High Incarceration, Low Incarceration.

In the much touted book Rich Dad Poor Dad -- which has also received quite a bit of criticism over factual errors (see here and here) -- Robert Kiosaki puts forth the importance of understanding cash flow. In essence, it means that the financial state of the individual can be viewed as multiple pools of money connected by pipes. The employer's pocket feeding into the individual's pocket, which in turn feeds the mortgage, the utility bills, et cetera. In order to be wealthy, one must understand that plumbing.

This is not a financial blog, but I wonder what we might have concluded had we applied similar reasoning to the penitentiary system in the United States. Consider the pools of the American people: pre-high-school, high-school, college students, working professionals, the unemployed, criminals at large, prison inmates.

Criminal history, depending on the offence may remain on the ex-inmate for seven years or longer, virtually precluding him or her from landing a decent job. A glass ceiling over impoverished communities becomes a pipe feeding from the pool of the prison inmates back into itself. Throw in some  suction from high-school into the criminal and prison pools, as well as weak economy which is sure to pump some people from the working professional pool into the prison system as well and we get one ugly picture.

The U.S. incarceration rate is comparable to that of the Soviet union during the reign of Joseph Stalin.

"Rape culture" or "Sexual anarchy?"

Today, I want to rant about a, shall we say, interesting article by Jeremy Egerer "The Irrational Modern Woman, Sexual Anarchy and 'Rape Culture.'"

Although the exact message of the piece is a bit amorphous, the author seems to assert a certain dichotomy, an either-or situation faced by  a modern woman of the Western world.

What dichotomy? Well, looks like there is more than one, which is the part that the author could have made clearer. Let's see:

"She demands liberty for all women to portray themselves as sexual objects and then complains when objectified by random men on the street ... She wants men to defend her against lewd sexual advances and then derides men for using terms such as 'slut' while she accepts them."

What exactly does that mean? I can but speculate, but I shall try. Cannot ask the author. Or, perhaps, I can ask the spoiled, insufferable modern gal herself? What is it you want, dear lady? Do you want to adhere to the dress code of a catholic school, perhaps even wear a nijab? Or do you want to put up with whoops and insults of intoxicated morons driving by?

It's not like they'd find a way to insult just about anyone on the sidewalk -- except, perhaps, a police officer or a group of sinister male teenagers. If only you presented yourself appropriately, those guys would have been the epitome of chivalry and gentlemanhood. See what you have reduced them to?

Do you want your dad/mom/priest to make decisions about your sexual behavior? No? Would you rather leave it to a rapist? No again? Who, then? Who is it that you want to be in charge of your vagina? You are  "driving every sensible male into a state of confusion." Mr. Egerer certainly sounds confused.

All right, all right, I may have exaggerated. In fact, reason has glimpsed through the clouds of Mr. Egerer's affliction.

"It may be argued," he says, "that the defining factor of 'rape culture' concerns the woman's choice, that her consent alone determines whether or not sexual advance is proper."

Indeed, dear sir. Indeed. It may very well be argued.  But, alas, it's must have been too cloudy in there, for in the very next sentence we read:

"... when every woman has a different preference, and all is possible, how may men be held morally accountable for woman's defense?"

Meaning, some women don't like their most intimate decision to be overridden by strangers, but some others, apparently, do.  "And any man with any sense of morality -- or even simply a brain -- is rightfully frustrated." I am so sorry, sir. You have my condolences.

On the fight over Ohio Voting law

This scenario has probably been observed in politics once or twice. ;)

Them: "Here's our new great bill, which has X and Y."

(The X part looks wonderful and is loudly touted. The Y isn't so pretty.)

Us: "Nope, we're not having any of that, because of Y. See? It's right
there, and it's ugly."

Them: "Muuuum! He's against X! He's mean!"

The most recent point in case, the brawl between Obama and that other guy's
presidential campaighns about Ohio early voting law: http://www.thenation.com/blog/169284/ohio-early-voting-cutbacks-disenfranchise-minority-voters. (Via (@thenation )

A little more googling produces a host of other articles complementing the picture.

Actually, Fox News does mention both sides of the story, though the article title might be a tad bit misleading. Allright, maybe I'm being nitpicky here.

And here are the words of Obama's advisor David Axelrod (click here to read the rest):

"What that lawsuit calls for is not to deprive the military of the right to vote on the final weekend of the campaign, of course they should have that right," Obama's top campaign advisor David Axelrod told host Chis Wallace on "Fox News Sunday." "What that suit is about is whether the rest of Ohio should have that same right. And I think it's shameful that Governor Romney would hide behind our servicemen and women to try and win a lawsuit to try to deprive other Ohioans of the right to vote."

My own haiku. Brilliant, I think.

Waiting for my sushi order...
Sake already here.
What's Japanese for 'lekhaim'?

Young Earth. Flat Earth.

"... if the only picture of Christ I had was your attitude towards me, I'd run."
Mary Scweitzer, a Christian biologist debating a fundamentalist.
Source: Discover magazine.

People cling to their toys. That includes, drugs, abusive significant others and, "fixed beliefs," i.e. faith. I'm sorry but if this day and age, you still believe that our planet is literally six thousand years old, let's just say you're badly out of touch.

A few exceptionally bright scientists are actually Christian. One such man is MIT professor Gerald T. Shroeder, the author of The Science of God. It is very hard to have this kind of knowledge and believe that our planet is literally six thousand years old, in our reference frame.

It is perfectly possible for one clock to show a six-thousand-year time difference and for another -- 14.5 billion years. Both clocks can be right. And you don't need to be Shroeder to know that. Very careful experiments point to the conclusion that time is relative.

If you have devoted the last few years of your life to studying physics -- or if you were willing to drop whatever you're doing in favor of that -- you'd have very little wiggle room left. The evidence really leaves you only two options: accept it or abandon reason. Yeah, I know, you believers may argue that our power of reason is limited. I agree, though I think it's the best we've got.

But if you were to remain a reasonable individual, what then? Would you just toss your cross? "Sorry, Jesus, I don't believe in you any more. I'll just go steal, cheat and molest little children like I always wanted to.'' If so, then what can I tell you? Go to hell. Real faith isn't scared of evolution or carbon dating.

Cold Civil War

It amuses me when I hear yet another talking head refer to "the American People." As if the concept had survived the transition to the 21st century. Hello, can anyone see a fence cutting across the nation, the two sides hating each other more than ever?

All right, I exaggerate. September the 11th has united us for a while, and it is safe to say the "American People" don't want anything like that to happen on the soil again, but the exaggeration is much closer to the truth now than it has been during the Reagan years, or even Clinton years.

What prompted me to write all this? This tweet here. After the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act, he was delighted to point out that Rush Limbaugh had promised to leave the country if the law survived. The author of the tweet followed up with three words: "Start packing, prick."

If you're getting your rotten tomatoes out, save some for me: I loved it and I took great pleasure in retweeting it. Rush himself, I'm sure, must have felt great when he'd insulted a woman from the opposing camp on the radio.

The aggressive rhetoric aimed at de-humanizing the opposition clearly shows that the civil war is on. A cold one, thank goodness.