Get PJ Media on your Apple

Dr. Helen

I am reading a new book by Don Watkins entitled Rooseveltcare: How Social Security is Sabotaging the Land of Self-Reliance that says “yes, it is.” From the description:

Today we are at a crossroads. America’s entitlement state is threatening to bankrupt us, and new schemes such as ObamaCare are hastening the collapse. What should we do? In this provocative look at America before and after Social Security, Don Watkins argues that the answer is as simple as it is controversial: Abolish the entitlement state, starting with the retirement program that created it. This is not another book for policy wonks about the financial trouble the entitlement state is in. This is the story of the role that Social Security has played in eroding the eagerness, energy and optimism that once defined America. And it is a guide for fighting back.

Social Security erodes our self-reliance: “By seizing a sizable and ever-growing portion of our income, the entitlement state makes self-reliance more and more difficult. Every dollar the government seizes comes at the expense of your hopes and dreams.” Self-reliance, Watkins states, “provided Americans with the greatest possible freedom and incentive to produce. The entitlement state curtails that freedom and dampens those incentives by taxing work and subsidizing non-work.” The book looks at the history of Social Security in the US and how many Americans are worse off because of it.

What is your view of Social Security: Weapon of Mass Destruction or worth the price to those who pay in?

College Men “Going on Strike?”

August 25th, 2014 - 11:07 am

Amy Alkon:

You’ve come a long way, baby — and then gone all the way back and then some.

Ashe Schow writes in the Wash Ex about the fallout from the campus sexual assault hysteria:

Thanks to an increased focus on sexual assaults on college campuses – mostly due to an overblown statistic claiming 20 percent of college women have been sexually assaulted – young college men are starting to rethink how they talk to women.

At first glance that might seem like a good thing – men learning to be more respectful of women and not be so rapey – but that’s not what this is.

This is about men actually avoiding contact with women because they’re afraid a simple kiss or date could lead to a sexual assault accusation.

Bloomberg reporters John Lauerman and Jennifer Surane interviewed multiple men from colleges like Harvard and Stanford who expressed concern over what was once known as a “hook-up culture” but is now labeled by feminists as “rape culture.” The change in terminology ensures that all responsibility is placed on men, just because of their gender.

Take Malik Gill of Harvard University, who said he wouldn’t even give a female classmate a beer.

“I don’t want to look like a predator,” Gill told Bloomberg. “It’s a little bit of a blurred line.”….

As I’ve written before, women used to demand to be treated as equals; now they demand to be treated like eggshells.

Count me out.

Yeah, me too. We will keep hearing the question from women, “where have all the good men gone?” as they live in their cocoons, never understanding that the guys went on strike a while back and many have left for good. Are college women to blame for this? Yes, because as Martin Luther King says: Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. If college women do not understand the injustices they are witnessing against men in our colleges today and strive to help, then they are part of the problem. They reap what they sow.

Are People Becoming Dumber?

August 22nd, 2014 - 2:33 pm

According to the fall in IQ scores, it is certainly a possibility:

Technology may be getting smarter, but humans are getting dumber, scientists have warned.

Evidence suggests that the IQs of people in the UK, Denmark and Australia have declined in the last decade.

Opinion is divided as to whether the trend is long-term, but some researchers believe that humans have already reached intellectual peak…..

The most pessimistic explanation as to why humans seem to be becoming less intelligent is that we have effectively reached our intellectual peak.

Between the 1930s and 1980s, the average IQ score in the US rose by three points and in post-war Japan and Denmark, test scores also increased significantly – a trend known as the ‘Flynn effect’.

Or maybe our school systems and PC Western society just don’t teach people how to think anymore.

52 Things, 52 weeks is a blog where the author describes herself as “Entertainment attorney. IP nerd. Foodie. Coffee lover. Mac enthusiast. Yoga addict. Insomniac. Shutterbug. World traveler.” After reading my recent post, she decides this is the week she will try eating out alone:

Normally when I do something outside of my comfort zone on this blog it involves jumping out of a plane, walking on fire, or plunging into an ice-cold lake. While this week’s post seems mundane by comparison, it actually made me really uncomfortable to think about it. When I saw an article asking “Are You Ashamed to Eat Out Alone?” I decided it was time to mark this one off of the list.

Yes, I’ve grabbed a quick bite here and there by myself before. I have a favorite lunch spot back home that I sneak off to each time I visit and I’ve spent hundreds (probably thousands) of hours studying alone at coffee shops. But I have never gone to a nice restaurant and enjoyed an entire meal alone.

I set up a few ground rules:

How adventurous! Maybe next time, she should take along a copy of Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking just to complete the evening.

Is Suicide Genetic?

August 17th, 2014 - 5:37 am

Some researchers say yes:

No one could have predicted that Oscar-winning comedian Robin Williams would kill himself.

Or could they?

When someone commits suicide, the reaction is often the same. It’s disbelief, mixed with a recognition that the signs were all there. Depression. Maybe talk of ending one’s life.

Now, by studying people who think about committing suicide, as well as brains of people who actually did, two groups of genome researchers in the U.S. and Europe are claiming they can use DNA tests to actually predict who will attempt suicide.

While claims for a suicide test remain preliminary, and controversial, a “suicide gene” is not as fanciful as it sounds.

The problem is that suicide samples are small and I often wonder how much gender plays a role in the lack of studies and data on suicide:

“We seem to be able to predict suicidal behavior and attempts, based on seeing these epigenetic changes in the blood,” says Kaminsky. “The caveat is that we have small sample sizes.”

Kaminsky says that following the report, his e-mail inbox was immediately flooded by people wanting the test. “They wanted to know, if my dad died from suicide, is my son at risk?” he says….

The bigger problem, says Dracheva, is that there are simply not enough brains of suicide victims to study. Unlike studies of diabetes or schizophrenia, where scientists can call on thousands or tens of thousands of patients, suicide studies remain small, and their findings much more tentative.

It’s because they don’t have DNA from enough people who committed suicide that researchers, including those at Hopkins and Max Planck, have had to try connecting the dots between DNA and whether or not people have suicidal thoughts. Yet there’s no straight line between the contemplation of suicide and actually doing it.

Of the more than 38,000 suicides in this country, over 30,000 are by men, yet the suicide studies remain small? Why?


Cross-posted at PJ Lifestyle

Do Women Have More Legal Rights Than Men?

August 14th, 2014 - 6:49 am

Yes, according to Judgy Bitch and here is but one example (thanks to the reader who emailed me the link):

Men may vote if, and only if, they agree they will face death if required. Women have no such obligation, but they do get to vote for the governments that can potentially send men to meet death.

There are other legal rights that women have that men do not that Judgy Bitch lists here.

So says the friend of Robin Williams who was explaining why the actor had to take on roles like Mrs. Doubtfire that he felt were bad for his mental health:

Robin Williams resented having to do a second Mrs Doubtfire film but felt compelled in order to keep money coming in, a close friend of the actor has told the Telegraph.

Williams, who had been working on four projects when he was believed to have taken his own life this week, was said to have been dreading making more films as they “brought out his demons”. …

“Robin had promised himself he would not do any more as he invested so much in his roles that it left him drained and particularly vulnerable to depressive episodes,” the friend told the paper.

“He signed up to do them purely out of necessity. He wasn’t poor, but the money wasn’t rolling in any more and life is expensive when you have to pay off two ex-wives and have a family to support.”

His three children are all of age and his first wife he was divorced from in 1988. It is sad that in his sixties he was still having to take on roles just for a paycheck to pay off two ex-wives. He may not have been a saint, but his life was not his own if he felt forced to take on roles he did not want to possibly provide for grown children or to ex-wives. It appears that even if you are a famous actor, the pressure of being a man in our society and having to provide for others can take its toll. It’s no wonder more men are opting out of marriage for their own mental health for divorce (and marriage) can lead a man to taking on work he would rather not do and other unpleasant duties for a lifetime. Couple this pressure with serious depression and it can end in tragedy.

The Renegade Psychologist

August 11th, 2014 - 10:23 am

Mother Jones has a story on the women of the men’s movement with interviews with some of the women in the movement such as Karen Straughan and Suzanne Venkker among others. Though I declined to be interviewed, I was included and described as a “Renegade Psychologist.” Maybe I should print up some new business cards.

Are You Ashamed to Eat Out Alone?

August 10th, 2014 - 5:47 am

Seriously? This is a question posed to readers in a CNBC article entitled “Eating alone? The new American diner flies solo”:

All by yourself at dinner? You’re in good company. As lifestyles and demographics shift, Americans are emerging as a nation of diners who eat alone.

About 57 percent of eating and beverage occasions now occur when people are by themselves, according to a recent report from The NPD Group, a market research firm. The portion is highest for non-meal occasions (industry speak for snacking) followed by breakfast, lunch and then dinner.

Time constraints, active lifestyles and a record percentage of one-person households are fueling the trend.

Stigma starting to shift

“In the past, there really has been a stigma around eating alone, and it’s started to change over the years,” said Aaron Allen, founder of a restaurant consulting firm, in a phone interview. …

To make them feel at ease, restaurants are shifting their typical service for people eating alone. An extreme example launched in Amsterdam as a pop-up restaurant touted as the first one-person restaurant in the world. Another in Japan proposed a solution—dining with a stuffed animal if eating alone proves to be too lonely.

When I was in grad school, I had a roommate in NYC who loved to eat alone. Once a week or so, she would take a book and head out to a nice restaurant to relax and have a meal by herself. She didn’t want company. Why does society think that people are so ashamed at eating alone that a stuffed animal will help? Nothing like a stuffed animal sitting next to a grown adult to make them feel less conspicuous!

I was glad to see that the poll at CNBC asking readers if they were ashamed to eat alone showed the majority saying “No.” Maybe people don’t need a stuffed giraffe sitting next to them, maybe peace and quiet and a good book or their own company is enough.

Are you ashamed to eat alone at a restaurant?

The New Class Conflict

August 9th, 2014 - 8:28 am

I have been reading Joel Kotkin’s new book The New Class Conflict all week and it is fascinating. From the description:

In ways not seen since the Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century, America is becoming a nation of increasingly sharply divided classes. Joel Kotkin’s The New Class Conflict breaks down these new divisions for the first time, focusing on the ascendency of two classes: the tech Oligarchy, based in Silicon Valley; and the Clerisy, which includes much of the nation’s policy, media, and academic elites.

The New Class Conflict is written largely from the point of view of those who are, to date, the losers in this class conflict: the middle class. This group, which Kotkin calls the Yeomanry, has been the traditional bulwark of American society, politics, and economy. Yet under pressure from the ascendant Oligarchs and ever more powerful Clerisy, their prospects have diminished the American dream of class mobility that has animated its history and sustained its global appeal.

The book has really caused me to think about how classes are forming in our countries in such destructive ways that give rise to social groups of people who benefit both socially and monetarily from the status quo of the current administration to the exclusion of everyone else. The tech people in the Silicon Valley seem oblivious to their own hypocrisy in terms of (not) paying taxes and even the way they treat employees. The Clerisy uses their position to promote propaganda that they see as their civic duty and are rewarded with social status and sometimes with monetary compensation. The middle class loses out but at the same time, it seems that they keep voting in the same losers who are promoting the middle classes’ destruction. It’s a strange psychological cycle, one that is troubling to say the least.