Friday, June 23, 2017

Gallup Does Mention One Thing....

This is an interesting bit of data, certainly, and I'm not here to minimize the effect of the HodgesObergefell decision (I've (jokingly) mentioned that I've known Jim was gay longer than he has, right? College friends from back in the day), or even really comment on that. As usual, I have this odd take on this bit of data (and one point that isn't mine at all)

LGBT marriage rates have increased, but not as much as you might think. Indeed, as the text of the article points out, it may have actually slowed a little after the big push last year when it all became legal.
On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court issued the Obergefell decision. As would be expected, the number of same-sex marriages has increased, though the rate of increase has slowed.
One thing I can't figure out is the two different numbers cited:

Two years after the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that states could not prohibit same-sex marriages, 10.2% of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) adults in the U.S. are married to a same-sex spouse. That is up from 7.9% in the months prior to the Supreme Court decision in 2015, but only marginally higher than the 9.6% measured in the first year after the ruling.

But then says:

As a result of these shifts, Gallup estimates that 61% of same-sex, cohabiting couples in the U.S. are now married, up from 38% before the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in June 2015, and 49% one year ago. 
 
Huh?

Anyway, here's someone else's point (Rush Limbaugh): not as many gay people want to get married as everyone seemed to think, so the issue was overblown in many ways. Yes, there were plenty of folks that wanted to get legally married, don't mistake the point, it's just that the storyline overstated that number, and therefore the reach of the "historic" decision was far smaller than the average ally thought. There is data to support that idea in this story:

An increasing percentage of LGBT adults now identify their marital status as single or never married. That has always been the dominant status among LGBT individuals, but has increased from 47.4% to 55.7% over the last two years.

Now, I immediately noticed a line in the data (my emphasis below) that I am impressed that Gallup chose to include:

 LGBT Americans are still more likely to be married to an opposite-sex spouse (13.1%) than a same-sex spouse (10.2%), but the gap is narrowing. According to prior research on LGBT identification, roughly half of those who self-identify as LGBT are bisexual, helping explaining the high proportion of LGBT individuals who are married to opposite-sex partners. Gallup's question does not probe specifically for whether LGBT individuals are lesbian or gay or bisexual or transgender.

Interesting, eh?

With Gallup reporting that according to their research
Overall, 4.3% of U.S. adults identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, according to Gallup's latest estimate from its June 2016-June 2017 tracking data. That is up from 3.9% a year ago and 3.4% in Gallup's initial estimate in 2012. 
I find it interesting that it's still a tiny percentage of the population that was affected by this massive media story (although it's still a largish actual number: 2015 census says 247,773,709 adults, so that's like 10.6 million people), and the subset of that number that got married in light of the Supreme Court decision is pretty small. Let's do some math.

Using the 2015 number above, and that 4.3% percentage according to Gallup, there are approximately

  • 10,654,269 adult LGBT people in the US.
  • 841,687 married prior to HodgesObergefell (7.9%)
  • 1,086,735 married after two years (10.2%)
  • so 245,048 adults got married as a result, so far. (this is off by a little, as we are using 2015 numbers, I get that.)
That's .000989% of the adults in the US. 

That's a lot of hubbub for a very very small group. I have said that the US Constitution has been described as a document to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority (not my line, obviously), so this fits into that mold, I guess, but wow, what a lot of attention given to an issue that has a ridiculously tiny reach. Perspective, people. 

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Organic Foods Have Downsides? Who'Da Thunk It?

Life is a balance between all the choices we have presented before us and all the decisions we make. Yin and Yang, karma, The Secret, et cetera, all speak to this idea that everything has an effect (and affect?) on something. I have written before about our hubris in toying with nature, and our old friend The Law of Unintended Consequences.

Here's an interesting look at the research from some sources (and I am sure that there are others with different results) from a writer at the UK Telegraph, or, more appropriately, a professor that has been known to write about how the environmental/climate movement doesn't pay attention to the above-mentioned Law. I say that to be sure that you read this with a critical eye, knowing that I feel the same way he does and could be experiencing some Confirmation Bias (as I admittedly do, do you?).

Norman Borlaug, who got the Nobel Prize for starting the Green Revolution, liked to point out that organic farming on a global scale would leave billions without food. “I don’t see two billion volunteers to disappear,” he said.
Exactly. That's just one zinger, read the article to see the research about how organic fails at feeding large numbers. Here's an interview with this guy, Bjorn Lomborg, called The Reasonable Environmentalist, which I love, as that's exactly how I've described myself (conserve! reduce, reuse, recycle!), indeed, I try to be reasonable above all else.

His recent column, Trump’s climate plan might not be so bad after all, lays it out. The pledges agreed to in the Paris treaty would cost $1 to $2 trillion a year by 2030 to implement, with virtually no impact: At most it would reduce global temperature by a fraction of degree by the end of the century.
He says money would be better spent developing breakthrough technology that would truly be transformational to our economy (not solar and wind, which are piddling) and funding efforts to combat malnutrition and provide safe drinking water in the developing world.
The upshot is, if you truly care about two billion people living in dire poverty, the Paris treaty is the wrong way to help them.
THIS!!!! I once had an article from the "founder of Greenpeace now a skeptic" that had a great chart about the costs/benefits of spending allllll that cash on AGW versus not that came to the same conclusion, a reduction of a fraction of a degree. I can't find it!!!!

Oh, here's another article of his about the fact that there are good things about a warming world that don't get discussed because of HOW DARE YOU. I have said this as well, that fewer people will die because cold kills more people than heat....

Don't be led around by your nose, think, doubt, and verify from scientific sources not PuffHo, or WinfoArs and their ilk.


Friday, March 10, 2017

I Must Rant For A Moment. Triggered, Indeed.

I admit it, I was "triggered" by a Facebook post of a high school friend, a clickbait headline about Science Disproving Transphobia or some similar drivel.

Are people phobic about trans people? I don't think so. I mean, that's a catch-all kind of statement in the first place. Yes, there are people who are scared of trans people, the idea of trans people, etc, just as there are people in the country (and the world) that are racist, but I believe we are no longer what any sane person can call a "racist nation."

The entire bathroom flap about trans people was started by the prog/lib/dems deciding that there was a problem for this unbelievably small number of people and THERE NEEDS TO BE A LAW to decide that THEY CAN USE WHATEVER BATHROOM I IDENTIFY WITH BECAUSE they said so.

Now, is it reasonable that people should be able to go to the bathroom? Yup.

Is it reasonable that people should not be bullied or assaulted because of this? Yup. How often was that happening? I dunno. Too often, no matter them actual number

However, when you say PAY ATTENTION TO THIS TINY ISSUE, WE ARE MAKING A LAW ABOUT IT, people pay attention.

This resulted in conservative/repub lawmakers saying YOU CAN'T MAKE US ACCEPT THIS LAW because Religion and stuff! Dems lit a fire, Repubs threw gasoline on it, like always.

So, the last POTUS signed an order about schools and bathrooms, then the new POTUS signed an order rescinding it, saying clearly "this isn't a federal issue, schools can make whatever policy suits them about bathrooms without a federal mandate." **It's worthy to note that Trump has been by far the most LGBT-friendly presidential candidate in our history, if you are paying attention.

This, I assume caused the post (and article) that "triggered" me.

So, where's the rant?

People aren't afraid of trans, they are afraid of perverts and pedophiles. That's the objection. We have been carefully taught (catch the South Pacific reference?) that ALL MEN ARE PREDATORS by the extremist lefty prog anti-rape-culture feminist pogrom for my entire time on earth and maybe longer than that. All. Men. Are. Predators.

Every class, training, sensitivity session that has taught our young men and women about harassment, rape, etc, has emphasized how bad men are, and this is the fruit of this education, folks.

We all now know beyond that shadow of doubt that men cannot be trusted with children, or women. I cannot even so much as coach my children's teams without approval from the school, archdiocese, FBI and state police. I cannot be alone with the team even after that (2 adults always!) because I still may be a predator or perv (or may still be accused of predatoring or perving if alone without a corroborating witness, who is there to protect me and my reputation just as I am there for them). When I first went through the vetting process as a M Ed student, we were carefully instructed to never being alone with students, or if conferencing, keeping the door open and alerting a colleague to the sensitive situation if no one could chaperone so that we couldn't even be accused of the unavoidable, expected sexual assaults we couldn't help but perpetrate on our students....

So, excuse us if we think giving adult-males-that-may-be-predators the legal ability to share our daughters' (and sons') bathrooms and locker rooms. We aren't afraid a trans kid is going to hurt them, we are afraid a predator is going to waltz in right in front of us instead of having to sneak in while we are trying to protect our kids.





Friday, February 10, 2017

New Year, New Job, New Post

Sorry that it's been so long since I've posted on here, what with the election and all, and another new job (that seems to be an issue in my life, a lack of job satisfaction (not a lack of security, I tend to leave of my own volition mostly)), but it's time to talk about a few things that are on my mind.

Firstly, let's talk about an avocation of mine, acting. I don't perform very frequently, although I have representation, but I have gotten the odd job here and there, including some barely-noticeable-paid-extra work on actual movies shot here locally (but not as many as I would like). I've seen a couple of "Urgent casting for volunteer extras" posts on Facebook from a local casting agent and shared them, but I personally won't do those. Why? I value what I do. I gladly volunteer at church and school, but if they are going to make money on the movie (it is a capital project, no?), why should it expect my labor to be free? I understand it's not a big deal, and there are many that will happily volunteer to be a part of a film, but if I'm doing this work for pay (thanks, agency), it devalues me to do it for free.



Trump derangement continues unabated all over. I've been clear about my feelings about the guy, but, boy am I enjoying the derangement. Seriously, to see him poke the hive successfully over and over again is pretty amusing. Maybe, just maybe, some of his opponents will see the merit of advocating for a smaller government. Ok, just kidding, they won't.

There have been openings in the freakouts, however. A Jewish H.S. classmate of mine actually posted a blog from a guy saying "my Dad was obsessed with Hitler and the Nazis, and he was a killer and maniac from day one. Trump isn't and isn't going to suddenly become one," which was perfectly timed for me to read, as I had been pondering that very line of logic. Did Hitler "grow" into Hitler-ness, or was he like that all along? Because, to say that Trump is a modern Hitler leading us down the same path ("I have studied Nazi Germany and this is how it started" say so many idiots), means that he actually wants to KILL A BUNCH OF PEOPLE RIGHT NOW, right? 

Scott Adams of Dilbert fame (among his many accomplishments) has been on fire explaining the persuasiveness and success of the Trump campaign, if you haven't read him, do it. He's all over Twitter, too.

I still say the best line about the new Prez is that progs and libs take him literally rather than seriously, when it should be the other way around. He also continues to play the press like a fiddle, which is hilarious. One NBC person has it right (I can't find the tweets), that covering his rantings (specifically, it was the "under reported terror attacks story) only brings attention to the issue (and she was totally correct), but the media can't not cover him, just like it couldn't during the campaign. It's worse for them now that he's POTUS! That's how he won, right? Well, that, and his opponent was the worst Dem prez candidate since Mondale.

I am amazed at the cognitive dissonance on both (all) sides of the aisle. Most recently, this Nordstrom Dropping Ivanka's Clothing Line Flap has me chuckling at the lefties that actually believe that it was a business decision. Seriously. It was political, as is TJMaxx's, and my wife is pissed off about it because she actually like the quality of some of the clothes in her line! 

Everyone thinks they are thoughtful, everyone thinks they have formed their opinions based on reflection and education, but, as has been described well by others, that's just not true. I give people the benefit of the doubt, but there's just so much stupid out there, and the Internet makes it inescapable. Alas.

Photography continues to amuse me, so if you aren't already, follow me on instagram. I get the honor of an episode of the Hashtagged Daily Podcast here in a week or so, look for episode 77. If you like instagram and photography, it's an interesting podcast!