On Women, Marriage and White-Knights
I frequent more than a few forums where the topic of male/female relationships come up. Invariably the tone of some male commentators is very negative towards the modern woman. Also, without fail comes along some man to rise to the defense of women. In one such exchange our erstwhile defender made a mental diagnosis of the misogynist and commented that if he were to act that way around a group of men who appreciated women he would be physically beaten.
Some of the extremely vocal hostility to women can become tiresome but the gamma male routine isn't much more attractive than hyper-misogyny. Why in the world would any man care to assault another man because he speaks ill of women or acts like an ass (I will assume it is not directed at a particular woman at the time)? That type of white-knight stuff is crap. And, I would argue more likely to lead to the white-knight getting pummeled (than successfully living out his heroic fantasy) when intervening in a situation that is a) none of his business and b) being committed by someone much more comfortable with violence than him.
On the whole, women and men are neither better or worse, just different. Better and worse might appear in a fashion depending on the situation/need. One can view trends with a large enough sample. Women do seem to be more antithetical to liberty, but most men have no concern over it either and certainly gave the house away without needing the help of the other sex. Here is why I am a big fan of free association. Hire who you want... see who you want... believe how you want... leave me alone.
But what of the male/female dynamic in relationship to marriage and commitment? For both sexes it is trouble. There is lesser interest in getting married for younger men these days. You can google marriage strike and see numbers on it.
Women give terrible advice to younger women on this topic. 'You can wait... why get married early'. Popular meme... not terribly true from the male point of view (at least the males most open to marriage). Looks are important and a younger woman has the edge there frequently. While female earning and titles have increased in popularity for men (they like the dual income) you are still more likely to find a man who will date 'down' and be fine than you will a woman who wants to date on par or up. There is no doubt a decline in interest for marriage among men. If a woman is wanting a man of a certain traditional value mindset then he is likely looking to settle earlier rather than later. In that case the best ones will go early. Women do face a real biological clock issue. Fertility declines much earlier than is generally recognized. Putting off family can wind up backfiring. With marriage it is hard to say what the rules are anymore. This idea that somehow as you age you become much better does not ring true. The older you are the more established you are. There is good in that perhaps but you also can become less flexible and less willing to adapt and grow with someone than if you are both starting out before you THINK you have it all figured out. I am less interested in marriage now than I was at a young age.
The gamma males, white-knighters and older generations of men seem to resort to a bit of shaming of younger men. Not uncommon in my experience is the claim that they know some (usually in her 30's) wonderful woman that would have been a prize catch in their day. I answer thusly.
From a woman's point of view. Also bemoaning the fact that her 30ish brother's cannot find a decent woman. Finding quality people is not an easy task.
I am not being the least bit concerned about shaming from the other sex or from men 2 generations removed. The gamma males and white knighters are amusing. Women are not to be worshiped or placed on pedestals... they are people and should be evaluated thoroughly if one is considering marriage. Everyone acts in their own interest as they perceive it. It can be beneficial to study what a large portion of the other side perceives as its interest and risks as it relates to what you want. If this leads to one deciding marriage is not for them so be it.
Why are people surprised or dismayed when a man lays out a point of view that is negative to women and somehow doesn't comment on how awful men are too. Most men do not date men... they date women. They therefore are more concerned with how women behave. The burden of ruling out the scum of men is on the females. If they reward scum behavior then it perpetuates it. If they refrain from having scum's children etc then it punishes scum behavior.
The men who have dropped out of marriage in this day and age are not suddenly less interested in women than they were before. It is simply that most of the benefits of marriage can be gained outside of it while taking on fewer risks. This does punish more traditional women, but there you go.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Saturday, November 06, 2010
The People Look for an Ox to Gore
A commentator has finally noticed and begun to make a little noise about a particular segment of the public sector's work force.
This post is not really designed to advocate a position on this but to simply reflect a fiscal reality combined with the point of view of those not in the service. I'm sure many of the state workers around the nation feel that they are owed their pensions, but the money is not there and the taxpayers are beginning to revolt. I'm sure that the private sector employees who have been removed from the pension plans they had through bankruptcy and the actions of the PBCG think they were owed what was contracted but they didn't get it either. I'm sure the retirees who thought they signed on for medical care for life and then were thrown out of the military hospitals in the mid 90's thought they were owed and yet they were shown the door. I'm sure the people who collect off of SS and Medicare think they are owed... but the programs are bankrupt. This nation has a history of bailing on such things. George Washington apologized to his officer corp for the betrayal of the congress after the Revolutionary War. MacArthur cleared out the veterans on orders from Hoover. On and on...
While the nation may love its military, I would not expect the American people who are struggling themselves to have a tremendous concern for the ability of a segment of the population to retire at 38 years old with millions in pensions. I would not expect them to think that granny should take cuts in medicare and SS so that the military guy can get his retirement. I don't know what will happen, but I'm fairly certain there will be a substantial change in the military retirement system... at least as it was presented to those who signed up over the years.
Do the tax payers owe the military? No. Like any other life it was chosen by the people who entered into it. While it is certainly unfair perhaps that people signed up with one set of information from what later on came to be recognized, there is a burden on those in a system to observe the exterior things that can effect it. Nobody is immune to reality. There is nothing in my mind more sacred about what they do than anyone else who takes a role in civilizations preservation. Guy who keeps the water system going... provides electricity... gets the food to the store... they provide value too. Should the contract be honored? Sure. But bankruptcy relieves us all of our burdens... the nation will declare it too.
A commentator has finally noticed and begun to make a little noise about a particular segment of the public sector's work force.
"But it's also noteworthy that one of the most generous defined-benefits public-employee pension plans in the country isn't being mentioned in this discussion. There is a branch of the federal government that lets you retire after 20 years on the job, even if you're under age 40, and guarantees immediate benefits of 50% of your final salary for the rest of your life. That branch is the military. If you joined the army at age 18, and retired in 2011 at age 38 as a $55,000-a-year sergeant (pay grade E-8) after an unexceptional career, you would be entitled to $26,000 per year for the rest of your life, plus cost-of-living adjustments. The average 40-ish retiring sergeant would put the taxpayers on the hook for over $1m in lifetime retirement pay. That's not counting a lifetime of free medical care from the VA. And the military doesn't have a pension fund; the Pentagon budget's $18 billion in retiree pay this year will be paid directly by taxpayers."
This post is not really designed to advocate a position on this but to simply reflect a fiscal reality combined with the point of view of those not in the service. I'm sure many of the state workers around the nation feel that they are owed their pensions, but the money is not there and the taxpayers are beginning to revolt. I'm sure that the private sector employees who have been removed from the pension plans they had through bankruptcy and the actions of the PBCG think they were owed what was contracted but they didn't get it either. I'm sure the retirees who thought they signed on for medical care for life and then were thrown out of the military hospitals in the mid 90's thought they were owed and yet they were shown the door. I'm sure the people who collect off of SS and Medicare think they are owed... but the programs are bankrupt. This nation has a history of bailing on such things. George Washington apologized to his officer corp for the betrayal of the congress after the Revolutionary War. MacArthur cleared out the veterans on orders from Hoover. On and on...
While the nation may love its military, I would not expect the American people who are struggling themselves to have a tremendous concern for the ability of a segment of the population to retire at 38 years old with millions in pensions. I would not expect them to think that granny should take cuts in medicare and SS so that the military guy can get his retirement. I don't know what will happen, but I'm fairly certain there will be a substantial change in the military retirement system... at least as it was presented to those who signed up over the years.
Do the tax payers owe the military? No. Like any other life it was chosen by the people who entered into it. While it is certainly unfair perhaps that people signed up with one set of information from what later on came to be recognized, there is a burden on those in a system to observe the exterior things that can effect it. Nobody is immune to reality. There is nothing in my mind more sacred about what they do than anyone else who takes a role in civilizations preservation. Guy who keeps the water system going... provides electricity... gets the food to the store... they provide value too. Should the contract be honored? Sure. But bankruptcy relieves us all of our burdens... the nation will declare it too.
Friday, November 05, 2010
Fighting for Freedom
How many today would fight for ‘freedom’ or ‘liberty’. The question certainly is appropriate as many constantly claim we have less freedom than ever before (we will leave for further investigation and thought that opinion). It certainly is hard to argue that the burden of government was greater under King George than under our current system. While there is perhaps anger taking people to the polls, there is not a widespread social disruption or anything resembling an active revolutionary movement. Is that an indictment of today’s citizen? Shouldn’t they be risking it all for ‘liberty’?
If we look back to the inhabitants of the colonies in 1775-1776, most did not in that time either. The big losers were the big names. Though some of the big names became the big winners. Supporting independence and liberty was one thing. Fighting for it another.
The population in 1775 was ~2.5M (have seen higher figures). Probably safe to assume 1.25M of that was male and probably 60% of fighting age. Yet, this domestic population rarely stood and fought in any significant fashion against the 50K British troops and their 30K Hessian mercenaries. This foreign population was forced to fight over the entire east coast. Still we struggled.
Washington was not kind to deserters. He was not in general having to turn away recruits. America had difficulties fielding armies. We needed, or at least greatly benefited, from the involvement of France and Spain on our side.
People like to be on the side of winners, but few will fight... for independence... freedom... anything.
All of this was in the time of the enlightenment and revolutions were beginning to spread. Did the cause of ‘liberty’ and freedom not resonate?
Yes... at least at the intellectual level of society. While I believe that plenty of people did read or were capable of reading more complex material than now, I am not terribly certain that the average joe has ever had much consideration for the thoughts of the esoteric. People had to work pretty hard across the board just to eat. Freedom is a word that means different things to different people. Being able to demagogue a crowd is far different than that crowd taking up arms and slogging through the mud for years in a war.
Freedom for some probably meant no king... to others it simply meant freedom to have the British pay for our Indian issues as opposed to us. Freedom for others is more along the lines of FDR's list of freedoms than the Founders.
My bottom line is that I do not think the fact that 95% of people now would not have fought then is any great indictment. Most people rarely fight willingly for any cause. Most people care about food, women, entertainment and beer. As long as you don't interfere too much with those they will tolerate a great deal.
How many today would fight for ‘freedom’ or ‘liberty’. The question certainly is appropriate as many constantly claim we have less freedom than ever before (we will leave for further investigation and thought that opinion). It certainly is hard to argue that the burden of government was greater under King George than under our current system. While there is perhaps anger taking people to the polls, there is not a widespread social disruption or anything resembling an active revolutionary movement. Is that an indictment of today’s citizen? Shouldn’t they be risking it all for ‘liberty’?
If we look back to the inhabitants of the colonies in 1775-1776, most did not in that time either. The big losers were the big names. Though some of the big names became the big winners. Supporting independence and liberty was one thing. Fighting for it another.
The population in 1775 was ~2.5M (have seen higher figures). Probably safe to assume 1.25M of that was male and probably 60% of fighting age. Yet, this domestic population rarely stood and fought in any significant fashion against the 50K British troops and their 30K Hessian mercenaries. This foreign population was forced to fight over the entire east coast. Still we struggled.
Washington was not kind to deserters. He was not in general having to turn away recruits. America had difficulties fielding armies. We needed, or at least greatly benefited, from the involvement of France and Spain on our side.
People like to be on the side of winners, but few will fight... for independence... freedom... anything.
All of this was in the time of the enlightenment and revolutions were beginning to spread. Did the cause of ‘liberty’ and freedom not resonate?
Yes... at least at the intellectual level of society. While I believe that plenty of people did read or were capable of reading more complex material than now, I am not terribly certain that the average joe has ever had much consideration for the thoughts of the esoteric. People had to work pretty hard across the board just to eat. Freedom is a word that means different things to different people. Being able to demagogue a crowd is far different than that crowd taking up arms and slogging through the mud for years in a war.
Freedom for some probably meant no king... to others it simply meant freedom to have the British pay for our Indian issues as opposed to us. Freedom for others is more along the lines of FDR's list of freedoms than the Founders.
My bottom line is that I do not think the fact that 95% of people now would not have fought then is any great indictment. Most people rarely fight willingly for any cause. Most people care about food, women, entertainment and beer. As long as you don't interfere too much with those they will tolerate a great deal.
Thursday, November 04, 2010
'Porno' Scanners
In the discussion that surrounds the airport backscatter systems (more emotionally known as 'porno scanners') the risk of radiation is frequently combined into the list of why these devices are so awful. Most of those commenting on this are ignorant of what they speak and likely do not seek true education in it. One location I read from that had been linked off of LRC (I believe the link was to dontscanme or something similar) a report was linked detailing the risk from cataracts that ionizing radiation can pose. Linking cataracts to backscatter machines either reveals profound ignorance or willful disingenuousness.
Cataracts are a deterministic effect from radiation. Even the linked report was dealing with cataract formation from exposure to individuals working in an occupational capacity in a cardiac cath lab. Cardiac cath lab workers are among the highest receivers of occupational exposure and even there cataracts are not common. The regulations (awful that they exist I know), industry standards and general ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principles minimize stochastic effects from radiation (cancer) and have pretty much eliminated deterministic effects. Further, the article is referring to a study from Malaysia. It is hard to speak about what their practices are. Practices matter a great deal in this area. To pass on the information on cataracts… it takes a minimum of 500,000 uSv to cause cataracts if the exposure is given in a short time… if the time frame is longer than the required value is much greater.
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q5208.html
So, what is the radiation risk from these scanners. There is published data on this in NCRP Commentary No. 16 “Screening of Humans for Security Purposes Using Ionizing Radiation Scanning Systems”. The effective doses from the common field system is 0.03 uSv per scan for the anterior view and 0.02 uSv per scan from the posterior view. I think we can agree that 0.03 + 0.02 is < 0.1 uSv which is what I will use as the value from here on. First let us compare the value of 0.1 uSv to the exposure you would receive from the actual flight.
http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q444.html
This value ranges at our latitudes from 0.3 uSv/hr to 0.4 uSv/hr depending on the solar cycle. So, if you are on a two to three hour flight from Atlanta to San Antonio you would expect an exposure of between .6 – .8 uSv. So, the exposure from the backscatter system is a small component of the overall trips exposure.
Let us now compare it to principles discussed in NCRP Commentary 16. We have the concept of annual Negligible Individual Dose (NID). The NID is 0.01 mSv (which is 10 uSv). It would take 100 scans from the backscatter device to reach the NID. It would take 2500 scans to reach a particular administrative control level.
The average American receives 6.2 mSv (6,200 uSv) of radiation effective dose per year from all sources (natural, medicine etc). 3 mSv of that comes from inescapable natural radiation (no medical exposure). This data can be found in NCRP Report No. 160.
But again… what about risk? There is no really good data on such minute amounts of radiation. For regulatory purposes (oh those things again) the linear-non threshold theory applies. From that we assume no radiation exposure is good. But the data for that is extrapolation from atomic bomb survivors who received well in excess of 2,000,000 uSv in a single blast. There are papers out there studying hormesis (the concept that low levels of exposure are beneficial to humans). So while there is a regulatory concept it is not related that much to scientific evidence.
The best formula for lifetime risk of cancer to radiation exposure is for the non-occupational population 5% per Sv (1,000,000 uSv) increase in the risk of cancer. At 0.1 uSv per scan you would have a lot of frequent flyer miles to get there.
Growing radiation exposure is an interesting subject. But the bang for the buck (yeah… I went with Pareto) is not in backscatter machines but is in medicine (particularly CT). Given the number of unnecessary medical images that people demand or allow themselves to be subjected to chasing after backscatter machines on the issue of radiation demonstrates a lack of knowledge in the field and the underlying science.
There are many good reasons not to implement and deploy these devices. Radiation exposure is probably the weakest of these and certainly the most poorly understood by the people making the case.
In the discussion that surrounds the airport backscatter systems (more emotionally known as 'porno scanners') the risk of radiation is frequently combined into the list of why these devices are so awful. Most of those commenting on this are ignorant of what they speak and likely do not seek true education in it. One location I read from that had been linked off of LRC (I believe the link was to dontscanme or something similar) a report was linked detailing the risk from cataracts that ionizing radiation can pose. Linking cataracts to backscatter machines either reveals profound ignorance or willful disingenuousness.
Cataracts are a deterministic effect from radiation. Even the linked report was dealing with cataract formation from exposure to individuals working in an occupational capacity in a cardiac cath lab. Cardiac cath lab workers are among the highest receivers of occupational exposure and even there cataracts are not common. The regulations (awful that they exist I know), industry standards and general ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principles minimize stochastic effects from radiation (cancer) and have pretty much eliminated deterministic effects. Further, the article is referring to a study from Malaysia. It is hard to speak about what their practices are. Practices matter a great deal in this area. To pass on the information on cataracts… it takes a minimum of 500,000 uSv to cause cataracts if the exposure is given in a short time… if the time frame is longer than the required value is much greater.
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q5208.html
So, what is the radiation risk from these scanners. There is published data on this in NCRP Commentary No. 16 “Screening of Humans for Security Purposes Using Ionizing Radiation Scanning Systems”. The effective doses from the common field system is 0.03 uSv per scan for the anterior view and 0.02 uSv per scan from the posterior view. I think we can agree that 0.03 + 0.02 is < 0.1 uSv which is what I will use as the value from here on. First let us compare the value of 0.1 uSv to the exposure you would receive from the actual flight.
http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q444.html
This value ranges at our latitudes from 0.3 uSv/hr to 0.4 uSv/hr depending on the solar cycle. So, if you are on a two to three hour flight from Atlanta to San Antonio you would expect an exposure of between .6 – .8 uSv. So, the exposure from the backscatter system is a small component of the overall trips exposure.
Let us now compare it to principles discussed in NCRP Commentary 16. We have the concept of annual Negligible Individual Dose (NID). The NID is 0.01 mSv (which is 10 uSv). It would take 100 scans from the backscatter device to reach the NID. It would take 2500 scans to reach a particular administrative control level.
The average American receives 6.2 mSv (6,200 uSv) of radiation effective dose per year from all sources (natural, medicine etc). 3 mSv of that comes from inescapable natural radiation (no medical exposure). This data can be found in NCRP Report No. 160.
But again… what about risk? There is no really good data on such minute amounts of radiation. For regulatory purposes (oh those things again) the linear-non threshold theory applies. From that we assume no radiation exposure is good. But the data for that is extrapolation from atomic bomb survivors who received well in excess of 2,000,000 uSv in a single blast. There are papers out there studying hormesis (the concept that low levels of exposure are beneficial to humans). So while there is a regulatory concept it is not related that much to scientific evidence.
The best formula for lifetime risk of cancer to radiation exposure is for the non-occupational population 5% per Sv (1,000,000 uSv) increase in the risk of cancer. At 0.1 uSv per scan you would have a lot of frequent flyer miles to get there.
Growing radiation exposure is an interesting subject. But the bang for the buck (yeah… I went with Pareto) is not in backscatter machines but is in medicine (particularly CT). Given the number of unnecessary medical images that people demand or allow themselves to be subjected to chasing after backscatter machines on the issue of radiation demonstrates a lack of knowledge in the field and the underlying science.
There are many good reasons not to implement and deploy these devices. Radiation exposure is probably the weakest of these and certainly the most poorly understood by the people making the case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)