Lech Walesa's Fax Machine

Random Thoughts, Yet Once Again

2007-01-19T09:29:00.000-05:00

Yet once again, more random thoughts:

There are two groups that will benefit most from the recent minimum wage hike: suburban teenagers, who will have more discretionary income, and union members, whose compensation is negotiated and set as a multiple of the minimum wage.

In any disaster, people who are well-prepared have been, and should expect to be, harassed, accosted, threatened, and even assaulted by people who are not well-prepared.

The recent fall in oil prices is occurring in part because there was a speculative bubble in oil as money flowed out of "risky" stocks after 9/11 and into "safe" commodities. That money is now flowing back into stocks.

Why is it that people think that women can handle combat duty but need protection from off-color jokes?

What ends up happening in practice in trying to "fairly distribute wealth" is that resources are transferred from those with the greatest potential to benefit to those with the least.

For the most part, police officers aren't as skilled in marksmanship as they should be. However, many departments think that the problem lies in underpowered weapons. But I'd rather see officers equipped with .38 Special service revolvers and pump shotguns who practiced with them regularly than officers equipped with high-capacity .40 autoloading pistols and AR-15s who carry them around in their cruisers 12 months out of the year.

There won't be a men's movement of the scope and size of the women's movement because men and women join groups for different reasons, namely, men join groups for their personal or civic benefit.

Public education is held in such high regard by our elites that they won't let their kids within 500 feet of a public school.

Our civil and family court system lets people rob each other at the point of a gavel.

The main reason why we're having a difficult time in Iraq is because we're too restrained in our fighting. To prevail, we need to fight even dirtier than the insurgents. General John "Black Jack" Pershing comes to mind.

Happy New Year

2007-01-01T09:02:00.000-05:00

2006 was a good year...2007 will be even better. Why?

More and more people are aware that the status quo (or statist quo) isn't offering benefits equal to or greater than its costs.

More and more people are seeing feminism for the lie that it is and rejecting its works and empty promises.

More and more people are realizing that a well-armed society is a well-behaved society.

More and more people know that the family is the bedrock of any smart, successful society.

More and more people are holding governments accountable to serve the long-term common good.

More and more people are holding business accountable to provide and deliver high-quality goods and services and be good corporate citizens.

More and more people are adding greater value through entrepreneurship.

More and more people are seeing that white, able-bodied, Christian, heterosexual males are in fact marginalized.

More and more people are understanding that although we are not ruled by biology, we cannot deny it.

More and more people are turning to alternatives to the PC-saturated mainstream media.

More and more people see that the West is in trouble and not only does it need to be saved, but also that it is worth saving.

In short, more and more people are saying "No" to oppression, deprivation, lies, and collectivism and "Yes" to freedom, prosperity, truth, and individual responsibility. This trend has picked up a significant head of steam in 2006 and is on track to continue and gather momentum in 2007.

Remember, everybody deserves freedom and freedom always wins.

Merry Christmas...

2006-12-25T13:44:00.000-05:00

...for Christ's sake!

Mo' 'Dem Random Thoughts

2006-12-08T13:28:00.000-05:00

Why are the people having the most kids today are those people who are the least qualified to raise them in a healthful environment?

Nobody thinks that Chinese, Indian, Russian, Korean, Japanese, and Vietnamese kids need bilingual education and ESL.

The most vocal liberals are often affluent and educated enough that they need not worry about personally dealing with the consequences of their beliefs, values, attitudes, and behaviors.

Most social movements and political revolutions occur not because the poor are oppressed, but because the middle class is frustrated.

The specter of civil lawsuits and the attendant damages awarded do more to keep people honest than hordes of appratchiks at regulatory agencies. After all, Bayer and Pfizer work to make safe, effective drugs not so much because the FDA will shut them down, but because when peope get sick and die from their drugs, Bayer and Pfizer get sued, and they know it. However, the only activities where civil suits don't work is in areas that are outside the law, like prostitution or heroin trafficking.

Don't die angry.

Life isn't a zero-sum game.

Gun control is esentially racist, sexist, and elitist because people who are wealthy, white, and male either live in isolation from crime and violence, can afford expensive private security, don't have to worry about being physically intimidated, or are skilled in other means of self-defense, so they don't really concern themselves with self-defense. But for the rest of us, firearms are the best and only truly effective means of self-defense. Furthermore, disarmed minorities are vulnerable minorities.

The Greatest Generation was the first and only generation of Americans to place unquestioned faith in big government and big business.

No moral code says "Thou shall have high self-esteem."

Feminism's Harm to Innocent Women

2006-12-07T12:19:00.000-05:00

I won't rehash the whole notion that feminism is at its core a totalitarian hate movement akin to Nazism, Communism, or Islamic radicalism. Even so, those who make this comparison have overlooked one particular commonality between these movements/ideologies.

Feminism is like Nazism, Communism, or Islamic radicalism in that innocent Germans, Russians, and Muslims who wanted nothing to do with these dysfunctional ideologies were nonetheless tarred with the same broad brush as those who subscribed to them and had to pay the same price in treasure, blood, sweat, and tears as the "true believers."

Perhaps the greatest harm done by feminists is the harm done to women who are opposed to feminism and women who want a traditional lifestyle.

So, what kind of harm is feminism doing to women? Specifically, how are men responding to feminism and how are men's responses making life worse for even non-feminist women?

Many men are making the very rational, but untrue assumption that all women subscribe to feminism tenets. So many men think that every Western woman hates him and will disrespect him, just because he's male.
Just as as feminists treat men as potential abusers and rapists, men are treating women as potential plaintiffs and false accusers. This means that men are wary of any type of business and professional involvement with women as employees, supervisors, business partners, tenants, co-tenants, proteges, clients, etc.
Men are increasingly avoiding marriage and even cohabitation, leaving women who desire a loving relationship with a man alone.
The flood of women into the workforce has doubled the supply of labor while the demand for labor has stayed the same and even decreased. This means that real wages have stagnated or fallen. At the same time, the cost of living has gone up because of the increased demand for transport, real estate, etc. Therefore, many women who work have no choice but to do so.
Men are eschewing the feminists educational establishment. Fewer men with advanced education means fewer educated men for women to partner with.
Men are "taking it easy" and leaving women to be high-achievers without the"acvhievement" of a loving family.
Men are abandoning the corporate rat race for entrepreneurship. They're not hiring women because of #2.
Men are paying fewer dollars into the tax coffers to be doled out to women.
Men at the low end of the economic totem pole see that they are no match for the welfare state as providers. Low-income women are therefore stuck raising their families alone.
A few men are choosing to leave the Western Hemisphere entirely to live in man-friendly Eastern societies. This means fewer men around in general for women to partner with.

At the same time, feminists have directly harmed women in several ways:

Feminists have suckered women to buy into the notion that having a loving family is not a goal worth pursuing. Sadly, women who want a loving family can't have one.
Feminists have duped women into denying their biology in terms of their natural desire for hearth and home and in terms of the time limits on their fertility.
Feminists have conned women into thinking that they are so equal to men that they can enlist in the military with no ill effects to themselves or the military.
Feminists have infiltrated and debased academia such that a degree in the humanities is worth less and less in the marketplace.
Feminists have misled women that all men are dangerous, causing women to inadvertently make themselves unapproachable to men.
Feminists have ignored men's physical and psychological health needs and encouraged women to do the same, leaving women widowed or left with damaged or dysfunctional husbands.
Feminists have encouraged men and women to compete with each other when they really want to cooperate with each other.
Feminists have oversexualized society much to the dismay of modest women.
Feminists have shoehorned women into roles that they aren't well suited for, leading men to suspect all women of being incompetent.
Finally, feminists have cast conscience, morality, and ethics as victimization and oppression, thus coarsening society's morality and exposing innocent women to immoral activities.

In short, women who aren't feminists will end up alone and miserable because of the actions of a few highly dysfunctional people. That is why non-feminist women are critical to resisting the onslaught of feminism.

And now, The Pitfalls of Marrying for Looks

2006-11-26T08:07:00.000-05:00

Earlier, I wrote about the pitfalls of marrying for money and why the reality of marrying a rich man is quite different from the fantasy that many women entertain. At the same time, the reality of marrying an extremely good-looking woman is different from the fantasy that men entertain.

A lot of what's in this post falls into the "tell me something I don't already know" category, and while I don't think looks are meaningless; on the contrary, we're drawn to young, nubile women to provide us with the best vehicle to get our DNA into the future, I feel that it's my obligation to warn guys who may not be aware as of yet. What I'm about to say is based on the experiences of people I know who are in this position.

Here goes:

1. Your honey is on a power trip from the raw animal power she has over men. She's had this power from an early age and, as you know, a lot of power coupled with immaturity is a dangerous thing. She gets off on wielding this power for her own short-term gain and thinks nothing of dragging you around by your "little head."

2. Your honey probably has never had anyone say "no" to her or hold her accountable. Because men of all stripes worship her like a goddess, and don't want to be cut off from access to her bed, they'll let her get away with murder, sometimes literally.

3. Your honey gets lots and lots of attention, much of it unwelcome, from other men. That means she has lots of options. Once the Bigger Better Deal comes along, you're toast. It also means that she's got no incentive to be loyal and supportive, because there are hordes of guys waiting in the wings. She'll also get unwelcome attention from other women, namely, lots of catty jealousy and scheming to break up your relationship, because they can't stand to a) see somebody else in a relationship with a guy like you and b) see somebody happy in a relationship, period.

4. Looks can fade, and fast. Often, the hotter the woman, the more severe the deterioration process. What's going to keep you together after the physical attraction fades? You're in for a world of hurt if it turns out you were only attracted to her because of her looks and she was only attracted to you because of your money. Looks and money may attract, but compatible personalities, beliefs, values, and attitudes keep people together. At the same time, her sexual desire can fade, and fast. It's by no means uncommon for attractive women to lose their desire after marriage.

5. A corollary to #3 is that many women let their appearance go south once they snag an "eligible" (read: rich) man. Once she's got you in the legal and financial manacles of marriage and the "family" court system, she's got no more incentive to look good and stay in shape. This goes double after the kids come along. If you like her long, flowing hair, expect it to get cut off because "it's too much trouble." If you like the way she looks in that little black dress and how sexy she looks when her thong peeks out, take a good, long look, because it's sweatpants and granny panties from now on, pardner.

6. Oh, and did I warn you that the biggest downside of looks is high maintenance?

Post-Election Analysis

2006-11-10T08:16:00.000-05:00

After watching the 2006 midterm and state elections, I have several observations:

1) The Republicans paid the price for failing to police their ranks and hold party members accountable to fiscal and moral conservatism. Even though Republicans controlled Congress and the White House in the last 12 years, government expanded, spending went through the roof, regulations were increased, no nonessential government functions were privatized, and taxes were lowered, but no flat tax or national sales tax was enacted. While a lot of these things came out of thr War on Terror, they went farther than they should have.

2) Many of the Democrats that won were DINOs (Democrats In Name Only) and were actually more conservative than the Republicans they replaced.

3) This election was more about national disgust with the Iraq War than anything else. But the more things change, the more they stay the same. Typically, Americans' tolerance for any war tapers off about 3-5 years into it. Americans want clear, convincing victory by then, or an exit strategy. That's why, for example, there was such a push to develop the atom bomb in WW2, even though the Third Reich wasn't even close to developing one and the Axis was losing every battle after 1944. Therefore, Uncle Sam needs to fight and win every war decisvely within that timeframe.

4) Republicans dropped the ball on the very issues that they were elected to resolve: illegal immigration, Social Security reform, health care reform, tort reform, and reducing government spending.

5) Between now and 2008, the Republicans need to a: can any party members who don't walk the talk, b: come up with a clearer message for how a limited government beneifts all Americans, c: field a charismatic, positive, competent candidate for the White House.

6) We need to pay very close attention to Congress to hold them true to their promises of reform.

Coming Soon - Post-Election Analysis

2006-11-07T12:41:00.000-05:00

Stay tuned for a post-election analysis!

I'm cleaning up the blog

2006-11-03T16:04:00.000-05:00

I'm in the process of cleaning up this site...who says men can't clean house?

Lech Walesa's Fax Machine - now with links!

2006-11-03T15:29:00.000-05:00

Hey, everybody out there in the blogosphere, I just got my links figured out and link to the blogs and news sites I read everyday...I encourage you all to check them out!

Still More Random Thoughts

2006-10-31T12:56:00.000-05:00

Still more random thoughts...

While the breakup of the nuclear family is an unhealthful social trend, the breakup of the extended family is even more unhealthful, and paved the way for the breakup of the nuclear family.

Males are far more astute and aware than the mainstream media portrays them to be.

Not all little girls are made of sugar, spice, and everything nice. Neither are all little boys made of snakes, snails, and puppy-dog tails.

If the personal exemption for income tax had kept pace with inflation, it would be about $12,000 per person. A family of four with an annual income of $48,000 or less would therefore pay no income tax.

Not for nothing do Native American tribes call the journey to manhood "The Big Impossible."

In many jurisdictions, the local government is the biggest employer.

One reason why violent criminals target schools is because there is almost no chance of armed school personnel fighting back. This situation occurs not only because of laws making schools gun-free zones, but also because there aren't many people in K-12 education who strongly support the right to keep and bear arms.

I wonder if the meteoric rise of bipolar disorder, depression, eating disorders, and self-injury disorders among young females has something to do with our society's supression of their natural feminity and desire to be wives and mothers by focusing young females on careers and achievements at the expense of family, and the inner conflicts that these issues beget.

By the same token, I wonder if all those boys with ADHD are actually expressing a normal reaction to having their masculinity suppressed.

Monopolies contain within themselves the seeds of their own demise.

The only perfect man I know was a Jewish carpenter who lived in Israel 2000 years ago and had the world's largest religion named after him.

I've only just begun to realize how important it is for men to act decisively and "be the man" in relationships. What this means in practice is that if your significant other plays head games, witholds affection, manipulates, gripes, nags, or cheats on you, make your displeasure absolutely clear, and if there's no improvement of the behavior is really bad, end the relationship at once. If you're unhappy, it's not all that likely for things to get better, and it's quite likely that things will get worse.

The person to whom you're the least romantically attracted may actually be the best spouse for you and the best parent for your kids.

Famines occur today because there's too much government corruption, not because there's not enough food.

The horrors of 9/11 would never have occurred if pilots were allowed to be armed and immigration were strictly controlled.

Know freedom and prosperity, know peace.

How should I vote in the 2006 Midterm Elections?

2006-10-30T13:14:00.000-05:00

In only a few short days, the 2006 midterm elections will be upon us. Not only are there races for the U.S. House and Senate, but state races for governorships and state legislatures, not to mention city and county offices. Oh, and did I mention referendums?

It seems that especially in this election, principled, freedom-loving, and ethical candidates are the exception rather than the rule. "So, what am I supposed to do about it? I'm just one disgruntled citizen, how can I make a difference?" you might ask. Well, here's how:

1. Vote. You may be so thoroughly disgusted with the candidates that you decide to preserve your dignity and just stay home on Election Day. Not a good idea. You need to get to the polls to make it clear to politicians that you do care and will vote for good candidates and against bad ones. How does this work? Counties track voting results quite closely. While your county doesn't know for whom you personally voted, they do know whether or not you voted. They also know things like the gender, race, age, and party affiliation of voters who turned out versus all registered voters. For example, it is well known from these results that senior citizens have the highest voter turnout of any age group. That is why politicians try so hard to cater to their needs, even if it's at the expense of younger citizens, as is the case with Social Security reform.

2. Vote against incumbents. A popular bumper sticker reads: "Politicians and diapers should be changed frequently for the same reason." The longer politicians stay in power, the more arrogant and out-of-touch they become. It also becomes harder to unseat incumbents over time, as they have major advantages in fundraising and name recognition over newcomers. Running for office is about serving your country/state/county/city first.

3. Vote for third-party candidates. While I am a Republican by registration, and am fed up completely with the Democrat party, I've noticed that Republicans and Democrats are more alike than different, a la Coke and Pepsi, or Ford and Chevy. Neither party truly believes in real freedom, real peace, and real prosperity. Neither party will put its money where its mouth is to cut taxes, roll back regulation, and shrink government. But isn't a third-party vote a wasted vote? Absolutely not! A third-party vote sends a message that more and more people don't think that the two major parties are serving them properly.

4. Don't vote for candidates because they're Irish/Polish/Italian/Jewish/Black/Asian/
Hispanic/Martian/Vulcan/man/woman/etc., just like you. Often, the candidate who is most unlike you is the one who is best for the office. Even more important, don't vote for candidates just because "it's time for a (insert one of the aforementioned groups here) to hold office."

5. Make up your own mind. Don't just vote for candidates as a knee-jerk response to endorsements by your local paper/union/church/other special interest group. For example, if your union endorses Candidate X, but if Candidate X supports gun control or abortion, and you don't, don't vote for Candidate X. If you are looking at endorsements for candidates as a guide, consider the source and how that source may benefit from their candidate's victory.

6. If you still aren't sure, ask yourself these 10 questions:

Which candidate is most likely to support feminist causes?
Which candidate is most likely to support uncontrolled immigration?
Which candidate is most likely to oppose efforts to become less dependent on foreign oil?
Which candidate is most likely to support gun control?
Which candidate is most likely to support men's rights?
Which candidate is most likely to support environmentalism as a religion?
Which candidate is most likely to raise my taxes?
Which candidate is most likely to reduce burdensome regulations?
Which candidate is most likely to privatize government tasks not in the scope of government as defined by the Constitution?

and, most importantly:

Which candidate is most likely to put personal gain and catering to special interests ahead of serving the common good?

Even More Random Thoughts

2006-09-08T08:08:00.000-04:00

Here are even more random thoughts:

Democracies and dictatorships have very different definitions of "peace." In democracies, peace means freedom, justice, and mutual respect for individual rights and the common good. In dictatorships, however, peace means absolute totalitarian rule with no resistance.

Lust is the root of all evil.

State-sanctioned monopolies always benefit the "two Gs;" governments and gangsters, at the expense of the rest of us.

Saying that there are a lot of Jewish people in media and think tanks is like saying that there are a lot of Italians in the building trades or a lot of Asians in IT; these are truthful observations that any fool can see. But saying that Jewish people are conspiring to rule the world is like saying that Asians want to sabotage our IT industry; that is a gross exaggeration and oversimplification because individual Jewish and Asian people can't even agree with each other on how the world works or should work.

Contrary to popular belief, Big Government and Big Business are bosom buddies. Big Business provides a steady revenue stream to Big Government and Big Government sets up tax and regulatory barriers to protect Big Business' turf from interloping competitors.

Labor unions are neither good nor bad; they're mostly irrelevant.

You don't want to encourage your daughter to aspire to become an exotic dancer for the same reason you don't want your son to aspire to become a professional athelete: you can make a lot of money for a few years in your 20s, but it's near impossible to make any money in these jobs after you're 30.

The real reason business are outsourcing is to escape excessive taxation, regulation, and litigation, not to mention PC boondoggles like affirmative action and sexual harassment hysteria.

Pessimism sells, but optimism generates repeat sales.

There are problems we can't solve and problems we won't solve.

Law enforcement and military officers are spending a lot of resources going after "bad things," like guns and weapons of mass destruction. But these "bad things" are inanimate objects; they only become "bad" when used by "bad people" such as criminals and terrorists.

Elections have less to do with determining the course of federal, state, and local policies than with determining how various spoils of victory, such as appointments and contracts, are to be doled out.

There are countries outside of the Middle East, such as the Sudan and Northern Ireland, that have problems with terrorism, yet we seem not to be as engaged there, if at all. Would we be more involved in these places if they sat on top of 10 billion barrels of recoverable light sweet crude oil reserves?

Remember, there is an "I Can" in every American.

The Pitfalls of Marrying for Money, and some Words of Caution

2006-09-06T18:31:00.000-04:00

It seems that even empowered and independent women who need men like a fish needs a bicycle just can't resist the chance to "marry up." Even if these women earn six-figure incomes, they still want to marry up.

Welllllllll, ladies, when you marry a rich guy, there are a few things you ought to know, based on what I know from people I know in this situation:

1) Your guy most likely got to be rich by working much, much harder than the average Joe. That means he spends a lot of time working at whatever he does to earn money. Furthermore, your guy makes his work his number one priority; he was working when he could have been doing something else. In other words, don't expect a lot of cuddle time on your terms, and don't complain when he works long hours, goes on business trips, or comes home too tired to do anything but sleep.

2) If your guy inherited his bucks, you can reasonably expect that a) he has a bit of an entitlement complex; b) his family seems to have him by the short hairs, as in "Do this or you're out of the will!" and c) he'll have spending habits that may rival your own.

3) Your guy also became wealthy because he's a very competitive, hard-driving person. In fact, he may be downright ruthless. And don't expect your guy to be a tiger out there in big-bad world and a pussycat in the comforts of your home. It can be hard to turn that persona off once you get home.

4) Wealth can be a fleeting thing...ask anyone who lived through the Great Depression. When your guy loses his job, fails in business, makes some untimely investments, or if unexpected bills strike, will you still be interested in this guy?

5) Your guy may have a very different idea of what to do with all those greenbacks. To him, money is to be invested, saved, and used for the occasional luxury, like a Harley or a golf outing. Money is also for him to use to make more money. You, on the other hand, may want to use his wealth for shoes, spa trips, fancy resorts, and for being able not to work at all. These differences of opinion can ignite great marital discord.

6) Your guy may expect quite a bit from you in terms of supporting him. He most likely married you because he figured you'd take care of home and hearth, not to mention raise his kids. He'll be on board with you being a stay-at-home mother, but he'll expect the house to be spotless, he'll expect a tasty and nutritious dinner on the table every evening, and he'll expect you to give the kids your utmost care and attention. You may have another thing coming if you plan on spending your days cruising the mall, sipping lattes, and gossiping with other pampered wives.

7) Finally, guys that appear to your superficial eyes to be rich may be anything but. A guy who's a partner at Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe who drives a Mercedes, wears Armani suits, and takes six-month vacations to the Caribbean may actually be up to his ears in debt, but a guy who owns a small construction or auto repair business who drives a beat-up Chevy truck, wears worn-out jeans or greasy coveralls, and goes to the Poconos for a week each August may actually have a million-dollar asset base.

In other words, ladies, the reality of marrying a rich guy is different from the fantasy.

40-Year-Old Virgins: You're Not Missing Much.

2006-09-03T20:59:00.000-04:00

Over on Eternal Bachelor, the article "Unclean" about a woman rendered infertile by calamity, had a number of responses from readers. One reader, known as Christopher in Oregon, laid out the excruciating details of two STDs that are exceedingly common among young women today: herpes and HPV, aka genital warts:

I have been studying the STD situation since HIV first came to light in the early 80's, and YES, 80-90% of women have HSV1. With that said, sometimes HSV1 infects the lower regions due to oral sex, and sometimes HSV2 takes up residence in the mouth. The two are almost identical, and for all practical purposes you can say that probably well in excess of 90% of the female population in the US has one form or the other. The scary thing is that Herpes sheds asymptomatically. That is, one need not have any visible symptoms or any kind of an outbreak to spread Herpes. It is extremely contagious, and the briefest physical contact will facilitate transmission. It's just that easy to get it. Most people don't even know they have it.
Will kissing spread it? You betcha. Like wildfire condoms offer any
protection?Practically NONE. Curable? Nope. It's with you for life.

If your immune system is compromised in any way, the outbreaks can become especially severe and frequent; and painful, too. Many people get multiple strains, and due to possible immune deficiencies or other unknown reasons, they are subject to multiple outbreaks. One strain will cause an outbreak, and when it's healing up after much agony, another strain can cause yet another outbreak a woman is having an outbreak during childbirth, she stands a 50% chance of the child being with severe birth defects or having the child will die at birth or soon after. Fifty percent.

Again, an even worse threat is HPV. It is a given that the vast majority of western women are infected. It is incurable, super-contagious, and again, condoms are useless in preventing transmission. By age 22, it is estimated that 60% of US women have HPV.

Due to my severe religious upbringing, and resulting life-long celibacy,
I was never exposed to anything. (Maybe I'm just too ugly-lol) I spent most of my life as a Mormon, and the subsequent years as a fundy-Baptist wacko. (or Deist/Buddhist/Atheist these days)Contradictory, I know, but I'm single. I can believe anything I want. Heheh.

But seriously, you younger guys (I'm 45) are truly NOT missing out on anything except very expensive and painful suppressive therapy like Valtrex for Herpes, and nightmarish treatments for genital warts. And if you get warts in your tail pipe, your world as you know it ends. They are almost impossible to treat in that area, and they keep coming back...and back...

Now, if you like carrying a little bag around on your side and having a hole drilled in your stomach, that's another thing. And, NO, gay sex or anal sex is not required to facilitate transmission to the rectum. It
just naturally spreads there in many cases just ain't worth it. (Bryce's
note: HPV can cause cancer of the penis in men, which means losing your penis to cancer.) Stay celibate. Stay alive. THAT is your victory against the matriarchy.
I am in a similar situation to Christopher, in that I had a very strict Catholic upbringing and was taught that sex outside of marriage is sinful. Perhaps the Catholic Church knew what it was doing when it declared extramarital sex sinful.

We hear all this talk about AIDS: AIDS this, AIDS that. You'd think that you can get AIDS from toilet seats. But the truth, as mentioned in this John Ross article, is that AIDS is very hard to catch, especially if you're straight, don't use illegal IV drugs, and don't travel to Sub-Saharan Africa and Haiti.

But the old STD's of yore that plagued us before 1980 are still with us and, while they aren't as deadly as AIDS, can damage you badly enough to make you wish you were dead. Not to mention the fact that some of these germs have evolved resistance to known treatments.

This is what's out there, guys. This is par for the course as for what to expect from the current generation of women. This is what can happen to you, even once.

So, if you're a 40-year-old, 30-year-old, or even 20-year-old virgin, you may think you're "missing out." You are - on some very nasty diseases that will cause a lifetime of pain for a few moments of pleasure.

More Random Thoughts

2006-08-07T10:15:00.000-04:00

More random thoughts...

Among young women I know, there seems to be greater concern with having a great wedding than a great marriage.

Iran and Syria are using Hezbollah to wage a proxy war against Israel and the USA in Lebanon for one simple reason: they know deep own that if they confronted us directly, they would literally be destroyed.

The mainstream media is losing readership and viewership because it doesn't so much report news as it does promote a leftist political agenda.

Officially, public schools are to teach kids. Their real purpose, however, is keeping kids supervised and sequestered during daytime hours to keep them out of the way of working adults.

Why is a 14-year old considered mature enough to have an abortion without parental consent and a 19-year old considered too immature for marriage?

Political correctness amounts to a secular humanist elite imposing its values on a Judeo-Christian, working-class majority.

Some people just have to touch the flame for themselves to see if it really is hot.

The Democrat Party is made up of special interest groups that, aside from voting Democrat, have very little in common, want nothing to do with each other, and often exhibit overt disdain and animosity for each other.

On the other hand, government has expanded in every Republican administration.

The real reason why the Catholic Church requires priests to be celibate is not to maintain their sexual purity, but a) to prevent disputes over the inheritance of Church property and b) because the Church would have to pay priests a family wage otherwise.

Romantic attraction isn't a choice.

Real Estate and the Single Guy, Part 2

2006-07-11T12:26:00.000-04:00

I managed to get some response to my Real Estate and the Single Guy post on Davout, but I originally had more to say about the topic, but couldn't articulate it at the time.

Also, I didn't get the response I was hoping for from the blogosphere on what some good real estate options are for single guys.

That being said, I have some additional observations that I think deserve mentioning:

1) Any financial professional worth anything can tell you that it's not a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket in terms of your net worth, or at least have a large percentage of your eggs in one basket. Most homeowners have most of their net worth tied up in their homes and even worse, to the fate of a particular locale. Should the local economy go south, your real estate nest egg could go rotten fast. Think of Flint, Michigan in the mid-1980s after GM closed its plants there.

2) Perhaps the biggest advatages that single guys have in everything they do is freedom and flexibility. Owning real estate cuts into that. Should you need to relocate or even expat for work or love, it's a matter of notifying your landlord, getting your stuff out of there, and turning in your keys. You can't do that so easily if you bought a house or condo. Plus, there's the whole maintenance thing to contend with, and you may have better things to do with your time that be a Bob Vila wannabe.

3) If you still want to invest in real estate, REITs and other indirect real estate investments are always an option for your portfolio.

4) Not being tied to the McMansion in the suburbs actually allows you to increase your net worth. You don't have to keep up with the Joneses (an d Martha Stewart, for that matter) as much. You don't have to spring for the expensive kitchen remodeling or all the knick-knacks, for example.

5) I would not be surprised if in the not-too-distant future, a trand takes hold whereby McMansions are converted into apartments because: a) almost no one can afford to buy them as single family homes; b) families are shrinking and fragmenting, thus reducing the need for single family homes; c) the owners of these properties need to resort to this move to pay the mortgages; and/or d) it's the only way to live in a halfway decent place.

Any others, folks?

Fred Reed, the Boy Crisis, and Publik Skoolz

2006-07-11T08:39:00.000-04:00

Fred Reed sounded off about the boy crisis in education a few days ago. This item is, IMHO, one of the best commentaries on this issue. Fred uses facts to shed a different light on the subject that doesn't seem to appear in the mainstream media.

Here are my thoughts on the "boy crisis" in education: I've said it many times before in many other places in the blogosphere and I'll say it yet again here: Boys are far, far smarter than we give them credit for. Even the "slow learners" among them know that they're being fed a line in school and that the artificially constructed environment of public education penalizes merit, eschews excellence, and disdains competence, the very things that make our society prosperous and productive. Our boys are the canaries in our educational mineshaft: Their travails point to much bigger systemic problems with our schools.

The schools aren't failing boys, they're failing girls, too, and their parents, too. They're also failing colleges, employers, and the military who end up with the end products of the school system, not to mention the taxpayers forced to fund them whether they use them or not. Why?

The biggest reason, methinks, is that our K-12 education system is a state-sponsored monopoly. With a monopoly, there is little or no competition, and thus no incentives to do a better job. Furthermore, there are no meaningful consequences if your school does a bad job of teaching you, unlike in businesses, where scores of competitors await to take away the customers of a failing business.

While parents may push themselves to the brink of bankruptcy to afford a home in a "good" school district, they figure that their contribution to their kids' education begins and ends with the local school tax office. After that, they don't typically demand accountability and high standards.

While our students are learning how to put condoms on bananas and enhance their self-esteem, and while they read books like "Heather Has Two Mommies," their counterparts in China, India, and Japan are learning calculus, economics, and physics. These countries also are moving toward a free market in K-12 education. Not good if we want to compete successfully in the global marketplace.

The solution? Dismantle the entire public school system and allow a free market in education to offer real school choice.

Happy Father's Day

2006-06-18T09:35:00.000-04:00

This one is for all the fathers out there, especially the divorced, widowed, and single dads, not to mention the grandfathers, godfathers, and other men who mentor the next generation.

You've got an important job, but one that doesn't get the credit it deserves.

Random Thoughts

2006-06-05T10:20:00.000-04:00

Here are some random thoughts, in no particular order, that I have had in the last few weeks on a number of different issues:

The "marriage amendment" being floated by the Senate is the poster child for how law fills the void when manners and morailty degenerate as mechanisms of social control.

How can politicians say "We need immigration to keep Social Security solvent" when businesses are so keen on hiring illegal immigrants because they don't pay payroll taxes on illegals?

Hillary Clinton owes her political career to Bill's.

The problem with state and municipal budgets isn't that tax revenue is too low, it's that spending is too high.

Have you ever noticed that ever since 9/11, staunch supporters of gun control have either faded into the woodwork or at least toned down their anti-gun messages?

If conservatives are lambasted for "only caring about rich people and Big Business," then why are there so many rich liberals and why do so many corporations support liberal causes so enthusiastically?

Every time you send a package via UPS, FedEx, or DHL, every time you drink bottled water instead of tap water, every time you send your kids to a private school or homeschool, you move yourself and your society toward freedom and away from statism.

In Pennsylvania's struggle to reduce property taxes, the most important election is not for the governorship, the legislature, or even mayorships/city council seats, but school boards.

Politics means never having to say you're sorry.

A great deal of traffic law enforcement has nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with filling government coffers. If governments really cared about public safety, all cars would have speed limiters that limited the car's speed to the posted speed on a given road based on information in RFID chips embedded in the road that are read by that car's on-board computer system, for example.

The biggest difference between social classes is not how they earn and spend their money, but how they use time.

Throughout history, freedom and prosperity have been the exception, not the rule.

We should focus less on the price of gasoline and more on its cost.

By stifling the energetic rambunctiousness of schoolboys with shaming language and drugs, have we inadvertently stopped a cure for cancer, an alternative to fossil fuels, or a new model of leadership, before it even began?

PA Primaries: One Week Later

2006-05-23T15:47:00.000-04:00

Well, it's been a week since the Pennsylvania primary election. Overall, the results of this election were very encouraging.

I was pleased to see that concerned citizens braved the elements to get to the polls and make their discontent felt in the General Assembly.

I was pleased to see the chief architects of the pay raise, Jubelierer and Brightbill, go down in flames.

I was pleased to see fresh faces win, despite being outspent and outcampaigned by career politicians.

I was pleased to see that the Republican Party in Pennsylvania has the cojones to police itself and call the RINOs on the carpet...

...and yet, I was disappointed.

I was disappointed that there were no viable challengers in the governor's primary.

I was disappointed that some of the other pay-jackers, like Veon and DeWeese, survived the primaries.

I was disappointed that some PA General Assembly candidates ran unopposed yet once again.

I was especially disappointed that only 20 percent of registered voters made it to the polls.

Freedom-loving Pennsylvanians have won many key battles to take back their state, namely repealing the pay raise, ousting a Superior Court Justice for the first time in history, shaming 30 legislators into early retirement, and sending home more legislators, including two top state Senators.

This is, however, no time to rest on our laurels because the candidates we supported won or lost, or because the pay raise was repealed. The General Election in November is another opportunity to send a message to Harrisburg that we're tired of business as usual. We absolutely must not forget the stealthy pay-jacking, nor the calculated mendacity of its supporters, nor the simmering anger that Pennsylvania's lawmakers look out for their own self-interest at the expense of the common good of the Commonwealth.

Remember the pay raise!

Real Estate and the Single Guy

2006-05-20T17:29:00.000-04:00

There is a lot of talk in the news about the end of the real estate bubble and what it means for the economy, interest rates, stocks, bonds, and the political climate.

Here in Da Burgh, we seemed to have missed out on the whole thing, because our region created fewer jobs than average in the last few years, plus folks tend to stay awhile in their homes. Nonetheless, I've seen a lot of cases where people who once never would have qualified for a mortgage are getting them 1-2-3.

There are more women than men buying real estate as singles, according to USA Today.

I see several things emerging from this trend:

1) Many of these women are purchasing luxury condominiums, townhouses, etc. that are the most vulnerable to any downturn in real estate, plus, they tend not to appreciate as much as single-family or duplex homes.
2) They have made these purchases with highly risky mortgages, e.g. no-money down, adjustable rate, interest-only, 80/20, negative amortization, etc. Interest rates are on the way up and that means that the payments for ARMs can double or even triple.
3) They fail to take the long-term view of interest rates, markets, income, and job changes, and always think real estate goes up, and goes up a lot very fast. Past performance is no indicator of future behavior.
4) For those who already own, they take out lots of home-equity loans to pay off their credit cards so they can begin bagging even more shoes and handbags.
5) Finally, the debt-to-income ratio of these buyers means that they're one paycheck away from disaster.

All of this points to some real foreclosure bargains coming down the pipeline in a few years.

Sooooo, given the situation discussed above, which I won't belabor, what are some smart real estate options for single guys? I know that McMansions are obviously out, condos can be risky, a duplex might be a good bet, but does anyone have some other ideas here?

Maybe all those single guys still living at home are far smarter than we give then credit for, 'cause they're sitting this whole circus out.

Double Standards

2006-05-11T13:13:00.000-04:00

This has been posted many times before on many blogs, so I think it bears posting here:

Why is it that women complain when men leave the toilet seat up, but men don’t complain when women leave it down?

Why do women complain about men that only want one thing, but men don’t complain about women that want everything?

Why do women have the choice between abortion, adoption, dropping an unwanted baby off at a hospital, raising the child with a father, or raising the child without a father, but the only choice men have is to agree?

Why do women dress in makeup, short skirts, bare midriffs, and low-cut blouses but complain about men that stare at them?

Why do we pretend that men are the ones that abuse children when it is a well-known fact that women abuse children more than men?

If single mothers have it so bad, why do women initiate about eighty percent of divorces and routinely commit perjury to win custody?

Why do we have a Violence Against Women Act but nothing for men when women cause domestic violence just as often as men?

Why is it funny when a woman kicks a man in the groin but terrible if a man did the same to a woman - won't the man be in more pain?

Why is it terrible for a woman to be raped once but funny when male prisoners get raped over and over?

Why is a man a wimp if he lets his wife beat up on him but a criminal if he defends himself?

Why does women’s health get much more attention when men die about seven years younger than women?

Why do we complain about legislators being mostly male when they always promote women’s rights and never promote men’s rights?

Why is it sexist to have clubs for only men but empowering to have them for only women?

If women only make 72 cents for the same work where a man earns a dollar, why don’t companies hire only women and put the competition out of business?

How do police know who to arrest when there is a domestic disturbance involving lesbians?

Why do married women complain that their husbands don’t want to change a baby’s diaper but divorced women say their ex-husbands can’t take care of a child?

Why do men that don’t pay child support go to prison but nothing ever happens to women that don’t allow visitation?

If women-in-the-military is such a good thing, why don’t they have to register for the draft?

Why are we so concerned about girls under-performing boys in math and science but not concerned about boys under-performing girls in everything else?

Why do fathers have to pay the mother to take his children away from him in divorce?

Why is it legal for women to lie to men about who the father of a baby is to get child support, but a crime if she tells the same lie to the government to get Social Security or military benefits?

Why do women have to prove they spent the money on the children when they collect welfare but don’t have to do the same when they collect child support?

Why do we have to cut men’s sports that have fans to create women’s sports that don’t?

Why do women tennis players win the same prize money as men when they only play three sets and men play five - isn't that equal pay for less work?

Why is it called sexual freedom when a married woman commits adultery but called cheating when a man does the same?

Why are female murderers presumed to be mentally ill but male murderers presumed to be killers?

Why are there thousands of “father’s rights” groups but no “mother’s rights” groups?

Why do we have so many fathers groups fighting for more time with their children when there are so many social problems attributed to fatherlessness?

Why do men have to support women at the same standard of living following divorce when women don’t even have to cook and clean his new apartment?
I
f divorced women have it worse than divorced men, why do divorced men commit suicide eight or ten times as much as divorced women?

Why do we pretend that men walk out on their wives and children when women initiate about eighty percent of divorces?

Why is it considered sexist to have a couple of television shows geared towards men when there are several channels catering only to women?

Why are television moms always portrayed as wonderful and loving and television dads always portrayed as inept buffoons?

Why is it politically incorrect to say anything negative about women but funny to put men down?

Why are women without a job considered to be exercising free choice but men without a job considered a bum?

Why do feminists demand that women be equally represented in high paying and powerful jobs but don’t complain when low-paying, dirty, and dangerous jobs remain mostly done by men?

Why do we have to say “Chairperson” and “Congressperson” but its ok to say “garbage man” and “bad guy”?

Why do we always hear the phrase “innocent women and children” but never hear about “innocent men” or “men and children”?

Why do news headlines use the terms “student”, “spouse”, or “parent” when a girl or woman, or mother does something wrong but use the terms “boy”, “husband”, or “father” when a boy, man, or father does something wrong?

Why do feminists demand equal results for traditionally male roles but object to equal or shared parenting after divorce?

Why does the term “angry mother” sound like someone that needs our help and support and the term “angry father” sound like someone that needs to be arrested and forced into anger management classes?

Why is it that when men are more successful than women it's because women are oppressed, but when women are more successful than men it's because men are lazy?

Why are only women free to criticize other women without being labeled anti-women, but both men and women are free to criticize men?

Why are feminists pushing for laws that prevent new laws from being passed that protect men from women, such as with domestic violence against men, false allegations by women, or paternity fraud?

Why is it that when a woman accuses a man of rape, the man's name is made public and he is presumed guilty, but when he is proven innocent the woman remains anonymous and the man is still ruined?

Why is it considered woman-hating or whining to point it out when women have something better than men, but we rush to pass new laws if men might have something better than women?

Why is it that we've had forty years and billions of dollars going into women's rights and men's responsibilities, but it's taboo in most circles to even suggest that maybe it's time to consider men's rights and women's responsibilities a little bit for a change?

If those who always side with women are feminists and those who always side with men are chauvinists, why don't we have a wing of a political party and billions in funding going to chauvinists when we have that for feminists?

For those who believe men had it better than women in the past and believe now it's time for women to have it better than men for a while, why don't they advocate whites being forced into slavery to blacks or Jews killing Gentiles in concentration camps?

Why are men considered more privileged than women with so many double standards against men?

The Bush Jr. Boom - Greatest Story Never Told

2006-05-10T12:07:00.000-04:00

Although the major stock indices are at multi-year highs, with the Dow in striking distance of a new record, unemployment is down to multi-year lows, with people finally finding jobs after years of searching, and interest rates are up, signaling a strong recovery, with all of this in the face of tremendous social, political, and economic uncertainty.

Even so, the mainstream news is focusing instead on bad news high gas prices, unaffordable health care, outsourcing, and international tension.

Why?

I'd be willing to bet that the toe-tag liberals of the media are underreporting good economic news because they just flat out don't like Bush. I betcha, if one of their boys or girls, like Al Gore, John Kerry, or Hillary Clinton was President, they'd be proclaiming this news from the rooftops and touting the wonders of the Gore/Kerry/Clinton economy.

Trouble is, a lot of economic policy moves, such as changes to tax and interest rates, have a lag time from Capitol Hill and Pennsylvania Avenue to Wall Street and Main Street. What we're seeing now is the result of smart policy in the form of tax cuts across the board, less prolific regulation from a Republican Congress, and timely changes to interest rates, that Bush and a Republican Congress began to implement in 2001. Should a Democratic congress turnover in 2006 and a Democratic White House turnover in 2008 occur as a result of the public's misguided perception that the Republicans are ruining the economy and making life worse for the "little folks" to benefit "the rich" and Bis Business, and the Democrats decide to increase the tax and regulatory burden, they could be facing a recessionary economy in 2010 and 2012, which could result in their loss of Congress and/or the White House.

But when can you count on liberals to think long-term?

I'm BAAAAAACK!

2006-05-10T09:10:00.000-04:00

Whoa! I haven't been to my blog in more than a year!

A lot has happened since then...Iran has stopped worrying and is lovin' The Bomb, a significant shakeup is underway both in Congress and the PA General Assembly as a groundswell of discontent with business as usual from the citizenry has captured the public eye, Hurricane Katrina has laid bare the incompetence of Federal bureaucracies and corrupt city politics in the Big Easy, the economy has improved, with the Dow set to breach a record high, Pittsburgh has a new mayor, and the Steelers came from out of nowhere to get One For The Thumb in Super Bowl XL.

Stay tuned for more...

Why Lech Walesa's Fax Machine? Part 2

2005-02-16T09:48:00.002-05:00

In Part 1, I set the stage for how Lech Walesa's Solidarity movement came to be in Poland. In Part 2, I will explain how the Solidarity movement got worldwide attention and eventually led to the downfall of Communism:

By 1981, the Soviet Union was quite concerned about Solidarity, and for good reason: Talks of setting up a new government outside of the Communist system were underway as Solidarity worked increasingly apart from the Communist regime. The Polish economy deteriorated significantly and people lost faith in Communism to provide for their basic needs. And to make matters worse, other Warsaw Pact countries such as Hungary, East Germany and Czechoslovakia were growing restless. Rebellions in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 were quickly put down with little protest, and the Sovs thought that Poland could be quashed just as easily.

So, Soviet premier Leonid Brezhnev ordered the Red Army to the Polish border, instituted martial law, imprisoned Lech Walesa and outlawed Solidarity.

This was nothing new to Poland, after all, Poland was annexed by Russia (and also Germany) in the 1800s and was seen as part of the Czarist empire and although Poland was an independent nation by 1918, was still seen a client state of the Soviet Union's sphere of influence. As I described the situation to a close Irish friend, the relationship between Poland and Russia bears a striking resemblance to that between Ireland and Britain. Difference is, the Russians kept their mistreatment of Poles a bigger secret.

This time around, the Sovs had even greater reason to be upset: The detente of the Carter administration gave way to the aggressiveness of the Reagan administration. Solidarity had gained support not only in Poland, but around the world. Millions of ordinary people began to openly question the value of Communism and to resist Soviet influence over their affairs. In addition, the United States, Britain, West Germany, and other Allied nations gave moral and material support to Solidarity. Pope John Paul II, the first Polish pope, also supported Solidarity and urged Catholics in Eastern Europe to resist Communism.

One of the most crucial support mechanisms that Solidarity relied on was a vast underground communications network. Among the most crucial parts of this network were the first fax machines in Poland. These fax machines allowed news to move freely in and out of Poland for the first time in ages. They, along with photocopiers, were the backbone of Solidarity's efforts to organize and inform the masses.

These fax machines were supplied by Western labor unions, the Vatican, and the CIA, to name a few. Unlike other forms of communication, the Soviets could not censor fax transmissions effectively. Furthermore, access to fax machines was tightly controlled in Communist nations, but this monopoly too fell as inexpensive Japanese fax machines flooded the globe.

It is no coincidence that the Communist Bloc collapsed just as the Information Age was underway. The rise of information technologies like fax machines and the Internet broke the monopoly of information that the Communist Party held over its subjects.

In the end, Lech Walesa and thousands of Eastern Europeans realized the dream of a free Europe, thanks in no small part to fax machines.

Even though the Communist Bloc is no more, there is still much work to be done in the name of freedom of information. Just as in the Soviet Union, mainstream media is heavily controlled by special interests whose top job is preserving their power base, even though it often conflicts with the common good.

That is why I called this blog, "Lech Walesa's Fax Machine." My blog serves the same purpose as those Polish fax machines -- to offer a free perspective outside that of the "mainstream" media.

We shall see where this journey takes us...

Why Lech Walesa's Fax Machine? Part 1

2005-02-16T09:48:00.001-05:00

You may be wondering where I came up with the title, "Lech Walesa's Fax Machine." Here's how that came to be:

In 1980, when I was a wee lad of five, the Solidarity movement in Poland was in full swing. Solidarity arose out of Poland in response to economic stagnation and decline in Poland as a result not only of a global recession, but also mismanagement at the hands of the Communist government. There had been protests in Poland before about wages, food shortages, and treatment of dissenters, but no one directly threatened the Polish government or the Soviet Union, who really ran the show in Poland. Those who did got a one-way trip to Siberia-- if the authorities were in a jovial mood.

Workers all over Poland set up free trade unions that sought better wages, working conditions and the right to strike and to collective bargaining. One of these was Solidarity, founded by Lech Walesa, an electrician at the Lenin shipyard in Gdansk. This union pulled together 36 independent unions and grew to number 9 million members.

At first, the Soviet Union went along with Solidarity. Solidarity did not seek to replace the Communist Party or seek regime change in Poland or even the Soviet Union, but sought to work alongside the power structure. Furthermore, the Sovs saw Solidarity as a safety valve for people's frustrations that they tolerated to avoid a greater confrontation down the road with the Polish people or the West, which nonetheless happened. At the same time, relations between the Soviet Union, the Communist Bloc and the West were marked by the spirit of detente, or a relaxation of tensions and an attitude of peaceful coexistence.

But things quickly went from bad to worse in Poland...

Welcome To Lech Walesa's Fax Machine!

2005-02-16T09:48:00.000-05:00

Hello out there in blog land! Welcome to Lech Walesa's Fax Machine!

I'm Bryce, your host of this wonderful blog, where you get a perspective that you don't usually get.

Stay tuned for more details about this blog.