The Virtue of Violence

Check out what Jack Donovan has to say:

http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2011/03/violence-is-golden/

Human Degeneration

When people try to explain human nature under a modern context, I have to remind them that we are not adapted to modern living; we are adapted to ancient living. Those of us who enjoy relative freedom from danger and disease have not adapted to safety but rather degenerated from our previous form.

"One of the basic ideas of evolutionary psychology is that because human evolution occurred over a very long period of time, and then an explosion of technology thrust us into the modern world in a comparatively short period of time (recorded history), humans are more adapted physically and psychologically to the world as it was than they are to the world as it is today." --Jack Donovan 

What is Political Correctness and Why are the Millennials Broken?

Tou Politismou Kai To Sthenos

Jordan's Fifteen Minutes of Notoriety

Implicit associations test (enter at your own risk):
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html

Ms. Granger Speaks

Christina Hoff Sommers, who is featured in the video, is an old-school feminist and philosophy professor. She takes issue with more modern, disruptive feminists, especially when they are malicious and rely on biased reports or unfounded emotions to make their arguments. Some stereotypes of feminists are not true and are undeserved--and some are distinct to Utah--but others are manifest in more vocal segments of the movement which have created the stereotypes. These malicious feminists are known to bully, threaten, and attack their opponents both verbally and physically. Many of them do hate men and hate any woman that defends men. They gather in demonstration at meetings and suppress the freedom of speech and they are destroying college campuses around the Western world. Their arguments are based on emotion and anger rather than logic. Christina Sommers has become one of their targets, though she is a feminist herself.

Let's limit the discussion of the gender gap to Western society for simplicity. (In most other parts of the world there are undisputed atrocities committed against woman because of their gender. We already agree that this is wrong.)

We often see quoted that women in the US make less than men in the workforce--a man earning $1 for every 77 cents that a woman earns. This is true and is an observation based on raw data without accounting for any variables. It is easy to make an assumption and entirely attribute this to the attitudes of a male dominated workforce which suppresses women based on their gender. Reality, as is nearly always the case, is much more complicated. Researchers have identified a multitude of variables that account for this phenomenon. I will list some reasons why men earn more.

Men are more likely to work overtime, weekends, night shift, and to take less leave. They are also more likely to take on hazardous tasks. All of these factors lead to higher pay for "equal work", meaning the same job description. Men are known to be more shrewd in negotiating salaries and raises. When in mixed gender working groups, men tend to be more competitive and women tend to be more submissive. (Interestingly, when men work only with other men they are less competitive and when women work with only other women they are more competitive.) Men are risk takers, which tends to pay off in benefits, and women like security. In terms of job placement, a large section of the highest paying jobs--those in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)--is dominated by men simply because they are more likely to enjoy those jobs and do well at them when women are less likely to do the same. This is not an education gap: it is an interest and aptitude gap.

What is our goal in terms of equality? The wage gap dilemma becomes a preference between equal opportunity and equal outcome. I am of the opinion that if we enforce equal outcomes we are in fact enslaving the population and creating injustice. There is a name for equality of outcome: it is communism. Equal opportunity is the definition of fairness and freedom; running the race is up to individual efforts (not ruling out symbiosis, altruism, and selfless service). Although we all have tendencies, every individual has a choice. We should fight for and protect that choice.

Women in the US have already won equal opportunity in terms of employment as it is illegal to discriminate based on gender or any other protected status. If women want to close the pay gap, they are free to pursue a career in STEM, negotiate higher pay, work some overtime or night shift, earn that raise, or whatever it takes. The women that make these choices receive the benefits; we should not penalize them for their ambition. Is there bias in the workforce? I'm sure there is and for many reasons--and not just against women. It will be difficult to entirely eliminate bias, but we can work toward that end. The biases that have survived do so by being so slight in nature as to be near impossible to prove in a court of law.

Western society is biased against men in many ways. I think feminists would identify with men on these points given the history of their own movement. Policies and culture are difficult to change.

HB 4147

Dear Oregon House Judiciary Committee,

I oppose Oregon HB 4147.

As an Oregonian, I wish to say a few words regarding HB 4147 prior to the hearing that is scheduled for tomorrow, Thursday February 4, 2016.

By denying a critical safety valve in the background check system and giving the Oregon State Police de facto power to permanently cease all sales of firearms either in blanket fashion across the state or for targeted individuals, HB 4147 puts at risk my rights as a citizen of the United States of America and as a resident of Oregon as set forth in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and in the Oregon Constitution, Article 1, Section 27.

When judging the worth of any proposed legislation, I ask myself the following questions:

1) What is the goal of the bill; what is it trying to accomplish?

2) Is the bill capable of achieving its goal?

3) What are some of the unintended consequences of the bill?

4) Do the benefits of the bill outweigh the collateral costs?

5) Are there better ways to achieve the same goal?

In the strict sense, HB 4147 appears to be an attempt to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals in the case when a background check cannot be completed in two days time. Will the bill succeed in this very narrow and limited goal? Absolutely. If we consider the broader goal of the bill--to keep guns out of the hands of criminals--HB 4147 will do little if any good. Intentionally slipping guns through the background check safety valve to a prohibited purchaser is a risky, if not impossible, undertaking with unreliable results. Criminals strongly prefer less risky sources for guns such as straw sales, corrupt FFL dealers, illegal street dealers, or stolen guns among other sources. Simply stated, HB 4147 would not reduce the availability of crime guns.

We already see in the state of Oregon many erroneous purchase denials that deny the rights of law abiding citizens. HB 4147 will result in more erroneous and arbitrary denials of rights. Furthermore, in the worst case scenario, the language set forth in HB 4147 gives unchecked power to the Oregon State Police who would then hold de facto power to shut down all firearm sales in the state by a simple act of omission. A power as great as this should not go unchecked. The safety valve language currently in Oregon law provides a check and a balance to the state police power.

HB 4147 provides a very minuscule and insignificant benefit in its ability to counter gun crime; on the other hand, the unintended consequences of the bill would range from moderate to catastrophic in severity.

How can we better reduce the availability of crime guns? Let's target the major sources identified by the ATF. Law enforcement should work with gun dealers to be able to better identify straw purchasers and comply with laws already in place. Gun dealers that sell guns illegally should be investigated and prosecuted. These are strategies that will make a difference.

As a resident and a voter in the state of Oregon, I ask you to consider my words and these same questions that I have enumerated as they relate to HB 4147 and decide wisely whether you support it.

Please protect my rights to self defense and gun ownership.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Osborne