The Obama State
The Fake Gender Wage Gap
The
Real Income Inequality
The Tone-Deaf State
Listening to the
President’s fifth official State of the Union two weeks ago, we were left to
consider how is it that a man who is so capable in articulating a strong case
for his policy views and his proposed path for the nation - hardline
ideological immunity to his voice notwithstanding – can be so tone-deaf to
the realities of his political circumstances at home, and to the real
long-term consequences of his waffling abroad. The answer, we think, comes back to the
what is true of almost any man or woman who achieves great heights of
acclaimed success in little time and comparatively little effort: an arrogant misunderstanding of what the
world is really like (Justin Bieber anyone)?
Real Numbers, Fake Conclusion
Of course, a few of
the usual liberal-progressive tropes peppered the President’s speech. One of
the biggest was his oft-repeated claim, promoting the idea that there is a
“war” on women, was that women are underpaid in relation to men. He cited the same statistic that seems to
make almost every speech of his on income inequality: that women make 77
cents for every dollar men make. But
this is a well-known “dumb” statistic.
Because he repeats it so often, we feel compelled to repeat what is
wrong with this number:
1)
It is a raw statistic from the U. S. Census Bureau that
simply takes one measure of all fulltime wages for all men and all women –
regardless of occupation, education, or work experience. The Bureau itself admits it does not
account for the mix of occupational choices, educational choices, and work
experience choices (i.e., time in the labor force), made by women that can
account for much, if not almost all, of this pay gap. It also does not take
into account the “zero” wages of the unemployed, and men are now routinely
unemployed at a higher rate than women.
2)
It is one of out of several available raw statistics
aimed at measuring the gender earned income gap, except this one happens to
be the one that shows the biggest gap – all the better to advance the
liberal-progressive case that there is active discrimination against women
that calls for more government intervention in how employers set pay.
If this gender wage
gap statistic is proof of economic discrimination against women, then the
gender incarceration gap is proof of America’s overwhelming legal
discrimination against men, as men are incarcerated at a rate ten (yes, TEN)
times the rate of women. 900% more
prison time seems worse then 23% less pay.
We can already hear the protest: “Oh, but men are incarcerated more
because they…” Our reply: Exactly.
Reasonable Speech,
Worthless Words
Setting aside that
number, and a few dishonest claims on healthcare, the President’s arguments
and positions on income inequality, educational needs, energy policy, public
infrastructure, and national defense considerations came across as reasonable
and well-articulated. Regrettably,
almost none of them were new, some of them are only articulated but not
followed through (as in foreign affairs), and as we have already remarked on
his good policy statements in more recent times, he has lost any ability to
move anyone not already on board.
Furthermore, he does not seem to understand that a lasting legacy
cannot be built on unilateral executive action – except in foreign policy,
the one place he has abandoned to his rhetoric alone (see our article “The Day the Obama Presidency Stood Still” from UWFR
November 27, 2013, where we
first declared him the “President of Words”).
That past UWFR forecast on the President’s
remaining time remains unchanged. To
re-state in summary here: we expect little movement initiated by the
President in new initiatives, with Congressional Democrats taking over the decisions
as to what parts of Obamacare are to be preserved, and how (as we said in
November); and the Democrats will chart their own course on other issues
without regard to the President’s leadership or prestige. Meanwhile, Clintonites will seek ways to put
distance between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama
reign. (Already, headlines last week
began to bear out this forecast from November). His legacy is now in the
hands of others.
Democrat, Republican,
Rinse & Repeat
The Republicans
should not draw false hope from this.
They will remain blind to their ideological reactionary stiffness, and
will not understand that Barack Obama’s failure as President is more one of
leadership failure and incompetence born of arrogance, than it is one of
unpopular, or even ill-judged ideological vision. 2014 will do in 2016 what 2010 did for them
in 2012 – unless we see a new actor on the Republican political stage that
has not made him or herself known yet. (We already made our pronouncement on
a possible Chris Christie candidacy a year ago in the UWFR January 18, 2013).
Snow White & the Evil Queen
Mirror, mirror, on
the wall, who is the fairest candidate of them all? Clinton Dynasty dreamers
beware: There are Democrats inside the
castle walls conspiring even now against the presumed heiress to the world’s
pinnacle of power. And, there is another in the land – a woman – purer and
younger, poised to give Hillary Rodham Clinton the fight of her life. Massachussetts
Senator Elizabeth Warren is another true believer like Barack Obama, but with
a lot more experience, and unassailable as a woman candidate. She is brilliant, fearless, and knowledgeable,
and will not be intimidated from standing against Clinton if she thinks this
will advance her beliefs. Still, Ms.
Clinton’s strong suit, blunt ruthlessness, may yet win the day. Senator Warren, beware poisoned apples
coming your way.
Political Equality Has a Price
One of the
tragedies of what we now see as President Barack Obama’s fall from his
unearned dizzying heights of praise, whereby he earned acclaim and peace
prizes just for being himself, is a loss to a valid and actually quite important
cause for which he could have been a formidable advocate. The dangers and moral failings of the
growing income inequality in America noted by the current President of the
United States are real, and the President’s expressed concern and description
of this problem are quite Rooseveltian (as in
Republican Theodore), and will turn out to be more prophetic than Republicans
and Libertarians will ever want to admit (see our short essay “The
Republicans Will Not Save Us” written on July 21, 2011). The decline of the wages of the American
middle class in general, and men’s wages and employment in particular, is a
serious and highly dangerous problem for the future of American prosperity
and social stability (see the latest report on this in Thursday’s
Wall Street Journal). More on this to come in future issues.
Until then, we
offer this 99-year old quote from the distinguished Walter Weyl, one of the founders of The New Republic, itself an esteemed, scholarly journal of
liberal, and liberal-progressive thought.
Mr. Weyl was a liberal-progressive economist
at a time when liberal-progressivism was a true beacon of light illuminating
the path towards human advancement:
There
can be no equality, nor any approach to equality, except among men
economically independent and economically comparable. You may talk of equality and fraternity, of
equal civil rights, of equal political rights, of the brotherhood of man and
all the rest, but unless your man has a secure economic position, a chance to
earn his living in dignity and honor, he has no rights whatsoever. Political equality is a farce and a peril
unless there is some measure of economic equality.
Walter Weyl, Economist
The New Republic
January 23 1915
We do not support
socialism. But a country that, year
after year, allows over 100% of the new wealth earned from increased
productivity to be handed only to the richest, and as a result most of its
citizens see their real wages decline despite their increased productivity;
where money more than ever floods the democratic process, and a hugely disportionate, and growing amount of it comes from the
evermore exclusive wealthy class, is a country headed for long-term economic
decline and social disorder.
By Scott Lund
Animal
Urge Vs. Human Civilization
Filmed Orgy as Virtue
Shame:
1)
a painful feeling of humiliation or distress
caused by the consciousness of
wrong or foolish behavior.
Recently, a young
adult male was expelled from a Florida public school after it was learned
that he had performed in a gay pornographic film (it featured a homosexual
orgy – but the adult boy says he is actually heterosexual). He was reinstated after some people
indignantly protested his expulsion.
The 18-year-old boy’s mother said she supports her son making these
movies so he can help the family’s finances.
Many liberal-progressives have applauded the boy for doing this “work”
to help his family. Based on still
shots and reviews, he appeared happily excited to do it.
I don’t know about
you, but I and all the boys I knew in high school were able to find jobs that
did not require us to pull our pants down, bend over, masturbate, and
ejaculate before cameras permanently recording the acts for the publicly
available entertainment of others.
But, here we have again, from the liberal-progressive class, an effort
to raise to the level of “noble” and “heroic” what most us have usually
thought of as crude and degrading behavior, by placing it under the banner of
“it’s for a good cause.” (Note:
liberal-progressive lesbian feminists also object to this behavior as
degrading, but only if women are the ones allowing themselves to be
photographed and filmed that way).
I, Monkey
The truth is, if an
adult boy wants to degrade himself by displaying himself with the self-regard
and awareness of a monkey, if he wants to display his testicles, penis and
anal orifice, and show those parts while masturbating or being used by other
males so that other males can gratify themselves to it, that is his right –
so long as it is not brought to the public square. It is, and should be perfectly legal to
treat your own body with whatever level of regard you choose. The public school is not in the position to
police off-campus behavior that is legal – no matter how
revolting others may find that behavior.
That does not mean we have to say how wonderful it is and
encourage others to join that behavior.
Parents and other leaders need to make clear to their children that
one’s presence in a public school is a sign of a taxpayer right, not an
endorsement of ones’ life choices.
Continued column 2 >
|
Ultrapolis World Forecast
& Review
Ultrapolis Project –
ultrapolisproject.com
832-782-7394
Editor: Marco
Antonio Roberts
Copy
Editor: Michael
Alberts
Contributing Editors:
Mark
Eastman
Mark
Steele
contactproject@ultrapolisproject.com
|
|
|
|
|
The
Face of Extreme Liberal-Progressivism.
You can be sure that all these folks, except the little girl, see
unisex communal bathrooms as a step forward for ALL humankind. Modesty = backwardness, oppression. Top
L-R: Demonstrator protesting heterosexuality at a pro-abortion rights
rally; Children’s guide to nihilism at an anarchists’ fair; naked man
spanked and whipped at street fair open to children; Bottom L-R: Young man at 2008 post-election rally (probably not
a Romney voter); Naked 70-plus-year old men in a public street practicing
inflating their scrotums; Little girl watching men having sex at a street
fair in the United States.
All photos are original work from
ZombieTime.com, republished here under ZombieTime’s
rules. For more photos that expose the full extent of the anti-modesty
extremism (we picked milder samples for this collage), click on the
photo. WARNING: ZombieTime.com’s
archive contains disturbingly graphic and explicit images, and depicts many
acts not suitable for viewing by minors.
|
|
|
|
< From
column 1
Of Schools and Porn
In another case,
a male Wisconsin middle school teacher who was fired for repeatedly viewing
pornography while in his classroom, which at one point he shared with a
female teacher (she objected and turned him in), was reinstated, with
$225,000 in back pay. The
liberal-progressives have defended the teacher’s right not to be fired for
viewing porn in a setting that could have been intruded on by a pubescent
child at anytime. As the lovely and
usually bright former Democratic strategist Kirsten Powers put it while
interviewed on Fox News about this issue, half of Americans view porn at
work anyway, so what’s the big deal?
I don’t know
about this half of America. I am not
sure why she is that people do this. (Or, should I say that men do this? Considering that men
consume 90% of all porn, and we make up almost half of America, that is
what she must mean.) I don’t understand why a grown man would want to view
porn at work, and risk the embarrassment of being caught in the middle of
indulging his animal instincts - let alone deliberately show it to a fellow
female co-worker who may not be happy about that. This has to come from a general lack of
civilized concern for personal dignity and sense of modesty. If this teacher had his sense of personal
modesty and dignity intact, it would have prevented him from satisfying his
animal side, and from bringing it to an unwilling participant in a
children’s school. But, this sense
of personal physical dignity has almost completely disappeared from wide
swaths from our society, and is catching the other parts of society
completely unprepared.
The Right to Eat $#@!
People should be
allowed to indulge their private indiscretions in peace – nobody is
perfect, we are all human, and none of us is pure – but they should be not
be permitted to bring their indiscretions into our shared public space, to
demand that we admire their crude behavior, and to encourage our children
to follow their example. For example, there are people who enjoy drinking
each other’s urine, and some even eating each other’s solid waste. (It’s
true, as incredibly nauseating as it sounds.) They are entitled to their
privacy and peace – it is none of our business, no matter how utterly
disgusting the rest of us find that behavior. But, if they bring their actions to
public view, and start making pronouncements about how this is admirable
behavior, other members of society have every right (and for their
children, a duty) to voice their objection, and legally act on that
objection. Yet, as a society, we seem to be losing this view, as many
liberal-progressives continue to push a clinical, libertine, and loveless
view of sexuality, and some direct incredibly venomous and successfully
intimidating attacks on anyone who dares speak up in opposition.
A less gritty
example would be that of a tobacco smoker.
If an adult family member indulges on her own or with others who
share the habit, I leave her alone, and don’t bother discussing it. But, if
a nephew sees it, I make clear smoking is not a good thing, and not to be
emulated – not even for a “good cause.”
If my
child caught me smoking? Same thing. I would say “this is a bad habit, and I
should not be doing it,
and I should stop.” I
would not involve or burden a child with any more information of my private
life because it would be none of her business. It is the difference between trying to
justify one’s indulgences to salve one’s own self-esteem, and admitting
one’s imperfections and choosing not to spread them.
Talk of Courage
Some even employ
the talk of “courage” when characterizing this public self-exposure. On one occasion a
liberal-progressive-leaning friend surprised me with a film of an adult
male we both know, in which the mutual acquaintance took on two other men
at the same time, if you know what I mean.
The acquaintance had also apparently acquired an onscreen nickname
that referred to his ability to accommodate so many men at once. My friend described it, literally, as a
display of “courage.” One could
almost imagine an excited, cat-eye-glassed, eccentrically-dressed New York
liberal exclaiming “Bravo! Bravo!” with hands aflutter in a
hummingbird-like clapping motion, standing on the edge of his toes
applauding a sliced cow. However, in
the next moment my friend (actually, more in giggles than atwitter) sneered
and snorted over what he was watching.
To his credit, my fair-minded friend did admit there was something
discordant between his words and his visible reactions. On a different occasion he was scandalized – over a friend’s
fashion choice in shoes. (I was then pretty sure he was not impressed with
mine either.)
Courage is not
about being indifferent or clueless to consequences while in the course of
making money or indulging (or even promoting) one’s self. Courage is the child of morality. It is what we display when we do
something that we do not want to
do, something that makes us afraid, but we do it anyway because we believe
it somehow elevates the human existence of another in some valuable and meaningful way. In other words, it is the walking past
our real and present fears, sacrificing and paying a personal cost; to do
what we know is right for the good of another human being. It is holding up the banner that you
believe advances the course of humankind, even as you know it may leave you
cursed, abandoned, and maybe even without your possessions. Maybe even without your life. That is courage.
Courage is not
what my good friend saw on that screen; that was just plain primate
stupidity.
Backward & Old Posing
As Advanced & New
Humans can step
backwards. In fact, human
advancement has more often than not been two steps forward, then one step
back. Most rank-and-file
liberal-progressives think that their dismantling of social norms, norms
that prevailed while Western civilization ascended to its pinnacle in the
century stretching from 1860 to 1960, is some new advance; that their
‘deconstruction’ is progress to new ways and the abandonment of backward
old ones. That is because like most
Americans brought up in our failing schools, they see history in terms of
the last 50 years. But, when you
look at human history as a whole, you see it is the other way around. Coarse and loose sexuality, lack of
modesty, polygamous families, children born out of wedlock, public
pornography – it is these that are the oldest and most primitive ways of
behavior. Only gradually, and with
many intervening setbacks (the most notable being the time when the Roman
Republic fell and gave way to the time of imperial tyranny) have these ways
of behavior gradually been filtered out of human civilization, and become
much less common over the five millennia since we left our prehistoric
caves and huts.
The Thin, Reversible Veneer
Furthermore,
liberal-progressives refuse to accept that civilized behavior - the glue
that keeps our society held together, is taught, is not innate, and can be
unlearned. The truth is humans can,
en masse, quickly abandon a view that was a core belief that previously
elevated them. Once again I turn to
Rome to offer an example of such an abandoned value that even our
contemporary liberal-progressive brethren would cherish: After overthrowing their tyrant kings,
for 500 years the people of Rome declared and maintained their hatred and total rejection of absolute
monarchy. The cultural norm was so
strong, that for half a millennia, even the most powerful did not dare try
calling themselves king, or attain its trappings. Even after the republic fell, the
absolute emperors of Rome shied away from calling themselves “king.” Yet, they were worse than kings. And, what had been a strong cultural vein
against totalitarian rule for so many centuries, disappeared virtually
overnight with the fall of the republic.
Save scattered feeble resistance, the people adapted and accepted
the new order completely. Along with
the rise of the emperors, came the fall of old values and virtues. So, yes, we humans are still always
capable of reverting to more primitive, less sophisticated behavior, amidst
the comfort of prosperity and protected peace. [See our companion story at right
“Gender-Neutral Bathrooms Spread.”
You can also (WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC IMAGES) click
here to see how far people are even now rebelling against the most
basic norms.]
Loose Talk of Norms
Civilized norms
are there to primarily restrain, and channel productively when possible,
our animal urges. Instead,
liberal-progressives see these norms as antiquated party-pooping rules (it
does not dawn on them that what they want is even more antiquated). That the metastasizing of this push to
dismantle these norms since the 1960s has been followed by the collapse of
the American family in the last fifty years – and that the family has for
5,000 years of human history always been understood by just about every
religion, philosophy, and political science as the fundamental building
block of civilization – makes no impression on them. They are firmly unconcerned. Their failed experiments in their
communes of the 1960’s taught them nothing.
But why should we expect it would have? Leading intellectual
liberal-progressives praised Joseph Stalin in the 1930’s and the Khmer
Rouge in the 1970’s (in fairness, after millions died at the hands of these
socialist saviors, some did later apologize for their ideological blinders
– though, too late to do any good).
I do not think
liberal-progressivism has no legitimacy in questioning conservative or
traditional values. That has been
its contribution to human progress.
But, there is now an uneducated, emotional and angry, corrupted
version of liberal-progressivism, just as there is one of conservatism, and
they are both pre-dominant today.
And so, I say these things now to point out the fallacy of the
arguments they now employ to defend the indefensible, and give others the
ammunition and confidence to fight this back.
Continued column 3 >
|
< From
column 2
The Exposed & the Hidden Truth
About that
Florida boy whose sperm-ejecting prowess is available to anyone for the
small price of a lunch, his mother’s pimping attitude explains why the boy
is as he is. It is not unusual for
young people drawn into these activities to come from humble homes led by
single parents with little education.
These homes are also the source of most prostitutes (but, at least
prostitutes have the good sense to keep their activities private – a
courtesy for which I honestly commend them). The boy’s actions are not coming from
courage or an elevated thinking.
They come from the education and rearing he got from his mother.
It is truly a
pity. In the end, the boy (not the derelict mother, not his ‘defenders,’
and not his voyeurs), will pay a permanent price. No one, not even those who will grovel
and fawn over him while he exposes himself, really, at their core, will
ever respect him when they see him with his legs open to the public. I know this as a one who has known some
porn ‘actors,’ who were stupid when they were very young, and have seen
what their ‘admirers’ called them the moment they matured and changed their
minds about doing porn: “too good for us, now?,” or “hypocritical slut,” or
“big bottom whore”, and such. No one
is ever truly respected when they are down on all fours, displayed like zoo
animals, and - except for those too stupid to ever notice it (and many are)
- they will forever sense the disrespect, sometimes overt, sometimes as an
undercurrent hidden even to its bearers.
Gender-Neutral Bathroom Politics
New Offensive Against Heterosexual
Norms
GBLT at Forefront of
Public Immodesty
Modesty:
1)
freedom from conceit or
vanity – as in not assuming the interest or desire of others in or for you.
2)
propriety in dress,
speech, or conduct – as in to show consideration and respect for the
experience of others in your presence.
Coordinated Action
It seems like these
last few days have been rife with stories chronicling the advance of
liberal-progressives on various fronts of the culture wars (see the
companion story on this page “Of Porn and Men”). Their latest offensive against
established social norms has taken the form of the simultaneous promotion
of gender-neutral bathrooms in various places around the country – mostly
at universities (where these things usually start, and where leftist
radicals very much hold sway) including
locally at the University of Houston.
And, last Tuesday the Houston
Chronicle also published a photo of the notice of gender-neutral
bathrooms that were proudly promoted by the organizers of the National
Conference on LGBT Equality Creating Change, which was held at the Hilton
Americas-Houston the previous week. This conference is about issues, ideas
and agendas that are favored by, or are of interest to, non-heterosexuals.
What It Is Not About: T Rights
This idea of
gender-neutral bathrooms is being promoted under the guise of accommodation
and fair treatment for transsexuals who are not comfortable in either
women’s or men’s bathrooms, and thus the need for the addition of bathrooms
where transgender people can go without being hassled. That is a legitimate problem. We do not believe anyone would object to
the availability of one-person bathrooms at most public locations. In many cases these are already available
for maternity or disability use.
Sometimes they are labeled as ‘family’ bathrooms where mom or dad
can change a child or assist an older child. But this is not what these new
gender-neutral bathrooms are really about, and because it is not really
about the transgender needs that the simple fix to simply provide single
person bathrooms will not be pursued.
(Transgender people are such a small percentage of the population
this solution would address the issue almost overnight).
Heterosexuality as an Affront
It is not an accident
that this is coming from what we call these days the
Lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender community.
This community, for those that don’t live within its cultural realm,
is dominated and run by lesbian feminists and those that almost
sycophantically support them (even though most surveys show that there are
twice as many gay men as lesbians).
Beyond that, though we know it is hard to believe and understand,
elements within this leadership abhor even the slightest hint that
heterosexuality is the norm for 95% of humanity, and that it should be
given any special recognition, place, or consideration whatsoever. Bathrooms that are divided by gender are
a daily affront to these folks.
Furthermore, many of these folks also despise just about any norms
of civilized society that make them self-conscious of their sexual fetishes
and interests that vary noticeably from the norm.
No Men Only!
Among some of the
hardcore lesbian feminists, there is also a visceral objection to the idea
of any space or room that is for men only - even a bathroom. It may sound preposterous, but we have
ample evidence of their existence in their own literature postulating on
the truths and wisdom of lesbian feminism, where these ideas hide in plain
sight for anyone who cares to read this literature. It is unpleasant reading, so it is a
pretty safe place to hide these ideas from most people, though apparently
they sell enough of those books to merit their appearance in gay (rather,
GBLT) bookstores around the world.
Keeping it Simple
These people
insist, contrary to any scientific evidence or pre-dominant religious
scripture, that all differences between men and women are artificial - a
“social construct” created by men for the purpose of oppressing women,
especially women that do not wish to be with a man. Therefore, there is no need to manage
sexual tension or attraction between the sexes or to manage sexual modesty
between the two. Their
less-sophisticated followers simplify this, and just say that keeping
separate bathrooms for the sexes is no different than keeping separate
bathrooms for blacks and whites.
Thus do the folks that routinely accuse conservatives of being
simplistic accept this absurdly simplistic equation.
Scientifically
speaking, the innate differences between men and women are greater than
those between any other categories of human beings. And unlike any other
separable groups, women and men must always come together for life to
continue.
House Pets Have More Decorum
And, that is how we
arrive at people for whom urinating and defecating alongside members of the
opposite sex is important, as they think it proves their enlightened view
that gender differences are imagined, and since they themselves have no
more modesty regarding these issues than a house pet (again, see
accompanying story), they see no issue with it at all. Many GBLT people are used to these
bathrooms anyway, as they are common in gay bars (where 90% of the
clientele is usually of one gender or the other). If you would like to see an example of
what other types of other public co-ed, unfettered co-mingling many of
these same people are comfortable with, just (WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC
IMAGES) click
here. You will see why to them,
by comparison, this change seems so inconsequential.
Neutrality vs. Reality
The point is,
while we do believe that people ought to be able to indulge whatever base
desires they have in whatever private or remote space they reserve for
themselves (whether they should is not for us to decide for them, so long
as no one is being harmed or needlessly disturbed), we are we firmly and
absolutely opposed to their dragging the rest of us into that space. Yet, many of them, with their fractured
sense of self-esteem, cannot abide the desire of others to stand apart from
their choices, or from them.
In the end, when
they attempt to eliminate the single sex bathrooms (and they will), this
will not sit well with many heterosexual women (women are just smarter
about sexual realities and dangers than men – they have to be). Setting aside the increased
opportunities for young men to be permanently labeled “sex offenders” for
even small or imagined transgressions, and the attendant and equally
permanent catastrophic economic consequences to their lives, all it would
really take is the first aggressive molestation or rape of a woman to
ensure women-only restrooms are maintained – but, not necessarily the
men’s; and that would suit the radical lesbian feminists just fine, because
preventing any men-only space is what they are always after anyway.
So, stay tuned,
for that disappearing single-sex bathroom near you.
Our forecast
record cannot be beat. One can
follow the herd chasing the latest hyperbolic, melodramatic, and
soon-forgotten micro-trend on Facebook and Twitter, or one can be wisely
and judiciously in front of it with UWFR.
Comments may be directed to contactproject@ultrapolisproject.com,
or if you receive the newsletter email, also via a reply to the email
address from which you receive it. OR CLICK BELOW
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
