Kay Hymowitz has written a book called “Manning Up,” in which she decries the tendency in America for young men to, more and more, be irresponsible, couch potatoes who look only for sex at the local singles bar. They do not want to settle down and support a family with the conventional wife and children. They seem to have entered a stage of life, which she calls “pre-adulthood.” To young women looking for a good husband, the typical young man looks more like an overgrown and aged fraternity boy. They often get money from their parents and spend a lot of their time playing video games and watching spectator sports.
Statistics on this age group shows that they are marrying later and later in life—the mean age for marriage is now 27.5 years for men; in 1980, it was 23. (For women, the mean age of marriage is 25; in 1980, it was 20.) Many people are not even getting married; among both sexes, 53% of all people in the age group of 25-29 have never been married. Men are not even bothering to get a college degree to the same extent as women (26% of men now get bachelor’s degrees; 33% of women get bachelor’s degrees in the United States.).
Relatively affluent, free of family responsibilities, and entertained by an array of media devoted to his every pleasure, the single young man can live in pig heaven—and often does. Women put up with him for a while, but then in fear and disgust give up on any idea of a husband and kids. This rational choice on the part of women only serves to legitimize men's attachment to the sand box. Why should they grow up? No one needs them anyway. There's nothing they have to do.
I lay, at least part of this problem, at the foot of the feminist movement. Women have become so apparently independent of men that men do not feel called to take care of women as they did in the past. And…they can get all the sex they want at the local bar. So, why should these lazy and worthless men tie themselves down with family responsibilities?
They might just as well have another beer.
This whole bad scene demonstrates what happens to legitimate manhood and womanhood when the Christian principles of the Bible are ignored and sinful mankind goes his own way.
If you are interested in following this question further, I refer you to http://on.wsj.com/z1dXvn.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Friday, March 2, 2012
Deficits, Deficits, Deficits!!
I was asked yesterday if the national deficit had become greater under the Obama or the G.W. Bush administrations. The question stimulated me to do some research to finally answer that question without doubt. The facts are as follows:
Under President Bush, the national debt added $4.5 trillion over the 8 years he was in office leaving, at the end, a national debt of $10.2 trillion. Under President Obama, the national debt increased by $4.2 trillion in his first 2½ years in office. Our national debt now stands at $14.5 trillion. The Obama administration is asking for another annual budget that will expand the national debt by more than another $1 trillion. These figures can be gleaned from several places and are part of the public domain. They are reliable.
Republicans see these figures as very dangerous; and believe that we should do all in our power to reduce the debt. If we do not, conservatives see America sinking into the same pothole as Greece.
The national debt of the United States now stands at greater than 100% of our GDP (gross national product). Reliable economists have said that a debt/GDP ratio greater than 90% prevents a government from managing its economy constructively.
Democrats and liberals of all kinds see the situation differently. They point to a set of data released by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in May 2011 that resulted in a graph, which shows that the largest piece of the national debt is caused by the Bush tax cuts. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to have little effect on the resultant national debt. To peruse this graph, control click on the following link http://bit.ly/yPwpeR . What this graph fails to depict is the fact that the largest part of our national deficit, by far, is spending on entitlements.
Personally, I still think that taking money away from investing private citizens will have a bad effect on the business and employment climate situation in America. I think the overspending MUST BE REINED IN.
Under President Bush, the national debt added $4.5 trillion over the 8 years he was in office leaving, at the end, a national debt of $10.2 trillion. Under President Obama, the national debt increased by $4.2 trillion in his first 2½ years in office. Our national debt now stands at $14.5 trillion. The Obama administration is asking for another annual budget that will expand the national debt by more than another $1 trillion. These figures can be gleaned from several places and are part of the public domain. They are reliable.
Republicans see these figures as very dangerous; and believe that we should do all in our power to reduce the debt. If we do not, conservatives see America sinking into the same pothole as Greece.
The national debt of the United States now stands at greater than 100% of our GDP (gross national product). Reliable economists have said that a debt/GDP ratio greater than 90% prevents a government from managing its economy constructively.
Democrats and liberals of all kinds see the situation differently. They point to a set of data released by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in May 2011 that resulted in a graph, which shows that the largest piece of the national debt is caused by the Bush tax cuts. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to have little effect on the resultant national debt. To peruse this graph, control click on the following link http://bit.ly/yPwpeR . What this graph fails to depict is the fact that the largest part of our national deficit, by far, is spending on entitlements.
Personally, I still think that taking money away from investing private citizens will have a bad effect on the business and employment climate situation in America. I think the overspending MUST BE REINED IN.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Why Doctors Die Differently From Their Patients
It is a fact that physicians die differently from the way their patients die. Physicians have a much smaller tendency to use on themselves, chemotherapy, radical surgery, high dose radiation therapy, and artificial kidney treatment for their own terminal diseases. The reason for that is that they are familiar with the complications and the small recovery rates of many terminal-type treatments available today. And…they just say “NO.” One friend of mine who had been in an intensive care unit for two weeks; the suffering there was so intense that he said if he had it to do, again, he would not consent.
Doctors don't want to die any more than anyone else does. But they usually have talked about the limits of modern medicine with their families. They want to make sure that, when the time comes, no heroic measures are taken. During their last moments, they know, for instance, that they don't want someone breaking their ribs by performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (which is what happens when CPR is done right).
In a 2003 article, Joseph J. Gallo and others looked at what physicians want when it comes to end-of-life decisions. In a survey of 765 doctors, they found that 64% had created an advanced directive—specifying what steps should and should not be taken to save their lives should they become incapacitated. That compares to only about 20%for the general public. (As one might expect, older doctors are more likely than younger doctors to have made "arrangements," as shown in a study by Paula Lester and others.) Often those advanced directives specify that in the case of cardiac arrest, no resuscitation is to be done.
A 2010 study of more than 95,000 cases of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) found that only 8% of patients survived for more than one month. Of these, only about 3% could lead a mostly normal life. If CPR is done in a nursing home, less than 1% survive for 3 months.
Physicians have seen that it is often better to go home for the last weeks of a life than to spend that time in a painful and fruitless attempt to ward off a certain death. Informed physicians realize that having the last weeks at home enjoying their families and the things they enjoy is much better than spending that time in the hospital with needles being stuck into them and undergoing other invasive techniques. (Control click)
http://on.wsj.com/AmKniq
Doctors don't want to die any more than anyone else does. But they usually have talked about the limits of modern medicine with their families. They want to make sure that, when the time comes, no heroic measures are taken. During their last moments, they know, for instance, that they don't want someone breaking their ribs by performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (which is what happens when CPR is done right).
In a 2003 article, Joseph J. Gallo and others looked at what physicians want when it comes to end-of-life decisions. In a survey of 765 doctors, they found that 64% had created an advanced directive—specifying what steps should and should not be taken to save their lives should they become incapacitated. That compares to only about 20%for the general public. (As one might expect, older doctors are more likely than younger doctors to have made "arrangements," as shown in a study by Paula Lester and others.) Often those advanced directives specify that in the case of cardiac arrest, no resuscitation is to be done.
A 2010 study of more than 95,000 cases of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) found that only 8% of patients survived for more than one month. Of these, only about 3% could lead a mostly normal life. If CPR is done in a nursing home, less than 1% survive for 3 months.
Physicians have seen that it is often better to go home for the last weeks of a life than to spend that time in a painful and fruitless attempt to ward off a certain death. Informed physicians realize that having the last weeks at home enjoying their families and the things they enjoy is much better than spending that time in the hospital with needles being stuck into them and undergoing other invasive techniques. (Control click)
http://on.wsj.com/AmKniq
Friday, February 24, 2012
Politicians For Sale
United States elections are increasingly being influenced by the very wealthy part of the very wealthy part of our country. It has been demonstrated by a study published by the Sunlight Foundation http://bit.ly/A7BteM that of the 312 million people living in the United states, just 26,783 contributed 24.3% of the money spent on campaigning in 2010—that group consists of 1%of the top 1% of our people in income earning. The average amount that those rich people gave was $28,913 (more than the mean individual income in the nation, which was $26,364).
In 2010, these wealthy donors spent $774 million on campaigning. As might be expected, the big donors are mostly CEO’s and high-ranking officers and investors of large corporations. Of the 10 companies most listed in the donors affiliations, 6 are financial companies with Goldman Sachs leading all the others by a large margin. Other familiar names in the top 10 of donor-based companies are Microsoft, RJ Reynolds Tobacco, and E & J Gallo Winery.
All this high-level contributing portends bad things for our country. It means that our elections and our political leaders are being strongly influenced by special-interest groups. For instance, we have been notified lately that the Gingrich campaign has received $11 million from casino mogul Sheldon Adelson; and that Mr. Adelson has said that he is ready to contribute another $10-$100 million to the election effort. Do you think that Mr. Adelson is giving away that much money just because he is altruistic and only wants the best for the United States? I would imagine that Mr. Adelson is hoping and expecting to get some favors from his candidate if he should win the Presidency.
Although President Obama still has much more money in his campaign war chest than any Republican contender, since 2010, money collection by conservative PAC’s has far outdistanced the collection by liberal PAC’s.
Juan Williams has written an enlightening editorial in the Washington Times on this subject. http://bit.ly/zFCyg1
In 2010, these wealthy donors spent $774 million on campaigning. As might be expected, the big donors are mostly CEO’s and high-ranking officers and investors of large corporations. Of the 10 companies most listed in the donors affiliations, 6 are financial companies with Goldman Sachs leading all the others by a large margin. Other familiar names in the top 10 of donor-based companies are Microsoft, RJ Reynolds Tobacco, and E & J Gallo Winery.
All this high-level contributing portends bad things for our country. It means that our elections and our political leaders are being strongly influenced by special-interest groups. For instance, we have been notified lately that the Gingrich campaign has received $11 million from casino mogul Sheldon Adelson; and that Mr. Adelson has said that he is ready to contribute another $10-$100 million to the election effort. Do you think that Mr. Adelson is giving away that much money just because he is altruistic and only wants the best for the United States? I would imagine that Mr. Adelson is hoping and expecting to get some favors from his candidate if he should win the Presidency.
Although President Obama still has much more money in his campaign war chest than any Republican contender, since 2010, money collection by conservative PAC’s has far outdistanced the collection by liberal PAC’s.
Juan Williams has written an enlightening editorial in the Washington Times on this subject. http://bit.ly/zFCyg1
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Again, America Preaches Weakness
General Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acting as a mouthpiece for President Obama (as have former Chiefs of Staff) is saying that he does not know if Iran is making an atomic bomb. He seems to be the only one in the world with such a rosy opinion of Iran! So…he says we are urging Israel not to attack Iran. This is because, “(we) believe we know that the Iranian regime has not decided that they will embark on the capability (to build a nuclear weapon).”
Well…I guess he is about the only person in the world who has doubts about what the Iranians are doing with their nuclear centrifuges and other paraphernalia for working with uranium. For one, the IAEA (the International Atomic Energy Agency) has been blowing the danger whistle for several years about the lurking possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon. The Israelis, who are much closer to the problem than we are, seem to have no doubts about what the Iranians are doing.
As the Wall Street Journal has pointed out, this message is exactly the wrong message for a high-ranking military expert in the Administration of our country to send. It only emboldens the Iranians to build such a weapon; and it increases the possibility of war in the Middle East.
For more on this go to http://on.wsj.com/wsiqzX
Well…I guess he is about the only person in the world who has doubts about what the Iranians are doing with their nuclear centrifuges and other paraphernalia for working with uranium. For one, the IAEA (the International Atomic Energy Agency) has been blowing the danger whistle for several years about the lurking possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon. The Israelis, who are much closer to the problem than we are, seem to have no doubts about what the Iranians are doing.
As the Wall Street Journal has pointed out, this message is exactly the wrong message for a high-ranking military expert in the Administration of our country to send. It only emboldens the Iranians to build such a weapon; and it increases the possibility of war in the Middle East.
For more on this go to http://on.wsj.com/wsiqzX
Saturday, February 18, 2012
What Would Mitt Romney’s “Fix” of the Safety Net for the Poor Look Like?
The best model for fixing the safety net for the poor is the model already worked out by the Mormon Church. Mormons have a system of welfare that lets almost no one fall through the cracks while at the same time ensuring that its beneficiaries do not become lifelong dependents.
The Mormon system includes a 15-acre warehouse on the outskirts of Salt Lake City that contains a 2 year supply of food to support the church’s welfare system in the U.S. and Canada (primarily for church members in need) and its humanitarian program, which sends food, medical supplies and other necessities to the needy of all faiths world-wide.
In addition to goods from canned peaches to emergency generators, the facility also houses the church's own trucking company, complete with 43 tractors and 98 trailers, as well as a one-year supply of fuel, parts and tires for the vehicles. Just in case.
Most of the inventory in the central storehouse, though, goes to supply more than 100smaller storehouses around the country, plus hundreds of soup kitchens and homeless shelters of other religious communities around North America.
This whole system is manned and supplied with money from volunteers and church donors. It is designed to rehabilitate to working status rather than to keep its aid recipients on the dole with perpetual unemployment insurance.
If you would like to learn more about this wonder of efficient welfare supply, go to http://on.wsj.com/zQliuP
The Mormon system includes a 15-acre warehouse on the outskirts of Salt Lake City that contains a 2 year supply of food to support the church’s welfare system in the U.S. and Canada (primarily for church members in need) and its humanitarian program, which sends food, medical supplies and other necessities to the needy of all faiths world-wide.
In addition to goods from canned peaches to emergency generators, the facility also houses the church's own trucking company, complete with 43 tractors and 98 trailers, as well as a one-year supply of fuel, parts and tires for the vehicles. Just in case.
Most of the inventory in the central storehouse, though, goes to supply more than 100smaller storehouses around the country, plus hundreds of soup kitchens and homeless shelters of other religious communities around North America.
This whole system is manned and supplied with money from volunteers and church donors. It is designed to rehabilitate to working status rather than to keep its aid recipients on the dole with perpetual unemployment insurance.
If you would like to learn more about this wonder of efficient welfare supply, go to http://on.wsj.com/zQliuP
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
The War On Christians
Newsweek 18 February 2012 published an article with the above title by a 42-year-old woman who escaped Somalia in 1992 and lived in the Netherlands. She speaks 6 languages and served for a time as an MP in the Netherlands. She now resides in the United States. To read her bio, go to http://imdb.to/zAeaYp . (Her bio is, perhaps, the most interesting part of this post.)
In recent years, the violent oppression of Christian minorities has become the norm in Muslim-majority nations stretching from West Africa and the Middle East to South Asia and Oceania. In some countries, it is governments and their agents that have burned churches and imprisoned parishioners. In others, rebel groups and vigilantes have taken matters into their own hands, murdering Christians and driving them from regions where their roots go back centuries.
In Nigeria, a Muslim organization called Boko Haram is spearheading the thrust to eliminate Christians from that country. In the month of January, Boko Haram was responsible for 54 deaths. In 2011, its members killed at least 510 people and burned down or destroyed more than 350 churches in 10 northern states. They used guns, gasoline bombs, and machetes. They have attacked churches, a Christmas Day gathering (killing 42 Catholics), beer parlors, a town hall, beauty salons, and banks. They have so far focused on killing Christian clerics, politicians, students, police officers, and soldiers, as well as Muslim clerics who condemn their mayhem. While they started out by using crude methods like hit-and-run assassinations from the back of motorbikes in 2009, the latest AP reports indicate that the group’s recent attacks show a new level of potency and sophistication. Boko Haram has stated that its goal is to kill all Christians in Nigeria.
This kind of mayhem has been evident in Sudan, Egypt, the Middle East, Pakistan, the Punjab, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia. To read more about this, go to http://bit.ly/ApSjFU.
In recent years, the violent oppression of Christian minorities has become the norm in Muslim-majority nations stretching from West Africa and the Middle East to South Asia and Oceania. In some countries, it is governments and their agents that have burned churches and imprisoned parishioners. In others, rebel groups and vigilantes have taken matters into their own hands, murdering Christians and driving them from regions where their roots go back centuries.
In Nigeria, a Muslim organization called Boko Haram is spearheading the thrust to eliminate Christians from that country. In the month of January, Boko Haram was responsible for 54 deaths. In 2011, its members killed at least 510 people and burned down or destroyed more than 350 churches in 10 northern states. They used guns, gasoline bombs, and machetes. They have attacked churches, a Christmas Day gathering (killing 42 Catholics), beer parlors, a town hall, beauty salons, and banks. They have so far focused on killing Christian clerics, politicians, students, police officers, and soldiers, as well as Muslim clerics who condemn their mayhem. While they started out by using crude methods like hit-and-run assassinations from the back of motorbikes in 2009, the latest AP reports indicate that the group’s recent attacks show a new level of potency and sophistication. Boko Haram has stated that its goal is to kill all Christians in Nigeria.
This kind of mayhem has been evident in Sudan, Egypt, the Middle East, Pakistan, the Punjab, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia. To read more about this, go to http://bit.ly/ApSjFU.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
