This blog will be devoted mainly, but not exclusively to, men's issues. Other issues that I'll comment on will be motorcycling, current events, politics, and whatever else moves me.
Folks, in a recent video, Bike Farmer, a YouTuber, admonished his viewers to vote for Kamala Harris to "save our democracy". Since he turned off his comments to that video, I left a comment to his recent video after that, the one where he's in the Bob Ross outfit. I said that if he was going to roast Trump, then he needed to roast Kamala Harris too; I said that both were bad people. He said that he didn't. In response to that, I left him the long comment below, the one you're about to read. Here's the comment...
----------------------
@bkefrmr if one looks at both Kamala and Trump objectively, then both of them suck in terms of their character. Ergo, if one trashes one candidate for lacking character, then they must trash the other. At best, one can say that their characters suck in different ways, but that's as far as one can go. Let's take a look at both of them, shall we?
On the one hand, we have Trump, who's an obnoxious, philandering blowhard who screws over his contractors. On the other, we have an adulteress who slept her way to the top; who's immature (giggles like a teenaged girl); who has no gravitas whatsoever; and someone who has no executive experience whatsoever, having never run as much as a hot dog stand, let alone a bike shop, forget about something as big as a country.
Secondly, if you thought Kamala would save our Democracy, that's wishful thinking. Do you remember who her boss is? It's Joe Biden, who's been an authoritarian and wannabe tyrant all of his life. His issuance of the COVID vaccine mandate in early September of 2021 is only a recent example of his authoritarian tendencies. We can go back 30+ years to see them.
Do you remember the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings from the early 1990s? Joe Biden was a Senator then, and he chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee. Do you know WHY he went after Clarence Thomas? It wasn't for Anita Hill; in fact, liberals at the time were upset that Biden didn't go after him over the Anita Hill allegations. No, he went after Thomas because he believed in natural rights. How DARE Thomas believe that, because we're all children of God, that we're endowed with certain, inalienable rights as a result! For anyone paying attention, Biden has been an authoritarian and wannabe tyrant all his life.
Why is that relevant? Because wouldn't Biden pick a VP who thinks and believes like him? Wouldn't he pick someone who would carry out his policies and desires should he become incapacitated and unable to fulfill his duties? Wouldn't he want his vision to continue if he had to leave office? The questions answer themselves.
However, we can look at Kamala's background itself to see that she's an authoritarian. She kept prisoners in jail after their sentences were completed, so the prison-industrial complex would have labor. On the one hand, she tried to look cool by saying she'd smoked pot, yet, when she was a prosecutor, went after drug offenders with a vengeance. Tulsi Gabbard brought this out during the 2020 debate on CNN, which can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxHORNMWPmg
Kamala Harris also had a well known relationship with Willie Brown back in the 1990s; she was known as Willie Brown's party girl. Here are some salient facts. One, Willie Brown had been Speaker of the CA Statehouse, and he'd been mayor of San Francisco; he was a kingmaker in CA Democratic Party politics back when Kamala was getting her start. Two, Willie Brown was a married man back then, making both of them adulterers; one broke the most solemn vow one can take, while the other enabled this. Three, Willie Brown himself admitted to helping Kamala during and after relationship. Do any of the above speak to one of good character?
In closing, the character of both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump suck; neither of them are good people. Judging by their pasts, they're both bad people. We'll get the same result with either of them: to wit, we'll lose whatever rights and freedoms we have left. If you're going to roast one, you cannot let the other one off the hook, Andy-not if you want to be taken seriously. Had you bashed both Harris and Trump, that would've been one thing. Had you extolled the virtues of a 3rd party candidate over either of them, that would've been one thing. However, you admonished your viewers to save democracy from an authoritarian scumbag by voting for ANOTHER authoritarian scumbag! That's both illogical and counterproductive. It makes no sense, and voting for either would result in the end of our democracy, as you put it. In the future, if you can't be objective, please stay in your lane; please stick to what you do best: bikes. Thank you.
As you all may know, I LOVE Top Gun: Maverick! It's a great movie. It was the first movie I'd gone to see in a theater in years. There are many reasons I love the movie, but there's one that I've seen few discuss: Maverick lives in what has to be the ULTIMATE bachelor pad!
Before going to fly the Darkstar aircraft, Maverick comes out of his Airstream trailer that's parked in a HANGAR! He has a nice sitting area just outside the door occupying the hangar floor. Beyond the sitting area is his P-51 Mustang. How he affords a P-51 on a Captain's salary is anybody's guess, but this is the movies; we're supposed to dream big! Also in the hangar are some hot, vintage motorcycles, including the old, iconic Ninja he rode in the first Top Gun. As a guy who loves both airplanes and motorcycles, I would LOVE this as my bachelor pad!
Can you picture any woman going for this? HELL NO! Then again, we're guys; we're simple; we don't need much to live or be happy. While I like to say that I have the perfect bachelor pad (small, simple house with a four foot door from the garage to the basement, allowing me to keep my motorcycle INSIDE my house!), it's not. It's a good bachelor pad, yes; but it can't hold a candle to Maverick's crib. As I said, Maverick has the ULTIMATE bachelor pad!
Once again, I made a long YouTube comment that needs to be preserved for posterity; once again, I've made a good comment that cannot and must not be forgotten. It's about my encounters with what's popularly called DEI, short for diversity, equity, and inclusion. I think that a more appropriate acronym is DIE, because anyone practicing DIE will die sooner or later.
Look no farther than Boeing Airplane Company and its embarrassing incidents that have made worldwide news. Because Boeing is more concerned about having people with the right pigmentation rather than the people with the right skills and experience, they had a brand new 737 MAX airliner lose a door in flight; their Starliner capsule was stranded in space; and so on. Boeing, whose quality was once legendary, has become a shadow of itself. People used to say, "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going"; that's how much better their aircraft were than anyone else's! You knew that, if you set foot on a Boeing airplane, you'd be fine. Thanks to their commitment to DIE, people now say, "If it's Boeing, I ain't going".
Anyway, I've pontificated long enough. By now, if you have two brain cells knocking together, you've figured out that I'm not in favor of DIE. One of Bo Refec's recent videos covers the topic of why men are leaving the workforce, and DIE is part of the conversation. I left the below comment in response to his video. Now, on to my comment...
----------------
Bo, though I'm retired, I have three stories to tell WRT DEI. DEI has been going on for a long time; it simply wasn't known as DEI back in the day. One story comes from my time in Corporate America, while the others come from my time in college and after college. These stories go back to the 1990s and early 2000s. DEI was being practiced then, but it wasn't called DEI; it didn't have a name. However, any white male who's over 30 or 40 will tell you that this shit was going on long before DEI had its now notorious name.
When I worked in Corporate America, I worked for a big company; they had a household name that everyone would know. However, they used Lotus software there, while I'd learned MS Office in school. One day, I had to call the help desk for something; I think it was about how to do something, but I can't remember for sure. A girl answered my call, and she helped me with my issue. That was no problem.
Before hanging up, I was curious about her background. What had she done to get a job at the help desk? What was her degree in? I expected to hear her say it was something computer related, or that she had a special IT cert, etc. She didn't. She had majored in THEATER in college! I was like WTF? You got a help desk job with a theater degree? I didn't say that, of course, but I certainly thought it-both at the time and years afterward. The company no doubt gave her special training, so she could do the job she was doing.
Even then, I had an associates degree in a STEM discipline, and I'd done some programming in college. I'd wager that I knew more about computers than she did, yet I'd have never gotten an interview, let alone GET the job!
The second story concerns a black gal I knew in college. She was cute and well spoken. She was also clueless; that was the consensus on her. Nevertheless, she managed to get a job at a company that had been part of Ma Bell, the phone company back in the day. Ma Bell was broken up, and she worked for one of the companies spun off from Ma Bell. Again, I couldn't even get an interview with a company like this, let alone get a job with them! This is in spite of the fact that I worked my ass off; I'd made both the dean's list and honor society. I think that I should've at least gotten a look.
The third and final story comes from my time after college when I'd finished my STEM degree; I'd gone back to get my full bachelor's. Times were tough, and jobs in my field were hard to come by. To get money coming in, I signed up with some temp agencies to do office work. One of these was owned and run by women; that'll be important in a moment.
When you sign up with a temporary employment agency, they give you tests; since I was applying for office and admin positions, they tested me on MS Office. I tested on all the major apps; I tested on Word, Excel, Access, and Powerpoint. I got 95%-to 99% on all four exams. Furthermore, I had Microsoft Office Specialist certification too. Oh, and I could easily type 50+ wpm too, faster than most people. Do you know that they never sent me on one office job? Do you know they only tried to send me to like warehouse jobs? Again, with my demonstrated skills, I SHOULD have gotten some consideration for doing office jobs! I only blew away their tests, and I had MOS certifications to boot! Needless to say, I didn't stay with that agency. I ultimately worked for another one on a long term assignment until I got a STEM job.
But yeah, discrimination against white men is REAL! I know, because I've experienced it on multiple occasions. I don't mind being beaten fair and square; if someone outsmarts, outhustles, and outworks me, that's my problem; shame on me. However, when I won't even get a look because my genitalia and skin color; when I won't get a look because of some DEI BS; that bothers me-especially when I put in the work to achieve competence and excellence. And we wonder why doors fall off of brand new, Boeing airliners-incredible...
I originally published this post back in November, 2008. I couldn't find it here, but it's on the companion blog, MGTOW Survival Guide. Since it's not here, I thought I'd post it again. Because most of us have to work with women, we need to know how to deal with 'the question' at work. What is 'the question'? Why don't we have a woman in our lives? If there's one thing you, a MGHOW, can bank on, it is this: you WILL be asked why you don't have a girlfriend, fiance, or wife. In this post, I tell you how I handle this delicate situation, and why. Read and learn, Grasshopper!
-----------------
This post could be considered Part II of last night's post, "Ladies, It's YOUR Problem". The quandary most of us MGTOW find ourselves in is how to answer 'The Question'; how do we deal with the inevitable queries as to why we're still single? I'll relate past experiences along with what I learned; I'll tell you what I do now, and why I do it. It's worked for me, and I think it'll work for my readers too.
Number one is to remember that you must be careful around men too; it's not just women who will hold your honesty and candor against you. At my previous job, I was NOT shy about being a happy, single bachelor; I loudly and proudly proclaimed all the joys of single life, such as being able to purchase two motorcycles with my bonus. Not only that, my boss' right hand man, his assistant, was engaged at the time; I tried to dissuade him from walking down the Aisle of Doom to no avail. He and his woman both came from intact families, and to him, marriage was normal; he said to me that everyone gets married. After hearing that, I no longer tried to dissuade him.
Almost all the other guys in the department were married. There were three of us who were single: a nice, young kid who'd just graduated college; another man who's a Christian; and there was me. Anyway, in early 2007, my boss was told to reduce headcount; he was told that he had to get rid of someone. The axe fell on me. Though it turned out to be a blessing in disguise (my present employer is doing better than my former one, and I have better long term prospects), I don't think that my unabashed MGTOW views helped me. I don't think that most of the guys were happily married, and they didn't like me reminding them of that. The moral of the story is that you have to be careful around men too when it comes to expressing MGTOW views.
As for women, it goes without saying that you have to be careful around them. The moment you even INSINUATE that women might not be perfect, you get accused of hating women and all that crap; they'll tell you that you should have known better, picked better, etc. At least one of them will go crying to the boss about how you're a big misogynist; they'll say that you have 'trouble working with women', and all that crap. It doesn't matter whether your boss is male or female, either. If your boss is a man, he'll be eager to be the little ladies' knight in shining armor, so he'll come down on you; he'll make an example of you. If your boss is a woman, then she'll back up her fellow sisters; since you attacked one of them, you attacked all of them, including her. If you espouse MGTOW views at work, you're putting your job on the line.
Even if you keep your job, your future prospects at that employer have been damaged-all because you dared to criticize women, and say that they might not be perfect. And make no mistake about it; if you upset your female colleagues in any way, you just might end up with a pink slip. Employers are scared to death of a lawsuit from one of the dearies, so they'll do almost anything to placate them-even if it means firing you. Anyway, it goes without saying that you absolutely, positively CANNOT share your MGTOW views with women, nor can you share your reasons WHY you hold those views-not if you wish to keep receiving a steady paycheck.
It's easier for men to lose their jobs than it is for women; the converse of this is that it'll be harder for us to REPLACE that lost job too. One, women are members of the protected class, whereas we are not; women have the power in the workplace, and men do not. Women know this, and they will exploit this too-especially if it means getting even with someone who said that they're not a goddess; how DARE that POS man criticize me, a superior being! Two, we men will be discriminated against during a job search. Men interviewing job applicants are mostly manginas, and they're going to want some pretty eye candy to look at on the job; we are not eye candy to them. Women also have the EEOC and other alphabet soup, gov't agencies backing them; big daddy gov't tells employers that they'd BETTER give the little women a chance, so they do-at our expense, of course. Ergo, if you're a man, you do not want to run afoul of the little dearies-if you're unfortunate enough to work with them, that is.
I have told you what not to do, and I have told you why. However, I have not told you what TO DO. Don't worry, I'll answer that all important question right now...
So, what does a MGHOW say when asked about his single status? How does he answer such a question? You're about to step into a nasty mine field, and it must be navigated with care. You know what I say? I simply say that I never met the right one; rather, I met the right one, but I didn't meet her at the right time. I go on to tell about the lovely relationship I had while stationed at Pearl Harbor over 20 years ago; I wax poetic about how it was like the relationship Mr. & Mrs. Bailey had in the movie "It's a Wonderful Life". I know that this is idealizing things a bit, but not by much. I then say that, unfortunately for me, I was in the Navy at the time; I got orders sending me back to the mainland, thus ending the relationship. I close by saying that both the woman and true love that we shared ruined all subsequent women and relationships. Then, I leave it at that.
This does a couple of wonderful things; with either a male or female audience, this does some wonderful things. It easily deflects any subsequent questions about your single status, and does so in a way without making you look bad. I'll explain...
With men, they'll understand about wanting that someone special; though they won't openly ADMIT it, most men wish they'd married better, i.e. that they had a nicer woman for a wife. In other cases, they too lost a love from long ago, and they understand the power a lost love has over a man's heart. If you're dealing with a man who wishes that he married better, he'll quietly respect your decision to hold out for someone special, and he'll applaud you for doing so. If you're dealing with a man who also lost someone special long ago, he too will understand the power a lost love has on a man; if he married someone else, he will also respect and admire your decision to not settle for less. Face it, Fellas; most men wish that they either married someone else, or they wish that they'd remained single themselves. The worst thing you can do is rub their nose in the fact that you're a happy, single, and free MGHOW! No matter how you slice it, handling 'The Question' the way that I did will have your fellow men admiring and respecting you, not hating you for being happily single. Your fellow men won't consider you a pariah or enemy, and in this economic environment, that matters.
When dealing with women, I've found that they'll feel sorry for me when I answer 'The Question' the way that I have. They'll see me as a sweet, romantic, loving guy who's still carrying a torch for someone else; they'll see me as emotionally unavailable, so they'll leave me alone. Secondly, because they see me as sweet, romantic, and all that, they won't have desire for me, since most modern women want bad boys who treat them like crap. Thirdly, I come off as someone who's being true to his heart; they see me as following my heart. Since women are emotional creatures enslaved to their feelings, they understand this PERFECTLY! They'll feel sorry that I no longer have the love of my life; seeing that this is a tender spot with me, women will leave me alone too. By saying I met the right one at the wrong time, I get women off my back too, albeit for different reasons. Even so, I get 'em off my back WRT 'The Question'.
Whatever you do, do NOT tell them the truth! Come to think of it, if you say you haven't met the right one yet, you ARE telling the truth; you just aren't telling them all of it. Think about it; if you're a MGHOW trying to fly under the radar, you are telling them the truth. You have NOT met the right woman; you just leave out the part that, in this toxic, feminazi environment, meeting the right one is all but impossible. Men, particularly married ones, don't wish to be reminded of the fact that they made a huge mistake when they married. Women don't like to hear anything that even has a hint of criticism. If you say anything remotely critical to a woman, they'll go ballistic; they absolutely cannot handle being told that they're anything less than a princess or goddess-they just can't! IOW, what I'm saying to you guys is this: assume that both men and women cannot handle the truth, and govern yourselves accordingly. Give them part of the truth, but don't give them the whole truth. To borrow a line from Col. Nathan Jessup in "A Few Good Men", they (the vast majority of both men and women) can't HANDLE the truth! Ergo, you don't give it to them. Just give them enough to placate them, then drop it.
Jesus instructed his followers to be as wise as serpents, yet as harmless as doves. I think that this is a good example of that principle. Too bad I had to learn it the hard way, but at least I learned it. At work, if you're a MGHOW, then showing your hand is NOT an option! Repeat: as a MGHOW, laying your cards on the table is not an option! If you do so, you'll make enemies of both men and women you work with; this, in turn, could place your job in peril. So, just give them enough truth to satisfy them; tell them you haven't met the right one, and leave it at that. Again, you're telling the truth, because meeting the right one is impossible! You don't have to tell your COLLEAGUES that; they won't appreciate it if you do so anyway...
In closing, if you're asked about your single status, simply say that you haven't met the right one. Better yet, if you had someone nice long ago, but you got separated from her, then play that up. Men will understand why, and they'll leave you alone; as an added bonus, they'll admire and respect your decision to not settle. Women will see you as a sweet, loving, romantic person who's got a broken heart. They'll feel sorry for you, since your heart is broken; because you're carrying that sorrow (or so they think), they'll leave you alone, so as to not exploit that emotional wound. If you play up the broken heart angle, women will show compassion for you-even if you're a man! Who would've thought? A woman showing compassion for a man? Yes, it does happen! Furthermore, because they see you as a nice, romantic, sweet guy, you'll repulse most modern women; nice guys are boring and weak in their eyes, so they'll remove you from their 'boyfriend material' list. With women, you'll play up the 'feeeeelings' angle, which will work like a charm! In either case, as a MGHOW, you can continue to fly under the radar, thus preserving your job and livelihood; that's always an important consideration, but never more so than in these days and times. Thank you, and have a good day...
This post was originally written by JayJet on the Happy Bachelor's Forum back in 2011. JayJet used to work in a child support agency. Though he wasn't an agent or collector (IIRC, he worked in IT), he has an insider's view which is invaluable; he knows how these agencies operate, think, and act. For men who are going their own way, this is MUST KNOW material! This is necessary to the MGTOW's survival, which is why I'm also running it in the MGTOW Survival Guide in addition to running it here on the main blog.
I meant to run this much sooner, but I never did. Though this was posted back in 2011, it's just as relevant today, if not more so. We live with Marriage 2.0, and women file for 70% to 80% of the divorces; that figure increases to 90% if she's college educated. This is a WARNING to you, Fellas! As Joshua, the computer, said in the 1983 hit movie, "Wargames", marriage is a strange game; the only winning move is not to play. Below is JayJet's post about child support agencies.
--------------------
Gentlemen,
I'd like to take a few moments of my time to share with you a perspective that you A)won't be entirely surprised by and B) might be beneficial to a few of you who sport rose-colored glasses.
My current employment is with a Child Support Agency in a large state. I've been working there for a few years and in that time have picked up on a few things. I was a caseworker for a very limited time until I was promoted to another position where I don't have direct contact with the public or access to their information. My message is not to share with you tales of woe(of which there are many) but to instead give you some insight into the culture of agencies such as ours. I hope that as a happy bachelor many or most of you can remain so without ever having to darken the door of these places. My experience is my own of course so what I say here may not be the same amongst all child support collection agencies.
Here's what I've learned:
1. Child support agencies are not instinctively anti-male. They are however INDIFFERENT to males. They are indifferent to your suffering, indifferent to your pain, indifferent to the costs or whether or not you got screwed in your divorce settlement. Your cupcake decided to go on welfare and she named you as the father. They don't care how you make your payments to HER or what she does with the money once she gets it.
2. Child support agencies have staff that is largely female. Mine is upwards of 85%. As a result, individual women who are there to answer your questions (customer service) will not be sympathetic and even if they are must follow strict policy/procedure for NCP's (Non Custodial Parent-i.e. YOU). Meaning your rape will likely continue until your ass bleeds out.
3. Management in CS agencies ARE true believers. This means that when it comes to policy they see themselves as guardians and enablers of the system. They don't care for your MRA/MGTOW bullshit. It means nothing to them. "Just pay it!" is the mantra. "You should have thought about that before you had kids!" is another. Management prides itself on learning new ideas and technologies to get your money faster and more efficiently.
4. CS agencies are ALWAYS looking for "deadbeats." Guys kill me when they talk about moving to another country to escape CS or start anew outside the anglo-sphere! Most men are to timid to pick up and move. Besides, CS agencies share information world-wide. All English speaking and most Spanish countries share information that when you're located you'll pay up. The list of countries that have cooperative agreements to find you grows every year. If you ghost to Crap-istan you best make sure that you live underground as a fugitive. Because if your caught/arrested or are in trouble with the law in a foreign country you have to pay still. As more countries become feminized your chances of escape grow dim by the day. You'll likely be considered a CS dodger and then have to explain yourself to the magistrate of the new country that you reside in.
4a. Time for an exercise. Let's say you're a tradesman (plumber, carpenter, etc). It's highly likely you'll belong to a union or professional organization. CS agencies will contact these organizations by sending out "tentacles" to look for you if you go underground. If you're found to be working utilizing your skill in any legitimate manner you'll be found and taken in.
5. "Sir, would you like to make that payment over the phone." Agencies are now taking credit cards and money transfers over the phone to expedite your "donation" to a needy family even if that "needy" family is your own! I cannot overstate it enough. There are dedicated and highly motivated people who spend their day looking for your "I'll to move to Asia, find a sweet Min-Mei and go ghost" ass. These folks are looking to get "kudos" and awards from their supervisors for finding you and they take it very seriously.
6. Because CS agencies are linked to family law courts they have the power to suspend your professional licenses, drivers license, passports and any other official documentation that affects your means to work or travel. Yes, they can throw you in jail if need be but I was told most agencies limit the use of that because they found that when your in jail, your not paying CS! Imagine that! Lottery, sweepstakes, casino winnings, are all fair game to bringing your support current or to catch up on your arrears. The IRS will get you, they'll put a lien on your home or other large assets. You've been warned.
7. CS agencies make money. A LOT OF MONEY. It's a business, after all. Their business is YOUR WALLET! You see, a certain percentage (2-5%) of your monthly support is collected as a administrative fee. Let's get real here. This amount is a finders fee that goes back to the government. You pay this as part of your monthly support to HER. In reality, that money goes to your states general coffers. Many U.S. states are experiencing budget woes. Threats, furloughs and layoffs abound in these tough economic times. However, many CS agencies feel safe because they make money for the cash-strapped state. They are in essence the golden goose except you're the one laying the golden egg!
7a. Ah, yes! Arrears. This is when you get behind or decide to go ghost to Crapistan. Don't let it happen. Why? Compounding interest that's why! Many men are still paying CS long after their kid is grown! There are additional penaltie$ for having your account fall into arrears that you'll be required to pay to bring your account current. You've been warned!
8. The bitch. Guess what? No one cares who that bitch is. CS agencies don't do background checks on her to verify if she's a lying, cheating, skank whore. They don't care that she poked a hole in your condom or she lied and told you she took her birth control pill. They also don't care that you married the bitch in the first place. They don't care that you came home after working 10-12 hours to find her sucking your best friends dick in front of your kids. They don't even care that she's abusive to your kids. They are indifferent. All they and the family court know is that you have a penis. Your penis is a weapon. Your penis "fired" in her vagina and now you will have to pay reparations for not stowing it properly with the safety on.
8a. They don't care if you get to see your kids, EVER.
9. Imputed income. Of all the injustices in the world this is as close to slavery as they come. Simple wealth redistribution. Imputed income is the amount of money that you POTENTIALLY earn. Did you get that?
9a. Exercise time. Imagine you're a happy bachelor, footloose and carefree. Your attending college or plan on starting a business selling widgets. Then you hook up with cupcake and get her pregnant. She decides to keep the baby(naturally, you have no say because your a man). She realizes your "potential" and so does the family court and CS agencies. They compute your child support payments/potential based upon future earnings realized or not! Many men cannot retire or save because their potential earnings were taken into account at the time CS began. This is slavery. Pure and simple. Nowhere in western society can someone take your salary based upon your POTENTIAL and figure your current payment schedule based on future earnings.
10. Most of you already know this stuff or are already experiencing it firsthand. I wrote this for the fellas as a warning. You won't get cut any slack. Since this is my last point let me share with you something else. In an earlier point, I spoke about the economic times that we currently find ourselves. It was told in my agency that some time ago there were dozens of NCP's (mostly, if not all men) who went back to the court to press for leniency or a reduction of their child support burden. These guys more than likely got their hours cut or were laid off. After making their appeal to the judge, they were able to get the leniency they asked for. Later it was found that there was a glitch with our agency that was letting these guys "get away with not paying." So the attorneys in our agency went to work to close the loophole. They found it was some kind of software that they were using that was "ineffective." It's this program that allows the judge to see certain details of the NCP's case. The judge reviews this file to ascertain whether or not to grant a reduction in CS. After making some adjustments it's come to light that as of now the number of guys receiving leniency has trickled to less than 5. Problem solved. So out of hundreds of NCP's in a major metro area wanting a reduction less than 5 got what they asked for in this last YEAR. Think about that and realize those folks can't do anything but continue to pay the system even as they starve. Indifference.
I see no real solution to this mess in our lifetime. Having children is a liability and I personally always wanted kids too. One of the last conversations I had with my late wife was about having children. We both conceded that rebuilding our marriage would never work. I told her that when she left me my dreams of having children died too. I was resolute in telling her that I would not remarry again and since I believe in marriage first, then kids, I won't have children either.
The reality is your children are never really yours. Ultimately, they become pawns for the state and the bitch they claim to serve.
---------------
There's not much I can add to that. Have a good day...
I have yet another comment I wish to preserve for posterity, so I'm posting it here. In one of his recent videos, Bo Refec said that being single as an older person is a scary prospect, and that we can face disaster if our health fails without having someone to care for us. Normally, I agree with Bo; I'm subscribed to both of his channels, and I watch him regularly. However, I must part company here; I must disagree with him. As a 62 year old man who's dealing with this, I have something to say. Below is my comment.
------------
Bo, you talked about how being single as we get older is a death wish. Let me ask you this: WTF does a guy do if his wife divorces him in old age, hmmm? What about that? You see older women leaving their marriages ALL THE TIME! All the time, we see 50 and 60 something women ending their decades long marriages to "chase their happiness", i.e. chase Chad. If women would-gasp-honor their marriage vows, that would be one thing. If we didn't face getting reamed out in the family courts, that would be one thing. However, women don't honor their commitments and the family courts will screw us over, so we, as older men, have to weigh the risk of being homeless and starving in old age vs. the possibility of failing health as our lives come to an end.
Yes, as a 62 year old man, I'm concerned that my health will decline to the point where I can no longer care for myself. That's one reason I go biking 4-5 times a week. HOWEVER! However, I'm also concerned about a woman divorcing me and leaving me poor; I'm concerned about being homeless in old age; I'm concerned about having nothing to eat but Alpo. I can eat human food and occasionally go to Long Horn Steakhouse for a treat; I'd like the option of CONTINUING to do so, TYVM! For men over a certain age, it's a Catch 22 we're facing; we're damned if we do (i.e. marry), and we're damned if we don't. Since it comes down to that stark choice, then I'll take the lesser of two bad options; at least I'll have food, clothing, and shelter until I die.
I left the below comment on a great YouTube channel, Real Girl World. RGW is by Hannah Jordan of Canada, and she's a FINE lady! She reminds us of what women can be; she shows us what women can and should aspire to. She's trying to warn modern women about what they're doing, and for that, she deserves our thanks; she's doing the Lord's work. She only has 229 subscribers, while it should be 2.29 MILLION! She's preaching a message that needs to be heard far and wide.
If you couldn't tell, I'm a fan of her channel. I've watched many of her videos. Four weeks ago, she posted a video entitled "Women Behaving Badly". In it, we have the now notorious "Hawk Tuah Girl", among others. In response to a guy's comment, I left the below comment in response to his. He said that he'd ask any woman he was dating about her body count, while I said that doing so may be a waste of time. I proceeded to tell him how I'd suss out a woman's body count if I were still dating. Below is my comment. I hope it helps someone.
--------------------
Dude, the thing is that, if you straight up ask for her body count, she's going to lie about it. Deep down, women know that a high body count is nothing to brag about; otherwise, they wouldn't be all shameful and bashful when asked about it. Then again, if you're careful and quick to observe her initial, unfiltered reaction, asking a direct question about body count may be useful; while you may not get an honest number, you may get an idea of whether or not the number is high, which is what you're looking for.
If I were dating and wanting to find out this information, there are three things I could do. One is to check out her friends. A second tack one can take is to hint at shameful stuff you may have done in the past. Finally, just listen to her carefully. I'll explain...
Who are her friends? What do they say? How do they say it? What do they talk about? How do they talk about things? Are they a bunch of 304s? If so, then so is your woman; after all, we become what our companions are, which is why they should be chosen with great care. That's a lesson I learned the hard way when I was a kid.
The second thing one could do if your past could be better is this: hint at some of those episodes you'd like to forget, and see what she does. In my case, I'm a US Navy vet; yes, I was a sailor as a young man. I wanted to see the world, and Uncle Sam's Navy offered me a way to do it. Anyway, there were times when, shall we say, I acted less than virtuously? There were things I did that I NEVER told my late mother! Let me put it that way. I almost always behaved myself, and I normally followed my WWII Navy vet Grandfather's advice: I normally headed in the opposite direction most of the guys headed. They'd go hit the bars in port, while I'd go sightseeing via the local trains or buses. I used to enjoy taking the train from Piazza Garibaldi in Naples, Italy to the Herculaneum ruins or the black sand beach at Sorrento. However, there were a couple of episodes on that Med cruise I'd rather forget, and I'll leave it at that. Sorry, I digress...
Anyway, if I were on a date, I'd ask a girl about her college days, especially if I suspected 304 conduct during said college days. If she hinted at wild sorority parties, frat mixers, etc., I'd say something like, "Well, when I was in my early 20s, I was a sailor in the Navy; if you can imagine a sailor boy doing something, I probably did it." I'd say it with a somewhat embarrassed tone, because I would be. You can embellish things here too. The key is to let her know you won't be judgemental, so she'll open up enough to give you a good glimpse of the truth. While she may not tell you everything, she may tell you enough to get a good picture of who she is, so you can decide whether or not to pursue a relationship with her.
Finally, just LISTEN UP! God gave us two ears and one mouth for a reason, and it's always good to be mindful of this. Again, this is a lesson I learned the hard way as a boy and a young man. Just sit there and listen to her talk. Listen to what she says, and how she says it. Ask good follow-up questions; make brief, pertinent comments; the key is to get her going and keep her going. As the old truism goes, women always tell on themselves. Give them long enough to talk, and they'll eventually tell on themselves.
For example, back in the dark days long before #MeToo, people could meet someone at work, and they often did. My brother and SIL met that way; he hired her at his company, BTW! This Labor Day Weekend, they'll celebrate their silver anniversary. There was a time you could meet someone at work, while not worrying about your career. Though I never got involved with someone at work, I was interested in a couple of women I worked with. You could quietly observe the person; you could watch and listen to her. Doing so helped me avoid a couple of train wrecks!
The same applies in school-at least it used to. In this post #MeToo era, if I were in college now, I don't know if I would date anyone from school. Anyway, in the past, if you went to school with someone, you could sit back, watch them, and learn about them.
In closing, directly asking a girl about her body count is a waste of time. NFW will she tell you the truth! In her heart of hearts, she knows a high body count is bad, so she'll play it down, lie about it, change the subject, etc. No, you must go into intelligence gathering mode, and learn as much as you can about her. On second thought, you could ask her directly, so as to catch her immediate reaction; that may give you an idea. What else can you do? One, look at who her friends are; if they're 304s, then so is she. Two, subtly encourage them to open up about their past; hint at possible seedy things you may have done to encourage her. Finally, LISTEN TO HER! If you allow women to talk long enough, they'll always tell on themselves. While you may never get an exact number, you'll get a good enough idea to make a decision about whether or not to get involved with her. Hope this helps...
Here's another YouTube comment that needs to be preserved for posterity. There was a clip of "American Made", starring Tom Cruise. Though I don't care for the Scientology stuff, I think that Tom Cruise is a great actor; he does a great job in every role he plays, so I like to see his movies. In "American Made", Tom plays Barry Seal. Mr. Seal was, shall we say, an enterprising businessman? He started an air freight service specializing in Colombian pharmaceuticals! It's a good movie, and I recommend it.
One of the commenters to the movie clip said that the Feds were in on the drug trade, and many agreed. I submitted the below comment. It was too good to lie buried in obscurity in some forgotten YouTube comment, so I'm reprinting it below. Enjoy!
-------------
Shoot, I figured that out when I was in the service! I was in the US Navy. Though I normally operated the sonar, we were on drug patrol a few miles off the coast of Colombia. That put us in shallow water, so our sonar was useless. The ship's officers had us stand radar watches instead. I thought that was cool, as I got to learn something new, and I had the chance to do something different. While I don't know if I can say the exact altitude and speed parameters we'd use for flagging northbound (i.e. to the US) aircraft, I can say this: the parameters they were using would only catch the small time smugglers flying small, piston twin aircraft; it wouldn't get the bigger smugglers flying DC-7s or Mitsubishi MU-2s.
Another tell for me was how our ships were deployed. They had us only a few miles of the Colombian coast where everyone could see us; of course the smugglers hid like a bunch of cockroaches under rocks! The smarter way to deploy our ships would've been to put one or two in between the western end of Cuba and the Yucatan Peninsula; put another one between Hispanola and Cuba; then put another ship between eastern Hispanola and Puerto Rico; finally, use some USN PHMs or USCG patrol boats between the Bahamas and the FL coast. If you look at a map, anyone coming from South America HAS to go through these points! The capabilities of the USN's air and surface search radars would be more than adequate to catch anyone heading through the aforementioned choke points. Wouldn't that be the smart way to catch the drug smugglers?
Ah, but the US NEVER did that! Why not? If I, a humble PO2 sonar operator, could figure this shit out, then surely the Generals and Admirals of the Pentagon could; after all, they'd attended either the Navy or Army War College, so they knew about strategy, right? Since they'd studied and forgotten more about strategy than I'd ever learned, wouldn't the Pentagon brass be able to figure this out? The answer is yes, of course. I could only draw one, logical conclusion: that people in the upper levels of the Federal Gov't were on the take, that they were allowing the drugs to come in.
I can tell of another experience on a different drug patrol that cements my opinion for me. On this patrol, we were operating in deep water, so we were using our sonar. I was standing watch one morning when I heard this LOUD contact; he was making enough noise to wake up everything and everybody for miles around! I called it into radar, and they got it. To make a long story short, we boarded this tramp steamer. He said he was going to Panama, yet his charts had a track laid into Santa Marta, Colombia. IOW, we got him before he picked up his load of pot. We had to let him go, as he was clean; they'd lied to us, but that wasn't illegal. However, we never waited on the guy to pick up his load; we never tried to get him on the way out. Why not? IMO, to ask the question is to answer it.
Yes, boys and girls, the Federal Gov't is on the take! While I don't have hardcore proof of that, I have circumstantial evidence that certainly points in that direction. I knew 40 years ago that the Feds were on the take, and I still stand by that today.
In response to a YouTube comment, I shared my thoughts on why communism and socialism are failures. This comment is worth preserving, so I'm making a post here. My comment is below.
--------------
@Flux_40 I was merely using an understandable and relatable analogy here; I wasn't trying to discuss economic questions, per se.
That said, I think that free enterprise (i.e. many small businesses) is the best system, as the free market and the pricing mechanism send clear signals about what is desired and what works vs. what isn't desired and what doesn't work. Even capitalism, to a lesser extent, provides these feedback mechanisms. Neither socialism nor communism have this feedback mechanism, so they're even worse; they cannot and do not distribute scarce resources in a fair or complete manner.
I differentiate free enterprise from capitalism, because capitalism promotes a dog eat dog mentality, where the bigger fish eat the smaller fish; this keeps happening until you have either a monopoly, duopoly, or, at best, an oligopoly. At this point, gov't and the remaining, large corporations become one and the same; we have fascism, which results in poverty and tyranny for the people, while a small elite lives well.
If one doubts how socialism/communism is a failure, then I'll issue that person a simple challenge: look at a picture of the Korean peninsula at night. Just go to Google and enter the phrase: "Korean peninsula at night". Then, look at the pics; look at the stark DIFFERENCE between the southern and northern halves! The southern half, South Korea, is all lit up; the population has electricity. This means that they are prosperous and live well. OTOH, the northern half of the peninsula, where North Korea is located, is dark. Why? Because the people are poor; because communism cannot and will not provide people with even the basics of life, let alone the luxuries thereof.
Why is the Korean example significant? One, there is no racial or ethnic variable here; the Korean people on the peninsula are the same. Two, the Korean people share a common culture. Three, the Korean people share a common history until the mid 20th Century. Four, the Korean people share a common language. Any and all variables that have been used to explain away the failure of communism (i.e. the reason it hasn't worked is because the right people haven't tried it yet) have been eliminated in the Korean example, yet the stark differences between communism and capitalism. While the people of South Korea may not have total freedom, they have more than their brothers and sisters to the north, which gives the South Korean people a better lifestyle.
SO! Capitalism, though far from perfect, is far preferable to communism. Thanks to capitalism, we have electricity; we have indoor plumbing; we have central heating and air conditioning; we have the automobile; we have all the blessings of modern life. Is it perfect? No, especially when it get excessive and we have these huge, multinational corporations. That's why I differentiated between free enterprise and capitalism. That said, capitalism is far preferable to communism or its gatewiay drug, socialism. Again, if you don't believe me, then riddle me this: why are Venezuelans escaping their country by the millions? Could it be because socialism doesn't provide them the necessities of life, including toilet paper? To ask the question is to answer it.
In conclusion, I would challenge you to Google the classic essay, "I, Pencil", which discusses all of these topics by showing how the simple and humble pencil is made. It shows how and why free enterprise, or even capitalism, is far preferable to socialism or its logical conclusion, communism. Thank you.
I made this comment in response to a YouTube video. Since it was too good to forget, I saved a copy for posterity. My comment is below.
-------------------
Sir, as someone who was MGTOW before it had a name, I'll answer your question for you; I'll answer your objections and problems with MGTOW.
Many guys have seen friends, brothers, uncles, and/or fathers who were falsely accused of SA or something. Many guys see the men they know go through a terrible divorce. Some, or maybe most, of these men were good guys, yet they got divorced for no good reason; i.e. they were "frivorced", or frivolously divorced. They rationally decided that, after what they'd seen men in their lives go through, that they don't want to go through it too.
Now, before I learned some lessons the hard way, I must say that, as a young man, I heard my share of horror stories. Back in my 20s, I had a CB radio in my car; many say that it was the original social media. Long before the Internet was a thing; long before social media existed; there was CB radio. Back in the mid 1970s and the 1980s, everyone, it seemed, had a CB either at home, in their car, or both.
I'd had one in my house when I was in high school. After I left home and joined the US Navy, I had one in my car. During local trips, weekend trips, and road trips home, I'd have it tuned to channel 19, which is where the truckers hang out. They swap info on traffic jams, where the cops were, etc. When none of that was going on, they'd talk about their lives and relationships. Even during the early-mid 1980s, I heard a TON OF DIVORCE HORROR STORIES! I heard countless truckers tell how their exes had taken them to the cleaners.
Back in those days, I also owned a classic, 1966 Chevy. When I was out and about, guys would often come up to me and talk to me about my car. The same thing happened on the CB; guys on the radio would see my car, and they'd want to talk to me about it. I had many nice conversations about my car; it helped me to get out of my shell, so to speak.
However, there was a common theme to many of these conversations; many of these conversations also dealt with the classic cars these guys had once owned. They'd tell me about the old Mustang, Camaro, Firebird, Challenger, etc. that they'd once owned. They then continued on to say that their wives didn't like their cars, and that their wives had made them get rid of them. I'd sometimes ask them why, but all they'd say is that, because I was single, I didn't understand.
Before I continue with how and why I started on my Red Pill journey, I told you all that to tell you this: as a young man, I knew enough to know that marriage was a huge decision; I knew that it could make or break me. Hence, I was cautious when it come to women, relationships, and marriage. However, I still had The Dream; I still believed the fantasy that, if I were careful and judicious, I could find my beloved; I could find my soul mate, and live happily ever after.
Now, it's time to get into my Red Pill journey; it's time to get into how I became MGTOW...
In my case, I was falsely accused of stalking and harassment. Now, to be fair, the gal I'd briefly dated had more red flags than a Communist parade, but I was falsely accused nonetheless. My case had two hearings: one for the restraining order, another for the criminal charges. Restraining orders are handled in family court, which also adjudicates divorces; criminal charges are heard in criminal court.
Family court was quite the EYE OPENER! I and my psychobitch were there all day, so I got to see a lot of cases ahead of ours. That black robed SOB favored the women ALL DAY LONG! I'll furnish one example. During the middle of the day, a divorcing couple's case came up. Part of it had involved a heated argument between the husband and wife. He threatened to burn the house down, while she pulled out a knife and threatened to kill him. Their children testified, and they corroborated all this; that is to say that these were incontrovertible facts. That black robed SOB admonished the husband for making terroristic threats, while saying nothing at all to the wife; he gave the wife a pass.
Why is that significant? One, the only certainty with arson is property damage; when the fire goes out, something will be destroyed. Depending on when the fire is lit, people may or may not be in the building; they may or may not be killed as a result of the fire. What we can be certain of is that, in this couple's case, the house would be damaged and/or destroyed. OTOH, the woman not only threatened to kill the husband; she pulled out a knife! She made the threat to kill him, and then she proceeded to brandish a weapon. Isn't the mere act of brandishing a lethal weapon a crime in many jurisdictions? Anyway, the judge gave her a pass, yet he chided the husband for making terroristic threats. That gives you an idea of the bias in family courts.
At the end of that day, my case finally came up; it was the last one of the day. My psychobitch proceeded to LIE HER ASS OFF; she lied about everything! She accused me of following her, driving by her house, etc. The truth of the matter is that she'd been doing all this to me; in fact, I caught her leaving my neighborhood one night. She followed me home from work. She did a lot of stuff. Years later, my neighbors told me that they'd seen a car identical to hers driving down our street. I wish I'd known this when my case was going on, but who knows if it would've made a difference?
What I was living through was like something out of the late 1980s movie, "Fatal Attraction"! I was truly worried that, at one point, I might find one of my cats in a pot of boiling water. Those who've seen the movie will understand the allusion immediately. Unfortunately, I never had fun with this woman; in fact, she'd rejected me. If we'd been intimate and she'd been a woman scorned, I could've understood my situation-at least to a point. However, she'd blown me off, which made her actions curious. Why do all this if you'd told me that you weren't interested? As I said, she was crazy.
So, you may be asking the logical question: WHY did I ever get involved with this woman in the first place? Because she was breathtakingly beautiful, that's why. How beautiful, you may ask? Let me put it this way: she looked like Carmen Elektra with a fair complexion. Need I say more?
Oh and BTW, those neighbors I just mentioned? One of their sons had been my age; we'd played together as kids. They told me that he'd gotten involved with a crazy woman as I had. Things for him had gotten so bad that he ended up taking his own life. After what I'd been through, I understand it. Why? Because I contemplated doing the same. Thankfully, I was too chicken to actually do it. Also, I didn't want to answer to God for taking my life, something that's only under His purview, and no one else's. That said, I totally get why Vic (not his real name) took his life.
Thankfully, for my criminal case, I had a scrupulously fair judge. Psychobitch didn't show up to the first hearing, so we had to go back again later. BTW, to give you an idea how SICK this woman was, she pulled in RIGHT BEHIND our car as we were leaving the hearing! I recognized the license plate. She tried to lie to the court clerk, saying that her notice had said 11, not 10, AM. The court clerk knew she was lying, but I still had to go back. She didn't show the second time either, so my criminal charges were dismissed with prejudice; that meant that they were dismissed for good.
After all of this went down, I went to work in the corporate world. I broke in working for temp agencies. That allowed me to see what the jobs were like, learn new skills, enhance old ones, and get paid for it. At one long term assignment at a client whose name you'd recognize, an old, post wall woman there didn't like me. To make a long story short, she falsely accused me of something, and she got me out. The company was about to offer me a job; that offer was withdrawn, obviously. However, the guy in charge liked my work, so he didn't say anything to my agency; he simply said my assignment had ended. Besides, the assignment had gone on months longer than expected, so that was that. A short time later, the agency got me another job with another big client who's a household name; I did well, was hired, and stayed there for a couple of years.
The thing is, Nate, that I'm not the only guy to whom this has happened. My story could be and has been repeated millions of times. Thankfully, most of us dodged bullets; most of us, even if we were arrested and charged, are no longer in jail. We got good scares; we saw enough to know that our lives could've been permanently ruined, which gave us pause. Thanks to the Internet and the Manosphere, we men can now swap stories about our experiences. It's amazing how SIMILAR they all are! It's amazing how many common threads these stories share. Anyway, many guys, including the younger guys, decide that, when it comes to women, relationships, and marriage, that the rewards aren't worth the risks. After a few nuclear rejections, bad relationships, and some false accusations, many guys, including the younger guys, decide enough's enough; they decide that, out of the two bad options, that one is worse than the other. They logically conclude that it's better, safer, quieter, and more peaceful to remain alone than it is to pursue a woman.
Finally, let me say this: I had my passport; I was a passport bro before that was a thing too. To make a long story short, I met a gal from Peru. I made numerous visits there, and I had every intention of marrying her and living the rest of my days there. I had more friends down there than I have up here, okay? Before pulling the trigger though, I lived with her for a few months; I did a long trial run to be sure. After all, moving down there would've entailed selling my house and everything I owned up here; that's a big deal. Anyway, to make a long story short, I'll just say that I saw things about my (now ex) GF's personality that I couldn't live with. I ended the relationship when I returned to the US August of 2018. I got a great cat out of the deal, so I have something positive to show for it. At my age (62 and early retired), I simply want to live whatever days I have left in peace and quiet. I'm not going to try again. As long as I outlive my cats, I don't care. The world's gone crazy, and I no longer have the desire to stay here. As Bob Grant used to say, it's sick and getting SICKER! How true it is...
Those who've seen Top Gun: Maverick may think that Maverick chose Rooster solely due to nepotism; they think that Mav chose Rooster because he's the son of his former RIO and dear friend, Goose. I disagree; I submit that there are sound reasons why Maverick chose Rooster for the final mission. One, Rooster was a team player. Two, Rooster was the only pilot who'd even gotten into position to shoot down Maverick. Finally,Rooster was the only pilot to reach the target during training. We'll examine these points in more detail now.
Rooster was the consummate team player; he always did what was in the best interest of the mission, not himself. For example, at 1:18 during this clip from their mission training, we see Rooster insert himself between Maverick and his wingman; he saves Payback and Fanboy. Rooster draws Maverick into chasing him, not his mates. This willingness to sacrifice himself for others would help save Maverick's life later in the film.
Secondly, Rooster was the only pilot who'd even gotten into position to shoot down Maverick. During the scene, you can hear Hangman excitedly telling Rooster to take the shot. Granted, he didn't finish the deal; he hesitated and allowed Maverick to turn tables and kill him; but he got closer than anyone else did during training.
Starting at 4:20 in a move that harks back to the original Top Gun, Maverick momentarily flies inverted above Rooster. At that point, they do scissors all the way down until Maverick blinks first and pulls out of the dive. Rooster pulled out, got behind him, and was set up for the shot. Once Rooster got behind Maverick, we can hear Hangman excitedly saying, "Come on, Rooster, you got him; drop down and TAKE the shot!" However, Rooster hesitated, and he lost. However, he was the only pilot out of all the trainees to even get that close.
Finally, during the practice bombing runs, Rooster was the only one of the group to even reach the target. Granted, he was a minute late, but he reached the practice target. Here's the sequence of their practice bombing runs. Rooster's portion begins at 2:35. During the mission debrief, Phoenix reminds Maverick that Rooster was the only one who reached the target, something no one else had managed to do; she says this at 3:04.
Rooster's willingness to sacrifice himself would help save Maverick's life. During the mission, Maverick went to take a SAM for Rooster, as he was out of flares. Maverick was shot down. Rooster went back for Maverick, and he shot down the Mil-24 chopper before it could shoot Maverick. When they later stole the F-14, Rooster was there to help Maverick.
As you can see, Maverick had good, sound reasons for selecting Rooster. He was a good pilot! He needed more confidence in himself, but he was a good pilot. Rooster was a team player; he put the mission and his teammates first. Secondly, he was the only one of the pilots to get close to shooting down Maverick; no one else did. In fact, Maverick made easy work of them during ACM/BFM training. Finally, Rooster was the only one who reached the target during practice, and he'd successfully take it out during the mission itself. SO! As you can see, Maverick had solid reasons for choosing Rooster for the mission. That is to say that Rooster EARNED his spot on the mission!
Folks, I just left a comment in response to a video addressed to Christian women finding a husband. Below is my comment in response. It was too good to just keep as a YouTube comment, so I'm sharing it here as well.
As a former Bible college student, churchgoer, and present Christian, I have some thoughts about this. I left the church not because there was sin in my church and Bible college, though there was; sin will be everywhere, even in the church, as the church is comprised of sinners. No, what bothered me was the lack of response in handling the sin that happened there. Hence, I left. Also, before COVID happened, I was going to return to the church; I really was! Unfortunately, no church in my area resisted the governor's and mayors' orders to close; that is to say that there are no good, strong Godly churches in my area that followed God's Word that admonishes us to not forsake the assembling of ourselves. Hence, I never returned, nor do I plan to do so. Anyway, here are my thoughts about the question of dating, relationships, and marriage among Christians. One, the church is feminine, and it bashes men. Two, Christian women aren't that different from their worldly counterparts. Three, the divorce rate among Christians is higher than it is among secular people.
The church is feminine, and it caters to women. Churches and pastors know that, if they don't please the wives, they don't have butts in the seats; because those butts aren't in the seats, the collection plate is lighter too. How does the church cater to women? Here's one example: on Father's Day, men are chastised and admonished to be the men, husbands, and fathers they should be; they're upbraided from the pulpit. Does anything similar happen on Mother's Day? NO WAY, JOSE! Again, pastors know where their bread is buttered, so they govern themselves accordingly.
You know, I, as a Christian man don't need to attend any church to hear that I'm scum of the Earth; I don't need to attend church to be bashed and trashed. I can find that everywhere else in society, TYVM! All one has to do is tune in TV or radio for a few minutes to see this constant man bashing 24/7/365. You think I want to hear the same in church? GTFOOH! You want Godly, Christian men back in church? Then make it a place that's not only hospitable to them; make it a place they want to be! Ah, but that won't happen, as the majority of pastors, deacons, and elders want to please the women. Again, they know where their bread is buttered.
We see this attitude all through Christianity. For example, there was a Christian film some years ago, called "Fireproof". It was about a Christian couple having marital problems. Do you know what? The husband was portrayed as the bad guy-what a surprise! The couple's problems were all Hubby's fault. This completely glossed over the reality that, when a relationship has problems, that both parties are at fault; it may not be an exact, 50/50 split, but it's a split nonetheless. When there are relationship problems, both the man and woman are culpable. That's just the way it is.
Point #2 is that Christian women aren't that different from their worldly counterparts. They've adopted the same, feminist values. They pursue degrees and careers just as secular women do. They have the same attitudes, dress, and demeanor. Oh, and if you, as a Christian man, even HINT at submission (the role of a Godly wife), LOOK OUT! They'll bristle at the notion just like any secular, feminist woman would. Christian women do precious little to differentiate themselves from their secular counterparts. Well, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, any thinking man will assume that he's dealing with a duck-DUH!
Finally, the divorce rate among Christians is HIGHER than it is among secular people; that's a SHAMEFUL TRAVESTY! Even so, that was Barna's findings when studying the question of divorce in the church. A more recent study by a university confirmed Barna's findings; I believe it was Baylor that did the study, but I can't recall for sure. In any case, divorce among Christians occurs more often than it does for non-Christians. That's just the way it is. Furthermore, even if someone wants to dispute those findings, one cannot dispute this: divorce happens all too often in the church, when it ought to be a rarity. After all, aren't Christians called to be the light of the world? Aren't we called to be better than the world? How can we do either of the above when we don't LIVE any better than the world?
Now, as a man, divorce concerns me. Why? One, because my life will be WRECKED by it, for one! I'll lose the house, the kids, everything. Wifey will keep the house, while I keep the mortgage payment for the house I'm no longer allowed to live in. I'll be saddled with child support and possibly alimony too. After all that, I might end up HOMELESS! Two, women file for divorce 80% the time; if they're college educated, then they file for divorce 90% of the time. The family courts, where divorces are adjudicated, are overwhelmingly biased against men. Anyway, as the old country song goes, Mama got the gold mine, while Daddy got the shaft. Sorry, but marriage offers few, if any, benefits for a man.
Before I continue, there's a Christian man who's MGTOW; that's men going their own way for the uninitiated. He's a YouTuber who talks about Christianity, marriage, MGTOW, and how they relate to the Bible. His channel is is called "Whirlwind MGTOW", and I'd encourage you to watch some of his videos. BTW, Whirlwind MGTOW married a Christian woman from his church, and she divorced him after 10 years of marriage. Though he doesn't make videos very often anymore, he has a lot of older ones that are still up; for those pondering where the good, Christian men are, I'd admonish you all to watch his videos, and for you to listen to what he says. Those are the elephants in the room that NO ONE in the church wants to talk about! However, if you want Christian men back in the church, let alone willing to marry, you'd better listen to him; many of us have the same concerns, concerns that are all too often ignored.
Now, that leads me to ask some questions. WHY would I, as a man, want to marry? What does it offer me? Oh, I have a righteous outlet for my sexual desire? Oh, please! All too often, wives deny their husbands intimacy, especially after the kids come. Why on Earth would I, as a man, want to be celibate within marriage? Why would I want to have all the responsibilities and obligations of a husbands, while enjoying none of the benefits? Why would I want to risk being homeless, because my now ex wife eviscerated me in the divorce? I could go on, but you get my point.
In closing, many Christian men have concerns, concerns that the church has ignored. One, there are no good, solid, Godly churches in my area; all of them obsequiously followed gov't mandates to close during COVID. How do I know? Because none made the news, that's why! Two, the church is feminine, and it bashes men. When I get that in the world, WHY would I want to get more of it in church too? Three, most Christian women are little different than their secular counterparts; whether it's in terms of dress, demeanor, conduct, lifestyle, or conversation, it's almost impossible for a Christian man to discern which women are Christians vs. those who are not. Finally, divorce occurs more often in the church than it does the world. That being the case, WHY would I want to have an even greater chance of having my life destroyed by divorce? Why would I marry someone from within the church? If the risk were negligible, that would be one thing; unfortunately, according to Barna, divorce happens more often within the church than without. Hence, I'm single, and I plan on remaining that way. Those are my thoughts.
I have to comment on the Bud Light Brouhaha; I have to comment on their decision to use a TRANNY as their front person! Since Dylan Mulvaney is a guy (that's how he came into this world anyway; he has both an X and Y chromosomes), do I call him Bud Light's front man? Since he's pretending to be a woman, do I call "her" a front woman? What about being politically correct, and calling IT Bud Light's front person? I don't know.
I'm no marketing person. I've never taken a class in it, though I would like to read and learn more about it. That said, I do possess common sense; I know what not to do. One thing I know is that the customer is always right; that's Rule #1 for any business! Rule #2 says, when in doubt, refer to Rule #1. Another elementary tenet of marketing is DO NOT piss off your customers! Do not anger them. That goes double for your core customers, the ones who buy your brand no matter what, the ones who grab your product without thinking about it.
What Mrs. Alyssa Heinerscheid (actually Alyssa Gordon Heinerscheid), the real WOMAN of genius behind the tranny campaign, has managed to do is ALL the above! She insulted and upset the core customers of Bud Light. Actually, Miss Heinerscheid is the VP of Marketing for Bud Light. SHE is the one behind Bud Light's tranny campaign! Get a load of her arrogance and condescension in this video here. This is just breathtaking to watch.
For those of you who don't know, Mrs. Heinerschied is a woman of privilege. She attended the Groton School, an exclusive, college prep school for grades 8-12 in Groton, MA. She then went to Harvard to get her BA in English Literature. She got her MBA at Wharton, Penn's b-school. That is to say she attended Ivy League schools, hotbeds of both Wokeism and privilege. Does she even know who Bud Light's core customers are? Has she ever sat down to have a beer with them? I think we all know the answers to those questions-a resounding NO!
There's a rumor on the web saying that Anheuser-Busch senior management didn't know about this marketing campaign, and that it was the decision of a low level staffer. Really? Would you call any corporate vice president a low level staffer? Would you call Bud Light's VP of Marketing, the aforementioned Mrs. Heinerscheid, a low level staffer? I think not!
Furthermore, senior management at AB InBev, the company that owns Anheuser-Busch and its associated brands, had to know about this marketing campaign. Not only that, they ordered it. How do I know? Why, Mrs. Heinerscheid told us so! Watch the above video again, please. At 16 seconds in, Mrs. Heinerscheid says that she had "this super clear mandate"-her words, nobody else's! Keep that in mind.
What is a mandate? It's an order, isn't it? Dictionary.com defines the word (def #3) as "an authoritative order or command". It's an order from on-high, an order from someone or some entity in authority, is it not? Who would be in authority over Mrs. Heinerscheid, hmmm? Who could give her these real clear mandates? Who would be in position to issue orders and mandates to her, the VP of Marketing for Bud Light? Wouldn't that be senior management at AB InBev? OF COURSE SENIOR MANAGEMENT ISSUED THE ORDER FOR THIS BS! To claim anything to the contrary is naive.
I'd like to say that I'll boycott Budweiser and Bud Light, but I can't; I don't drink their piss water identifying itself as beer. I haven't consumed a drop of that piss water in ages! Seriously, it's bad. That said, the parent company of Bud, Bud Light, and Anheuser-Busch is a globalist, Belgian conglomerate known as AB InBev. They own hundreds of beer brands, including Becks, Modelo, and Corona, among many others. The list is included for those of you who want to cast your dollar votes with anyone besides AB InBev.
I can't remember this big a marketing screw-up since the New Coke of the mid 1980s. I dare say this one is much bigger, because Coca-Cola at least didn't insult and intentionally try to anger their customers. This botched abortion could do in Bud Light as a brand-not that that would be a big loss. As I said above, Bud and Bud Light are piss water masquerading as beer. Will Bud Light become the next Stroh's? I remember when Stroh's was a big thing; they were the third largest brewer behind Anheuser-Busch and Miller. They were everywhere! Unfortunately, because Stroh's overextended; because they tried to grow too much, too fast; they no longer exist. Will Bud Light follow their fate? It has the potential to do so. I guess we'll see soon enough though. Have a good day... :)
I've wanted to post things about the new, blockbuster movie, Top Gun: Maverick. That said, I wasn't sure of where I wanted to go with these posts, nor was I sure about how to get there-wherever "there" is. With that in mind, I'm going to start off with some of the characters. Since Maverick is the driving force, I thought I'd start with him.
First of all, it's readily obvious from the DarkStar scene on that Maverick is different. He still does things his way; he still bristles at his superiors' orders; he still schemes to find ways around said orders; IOW, he's still a maverick, which is why we love him. That said, Mav doesn't do what he does to be selfish, as he did in the first movie; no, what I like about the older, more mature Maverick is his focus on others.
Some reviewers on YouTube, a pair of former fighter pilots, said that they couldn't understand why the DarkStar scene was in TGM; they didn't think it had anything to do with the plot, let alone advance the it. I beg to differ; I think that the DarkStar scene does a lot for the movie, particularly with respect to character development.
After Maverick leaves what is the ULTIMATE bachelor pad (the Airstream trailer in an aircraft hangar with a P-51 Mustang and some hot bikes!), he arrives at the DarkStar hangar. There, he finds the crew, led by his right hand man, Chief Warrant Officer Hondo Coleman, with long faces. When Maverick asks them what's wrong, they inform him that Rear Admiral Cain, who they call the Drone Ranger, is seeking to kill the DarkStar to use the funds for his unmanned program. Maverick then says with that roguish smile of his, "Well, he isn't here yet! They want Mach 10? Let's give 'em Mach 10." As I said, Maverick is still the same guy we all know and love.
Now, before I continue, programs like the fictional DarkStar have milestones in their contracts; that is, they have to meet the overall goal in steps. For example, when Maverick went to fly the DarkStar in Top Gun: Maverick, they were slated to fly Mach 9; that was their test point for that flight. As Maverick pointed out, the Mach 10 milestone was two months away. In other words, had they met that milestone for that flight (Mach 9), then, per the contract, it couldn't be killed-not by a Rear Admiral, anyway. The program would've been good to continue. But then, we wouldn't have had the movie, would we?
After prepping for the mission, Maverick is taxiing to the runway for takeoff. As he positions himself on the runway, RADM Cain arrives. Hondo informs him of this; he tells his friend, Maverick, that it's not too late to stop, and that he knows what'll happen to him if he continues the flight. Maverick then says something that made me really love the guy in a way I couldn't in the original Top Gun: "I know what happens to everyone else if I don't," meaning his colleagues and friends will be out of a job if he stops the flight. Hence, I think that this scene was necessary to establish Maverick's focus on and concern for others. This concern for others will continue to manifest itself throughout the rest of the film. Before I continue, here's the DarkStar scene from TGM.
Maverick takes off. During climbout, he buzzes the Admiral! You can see that at 2:39 in the above video clip. After going aloft in the DarkStar, a couple of other things become obvious: 1) Maverick still isn't over Goose's death decades after the fact; and 2) he still likes to push things. At 4:37 in the above video, Maverick says, "Talk to me, Goose." At 6:12, when Mav reaches Mach 10, Hondo says, "Don't do it, don't do it,", Maverick says, "Just a little push," as he presses beyond Mach 10. My reaction was: he CAN'T HELP himself! He has to push; he's the same old Maverick we know and love. You know what happens next: DarkStar disintegrates, and Maverick dodges death yet again.
Before continuing, I'd like to make a comment about that. Physicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson said that, had Maverick ejected at Mach 10, there'd be nothing left of him; he wouldn't have survived. That's true if he ejected only in the seat; if he just ejected in the seat, he'd turn to mist at those speeds If, on the other hand, there was a crew escape pod that separated from the aircraft in an emergency, then Maverick could've survived.
The next instance where we see Mav's concern for others is when he's chewed out for breaking the hard deck and doing his Cobra maneuver while he and Rooster were going at it. After Admiral Bates asked Mav what he thought he was teaching the students, Mav said that they still had things to learn. Cyclone says that he's talking about the best fighter pilots on the planet; Maverick counters that they've been told that their entire careers, and that they'd had little or no dogfighting experience; that is, Maverick is thinking of everything his students are likely to face, and he's preparing them accordingly. After Vice Admiral Simpson says that the pilots know and accept the risks of their upcoming, dangerous mission, Maverick says that he doesn't accept the risks; Mav wants to give his students all the tools they need to make it home alive. These are two additional important instances where Maverick expresses concerns for others-in this case, his students.
It's in this scene (where Mav is chewed out) where we see the old Maverick and his desire to always push, to always do things his way. After Cyclone yells at Maverick about breaking the hard deck, Maverick places the written request to change the hard deck, so as to accurately simulate the upcoming mission parameters. The scene ends with Admiral "Warlock" Bates admonishing Maverick about his timing. Admiral Bates was in Maverick's corner the whole time, even if he wasn't obvious about it. This scene is below.
The next instance where Mav shows his concern with others is when he's talking with Penny post coitus. She asked him what happened with Rooster. Mav explained how Goose's wife, Carole (i.e. Rooster's mother), didn't want her son flying after Goose was killed, and how he'd promised her before she died that he would honor her wishes. Penny asked if Rooster knew that, and Mav said, "He'll always resent me for what I did. Why should he resent her too?" IOW, Mav took all of Rooster's anger, resentment, and upset to protect the now deceased wife of his old friend, Goose; he was protecting Carole and her relationship with Rooster.
When Maverick was brought back to Top Gun, it was to solely teach and prepare the pilots for the mission; they didn't want him flying the mission. Because he's concerned about his students, Maverick wants to do more than teach them; he wants to lead the mission. Cyclone and Warlock aren't keen on this idea. After Iceman, Maverick's friend and guardian, died, Cyclone wasted no time in grounding Maverick after almost gleefully informing him that he'll be taking over the training.
Before I continue, I need to set up the next stage of the story. After Maverick was grounded, he went to see Penny. Penny, who's been plugged in to the Navy all her life (she was the Admiral's daughter), had heard about Mav being grounded. While I'll have more to say about Penny; while I'll be devoting a separate post to her; I like how she's empathetic, supportive, allows Mav to be vulnerable, all while giving him a gentle nudge to find a way back on his own. I love how she reminds him of how he cares for his pilots, and that he'll never forgive himself if anything happens to them. The moviegoer can clearly see how crushed Maverick is that he can no longer teach and look after his students. Unlike Charlie in the original Top Gun, I like how Penny is there for him. She's a good woman, and though she's not perfect, I like her. This scene was one of the most touching in the movie; it tears me up every time I see it. After this scene, he shows that the mission can be done.
After Penny supported and encouraged Maverick, he demonstrates more concern for others-in this case, his students. We see VADM Simpson, aka Cyclone, informing the students that Maverick is no longer their instructor, and that he's taking over the training. He tells them that the time to target is four minutes, and that they won't be having to do the low level ingress with the high G pullout after dropping their bombs. The students look like, "WTF, is this guy trying to get us killed?" While they'd been challenged by Maverick all through their training; while he'd been hard on them; they could clearly see the wisdom of why he'd been hard on them. At this point, Maverick, in a borrowed (or stolen?) F-18, entered the range, and showed the students that yes, the mission could be done; not only that, it could be done in record time. A great leader doesn't just tell you something can be done; a great leader DOES it! I like how Maverick, with nothing left to lose here, made a last ditch effort to remain their instructor and hopefully lead the mission. I love how Mav lays it on the line for his students here. Again, he's focused on others, not himself.Maverick, of course, was successful in his gambit to be mission commander. The two final instances of Maverick demonstrating his concern for others are leading the team into battle, then taking a missile for Rooster. We can see Maverick's willingness to die when he says goodbye to his right hand man and friend, Hondo. Those scenes are below.What I like about Maverick (among many things!) is that he not only went on the mission; he led from the front! That's what all great leaders do; they're the point of the spear. How can his team not be inspired by that?Here's the bombing run scene; my apologies for the overlap between this clip and the one above. Finally, here's Maverick taking a missile to save Rooster; here, he made the ultimate sacrifice. Finally, I have to insert the scene where Maverick and Rooster meet up on the ground; it's such a PERFECT man/dad moment! Rooster stuck around, saved Maverick's life, then got shot down doing it. Maverick ran over to Rooster. After he made sure that Rooster was all right, Mav then shoved him into the snow. It also reiterates that Maverick took the missile for Rooster, so Rooster could make it back to the carrier. I love how Rooster throws Maverick's words back at him; he reminded Maverick that he said not to think. Mav's facial expression is, "Oh yeah, I said that..." Of course, this isn't the end of the movie, but this post isn't a recap of the movie; it's about how the older, more mature Maverick is focused on others, and how he repeatedly demonstrated that throughout the film. I must say that I really love the older, more mature Maverick; I love how he became the best version of himself in Top Gun: Maverick.
And yes, I LOVE this movie! I dare say it's the best movie I've seen in ages. I also think that it's one of the few sequels that not only equaled the original; it exceeded it. It joins a rare group of movies such as The Godfather: Part II or The Empire Strikes Back.
In the near future, I plan on doing separate posts on Penny, Hondo, Iceman, Hangman, Rooster, Warlock and Bob. I may do one on Cyclone too. Have a great day!
Below is a comment I left on Stuart Fililingham's recent video about being shadow banned for questioning the climate change narrative. That video can be found here. A Ross Jones left a typical, arrogant ad hominem comment about climate change. His comment is pinned at the top of the video's comments, so it'll be easy to find. Below is Mr. Jones' comment, along with my rebuttal. Mr. Jones' comment is in colored text, while mine is in the regular color.
------------------
Science has only recently confirmed that human activity is the main cause of global warming. It’s not about “activists” any longer but a joined up confirmation and acceptance of science. Us general citizens have to make our decisions based upon prevailing scientific thinking and as I said scientists took a long time to prove unarguably that “we” are the cause of global warming. Sadly this will have a negative impact on motorcycling as we know it. I too am affected but I choose to accept good science. Personally I think you should avoid topics you know very little about. I’d rather enjoy the last days of the internal combustion engine used by motorcycles while we can. The next generation will be riding electric machines or something similar. Get back to the core topic of your channel for the sake of us viewers, and for you too. Start another channel if you need a platform for your political views…or many like me will be unsubscribing.Mr. Jones, many of us are suspicious of the climate change narrative and its proponents for good reason. One is the Univ. of East Anglia emails. Two, scientists won't share their data or how they got them, even those their findings are used to craft public policy. Three, natural phenomena affecting climate are never, ever discussed. Why is that? If we want to understand a problem; if we want to define it (the necessary step of the scientific method); then how can we apply the right solutions to said problem? Finally, why use such a nebulous, imprecise, and unclear term such as climate change?
Mr. Jones, many of us are suspicious of the climate change narrative and its proponents for good reason. One is the Univ. of East Anglia emails. Two, scientists won't share their data or how they got them, even though their findings are used to craft public policy. Three, natural phenomena affecting climate are never, ever discussed. Why is that? If we want to understand a problem; if we want to define it (the necessary step of the scientific method); then how can we apply the right solutions to said problem? Finally, why use such a nebulous, imprecise, and unclear term such as climate change?
FIrst of all, there was the climate change email scandal at the University of East Anglia back in November of 2009. Hackers got a hold of emails from the university's Climate Research Unit, and posted them to the Internet. The crux of these emails was that research data had been fudged, because the real data showed that the climate wasn't changing; if anything, they showed that Earth is cooling! Those who are proponents of the climate change narrative said that the emails were taken out of context; they said that they were misinterpreted. Even if this were true, WHY didn't the university share its data? Why weren't they transparent? Do you see how even the APPEARANCE of impropriety would make one question the university's findings?
Second of all, climatologists are reluctant to share their data and their findings with the world at large. Why is that? Why not be transparent with their findings? For example, the noted American professor and climatologist, Michael Mann, when he was at the University of Virginia, put out some findings saying that climate change was real. A group skeptical of his findings requested his data. He refused. They had to SUE him in court, and even then, the data weren't shared! Shouldn't we, as taxpayers, i.e. people who pay Mann's salary and fund his university, be allowed to see these data? Since public policy is being crafted as a result of these findings supporting climate change; since these policies will impact our lives in unforeseen and profound ways; shouldn't we see them? Why are they being hidden if they're legitimate, hmmm? Care to answer THAT, Mr. Jones?
Thirdly, am I the only one who's noticed that, within the climate change debate, that natural phenomena impacting climate are NEVER discussed? You know that, when volcanoes erupt, that they spew MILLIONS of tons of debris in the atmosphere, right? Do you know that this debris can impact weather and climate? For example, the Mount Tambora eruption of 1815 was so severe that it resulted in the year with no summer; there was no summer in 1816, which was responsible for the Irish potato famine back in the 19th Century. But wait, there's MORE!
Did you know that sunspots impact our climate? Sunspots affect the radiation and energy that reaches the Earth. This energy is an important driver of weather and climate. Solar cycles last 11 years. Shouldn't we be researching the sun's impact on our weather and climate, so as to understand its role in climate change? Here, NASA acknowledges and admits that we don't really understand the sun's impact on Earth and its climate: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/solar-events-news/Does-the-Solar-Cycle-Affect-Earths-Climate.html. Ah, but wait, there's STILL MORE!
Do you know that undersea volcanoes exist? Why wouldn't they, when we have volcanoes on land? Do you know that many of these undersea volcanoes erupt continuously? Do you know that they stream lava, or hot, liquified rock? You know that this heats up the ocean right? This, in turn, affects La Nina and El Nino. You know that both La Nina and El Nino impact both weather and climate right? Why aren't undersea volcanoes ever discussed when talking about climate change?
Mr. Jones, have you ever heard of the scientific method? It's the process used for understanding natural laws, crafting hypotheses, creating theories, conducting research, etc. IIRC, there are seven steps, but I want to focus on the first one, as it's the most critical step; get the first step wrong, the rest of your work will be wrong. The first step of the scientific method is to define the problem. What is it? What is it not? How does it manifest itself? When does it manifest itself? Under what circumstances does the problem occur? And so on. If this step isn't performed correctly, then everything else done afterward is faulty; blow it here, and all subsequent research is useless! The first step of the scientific method is analogous to a building's foundation; it is essential to get both right.
With that in mind, why AREN'T natural phenomena being discussed WRT climate change? Don't these phenomena affect the climate? Since they affect the climate, shouldn't we understand them? Shouldn't they be part of defining the problem of climate change? If we, as a people, are to craft good solutions to climate change, shouldn't we understand all the variables first? By ignoring them, aren't we negatively impacting and distorting all subsequent research that follows the essential step of defining the problem? What do all these natural phenomena have in common, Mr. Jones? Man cannot control them! There's nothing humanity can do about sunspots, volcanoes, or undersea volcanoes.
Finally, why is such a nebulous, imprecise, and unclear term like "climate change" even used? I'm old enough to remember when this was first called global cooling back in the 1970s. Then, during the 1980s, it was called global warming. When that warming didn't happen, it was then called climate change. The climate is ALWAYS changing-DUH! It's called the four seasons: winter, spring, summer, and fall. Again, if we're to really understand and define any problems with Earth's climate, shouldn't we use precise terms as part of that understanding?
Mr. Jones, you said that you believe and follow "good science", right? In light of what I've pointed out, does climate change science look like good science to you? Does good science hide their data and findings? Does good science ignore ALL variables affecting a process, such as the Earth's weather and climate? Does good science refuse to acknowledge, let along understand, all variables, such as natural phenomena impacting Earth's climate?
To recap, many of us are suspicious of the climate change narrative and its proponents for good reason. One is the Univ. of East Anglia email scandal. Two, scientists won't share their data or how they got them, even those their findings are used to craft public policy. Three, natural phenomena affecting climate are never, ever discussed. Why is that? If we want to understand a problem; if we want to define it (the necessary step of the scientific method); then how can we apply the right solutions to said problem? Finally, why use such a nebulous, imprecise, and unclear term such as climate change?
