The questions of who should get married to whom and under what circumstances need not be decided by “a liberal democracy,” but by individuals entering into unions and the communities with whom they freely associate. I don’t need an entire democracy to legitimize my relationship with my wife. Our relationship is ours, recognized by our God. All we require from others is the recognition of our rights as individuals, same as if we were single, same as if we were business partners. In the eyes of the law, all that should properly matter is our consent.
What do you you think? Should government get out of marriage altogether?
The Telegraph: Four in five people are embarrassed by their coffee order:
We Brits love a coffee – but a survey has revealed that 80 per cent of us are not ordering what we really want in a coffee shop, for fear of being judged by our fellow coffee drinkers.
Coffees laden with sugar, flavoured syrups or cream seem to cause particular embarrassment, with one in two people (52 per cent) admitting they would be embarrassed to order a cappuccino if their companion chose something stronger, like a double espresso.
The research found that 55 per cent would scorn someone who ordered a sugary or flavoured coffee, while 52 per cent said they would judge people who ordered a complicated or fussy drink.
I just went to the local Starbucks to get some tea: tall, hot peach flavored, herbal with Splenda. No one batted an eye at my order or anyone else’s: coffee, tea or baked goods, no one cared. Heaping scorn on someone for a coffee drink? This is how Brits spend their time?
In modern America, the civil society is being steadily devoured by a ubiquitous federal government. But as the government grows into an increasingly authoritarian and centralized federal Leviathan, many parents continue to tolerate, if not enthusiastically champion, grievous public policies that threaten their children and successive generations with a grim future at the hands of a brazenly expanding and imploding entitlement state poised to burden them with massive debt, mediocre education, waves of immigration, and a deteriorating national defense.
Yet tyranny is not inevitable. In Federalist 51, James Madison explained with cautionary insight the essential balance between the civil society and governmental restraint: “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
This essential new book is, against all odds, a likeminded appeal to reason and audacity—one intended for all Americans but particularly the rising generation. Younger people must find the personal strength and will to break through the cycle of statist manipulation, unrelenting emotional overtures, and the pressure of groupthink, which are humbling, dispiriting, and absorbing them; to stand up against the heavy hand of centralized government, which if left unabated will assuredly condemn them to economic and societal calamity.
Levin calls for a new civil rights movement, one that will foster liberty and prosperity and cease the exploitation of young people by statist masterminds. He challenges the rising generation of younger Americans to awaken to the cause of their own salvation, asking: will you acquiesce to a government that overwhelmingly acts without constitutional foundation—or will you stand in your own defense so that yours and future generations can live in freedom?
As I read these words I wonder what freedom means to a younger generation. Is legalized pot and gay marriage freedom? (Since when is state-sanctioned marriage freedom?) Many Millennials seem to think so. Have they been so indoctrinated that as long as they perceive that freedom is a bong hit away, they will be a docile easily manipulated group? I sometimes think so.
If you hope to avoid divorce, what’s the ideal age to get married? For years, it seemed like the longer you waited to marry, the better. That’s because the relationship between age at marriage and divorce risk was almost linear: The older you were, the lower the chances of divorce. Although teens still face an elevated divorce risk relative to older adults, my analysis of more recent data shows that those who tie the knot after their early thirties are now more likely to divorce than those who marry in their late twenties.
But what was true for decades no longer seems to be the case. I analyzed data collected between 2006 and 2010 from the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG). The trick is to use statistical methods that permit nonlinear relationships to emerge (click here for more information on these methods). My data analysis shows that prior to age 32 or so, each additional year of age at marriage reduces the odds of divorce by 11 percent.
Does the experience of staying unmarried well past the age of 30 somehow make people unfit for a lasting marriage?
However, a new and even more Orwellian fourth layer of government has formed and that is colleges or “Academia.” But whereas the power of employers come from the fact you need a job, Academia’s power comes from the fact you need a degree to even get a job! (or so they say). Ergo, entire futures of young people’s careers are literally balanced in the hands (and whims) of the unelected officials of Academia.
And who are these unelected officials?
Professors, administrators, diversity officers, and other worthless academic bureaucrats who most certainly, if not entirely, hail from the left.
This has resulted in a defacto tyrannical government forcing their own leftist, socialist, feminist, and anti-white anti-male ideology on the unfortunate and unsuspecting student-citizens of Academiaville.
No longer can “Bill” just show up, get his degree in engineering and go on to work for Boeing. No he needs “diversity training” before he can graduate.
No longer can “Amy” just show up, get her degree in accounting, and go work for Peat Marwick. No, she needs to have 20 credit hours in “Corporate Social Responsibility” before she gets her degree.
People seem to get up in arms about “feeling invisible” these days. Many women complain they are invisible or not seen by the opposite sex. Seniors feel that they are often overlooked and treated as invisible. There are even Nationwide insurance commercials depicting Indian actress Mindy Kaling as feeling invisible (hint Mindy, maybe your tendency to push a man’s basketball out of his hand plays a part in them wanting nothing to do with you):
It’s funny but in Obama’s America, most of us are invisible it seems to me. You can blame it on discrimination, sexism, ageism or whatever but I think a good part of it is just plain old incompetence. No one feels like working anymore or feels entitled to be working somewhere better, so they no longer see it necessary to try their best or give good service. Hence they overlook people in stores, restaurants, and in general. Or you have the opposite problem. Doctors and staff are so overworked with paperwork and have so many patients that everyone has become a number and a chart, making it easy to shrug off any real human connection. People complain about feeling invisible and the lack of human compassion but why not embrace being invisible instead?
What do I mean by this? Well, given how little people pay attention to others, a whole new world is open to you if you are willing to engage in a bit of passive-aggressive behavior or even act a bit on the sociopathic side. Is this good for society? No, but it might be a decent way for individuals to behave in order to keep their sanity in a society that devalues individualism.
A few examples. You walk in a store and can’t get anyone to wait on you in the meat department. Before you head there, act like Mindy in the Nationwide commercial above and grab a snack if hungry. Eat the snack in line as you wait for someone to wait on you. If it is a few grapes, you may not be able to pay for it but it is hardly a crime and is to be expected. Sometimes bulk food such as almonds or nuts have places to weigh and get a price you stick on yourself and you can do this if you want the totally honest approach. If it is food with a wrapper, you can just get the cashier to scan it when you check out. The beauty of this approach is that you are full and can stabilize your blood sugar and eat while waiting, meaning that you are not really wasting your time. Just multi-task.
More advice from Delta Man at Alpha Game blog on dating: “Why go out with women of low rank, especially if you feel you are of a much higher rank? Well, you have to start somewhere and if this is who’s interested in you it’s the place to start. You aren’t marrying these women; you are going to go out on a date. If she’s totally a disaster you’ll have a funny story and probably still learn something. When I first went down this path I had some weirdos show up, but got some great stories out of it.”
Maybe if both sexes would just treat people as human beings instead of a rank, things might go better. Or not… Maybe people are just a pack of herd animals with a hierarchy. Depressing, but perhaps true.
My question to the rest of us who can’t stand this system is, what is the alternative?
Average is 5. Repeat average is 5. Did you read that carefully? Average is 5. I have to drill this into your heads because the two mistakes I see men most commonly make in dating is 1) overrating themselves 2) going for women out of their league.
The mean height of 20-29 year olds is ~5’3” and they weigh ~157 pounds. Think about the fact that that is now average. When’s the last time you were interested in a 5’3” 160 pound woman? If you are constantly going after women with a better height to weight ratio you aren’t going after average, you are going after above average which means you have to be above average yourself to have a shot. Don’t like it? Too bad. That’s average. Think that’s too fat for you? Nobody cares about your opinion. Weren’t people thinner in the past? Yes, but it doesn’t change what they are now. Are you telling me to date fat sluts? No, but be aware that if you want better than this YOU HAVE TO BE BETTER TOO.
I have never cared much for rating systems for who people choose to date. After all, people are complex and they are more than the length of their face, how wide set their eyes are and how much they weigh. That said, if the only people one goes after are those who look a certain way–tall and thin etc., it would limit the amount of dates one could get, so maybe Delta Man’s advice stands.
Eva Longoria is speaking out against Donald Trump.
The actress and political activist weigned in on the presidential candidate’s controversial remarks about Mexicans during my keynote interview with her at the National Association of Latino Independent Producers (NALIP) Media Summit luncheon.
“What I don’t think he understands and what people don’t understand is words create emotional poison,” Longoria said. “That’s what they do, they create emotional poison.
“Hitler moved a nation with words, just words,” she continued. “So you have to expect this backlash. If you say something like that, as he has said, you must expect a backlash.”
Longoria said she has been hesitant to comment on Trump because she didn’t want to give him any more attention
If words are so dangerous, then why is it okay to boy bash, male bash and mentally abuse men in our society? Where is the backlash against these harmful words and actions?