Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Wanted: Husband

Not a new one. The one she already had.

Posted on Craigslist's "Rants and Rave's:"

i want my husband back

Date: 2012-05-30, 11:12PM EDT
Reply to:

I suppose I just need to rant. I'm severely saddened by my husband leaving me. I still look at old photos and things that bring back memories. I cuddle every night with the teddy bear he got me. I messed up bad. I was rude, uncaring, unloving, and I went off the handle often. Not to say I wasn't good often too (making dinner, cleaning the house, dates, etc..), but slowly the good faded. I was a monster. I wish I had a time machine to show him how I really feel about him. Show him how much I truely love him. I miss our life together. He left me on chrismas eve. And trust me, he is NOT coming back. What to do?

Friday, May 25, 2012

This is How It. Is. Done.

They announce a big investigation. It takes years. Its quietly closed. No one goes to jail. The criminals abscond with their millions. EFF YOU.

Lying about the value of something when you are a financial business is a big deal: its called FRAUD.

And they all WALKED.



Friday, May 18, 2012

Gee, You Mean The People Have Rights?

Understand this: Being a cop sucks. People watch you constantly, criminals want to kill you and everyone's ready to judge you. Furthermore, think of what its like for someone to tape you while you do your job. Yeah. And capture every mistake you make. 

That said, tough crap, police departments of this country. The only recourse the people have against the cops becoming dictatorial is the court system and the courts will only believe one thing: physical evidence. Cops carry batons and guns for protection.


Police Efforts to Ban Citizen Taping Beaten Back by Department of Justice

Jason Mick (Blog) - May 17, 2012 1:11 PM

Feds back ACLU in arguing that taping is necessary to prevent police brutality; some cops disagree

Depending on their perspective, U.S. citizens may feel as if they have wandered into one of the "police states" that litter cautionary literary tales like 1984.  Today in the U.S. police officers can arrest you for dancing or break down your door and arrest you and your family at gunpoint for whatever malicious wrongs your neighborhood cybersquatter has committed.  And then there's the growing levels of domestic surveillance -- warrantless wiretaps, cell phone data grabbingGPS tracking"national security letters", and more.  Audits have revealed that these Orwellian privileges can be and often are abused.

The Obama administration has drawn some flak for supporting some of these intrusions -- such as warrantless wiretaps and warrantless GPS tracking -- in the name of "fighting terrorism (the Obama administration was admonished by the Supreme Court on the latter issue).  Still, for supporting such zealous federal surveillance provisions, the Obama administration did take a rather progressive stand on Monday, looking to stomp out local and state officials efforts to ban civilians from taping on duty law enforcement officers.

I. Department of Justice -- Citizens Have a Right, Responsibility to Tape Cops

The issue of citizens taping the police is a thorny one -- particularly if you're a cop.  While some police officers support the practice, others claim it prevents their law enforcement abilities.  Whether or not the latter claim is true, it's clear that video tapes of U.S. cops brutalizing civilians [example] -- at times beating them to death [example] -- have placed some cops in a load of trouble when the videos found their way to YouTube or other popular sites.

Many police fraternities and police departments have fought to ban the "right to tape".  They argue that they don't need citizens to fight police brutality -- that they'll manage their own affairs internally.  Some departments have gone as far as to invading the homes of citizens who taped them operating on the street or imprisoning citizens who record them.

Police attacking
Some police argue that citizens taping them prevents them from doing their job.
[Image Source: Occupy News Network]

The Baltimore Police Department (BPD) was one of the departments that fought to silence members of the public, seizing their cameras and trying to prosecute them.  But a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) forced the department to rethink its procedures -- and pay a steep settlement to a citizen whose camera was seized.

While the BPD sent a letter to its officers "clarifying" that civilians had the right to tape, the Obama administration felt that effort was insufficient.  On Monday, U.S. Department of Justice Special Litigation Section chief Jonathan Smith wrote an admonishing letter [PDF] to the department.

In it he recalls how citizen taping helped bring justice in one famous incident of police brutality.  He comments, "A private individual awakened by sirens recorded police officers assaulting King from the balcony of his apartment.  This videotape provided key evidence of officer misconduct and led to widespread reform."

He adds "given the numerous publicized reports over the past several years alleging that BPD officers violated individuals’ First Amendment rights."

Bans on taping also violating the Fourth and Fourteenth amendment, according to Mr. Smith.

He concludes that the department needs to clarify the importance and right to civilian taping, which he argues is necessary to "engender public confidence in our police departments, promote public access to information necessary to hold our governmental officers accountable, and ensure public and officer safety.

II. Letter to Attorney General May Have Spurred Response

The letter comes in the wake of a letter from several journalistic and civil rights organizations to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, pressing him to crack down on local efforts to ban taping.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was encouraged to defend the right to tape in a recent letter.
[Image Source: DOJ]

The groups write:

The First Amendment has come under assault on the streets of America. Since the Occupy Wall Street movement began, police have arrested dozens of journalists and activists simply for attempting to document political protests in public spaces. While individual cases may not fall under the Justice Department’s jurisdiction, the undersigned groups see this suppression of speech as a national problem that deserves your full attention.

The alarming number of arrests is an unfortunate and unwarranted byproduct of otherwise positive changes. A new type of activism is taking hold around the world and here in the U.S.: People with smartphones, cameras and Internet connections have been empowered with the means to report on public events. These developments have also created an urgent need for organizations such as ours to defend this new breed of activists and journalists and protect their right to record.

The "Occupy Wall Street" movement has been fought by numerous state and local governments and become a crucial censorship and civil liberties battlefield in the tech industry.

III. Court of Appeals Forbid Chicago From Suing ACLU or Banning Taping 

More pressure also came earlier this month when the U.S. 7th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in Chicago banned the city from suing the American Civil Liberties Union from audio taping officers on the job.  No, you didn't read that wrong -- in an ironic twist Chicago tried the bold move of turning the tables and suing the ACLU over taping.

In its ruling, the court wrote, "The Illinois eavesdropping statute restricts far more speech than necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests."

The victory came by a narrow 2-to-1 margin.

U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner -- the lone appellate justice who voted to dismiss the ACLU's countersuit -- acknowledged that taping was "more accurate" than relying on recalled conversations, which are often ruled unreliable evidence in court.  But he argued allowing civilians to maintain accountability via taping violates officers’ rights to privacy and could hurt officers’ ability to "perform their duties".  He writes, "These are significant social costs for weighting them less heavily than the social value of recorded eavesdropping."

Police Brutality Police Brutality
Chicago Judge Richard Posner argues that taping cops brutalizing citizens prevents the officers from "doing their job" and invades their privacy.
[Image Sources: Unknown (left); Shepard Fairey (right)]

In response to Judge Posner's minority criticism, the ACLU argues that the only "duties" taping prevents would be orders to brutalize citizens.  The Illinois branch's legal director, Harvey Grossman comments on the victory, "In order to make the rights of free expression and petition effective, individuals and organizations must be able to freely gather and record information about the conduct of government and their agents -- especially the police."

Much like the controversy over corporate intrusions of individual home networks and data mining, the debate over bans and prosecution for civilians who tape cops is unlikely to go away.  It is an issue that divides cities, courts, local officials, and even the police officers themselves.  But much like the issue of corporate surveillance, the Obama administration appears to be increasingly throwing its weight behind a pro-civil liberty stance on this issue, even as it pushes what some would call an anti-civil liberty stance on federal surveillance.

Other appeals courts have issued similar rulings defending the "right to tape".

IV. Both Baltimore and Chicago Have a History of Police Brutality

To put this debate in context, it is important to note that both the Chicago Police Department and the Baltimore Police Department have a reputation for police brutality.

The BPD is under scrutiny for spending $10.4M USD in the past three years ($3.5M USD annually) to defend its officers against allegations of brutality and wrongdoing.  This week the latest in a string of internal affairs investigations of the department led to the suspension and criminal arrest of a BPD officer.

Chicago also has spent millions to defend allegedly crooked cops, keeping them on its payroll.  Citizens of Chicago were protesting in the streets this week in the streets over alleged police brutality.  While not all locals are fans of the protests, some argue it is necessary.  An anonymous resident told Fox News Chicago, "I'm glad they got a march because the police are crazy out here.  They come out here roughing us up ... sending innocent people to jail."

Chicago PD
Chicago has nearly 700 active cops with 10 or more reports of brutality or misconduct filed against them. [Image Source: NBC]

The Chicago PD has faced 441 citizen lawsuits and paid out $45M USD in damages over the past three years.  The city has successfully fought to prevent the release of the names of 662 cops who each had 10 or more complaints of misconduct or brutality filed against them.  Most of these cops remain active and prowling the streets.

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Banking Misfits Strike Again: No Surprise

To some extent, this man is spot on - Banks will take risk. So what? Its what they do. JP Morgan lost money on a bad bet. Again, so what? Its the free market. They lose money and that is THEIR PROBLEM. Involving the government is going to result in one thing: private industry trying to bribe to government to set laws and regulations that only help them create a monopoly or pseudo-monopoly in their industry (see Healthcare). Here's the real kicker being missed here: currently, all TBTF banks are BACKED BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD, WHICH IS BACKED BY THE U.S. TREASURY. That's ME. AND. YOU.


These are private people making big money. For whom? For you and me? NO. For themselves. If they win big, they should keep it all. If they lose? THEN THEY SHOULD LOSE IT ALL. CAR, HOUSE, KIDS, I DON'T CARE. Its not my fault or yours,


So currently, SUCK IT, Mr. Scaramucci. These banks are backed by the U.S. taxpayer, so YES, we DO have a say in what they do, risk-wise. We are their CREDITOR. And taking CASINO BETS in wildly complex credit instruments that results in open-ended losses that run into the billions IS OUR BUSINESS.

Monday, May 07, 2012


Young men are lazy and unambitious.

Yeah... but the feedback loop is the catch. And women hold the key.

Not so long ago, the average American man in his 20s had achieved most of the milestones of adulthood: a high-school diploma, financial independence, marriage and children. Today, most men in their 20s hang out in a novel sort of limbo, a hybrid state of semi-hormonal adolescence and responsible self-reliance. This "pre-adulthood" has much to recommend it, especially for the college-educated. But it's time to state what has become obvious to legions of frustrated young women: It doesn't bring out the best in men.

"We are sick of hooking up with guys," writes the comedian Julie Klausner, author of a touchingly funny 2010 book, "I Don't Care About Your Band: What I Learned from Indie Rockers, Trust Funders, Pornographers, Felons, Faux-Sensitive Hipsters and Other Guys I've Dated." What Ms. Klausner means by "guys" is males who are not boys or men but something in between. "Guys talk about 'Star Wars' like it's not a movie made for people half their age; a guy's idea of a perfect night is a hang around the PlayStation with his bandmates, or a trip to Vegas with his college friends.... They are more like the kids we babysat than the dads who drove us home." One female reviewer of Ms. Kausner's book wrote, "I had to stop several times while reading and think: Wait, did I date this same guy?"
For most of us, the cultural habitat of pre-adulthood no longer seems noteworthy. After all, popular culture has been crowded with pre-adults for almost two decades. Hollywood started the affair in the early 1990s with movies like "Singles," "Reality Bites," "Single White Female" and "Swingers." Television soon deepened the relationship, giving us the agreeable company of Monica, Joey, Rachel and Ross; Jerry, Elaine, George and Kramer; Carrie, Miranda, et al.
But for all its familiarity, pre-adulthood represents a momentous sociological development. It's no exaggeration to say that having large numbers of single young men and women living independently, while also having enough disposable income to avoid ever messing up their kitchens, is something entirely new in human experience. Yes, at other points in Western history young people have waited well into their 20s to marry, and yes, office girls and bachelor lawyers have been working and finding amusement in cities for more than a century. But their numbers and their money supply were always relatively small. Today's pre-adults are a different matter. They are a major demographic event.
What also makes pre-adulthood something new is its radical reversal of the sexual hierarchy. Among pre-adults, women are the first sex. They graduate from college in greater numbers (among Americans ages 25 to 34, 34% of women now have a bachelor's degree but just 27% of men), and they have higher GPAs. As most professors tell it, they also have more confidence and drive. These strengths carry women through their 20s, when they are more likely than men to be in grad school and making strides in the workplace. In a number of cities, they are even out-earning their brothers and boyfriends.
WHY GROW UP? Men in their 20s now have an array of toys and distractions at their disposal, from videogames and sports bars to 'lad' magazines like Maxim, which makes Playboy look like Camus.
Still, for these women, one key question won't go away: Where have the good men gone? Their male peers often come across as aging frat boys, maladroit geeks or grubby slackers—a gender gap neatly crystallized by the director Judd Apatow in his hit 2007 movie "Knocked Up." The story's hero is 23-year-old Ben Stone (Seth Rogen), who has a drunken fling with Allison Scott (Katherine Heigl) and gets her pregnant. Ben lives in a Los Angeles crash pad with a group of grubby friends who spend their days playing videogames, smoking pot and unsuccessfully planning to launch a porn website. Allison, by contrast, is on her way up as a television reporter and lives in a neatly kept apartment with what appear to be clean sheets and towels. Once she decides to have the baby, she figures out what needs to be done and does it. Ben can only stumble his way toward being a responsible grownup.
So where did these pre-adults come from? You might assume that their appearance is a result of spoiled 24-year-olds trying to prolong the campus drinking and hook-up scene while exploiting the largesse of mom and dad. But the causes run deeper than that. Beginning in the 1980s, the economic advantage of higher education—the "college premium"—began to increase dramatically. Between 1960 and 2000, the percentage of younger adults enrolled in college or graduate school more than doubled. In the "knowledge economy," good jobs go to those with degrees. And degrees take years.

Another factor in the lengthening of the road to adulthood is our increasingly labyrinthine labor market. The past decades' economic expansion and the digital revolution have transformed the high-end labor market into a fierce competition for the most stimulating, creative and glamorous jobs. Fields that attract ambitious young men and women often require years of moving between school and internships, between internships and jobs, laterally and horizontally between jobs, and between cities in the U.S. and abroad. The knowledge economy gives the educated young an unprecedented opportunity to think about work in personal terms. They are looking not just for jobs but for "careers," work in which they can exercise their talents and express their deepest passions. They expect their careers to give shape to their identity. For today's pre-adults, "what you do" is almost synonymous with "who you are," and starting a family is seldom part of the picture.
Pre-adulthood can be compared to adolescence, an idea invented in the mid-20th century as American teenagers were herded away from the fields and the workplace and into that new institution, the high school. For a long time, the poor and recent immigrants were not part of adolescent life; they went straight to work, since their families couldn't afford the lost labor and income. But the country had grown rich enough to carve out space and time to create a more highly educated citizenry and work force. Teenagers quickly became a marketing and cultural phenomenon. They also earned their own psychological profile. One of the most influential of the psychologists of adolescence was Erik Erikson, who described the stage as a "moratorium," a limbo between childhood and adulthood characterized by role confusion, emotional turmoil and identity conflict.

Like adolescents in the 20th century, today's pre-adults have been wait-listed for adulthood. Marketers and culture creators help to promote pre-adulthood as a lifestyle. And like adolescence, pre-adulthood is a class-based social phenomenon, reserved for the relatively well-to-do. Those who don't get a four-year college degree are not in a position to compete for the more satisfying jobs of the knowledge economy.

But pre-adults differ in one major respect from adolescents. They write their own biographies, and they do it from scratch. Sociologists use the term "life script" to describe a particular society's ordering of life's large events and stages. Though such scripts vary across cultures, the archetypal plot is deeply rooted in our biological nature. The invention of adolescence did not change the large Roman numerals of the American script. Adults continued to be those who took over the primary tasks of the economy and culture. For women, the central task usually involved the day-to-day rearing of the next generation; for men, it involved protecting and providing for their wives and children. If you followed the script, you became an adult, a temporary custodian of the social order until your own old age and demise.

Tony Manero (John Travolta) has an unfulfilling job at a hardware store. He really lives for weekend nights ("Watch the hair!") at the disco.
Unlike adolescents, however, pre-adults don't know what is supposed to come next. For them, marriage and parenthood come in many forms, or can be skipped altogether. In 1970, just 16% of Americans ages 25 to 29 had never been married; today that's true of an astonishing 55% of the age group. In the U.S., the mean age at first marriage has been climbing toward 30 (a point past which it has already gone in much of Europe). It is no wonder that so many young Americans suffer through a "quarter-life crisis," a period of depression and worry over their future.

Given the rigors of contemporary career-building, pre-adults who do marry and start families do so later than ever before in human history. Husbands, wives and children are a drag on the footloose life required for the early career track and identity search. Pre-adulthood has also confounded the primordial search for a mate. It has delayed a stable sense of identity, dramatically expanded the pool of possible spouses, mystified courtship routines and helped to throw into doubt the very meaning of marriage. In 1970, to cite just one of many numbers proving the point, nearly seven in 10 25-year-olds were married; by 2000, only one-third had reached that milestone.

American men have been struggling with finding an acceptable adult identity since at least the mid-19th century. We often hear about the miseries of women confined to the domestic sphere once men began to work in offices and factories away from home. But it seems that men didn't much like the arrangement either. They balked at the stuffy propriety of the bourgeois parlor, as they did later at the banal activities of the suburban living room. They turned to hobbies and adventures, like hunting and fishing. At midcentury, fathers who at first had refused to put down the money to buy those newfangled televisions changed their minds when the networks began broadcasting boxing matches and baseball games. The arrival of Playboy in the 1950s seemed like the ultimate protest against male domestication; think of the refusal implied by the magazine's title alone.
In his disregard for domestic life, the playboy was prologue for today's pre-adult male. Unlike the playboy with his jazz and art-filled pad, however, our boy rebel is a creature of the animal house. In the 1990s, Maxim, the rude, lewd and hugely popular "lad" magazine arrived from England. Its philosophy and tone were so juvenile, so entirely undomesticated, that it made Playboy look like Camus.
At the same time, young men were tuning in to cable channels like Comedy Central, the Cartoon Network and Spike, whose shows reflected the adolescent male preferences of its targeted male audiences. They watched movies with overgrown boy actors like Steve Carell, Luke and Owen Wilson, Jim Carrey, Adam Sandler, Will Farrell and Seth Rogen, cheering their awesome car crashes, fart jokes, breast and crotch shots, beer pong competitions and other frat-boy pranks. Americans had always struck foreigners as youthful, even childlike, in their energy and optimism. But this was too much.

What explains this puerile shallowness? I see it as an expression of our cultural uncertainty about the social role of men. It's been an almost universal rule of civilization that girls became women simply by reaching physical maturity, but boys had to pass a test. They needed to demonstrate courage, physical prowess or mastery of the necessary skills. The goal was to prove their competence as protectors and providers. Today, however, with women moving ahead in our advanced economy, husbands and fathers are now optional, and the qualities of character men once needed to play their roles—fortitude, stoicism, courage, fidelity—are obsolete, even a little embarrassing.
Today's pre-adult male is like an actor in a drama in which he only knows what he shouldn't say. He has to compete in a fierce job market, but he can't act too bossy or self-confident. He should be sensitive but not paternalistic, smart but not cocky. To deepen his predicament, because he is single, his advisers and confidants are generally undomesticated guys just like him.
Single men have never been civilization's most responsible actors; they continue to be more troubled and less successful than men who deliberately choose to become husbands and fathers. So we can be disgusted if some of them continue to live in rooms decorated with "Star Wars" posters and crushed beer cans and to treat women like disposable estrogen toys, but we shouldn't be surprised.

Relatively affluent, free of family responsibilities, and entertained by an array of media devoted to his every pleasure, the single young man can live in pig heaven—and often does. Women put up with him for a while, but then in fear and disgust either give up on any idea of a husband and kids or just go to a sperm bank and get the DNA without the troublesome man. But these rational choices on the part of women only serve to legitimize men's attachment to the sand box. Why should they grow up? No one needs them anyway. There's nothing they have to do.
They might as well just have another beer.

Jezebel: Just Say No.

What is the point of I can't figure it out.

Other than being a collection of embittered, post-prime girls with too much intellect and too little practical philosophy, I can't tell who they are or what they want. Whining and mocking, they do nothing but complain that men, and the world does not bend to accommodate them for who they are. They are generally selfish, self-serving, and demanding and immature. The best advice I could give to a young girl who wanted to meet someone and get married would be to go every day and do the opposite of what it is they espouse.

Their latest guffaw:

The Catholic Church Urges Women to Not Be So Darn Picky

The Catholic Church is quite fond of giving women impractical and terrible advice, but one priest in Australia is taking it to a whole new level.

I'm not a big fan of the Catholic Church, but they're not evil for chrissake. Many in the church love helping people and that's what brought them to church in the first place. Priests have some of the highest job satisfaction rates in the country. Further, people go to church VOLUNTARILY. They want stability and direction and they want to stay true to what it is THEY THEMSELVES really want. Fleeting romances, flings, gambling, cheating, stealing, drinking - these things don't make people happy. Few people achieve lifelong happiness by being fickle, selfish, and egotistical. Families are demanding and so are marriages. The church generally tries to tell families to forgive, love and be grateful for what they have. To try to rise above personal greed or fleeting desires. I can't say that's terrible advice. Can you?

New statistics suggest that there are far fewer eligible men in Australia than there are women between the ages of 25 and 34. Cue a marriage crisis! Father Tony Kerin obviously just wants to help ladies live the dream of landing a man for life, so he said on behalf of the Archdiocese of Melbourne,
Are women getting too choosy? I'd say yes. I think many are setting aside their aspirations for later, but by the time they get around to it, they've missed their chance. In trying to have it all, they end up missing out.
Well, you heard the church: LOCK IT IN. Quick, before it's too late and you die alone and miserable—or worse, you have to become a nun.

First off, calm down Ms. Author. Father Kerin didn't demand you get married. Where did you see that? Furthermore, how old is this author? 18? I'm 34 and I can't find a woman who doesn't want to get married! Nearly ALL women want to get married EVENTUALLY. Grown-ups, which the author has not graduated to, apparently, know this - its something that becomes obvious with experience. Furthermore, has the author read any articles in modern day magazines (try The Atlantic) written by WOMEN who are in their early 40s who talk about all the great men THEY passed up to get something just a little "dreamier," and winding up with a 45 year old man, divorced, bankrupt, and trying to make it as an actor?

So let's review to make sure we understand exactly how to follow Kerin's plan: if a girl wants to get married (which obviously she does because what else is there in life?), she shouldn't waste time building a career or trying to find someone who she loves and who makes her happy.

Yes, sweetheart that's right. But let me break it down for you much less gently than the good Father. Men are programmed to see you as a young, healthy breeding platform for their DNA. (see Darwin). Its just a fact of nature. And as you don't want an old, broke man, men don't want a past-their-prime-live-at-work woman. You won't be available for sex or else be tired for it, and your body will become unattractive. Your career means jack-shit to a man. JACK. SHIT. He wants you young, healthy, and sexy. It doesn't mean he doesn't want you as a person; it simply means being you isn't enough; you have to be a good wife too. You're not just roommates with your husband. You will both have expectations and roles. You can have a career. But it is in YOUR best interests to take a SERIOUS interest in men when your appearance is healthy and strong. Get the best guy you can at your peak. Period. Find someone you love? Someone that makes you happy? Grow up. Love is sweet, but marriage is MORE OF AN AGREEMENT. And it requires MAINTENANCE. Love to you is too close to the word "Lust." Its powerful and romantic - THAT DIES. Furthermore, their is no "perfect one." There are multiple "perfect ones," and many imperfect ones and choosing one isn't the hard part; keeping things going is.
Nope, instead she should give up any non-reproduction-related aspirations and be ready to rejoice if any eligible man shows an interest in her. As soon as any guy so much as looks in her general direction, she should do whatever is necessary to make herself into his ideal woman because if she doesn't, someone else will...

He didn't say you should rejoice if a guy shows any interest in you, so this is just you projecting other the Father, but keep it up if it makes you happy. You don't have to be an ideal woman - especially considering your man won't be an ideal man. That said, being available, open minded, accepting and sexy will multiply your marriage prospects ten thousand percent. And yes, if a guy YOU WANT does not find you to be a good potential wife, then he will keep looking and someone else will get him because you were too obsessed with being rigid and selfish. This is a free world. Do as you please; just don't bitch when the world fails to make you happy. You make you happy. No one else. And why would a man want to marry someone so clearly bent on showing him how much she DOESN'T need him?!?!

Further, drop the whole "I don't need or want to get married" crap. If prince charming hoped off his steed tomorrow and begged you for lifelong marriage, you wouldn't complain that you were simply "too busy with your career." The happiest women I know are married, and usually with kids - families are a natural instinct for women to have. The Father wants women to be happy. But that can't be, right? Because you're predetermined that the Catholic Priest is evil?
Oh, and one more thing, never live with the fellow before marriage, because, according to Father Kerin, it means the relationship is twice as likely to end, probably because God is punishing you for being so choosy. Now throw away your standards, ladies, and start turning yourself into marriageable machines who destroy anything blocking their path down the aisle.

What does living with someone have to do with being choosy? And is the Father right? Is the relationship twice as likely to end? Are you avoiding marriage by living with a guy? Truthfully? Women that want to get married share themselves with men of character and are accepting people. But stand your ground, build your career, reject all the men you took too long to find or considered dating, and die alone, PLEASE. Because that way you can prove to the world how right you are.

Friday, May 04, 2012

From NPR

Forty years ago, only 1 in 3 American workers was a woman. Today, it's 1 in 2.
Number Of Women In The Labor Force
You know this already. But it raises interesting, subtler questions: What jobs did all those women get? And how did the gender breakdown change by industry over the past 40 years?
This graph answers those questions.
It shows how the gender breakdown changed in major sectors of the economy between 1972 and 2012.
The size of the circles shows how some sectors grew to include a larger share of the workforce, while others shrank in relative terms.
Breakdown of Percentage of Workers Who Are Women By Industry

Two main themes jump out here.
The percentage of women did increase in some sectors, like government, leisure and hospitality, and financial activities (which includes real estate and insurance as well as financial services).
But the gains for women came not only from changes within sectors, but also from broader job shifts in the economy.
Women do most jobs in health and education — this was true in 1972, and it's still true today. The gender balance has barely changed. But the share of U.S. jobs in this sector has more than doubled — from 7 percent in 1972 to 15 percent today.
Manufacturing is the mirror image of health and education. Men still do most of the jobs in the sector. But the share of total U.S. jobs in manufacturing has fallen sharply — from 24 percent in 1972, to 9 percent today.

Thursday, May 03, 2012

For the Last Time

MODERN DAY women do not want equality. They want their mate to be superior and to pay the bills and they want to have time with their children and their husband - they want to play "house."

The 1970s saw women "rise up!" To overcome and overthrow the oppressive forces "holding them down!" Well they did. They gathered money and power and political influence and laws were enacted to ensure equality in education and employment. Now? Now its over.

It. Is. Over.

Mission Accomplished Ladies. Hell, it was accomplished by 1980, at the very latest.

Modern day women have had copious amounts of control, money, power, education, and success. And when you have everything, what do you do? Typically, you submit. You submit to your instincts, to what truly makes you happy, to what feels right to you, in your life. Furthermore, many MODERN DAY women saw mothers balancing careers and kids in the 70s and early 80s.

The result? Their mothers were a frantic wreck, the family had extra money it blew on material crap it didn't need, and fathers were disappointed to find tired wives who fell asleep early and talked about nothing but work.


So let's just admit it, for chrissake.

Women Don’t Want to Balance Work and Life

Women want more life and less work, and they are willing to sacrifice to get it.
Working women tend to value their personal lives more than professional advancement, according to a new survey from More Magazine. It found that “65% of women say it’s more important to have TIME in their life than to make more MONEY at their job” and “73% say if their boss left her job, they would NOT apply to replace her.” These priorities are trending: “43% say they are LESS AMBITIOUS now than they were 10 years ago,” and “58% say that flexibility is more important to them now than it was 10 years ago.”
I wonder how men would answer the same questions. Is this the mood all over? Is it a result of women finding that jobs aren’t all they were cracked up to be?
Beyond women’s feelings about work, this survey should help bust the stereotype of women as materialistic opportunists who seek mates who can buy them lots of shoes, since 65% of women polled prefer time over money. That should put the canard to rest…but it won’t.