsec.com


A representative of the National Labor Relations Board ruled yesterday that Northwestern football players are employees of that university, not student-athletes.  And they are employees who help the school bring in a large amount of money.
From NCAA headquarters in Indianapolis to athletic directors’ offices across the nation, a long series of gulps and forehead slaps likely followed that announcement.
What does this mean to you, the fan?  It means that college football as you’ve always known it is one step closer to becoming a pay-for-play enterprise.  If that sounds good to you, just mull the possibilities (likelihoods?) over for a few minutes.
While yesterday’s ruling by the regional director of the NLRB’s Chicago office only opens the door for players at private schools to unionize, it won’t take long for attorneys to figure out some way to create something akin to a union at public schools.  (The National Labor Relations Board does not have jurisdiction when it comes to state-run institutions.)  And while the NLRB’s Northwestern ruling will be appealed, we’ve already seen that in at least one case — the first test case — at least one decision-maker has sided with the players and their attorney.  It’s likely then that there would be others at the NLRB who would agree with that decision.  Translation: Attorneys now have a battle plan.  And if one person views players as employees, it’s certainly possible that their will be likeminded individuals in the appellate courts or even the Supreme Court when this case winds its way through the justice system.
Attorneys are already feeling emboldened these days.  The Ed O’Bannon case has been cleared to go to trial this summer.  Another gauntlet was thrown down earlier this month when sports labor attorney Jeffrey Kessler announced he would sue the NCAA and the major conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC) on antitrust grounds on behalf of another group of athletes.

“So let’s say we do end up in a world where college football players are allowed to unionize.  How long will those athletes be satisfied with full-cost-of-tuition scholarships?  Here’s guessing they’ll be just as greedy as the presidents, ADs and conference commissioners have been when it comes to pocketing cash.”

So let’s say we do end up in a world where college football players are allowed to unionize.  How long will those athletes be satisfied with full-cost-of-tuition scholarships?  Here’s guessing they’ll be just as greedy as the presidents, ADs and conference commissioners have been when it comes to pocketing cash.
How long before college basketball players push for a cut of profits?  The smaller the revenue brought in by a sport the less likely something akin to a union will be OK’d.  Still, if an attorney believes he can help college basketball players grab some loose change here or there, you can bet he’ll have little trouble finding players to represent.
If players are paid and they are unionized, get ready for strikes and threats of strikes when athletes — or attorneys representing athletes — decide they have some new desire that isn’t being met by the NCAA’s system.  Get ready for agent involvement as well.  If players are paid, they will need someone to help them with their cash and their taxes.  That or get ready to lose a star tailback to IRS issues.
Worst-case scenario?  Your favorite college football team could start facing the same problems as your favorite pro football team: stars asking for more money, free agency, hold-outs, etc.

Don’t listen to anyone who says that this will ultimately be a good or bad thing.  There are way too many facets and variables involved for anyone to accurately guess how this will finally work itself out.  Will it really change things that much for the average college sports fan?  Will it be good or bad for sports in general?  Who knows?  Somehow, I think that anything that might help eliminate college sports from being the only stepping stone from high school to the pros, can’t possibly help but be a good thing.  Why should some kid, who has no interest in furthering his education, be forced to go through the chrade of being a “student athlete”?  Other countries do not use the “college as the minor leagues” system, and get by just fine.
I would be lying if I said that I knew about this to have an opinion, but there are a couple of things I do know:
  1. Unions destroy everything they touch.
  2. We shouldn’t cry any tears for the colleges and universities because they did this to themselves.  It’s a classic case of getting burned by your own greed.  If they wouldn’t have tried to turn college sports into money generating machines equal to that of professional sports, none of this would have ever happened.
In the meantime, I am loving every minute of this.  Colleges and Universities, filled with, and run by liberals are going to find themselves on the opposite side of “workers” trying to form a union.  Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha... on to infinity.  Hey, liberal college administrators, I thought unions were a good thing.  Isn’t that what you’ve been saying since the Bolshevik Revolution?  They’re not so good when they threaten your source of money generated by kids who play for you, are they?  Hmmmm?
You know what you liberals running our colleges and universities are?  You’re greedy.  Just as greedy as any of the capitalists that you love to hate so much.  You know, the people who are trying to make money, out there in the real world?  Maybe now, you might understand why it is that McDonald’s doesn’t want to just lay down and pay its employees a “living wage”.
Not only are you every bit as greedy as the people you claim to hate so much, you’re guilty of hypocrisy, a charge that you have often either used against, or stood idly by, as members of your staff used it against anyone whose politics you disagreed with.  Corporations are honest.  They readily admit that their objective is to maximize profits, and we all know that you have made it clear that’s an evil equal to mass murder.
I’m sure that right now, you are all working on some convoluted explanation of why you are neither greedy nor hypocritical, and how this whole union thing should apply to everyone else but you.  Save yourselves some time and effort.  I’m not going to buy it, and neither is anyone else.  All your liberal buddies with no skin in the game, are going to side with the pro-union people, plus, you have a much larger battle, with much higher stakes awaiting.
You’ve not only been taking advantage of your athletes, you’ve been screwing your students with excessive tuition fees for decades, and the whole time, you have also been perpetuating the myth (and the reality), that the only way young people are going to make it in this world is to get an expensive college education.  That may have been true for what will turn out to be an incredibly short period of human history, but now (and much of it, thanks to our incompetent leader, whom you all supported) your students are graduating only to find themselves with a mountain of debt and no job prospects that could ever lead them to being able to repay it.
You all brought this on yourselves, and from now on, whenever I’m feeling down, I will think about this and smile and laugh.  Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha...  onto infinity.

Battle of the Sexes

Read this article from Blazing Cat Fur, and tell me what conclusions you draw from it.  

Who do you think, as a group, is behaving more intelligently?  The boys or the girls?

I’ll give you a couple days to come up with your answer.

Hint:  What conclusion do you think the feminists would draw?  What has been the feminists’ track record been on being correct?

Nearly a third of women — 32% — had a bachelor’s at age 27, compared with 24% of men, the Labor Department said Wednesday.

The finding is part of a comprehensive study on employment and education levels of America’s young adults, based on surveys that last occurred in 2012.

A greater share of young women also had at least some college, if not a degree, than did men.

More than two-thirds — 70% — of female 27-year-olds had a bachelor’s or at least attended some college, the report said. That compared to 61% of men.

Read more.

Weakening and Tipping Our Hand

I have heard a number of people concerned with what’s going on with Russia and the Ukraine, say that we cannot afford to have another war.  They are most certainly correct about that.  I know that, they know that, and most importantly, Putin knows that.  The end result is, Putin does whatever he wants.

There was a time, not so long ago, that we couldn’t afford to go to war with the Russians either.  What’s striking to me is, the differences and the similarities between what’s going on now, and what happened in the ‘80’s.  Back then, the stakes were much higher.  We weren’t just talking about the invasion of the Ukraine, it was the survival of the entire planet.

Although the threat is always there, I haven’t heard much talk about the situation in the Ukraine leading to all-out nuclear war, not like we constantly warned of back in the ‘80’s.  Today we are told that that we don’t have to money to even appear to be serious about Putin’s aggression.  Mobilizing troops and equipment costs money.   

Russia today, is nowhere near as strong as the Soviet Union was at its height of power.   The United States, and it’s leaders of yesterday, could have easily gotten someone like Putin to back down, and we wouldn’t  even have had to fire a shot.  All it would have taken was moving troops, ships, and equipment to Europe and surrounding waters.  Today we got a $17 trillion debt.  We can’t even afford to bluff.

Not only can’t we afford to bluff, we don’t have the ability to bluff.  Back in the days of the cold war, it was easier for the U.S. to play poker with the Soviet Union, because no one was able to see our hand. That hand included the capability of our weapons and our resolve to use them.  Our enemies did not know exactly what we were capable of, or what what we willing to risk.

Even though the stakes were higher back in the old days, America was in a much better position than it is today.  Putin is well aware of our financial status and the resolve of our leader, which makes deterring him all but impossible.

You cannot blame all of this on Obama but..  oh what the hell, I’m going to blame all of it on Obama.  During his administration our national debt has grown by almost $7 trillion, and he has made it clear that he doesn’t know how to deal tyrants. Reagan actually had it easier, dealing with the enemy in some ways than Obama, but much of Obama’s disadvantage has been his own creation.

The one thing that has remained consistent over all this time is the way liberals want to deal with tyrannical world leaders.  “You got to know when to hold'em, know when to fold ‘em.” as the Kenny Rogers song goes.  Back in the day, liberals answer to tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union was nuclear disarmament.  Their idea was for the U.S to dismantle all it’s nuclear weapons, and then hope that the U.S.S.R. would do the same - fold’em.  Good planl  Thank God for Reagan.

Today the liberals want to just sit back, do nothing, and watch Putin, for fear of what we might lose, and because of the straits they have gotten us into, we have little choice but to do just that - fold’em.  The danger of course is that Putin will succeed in bringing the Soviet Union back to life, and then we will be dealing with the high stakes of the ‘80’s and the hand we have dealt ourselves in the 21st century.

I mentioned in a recent post that Obama makes Clinton and even Carter, look good, but he makes Reagan look utterly fantastic.

Having Internet Connection Problems

Having some internet connection problems.  That's why I had no post yesterday, and delayed action responding to comments.  I going to make this post short, because I don't know when I might be cut off again.

The Incompetence of Obama

It's very easy for people to discount all the things that both liberals and conservatives say as just fighting with each other, but I want you all to consider this, and try to be as honest with yourself as possible?

Can you think of any other example, (anywhere, in government, business, sports, etc.) where someone, or some organization has had anywhere near as many scandals and failures as Obama and his administration?  

I challenge you to come up with even one example where someone came up with anything as disastrous as Obamacare.  Can you think of anything that has had more delays in it's implementation, or has strayed away from the originally stated plan as often as Obamacare has? 

Riding the Racism Train as Far as it Will Go

Quick!  Name the liberal equivalent to Charles Krauthammer.  How about liberal counterpart to George Will?  Can’t think of any?  There’s a reason for that, and it’s not because you’re stupid.  It’s ‘cuz there are none.  Why?  There’s two reasons.  

The first is because many of the brightest political commentators who once considered themselves liberals, have moved over to the conservative side.  Krauthammer, himself was once a liberal.  So was David Horowitz, and Bernie Goldberg. They’re not the only ones, check out this list.  If one feels that the only way they can maintain their dignity and self respec,t is to consistently adhere to facts and logic, they must abandon liberalism.  That is the reason that you will find few, if any people with any amount of logic or common sense willing to fight for the liberal cause, and it is the reason that you find what you do, writing for Rolling Stone, or speaking on MSNBC.  They’re the best people that those outfits can find.

Secondly, it’s not so much that the people I mentioned, and the ones included in the list I linked to, changed, but rather it’s America  that has changed.  The entire country has moved to the left over the past several decades, and people that would have once been considered to be in the middle or middle left of our political spectrum, are now right of center, even if they, themselves haven’t changed at all.  Today, someone that has the exact same values and political views as JFK did, would be considered a conservative.

If someone who would have been classified as a liberal, just a few decades ago, would be considered a conservative today, that means that the entire realm of liberalism, must have drifted even further towards the left, and indeed it has.  So far to the left, that liberals can no longer defend their positions using logic and common sense.  This has been both a blessing and a curse to them.

On one hand, they can no longer win arguments anywhere common sense and logic rules.  On the other hand, they are no longer constrained by  the need to come up with rational arguments.  They can base their arguments on emotion, and they can more easily appeal to the lowest common denominator.

That is why liberals so often use the terms racist, bigot, sexist, and homophobe in arguments with conservatives.  It’s so they don’t have to come up with logical, factual thoughts to support their positions.  In their defense, they had to resort to doing this, because defending liberal positions with facts and logic is all but impossible.

There was a time when liberals didn’t resort to such tactics.  You might have noticed that as the liberals use of words like racist, sexist, bigot, and homophope during arguments has increased, their ability to come up with logical thoughts to support their positions has decreased.  Using insults and accusations instead of intellect has served liberals well for the past 20 or 30 years, but they do it at their own peril.  It has gotten to the point where they call anyone who opposes them, one of these terms, and I doubt if any of them have ever considered that they may not be able to do it forever, at least not effectively.

Just about everyone knows that not everything that liberals disagree with can be automatically discredited by branding it racist, sexist, or whatever “ist” liberals may be happening to use at the moment, and every day, a few more people come to the realization that anyone who attempts to do so, is not credible themselves.  I think we have reached the point where the name calling and avoidance of logical arguments are starting to take their tolls.

Some liberals are so intent upon branding someone they disagree with, as racists, that they are blinded to the point their opponents are trying to make.  Check out the picture below.

This image has appeared on many conservative sites, including this one, just yesterday.  The whole point of the picture is plain to see for anyone who hasn’t been living under a rock -  Michelle Obama has been wildly spending American taxpayers money on lavish trips, even though the country is going through tough economic times.  Of course, she is going to get compared to Marie Antoinette.  It’s obvious.

Obvious to everyone, except for liberals like the ones at the Los Angeles Times.  All they saw was racism.  I didn’t see any racism at all.  In fact, I had to read the article, just to find out why the LA Times thought that the picture was racist.

What damage did the liberals at the LA Times do here, to themselves and their cause?  First of all, they just looked stupid, but more importantly, they were so blinded by trying to see only racism, that they missed the picture’s message.  They made no attempt to justify Mrs. Obama’s vacation spending, so most of the readers came away from reading the article thinking, “Gee, Michelle Obama sure spends a lot of taxpayer money on vacations.”  I’m sure that is not at all, the result the LA Times was looking for.

There’s more downsides to constantly crying “racism” too.  Sometimes, using racism to explain all the things in the world that liberals do not like, comes back to bite them in the ass, and there is a beautiful example of it right here.  It seems the Department of Education was trying to explain the poor performance of black students on racist teachers. Well you know the political slant of most public school teachers.  Imagine that.  Liberals calling other liberals, racists.  You gotta love that.  

I suppose that when it came down to a choice of accusing fellow liberals racists, or actually coming up with an honest, logical answer to such a question, Obama’s Department of Education is always going to choose the former.  It’s just easier, and they’re just not into the whole honest logical thing.

One last reason that the racism train just may be soon be rolling to the end of the line.  One of the reasons that liberals started using accusing their opponents of racism, is because they thought they could scare people into submission.  No wants to be branded a racist, but every day that goes by with liberals diluting its definition, by using it against anything and anyone they oppose, the accusation carries less and less of a punch.  If 50% or more, of the population is racist, how bad can being a racist be?