• About

Posts By Connie Morgan

0 Hooah

  • August 16, 2017
  • by Connie Morgan
  • · In the News

So, I joined the Army…I know it’s a little shocking. Well, I didn’t think it was that shocking but  from the reactions I have gotten the past couple months I guess it is. This sort of makes sense as I am 25 years old, in a career track, bought some property and seemed generally happy with my life as it was so let me explain.

First of all, what exactly did I join? I applied for and received a slot for Officer Candidate School in the United States Army. An OCS slot is a lot like applying for college, in fact you need a college degree to even apply, which is what separates enlisted from officers. Some enlisted folks have degrees but officers must have degrees. I had to submit my transcripts, resume, get letters of recommendation, there was an interview and I even had to show my high school diploma. A little different from college applications, I had to get a military physical, pass the Army Physical Fitness Test and score a minimum of 110 on the ASVAB.

So I turned in all my stuff, did the physical, took the PFT, and did the interview. I felt pretty good after the interview. Ok, I felt like I had it in the bag after the interview, nevertheless I squealed when I got the call that I was awarded a slot. I was at work though so I had to play it cool even though I was jumping up and down on the inside.

Getting a slot is great but it doesn’t guarantee anything. As an Army officer candidate, I first must go to basic training. The Army is the only branch that requires their officer candidates to attend basic training before OCS. The other branches essentially wrap their basic training and OCS into one. So first I have to get through basic without any issues. I leave for Basic on September 18th and that will last for 9 weeks.

Assuming I get through Basic with no issues, then I leave for OCS. OCS is 14 weeks. It’s essentially a mini-military school in that you’re in the classroom learning things like military history, leadership skills, land navigation etc., while maintaining a level of physical fitness.

OCS is where I’ll learn what my job will be. That’s right, my job of choice is not guaranteed. At OCS they immediately start ranking all the candidates based on your leadership abilities, PFT scores and in-class test scores. The ranking goes on throughout your time there. Your job assignment is based on your rank. So whoever is ranked first gets first choice at what job they want and so on. If there are three infantry spots available you better be ranked in the top three if you want to guarantee you get infantry. The number of officers needed for each branch of the Army change from class to class. The class before me could’ve taken five infantry officers but my class might take 15 infantry officers. I would like to branch Military Intelligence but that is one of the most sought after branches, meaning I will have to be ranked very high to secure a Military Intelligence slot. Basically there’s a good chance I won’t get the job I want.

Once I get through with OCS and get my job I will commision as a 2nd Lieutenant and go to another school specific to my job called BOLC or Basic Officer Leadership Course (technically OCS is classified as BOLC as well, it’s just the first phase). I chose Army specifically because it is the biggest branch of the military meaning the most opportunity for a wide variety of experience.

So why did I join the military at all?

I don’t know.

Just kidding.

For a handful of reasons. Reason number one is principle. I feel everyone should serve in some way. Doesn’t have to be military but as a healthy, young, single person this seemed like the best fit for me. If you know me you know I care deeply about veterans and military issues in general. A part of me has always felt a little hypocritical for having these views given that I have never served.

Reason number two plays off reason number one. I love America. I’m proud to live here. I’m proud of our constitution, a document I believe is one of the greatest ever written. I love the people that live here. I love our story. It’s not always perfect, but we aren’t the perfect guys, we are re the good guys though. I believe free nations around the world are safer because of the power combined with the principles of the American Military. The clearest signal to me that this is truly a great nation is that with our military strength we have the power to take over, I mean literally take over any nation we want and re-name that nation America 2.0, yet we don’t. This country, the constitution, your children; They’re worth protecting. They’re worth dying for. And I shouldn’t put that job on someone else when I am perfectly capable of contributing myself.  

Reason number three is the most selfish. There are some great benefits to being a member of the Army. The health care, the traveling opportunities, the pension. None of that is bad.

Reason number four is for myself. I want a new challenge. I want to develop new skills. I want to open more doors for myself. I want to meet new people from all over the country. No, I don’t have an interest in politics, no I am not really trying to set up a career path that leads to the CIA. The worst part of all this is that I will now work for the government. If you’ve read any of my other stuff you probably have figured out that I don’t trust the government and prefer to keep them out of my life as much as possible. Unfortunately, it’s something I will have to compromise on in order to live up to my principles listed above.

Why didn’t I just join the Reserves? Well, that was originally the plan. I met with a recruiter for the first time last August with the intention of joining the Reserves. It wasn’t until February that I decided to switch to an active duty application. A couple reasons for the switch. Building my tiny home turned out to be way more of a headache than I thought it would be. I couldn’t actually build the home the way I wanted because of minimum square footage county code. I knew this going into it and was willing to compromise on size but then my plans still got rejected, and for petty reasons. For instance, the key not being in the right place. Did I mention I dislike the government?

On top of problems with building my home, (I dug a well on the property, then sold it by the way) I was feeling a little stagnant in my job. I loved going to work but felt my contributions to the company weren’t as obvious as they once were.

I also want the full military experience. Starting out in the Reserves won’t really give me that and when I inquired about possibly switching to active duty down the road I was told the process can be difficult and isn’t guaranteed. It’s much easier to go from active to reserves than it is to go from reserves to active. So I signed a 3.5 year contract.

I’ve talked the talk and it’s time for me to walk to walk. Thank you to everyone who has supported me, written letters for me and given advice. Hopefully I don’t regret this decision for the rest of my life.

 

2 Falling in Love is Illogical

  • July 11, 2017
  • by Connie Morgan
  • · Health and Fitness

Have you ever been in love? Are you in love right now? What kind of love? Is it a soul mate kind of love or can’t imagine life without them kind of love? Or are those two the same thing? I (along with 99.9% of women and a good chunk of men too) have wondered since I was a little girl what love was. I couldn’t wait to be in it, whatever it meant. It seemed exciting and fun and, of course, would lead me to a happy fulfilled life. Now older, a little more skeptical but still just as hopeful, I describe love as being like a shower: I will stall and wait and do everything I can to put off getting in, but once I’m in it, I stall and wait and do everything I can to delay getting out. What the hell is this thing and why is it so powerful?

The truth is nobody really knows. Well, religious people have an explanation, but from a scientific standpoint romantic love is hard to explain. You’ve probably heard of “love hormones” or chemicals in your brain that relate to love but even these things don’t really explain being in love. Love hormones refer to testosterone and estrogen that come into play during the initial “lust” phases of a relationship but these hormones are active any time one is physically attracted to someone else. I’m attracted to a lot of dudes, doesn’t mean I love them.

Another hormone people refer to  when trying to explain love is oxytocin. Oxytocin is also known as the “cuddle hormone” and is released when both men and women orgasm. It’s not just released when you’re in love with the person you’re having sex with, but any time you orgasm. Oxytocin is also released when a woman gives birth helping her to become the nurturing mother babies need right away. So while this hormone may help you feel closer to someone, it’s not specific to romantic love. In fact, this hormone could potentially trick you into thinking you’re in love with someone you’re having a lot of sex with, when, in fact, it may just be sex.

Vasopressin is another “love hormone” and is released after sex. Also called anti-diuretic hormone, vasopressin helps men bond with their female partners. All males are under the influence of vasopressin when they have sex and it’s part of the “possessive” nature men have. For men, being under the influence of vasopressin is similar to an animal’s instinct to claim its territory; except after sex, the female is the territory. Her scent, hair, eyes, even the color of her sheets can all become triggers in the man that make him crave her. This is also why breakups are usually harder on the man because when he loses his girl, he doesn’t just lose her, he loses his “home.”

Vasopressin helps make men want to be monogamous but it’s a hormone released any time a man has sex, and is found amongst other animals and it has clear practical applications. Monogamy makes life easier – imagine having to find a new mate every spring like many in the animal kingdom do. It makes much more sense to keep the same mate for many years increasing your likelihood of producing a lot of offspring. Vasopressin helps encourage this behavior in men.

One of my favorite ways people try to explain love is through the chemicals adrenaline, dopamine and serotonin. These chemicals are active in the brain when you consistently think about the person you love. Basically these are “obsessive chemicals.”  While they may be present whilst you’re obsessing over someone you adore, I don’t see how this explains what love actually is. Your body doesn’t tell you to fall in love by producing these chemicals. No, you fall in love and your body responds to your love by producing these chemicals.

Pretty much everything human, from our physical selves to our emotions and desires, serve a purpose and that purpose is to survive. Survival both in terms of not dying individually and surviving as a species by procreating as much as possible. Pubic hair, a competitive nature, curiosity, dark skin etc., one could make a good case as to why all those things exist from an evolutionary standpoint to help individuals and species continue existing.  

Even the desire to be monogamous as mentioned above is theorized to be an evolutionary practice adopted because it makes having babies less time consuming and more efficient. But what practice does romantic love serve? Just turn on the radio and you’ll hear tale after tale of love ruining lives, inducing drug and alcohol abuse, and leading to people doing some pretty crazy shi*. Love is great if both parties feel it – and at an equal rate I might add – but the odds of that happening are about as slim as getting struck by lightning while getting hit by a car. (I made that stat up.) But just look at the divorce rate, then look at the people who stayed married but are unhappy. You could even take it a step further, think about a couple you know that seems pretty happy. Now pick which person appears to be “more in love.” Could you pick one? If so, you’re helping prove my point.

Everyone thinks they know what love is, what it feels like and whether or not the other person feels the same way. But anyone who’s ever been a pint of ice cream deep sitting on the couch in their pajamas at 2 p.m. in the afternoon with bags under their eyes knows that in reality love is a cloud that feels impossible to pin down.

Wouldn’t it have made more sense for humans to evolve not to fall in love? Finding a partner wouldn’t involve finding a “spark,” it would be like a job interview. And if the partner left you after finding someone else with better benefits, you’d completely understand and sincerely wish them luck with their new partner. I know what my ad would say:

WANTED: Tall, dark, relatively in shape manchild with good teeth and handyman skills. Must be familiar with the movie “Big Trouble in Little China.” Freckles preferred but not required.

(And yes, brown men with freckles exist.)

Someone answers my ad and I fit most of his qualifications so boom! We form a partnership. But then just as we’re about to get down to making some babies he notices a different ad for a woman who meets one of the criteria I couldn’t. She’s 5’10”. “Sorry,” he says, “I want tall offspring.” I say “fair enough” shake his hand and off he goes. And I return to my search.

And how simple “break ups” would be! There wouldn’t be drawn out fights. Numerous “getting back togethers” to see if it can work after all. No waiting around to see if they’ll realize their mistake. No tearful nights or drunken rebounds. In short, a lot less time would be wasted.

But alas, that’s not how we evolved. As I see it romantic love has no practical purpose. Loyalty doesn’t require romantic love, I’m extremely loyal to my brother but I’m not in love with him. Trust doesn’t require romantic love, I trust my best friends with pretty much everything and I’m not in love with any of them. But romantic love has made me loyal to those who didn’t deserve it and lose trust in my own ability to make sound decisions.

I probably sound like a cynic who’s had her heart broken one too many times but I’m not. Like I said before I am still hopeful one day I will find someone to be equally hopelessly and stupidly and wonderfully in love with. But notice how I said stupidly.  Like most humans, I have an internal instinct to find someone to love, I’m just aware the instinct makes no sense. By the way, if you know a single person who fits the descriptors in my fake ad, feel free to drop me a message.  

0 Rights vs Privileges

  • June 17, 2017
  • by Connie Morgan
  • · In the News

People have been throwing around the word “right” way more than I am comfortable with. “I have a right to education,” “You have a right to health care,” and recently in a gotcha moment a Republican senator was asked if people had a right to food. He didn’t answer it well.

All of the above claims are false. Now you can have the belief socially funded X, Y and Z would result in a stronger more prosperous society, sure. But to say any of them are “rights” is a dangerous proposition to make. This may sound petty, but language is important; the meaning of words is important. Telling people they have a right to things they simply do not is damaging.

So what is a right? What is a privilege? How can you tell the two a part? According to the Declaration of Independence, all men (i.e. mankind) are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights such as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Before non-Christians get all hung up on the creator part, let me say it in a secular way. The Declaration is saying every human has rights that no one can take away. Seems like a pretty legit idea whether you’re a believer or not.

Can education be taken away? Yes. Can it be given? Yes. Therefore, not a right. What I mean is, the government could declare all education is now free; kindergarten through college. Let’s say this goes on for five years and then higher education markets collapse. So the government now says, “hey guys, we’re shutting down all the colleges until we figure this out.” They gave education and then they took it away.

I know what you’re thinking, someone could shoot me tomorrow and take my life! It must not be a right then! Yes, someone can stop your heartbeat but can they take your life? When MLK was assassinated did his life’s work suddenly become that of his killer? Of course not. His life was still his life and no one can take that away.

And what about life? You need healthcare and food to stay alive. You have a right to life, so food and healthcare must be rights! That may be true if there was an endless supply of food or healthcare and if food and healthcare didn’t rely on the labor of others. What politicians who push free healthcare and endless welfare programs would be saying if they were honest is they think you have a right to someone else’s money. Because nothing is really free. It might be free to you, but someone paid for that apple you are eating. Someone paid for that MRI machine. Do you think doctors should work for free? Do you think apple pickers should work for free?

Maybe you think we should just tax the rich and they’ll pay for stuff? Again, this is the same as saying you have a right to someone else’s money. Taxes are the government taking money from richer people, on poorer people’s behalf. At gunpoint. Seem extreme? It’s really not. People pay their taxes because if they don’t someone with a gun will make them. If I refuse to pay my taxes I will get a notice. After that doesn’t work I will be charged with tax evasion and a court date will be established. I don’t show up to court, the police show up at my house. I refuse to go with the police. Do you know what happens next? You guessed it. They take out their guns and make me go with them.  

Rights are not transferable. Not directly or via some form of payment. Any time you take one thing from someone and give it to someone else, you know that thing is a privilege. I can’t transfer my life to you. You can’t swap liberties with another person and you can’t pursue someone else’s happiness. That’s why those things are rights.

True rights give you complete control over your life.True rights are your personal declaration of independence. Statist rights such as healthcare, education etc. do not give you independence but make you dependent on others.

So next time someone claims something is a right ask yourself these questions:

  1. Can this thing be taken away?
  2. Does this thing rely on the labor of others?
  3. Is this thing transferable?
  4. Does this thing make me more dependent?

If the answer is yes to any of the above you’ve found yourself a privilege, not a right.

0 Facebook Fights

  • May 21, 2017
  • by Connie Morgan
  • · In the News

I’m guessing a lot of people get the impression that I like fighting or “trolling” as some say. I write about sometimes touchy topics and I have become less and less hesitant to jump on a Facebook conversation I disagree with. Even in face-to-face conversations, I’m not known to hold back my thoughts or tiptoe around someone else’s feelings. But the truth is, I hate fighting. I get very nervous any time I post something political, like to the point where my stomach gets the same feeling you get when you drive your car over a small hill. I cringe when I see a Facebook or Twitter alert. I always assume someone is calling me a name or trying to prove me wrong. On the occasion that someone is responding positively to something I said, I start “relief sweating.” Relief sweating is when you relax enough to start sweating after being wound up so tight your body couldn’t even sweat like a normal nervous person.

I often find myself asking if there’s any point to social media debate. Does anyone’s mind ever get changed? Sometimes I get a positive text or a message from someone regarding something I said on social media and that’s nice but I’m guessing I reaffirmed their belief, I didn’t change it. Someone has to post something astoundingly misinformed for me to comment.

Below is an example of a real conversation I had on Facebook with someone whose ideology is essentially communism, (a political theory that is responsible for the death of 94 million people in the 20th century)…Perhaps my next post should explain what communism is and why it’s dangerous..

To protect this person’s identity let’s just call him Garb. Here’s how it started:

Garb: Speaking SOLELY as a citizen who doesn’t have a lot of money and doesn’t make a lot of money, I MIGHT be A teeny tiny microscopic amount okay with our stupid-in-every-sense-of-the-word President (who is supposed to be a PUBLIC SERVANT) cutting SOME social programs IF AND ONLY IF the saved money actually went to the people whose benefits were cut. Otherwise it’s so so clearly obvious that he’s just a rich asshole who is just giving more money to other rich people by taking away expenditures on those who need help. Why, in ANY SENSE, would it ever be okay to GIVE to those who have and TAKE from those who have not?

Me: Why, in ANY SENSE would it ever be okay to TAKE from those who have fairly earned their money and GIVE to those who have not? Also, you’re essentially saying here that it’s OK to cut social programs as long as you start another one…so what would be the point in cutting the original one? That rich asshole isn’t “giving money” to anyone when/if he cuts a program, he’s letting taxpayers keep more of the money THEY earned. Big difference. The government never gives money to those who pay income taxes (roughly 55% of the population) they just decide how much of your OWN money you get to keep if you are in that 55%.

Ok, so maybe it was obnoxious for me to use the all capped words like he did but I couldn’t help it. The conversation went on and on. I won’t copy and paste everything here but instead will try to address the points, accusations and claims this person made that are common amongst the extreme left.

Why do you think every poor person is lazy? I know you think that because otherwise you would have no problem with them getting help out of “your pocket.”
Right away he has lost the argument because instead of debating my ideas he resorts to attacking my character. He says I think poor people lazy. So because I like keeping the money I earn I think poor people are lazy? This is what leftists do. They paint anyone who has different solutions than them as evil.

Without social programs then what? People just “work harder, want it more?” Don’t you think they would be where they want to be if they didn’t need help? Nobody likes spinning their tires. So you think it’s better to let people be homeless and live on the streets and starve and crowd up homeless shelters if they don’t make the cut?
This also makes an emotional argument against those who would like to see social welfare programs cut back. Virtually every American, conservative or otherwise, believes there should be a social safety net. Where conservatives and liberals separate is the magnitude of said, social net. There are currently 15 categories of welfare and that number is always increasing. I don’t want to cut all safety nets, I simply think we could be more efficient and effective with social welfare.

If you already have everything you NEED (wants are not essential and should NOT be included in any discussion over right or wrong, especially when people’s lives and health are at stake) then taking away a little more isn’t gonna put you below being able to live.
This statement is a scary one because it’s where he starts to dabble in communism. Over and over again throughout the debate he claimed luxuries shouldn’t exist. Food and shelter should be the only things that matter. It’s really quite obvious why this is faulty logic. Who decides what each person’s NEEDS are? Technically I don’t need a car, so should I give that up? I don’t really need a dog either so I guess he should be taken away from me too. And my phone, I don’t need that either. Do you see the slippery slope you go down when you start deciding what people’s needs are and taking (taxing) accordingly?

Hope these people have fun buying their extra car with their extra tax money or their extra vacation while homeless Johnny McPoorPerson loses his health insurance and food stamps just so people who ALREADY HAVE MONEY AND DON’T NEED HELP can use their money to make themselves happy while others are using their money to survive.
How do you get people out of poverty? You give them jobs. How are more jobs created? Increased demand for goods and services which leads to increased supply of goods and services. People buying “extra” cars, houses, vacations etc. are those goods and services that employ more people. He says rich people are using their money to make themselves happy while others are using their money to survive…how would the poor have any money at all if people weren’t buying goods and services?

He also says rich people are buying extra things with their “extra tax money.” The only body that can have extra tax money is the government. Individuals cannot have extra tax money. That’s just their money. That’s like calling the money you saved buying discounted tennis shoes your “extra shoe money.” No, that’s just your money you can now save or spend on something else.

So what I actually (obviously) meant was raising taxes doesn’t force anyone to lose anything which is essential for survival.
Raising taxes does cause people to lose things. Now my taxes are higher so I am not going to hire a maid. Or now my taxes are higher so we’ll take fewer vacations. People lose their jobs over higher taxes. In  the debate, I used the yacht industry and the luxury tax as an example because he and I are from the same county and in this county, yachts are made. When it came to the yacht industry in Westport, a luxury tax was introduced, people didn’t buy as many yachts and normal folks lost their jobs.

I also told this individual that if he was struggling to get out of poverty I would help him in any way that I could. I told him he could DM me and we could work on it. Well he did DM me but not to explain how he was struggling to reach his career goals but to further complain about how he is disadvantaged. This unfortunately, is reflective of a lot of people on the left. They don’t want to work hard, they don’t want better opportunity, they just want your money and they want it now.

I already know that having yachts and other bullshit luxuries won’t make me happy. For those lost in that pursuit of happiness, I feel so deeply sorry. But the only things anyone “needs,” are a place to live, a job, and food. Anything else is superfluous and is just a scam in essence.
Here he shows he missed my point about yachts. I don’t believe yachts are the key to happiness but they are a luxury item that lead to more wealth and prosperity for the thousands of people employed in the boating industry. Rich people create jobs which is good. People from all walks of life are employed to build yachts and other luxury items.

What’s funny is that this guy worked in a luxury apparel store so he benefited from rich people buying things they don’t need. He also worked for Dominos and you know what else people don’t need? Pizza. You know what else people don’t need? Any restaurants at all. Almost every dollar this guy has ever earned is a result of people buying things they don’t need.

Why do so many people view rich people as evil simply because they are rich? And by rich I really mean anyone who lives above the poverty line and pays federal income taxes. These people fly planes, they buy candy bars, they take vacations, they attend concerts, all the while employing more and more people. But none of these items are necessities so according to Garb they shouldn’t exist?

After pointing out all the benefits to the yacht industry this was Garb’s response and I quote “I don’t know any of that, because I don’t have any interest in yachts and don’t spend a lot of time scrolling through numbers or statistics.”

Really let that sink in. He doesn’t spend time looking at statistics. Yet here he is, preaching to the world that he knows what’s best whilst two people who do pay attention to such things are pointing out the facts but we’re just evil and greedy.

The only thing that’s important to all humans is survival. Personal liberty and freedom are only important to happiness. Morals come before any happiness, otherwise there’s nothing left; just a bunch of self-centered assholes clawing their way to the top to get that yacht, when several people by whom they pass every day, are clawing for food to survive.
Things that aren’t necessary for survival create jobs, which then help others survive. Having survival as the goal and completely discounting the pursuit of happiness seems like a truly counterproductive philosophy. Who wants to survive if you can never be happy?  I mean, seriously what is the point to surviving if that’s all we’re doing? Everyone can go work at the suicide crisis center I guess.

If that money (he’s referring to money spent on any luxury good from yachts to craft beer) was spent on taxes there would be government jobs to replace those jobs based in providing luxury things.
So let’s create a scenario in which his dreams come true. Tax money goes to fund “necessary” jobs instead of “luxury” jobs.

If 10,000 people donate $50 to build a hospital that’s $500,000.  Not enough to build an emergency room, let alone a whole hospital.  But a “rich asshole” who wants to see his name on a building can donate $5,000,000 or $10,000,000 and you’re good to go.  And often times it goes beyond the name on a building, rich people follow their true passions and use the business acumen that made them rich to begin with to truly further their cause.  Example:  Fred Hutchinson Cancer Centers.  Carnegie Hall.  Ted Turner’s Bison project.  Etc.

Let’s say everyone had a government job (“GOVERNMENT JOBS = JOBS”) and, for the sake of the example you started with a $1 trillion payroll and everyone paid 20% in income taxes, here is how it would go:

Year 1:  $1,000,000,000,000 paid out, $200,000,000,000 tax revenue
Year 2:  $200,000,000,000 paid out, $40,000,000,000 tax revenue,  80% unemployment
Year 3: $40,000,000,000 paid out, $8,000,000,000 tax revenue,  96% unemployment
Year 4:  $8,000,000,000 paid out,  $1,600,000,000 tax revenue  99.2% unemployment

Admittedly this is an oversimplification, there would be other moving parts in the equation. Some facets would actually make the situation collapse sooner (the government spending on anything other than payroll) and others would make it last longer (government’s ability to print money). The point is all government is a closed loop.  It is a perpetual motion machine – and there is no such thing.  Energy, or in the case of government, capital, gets used up and has to come from outside.

Rising insurance costs are because insurance companies are privatized, so they make a profit off of selling the closest thing you can get to an assurance of good health. An assurance of good health sounds pretty necessary to survival to me. So of course they are going to raise premiums at every opportunity because corporations make money. Over time costs rise, so they must raise their prices to keep up with the cost of the yachts and mansions they need to buy.
Again, 100% absolutely false. He has no idea what he is talking about. He doesn’t understand what privatized means, he doesn’t know what capitalism is, he doesn’t understand what influences insurance premiums. This guy is an idiot. I hate to call names but there’s just no other way to describe him.

Insurance is one of the most highly regulated industries in the country, not just at the federal level but at the state level as   well. Insurance companies do not operate in a free and open market like Garb states. Obamacare showed us what happens when government tries to make a market behave in a certain way. As former Treasury Department and Office of Management and Budget staffer J.T. Young said, “By applying subsidies to one or both sides of the economic equation, its enforced market cannot exist without continued government subsidies in the short-term, and becomes unsustainable in the long-term as politics compounds subsidies’ distortion.”

This guy seems to think that insurance companies raise premiums whenever they feel like they’re due for a new house.This blind ignorance and elementary understanding of how markets work is unfortunately not rare. Here are articles published by Forbes, the Cato Institute, and the Foundation for Economic Education explaining why socialized medicine is a bad idea. There has also been a movement to push Direct Primary Care which would be mostly cashed based. You can read more about that here.

Furthermore, we’ve tried socialized medicine in the U.S. It’s called the V.A. and it’s a trainwreck.

Motivation these days is all based around the false ideal that having it all will make you happy. Its bullshit and it’s a scam which capitalism is based firmly in.
He doesn’t know what free market capitalism is.

Same thing with education costs; if universities were government-ran, instead of the current shithole where a small % of people make a profit off of getting millions of young adults into huge debt, EVEN THOUGH EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE EDUCATED
He capitalized that last statement, not me.

Many universities are government run. Millions of young adults still manage to get into huge debt by attending them. In fact almost three times as many students attend government run schools compared to private ones. Very few universities are operated on a for profit basis; in 2013 only 12% of students attended for-profit schools. They have been under pressure by both federal and state governments to produce employable graduates and their ability to access federal financial aid for their students has been sharply curtailed, so that number is probably lower now. These are institutions like DeVry or Phoenix University.

And everyone needs to be educated? It would be good if everyone knew how to read/write and do basic arithmetic for sure. However, I would prefer people had a basic grasp of our history and how/why our society is organized. But does the guy who is a backhoe operator need a college degree? Does a plumber? Does a line worker in a factory?  Does a waiter? As a society we spend roughly $145,000 per kid getting them from kindergarten through high school. Shouldn’t they be able to function in society for that amount? Isn’t college a choice, not a necessity?


I share this experience because it touched on a lot of the false narratives leftists spread regarding anyone who disagrees with them. I.e. they hate poor people, they hate change, they’re greedy, they don’t care if there’s suffering in the world…All of it so clearly false. Literally in the middle of this Facebook debate I had to leave because I was volunteering.

I offered to help this person and instead of messaging me so we could figure out how to better his financial situation, he messaged me only to continue fighting me. A quick look at charitable giving in the United States and around the world shows that conservative americans are the most generous people on earth. Is it so crazy that these same people want to make sure the money they give is going to a worthy and efficient cause?

This interaction was also an example of how it’s close to impossible to have an honest discussion with leftist fanatics because they immediately resort to name calling. Again and again this person questioned my feelings or motives instead of discussing objective truths. He also posted on Facebook outside the conversation essentially stating that I am greedy for wanting to save up and build my dream home.

We all know good people who lean conservative. If you know a good person who is conservative, perhaps instead of calling them names you should sit down and ask them why they’re conservative. The goal of any debate should be to find the truth, not “win” the argument. Calling the guy who owns the auto mechanic shop greedy for wanting to keep the money he fairly earned isn’t going to convince him to vote Democrat next time around.

When it comes to Facebook fights, stick to the facts, don’t use emotion backed reasoning and ask questions instead of calling names. And remember, a lot of the time the argument isn’t actually to convince the person you’re debating but for the silent observer scrolling through their feed.

2 No, Capitalism isn’t the Devil

  • May 5, 2017
  • by Connie Morgan
  • · In the News

There are some people who hate capitalism and it’s very confusing to me. I mean, what’s not to love about free markets? What’s not to love about people competing to provide the best products at the cheapest price? And why do people who supposedly hate capitalism tweet about it from their iPhones?

I think in a lot of cases people just don’t know what free market capitalism means and what a capitalist system does for society. So first I thought I’d explain what capitalism is and then I’ll break down the myths as to why some say it’s “evil.”

Capitalism is an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. This means we the people decide what products we want to produce and purchase rather than the state producing something and then telling us we have to buy it. If you are against capitalism, you are against anyone you know owning their own business and making money off of it. Capitalism on it’s own is not evil in the slightest. What is important is the word(s) you put in front of capitalism.

What I advocate for is “free market” capitalism. This is also referred to as laissez-faire capitalism. Free market capitalism refers to all voluntary exchanges that take place within an economy; and the word voluntary is an important one. A free market also refers to unobstructed competition. For example, in a free market it wouldn’t be illegal for a new garbage collection company to form and compete with the local provider for your business. In a free market, it’s easy for entrepreneurs to enter the market. In a truly free market, there are no regulations whatsoever. (Read more about the history of regulations here.) No fees preventing poorer people from entering the market. There is also no government intervention in a free market. When a business fails, it fails, and no one is there to bail them out.

So anyone who wants to try their hand at selling a product or providing a service can do so and consumers decide who stays in business. We vote for which business we want to stick around every time we spend money. If a business doesn’t get enough votes, they “lose,” or rather, they go under. We the people hold the power and business are subject to what we decide is good, bad, acceptable, etc. Now no system is perfect, but the reasons people oppose free market capitalism are all much more flawed than the system itself.

1) Capitalism Leads to Monopolies

A natural monopoly is defined as occurring when factors such as high fixed costs (costs that don’t depend on how much product you’re making such as rent) make it difficult for new companies to break into an industry but cause long-run average total costs to decline as output expands. So let’s say for example, all tater tot companies have to purchase a machine to make the tots that costs $10,000. Company A has been in business for a while, they make 1,000,000 tots per year so that machine costs them .01 dollars per tot, which allows them to make money off each tot sold. Company B just got started and they don’t have a ton of buyers yet so they only produce 10,000 tots per year. The cost of the machine to them is $1 per tot. So to make any money off the tots, Company B has to sell their tots for over $1 a tot, and that’s just when you account for the cost of the tot machine. I love tots but I ain’t payin’ that much. Essentially someone in the tot business would most likely have to incur net loses in it’s early days making it fairly difficult to get going in the tot business. 

This is the argument some give against capitalism, that costs such as machinery rent, etc. create natural monopolies which would lead to no competition, hence higher costs to you, the consumer.

But the fact is, there has never been a sustainable monopoly in a free market in the history of the world. Some companies like Campbell’s Soup, Sears and Chapstick had their run, but every market was eventually disrupted. Permanent monopolies are never created without the intervention of the government. In fact, even oligopolies are created with the help of government intervention. Airlines, insurance companies, and of course, local utilities all have opoly power because of government law and regulation.

2) Capitalism is Immoral

Some say capitalism is all about a gross hunger for money; capitalism helps the rich and hurts the poor. That’s half true. Capitalism helps the rich, but it also helps the poor. That’s the beautiful thing about free market capitalism, it doesn’t care what gender, ethnicity or social status you are. If you provide a quality good or service the people want, at a low price, you will thrive. Many people can admit the economic superiority of free market capitalism but they get bogged down thinking it is morally inferior.

The first reason this is wrong is because free market capitalism is all voluntary. No one is forced into buying a product or service and no one is forced to work under conditions they didn’t agree to. Free market capitalism is anti-slavery and pro-women’s rights.

Secondly, capitalism motivates us to serve our fellow humans. Every dollar you earn is proof you provided some kind of service. A teenage girl provides the service of watching your children so you pay her $20. She then goes to the local Ross to buy a new pair of jeans. Now she honors the labor that went into making those jeans by paying the store $20. This is a positive sum game. You feel good because a date night was worth more than the $20 you paid the babysitter, the babysitter feels good because spending time with your kids cost her less than the $20 she was paid and Ross feels good because to them, the jeans were worth less than the $20 the girl paid. Capitalism motivates people to constantly seek new ways to serve their fellow man.

3) Capitalism Leads to Income Inequality

Even conservatives believe some wealth should be redistributed to fund basic government functions and provide a social safety net. That being said, how do you define fairness? Do you define it as redistributing wealth so we all have the same amount of money in our bank accounts? Or is it rewarding hard work, merit and skill? The latter is what free markets do.

As long as people are allowed to freely provide goods and services according to their interest and talents there will always be some who earn more and some who earn less. Some people get pleasure out of high earning challenges such as brain surgery while others prefer the challenge of child rearing. Neither is less noble, but one did take over 18 years of schooling while the other takes 18 years of unfathomable patience. Until we are a planet of robots, income equality will never exist, and that’s fair in a society where we all control the choices we make and the careers we pursue. Capitalism doesn’t lead to income inequality, being human does.

4) Capitalism is Bad for the Worker

Back to the voluntary transaction point. In a free market society, no one can be forced to work for a price they don’t agree on. The adoption of free enterprise around the world is what lowered the percentage of the world’s population living on less than a dollar a day by more than 80% between 1970 and now. This wasn’t because richer companies dumped aid money into poorer countries. It was because of free trade and foreign investment.

There is no economic state better at raising the poor out of poverty than capitalism. If you think socialism is better for the poor, read up on what’s happening in Venezuela right now.

5) Capitalism Leads to Corporations Controlling Us

In a free market this would never happen because the consumer is always in control. Consumers decide whether a corporation, no matter the size, stays in business or not. We buy more of their product or service if it’s doing things we like such as producing high quality products and giving back to its community. We buy less of their product or service if it’s doing things we don’t like such as producing a defective product or treating their employees horribly. The power of the consumer is taken away when the government gets involved. This is where you get the crony capitalism so many rightfully complain about, myself included.

To quickly give an example (this would need its own post to fully explain) let’s look at what happened in 2008; The infamous housing market crash and proceeding bailouts. The housing market was on the fritz. Why? For many reasons but to put it simply, banks were giving out loans to people who would not be able to pay them back. Why did banks do this? Because they weren’t accountable for what would happen if things went bad. Banks had become used to the government bailing them out. The shoddy loans and re-bundling of mortgages lead to Lehman Brothers filing for bankruptcy. The financial industry expected the federal government to bail them out but they didn’t. This set off a chain of events that included the Dow Jones plummeting and the creation of TARP.

Think about the spending decisions of college kids who know their parents will always be there to financially support them vs the kid who has no parents to bail him/her out. Same concept with the housing market and government intervention generally. The promise of Daddy America always being there to bail them out leads to reckless decision making in the financial world.


When you say you are against capitalism you are saying you’re against competition, individual choice and opportunity for the poor. Do I believe in absolutely no government regulation? Of course not. Is crony capitalism a problem? Of course it is. But the solutions are not more government. The solution is always more freedom and less government intervention. Just look at all of the countries around the world, the freer their markets, the freer their people. 

So next time you hear someone give an example of free markets failing, ask yourself if they’re referring to a truly free market. The housing market certainly wasn’t. As a rule of thumb, if something is being run inefficiently, you can almost always trace back to government involvement. 

 

*Feature image taken from contractingbusiness.com

1 A History of Racism

  • April 17, 2017
  • by Connie Morgan
  • · In the News

There once was a time when Americans owned other human beings as property. It’s not something any person should remember proudly, but here’s the thing; slavery wasn’t just an American atrocity, it was practiced all over the globe. Even African people had slaves. In fact, many Africans sold off prisoners of war or outsiders from other tribes to Americans. Historians date slavery back to ancient Mesopotamia. Today this region is mostly Iraq but also parts of Iran, Syria, and Turkey. Mesopotamia is thought to have traded goods in exchange for slaves from Egypt, although in ancient times, slavery was not associated with ethnicity or nationality. Slavery has existed almost, if not just as long as humans have existed and it was created by Africans and Asians (Middle East), not Europeans.

Even between 1861 and 1865 when slavery in the United States was at it’s peak, only 8% of families owned slaves and slaves themselves made up just 13% of the American population. The reality is, even when slavery was the norm in America, most people didn’t own slaves.

Recently there’s been a trend to boycott or disregard anything that has “roots in racism.” Some going so far as to say The Star Spangled Banner should no longer be our anthem because it’s author, Francis Scott Key was pro-slavery. Now there’s a call to remove the faces of anyone who owned slaves off of our money. Others say the Constitution should be questioned because its writers owned slaves.  

All that’s fine and dandy, if you want to uphold the standard that you won’t respect or use or abide by anything with racism in it’s history, cool. The thing is, if you have that standard, you should be protesting a lot more than the national anthem. There’s a lot of American policy rooted in racism.

The Minimum Wage
The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, America’s first minimum wage law was created to help protect white people from competing with blacks for jobs. During this time period, black people were “stealing” white people’s jobs because they were willing to do the same work for less. Black people weren’t the only ones the minimum wage was trying to hurt, it also protected white male workers from competing with women.

The same thing happens today. I remember searching for a job shortly after my 16th birthday, desperate to find a way to earn some gas money. Having been turned down a few times, I complained to my dad about the minimum wage before I really even understood it. Frustrated I told my dad, “I wish I could offer to be a cashier for like $6 an hour so they’d hire me. Then I’d work hard so they wouldn’t want me to leave and they’d pay me more!” My dad kind of chuckled to himself and said “I agree with you, Chick.” At 16 I was realizing that the minimum wage was hurting me, I’d rather make $5 an hour than no dollars an hour. Minimum wage laws took away my ability to freely negotiate my pay with my potential employer.

In a free market, any worker who can add value to a company would be paid based on that value added. When you create a minimum wage you force employers to establish a minimum productivity criterion and then hire accordingly. This often cuts out handicapped folks, kids, inexperienced people etc. from being hireable. They may have been worth $4 an hour, but they aren’t worth $7.

Willingness to start working for less is a tool the underprivileged use to gain job experience. When you enforce a minimum wage you actually make the worker’s bargaining power weaker. The minimum wage is not only rooted in racism, but it’s rooted in eugenics. Professor Thomas C Leonard of Princeton has written the most on the topic recently. You can read his article “Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era” or check out his book Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era.

Labor Unions
This story is similar to minimum wage as the two are directly linked. Labor Unions pushed for the minimum wage to protect white male workers. Labor Unions blocked the advancement of blacks, women, and other minorities. This was done mostly by raising the cost of labor through wage increases and other benefits. Raise the cost of labor and less people are hired. The first heads on the chopping block when companies cut labor costs were minorities. So perhaps those that keep their jobs are better off, but black workers paid the cost.

War on Poverty (welfare state)
It’s my belief that every issue in black communities, or for that matter all communities, can be traced to the epidemic of broken homes. One of the best ways to predict a child’s future success is to take a look at his or her family. Is the dad around? If not, their odds aren’t looking good. The War on Poverty started this epidemic in the black community.

The “War on Poverty” was enacted by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. It involved a huge amount of antipoverty legislation, increasing the welfare state in an unprecedented way. LBJ spoke of blacks specifically hoping to fix the disproportionately high rate of black poverty.

What’s odd is that the economic situation in America at the time of this legislation was looking bright for black people. The poverty rate for all Americans had been on the decline since the beginning of the decade. The black poverty rate was reduced by nearly 50% between 1940 and 1960. Despite these economic improvements welfare was earmarked as a priority. After the War on Poverty was enacted the economic improvements in black communities stalled dramatically.

Upon the expansion of the welfare state, the number of single mother households increased tenfold. The promise of food stamps, public housing and medicaid were designed in a way that allowed mothers to receive more benefits if they were single rather than married. The programs designed to tackle poverty actually incentivised behavior that perpetuated it. 68% of black women who gave birth in 2012 were unmarried, in 1965 this figure was 25%. Black women started to see the government as a more stable financial partner than the father of their own children. Fathers were no longer necessary, something black men realized as well.

Ok so maybe there were good intentions here that had an adverse effect on black communities unintentionally. That might be my conclusion if I knew nothing about LBJ and his surrounding staff. Even MSNBC has reported on LBJ’s raging racism and lack of respect for black people. Despite holding onto this idiotic intellectual ideology, LBJ was a smart politician. If you’re part of the party who runs on the promise that the government will give out more free stuff, in order to win elections you need people to be dependent on said free stuff.

There is report after report of LBJ saying nasty things about black people. Ronald Kessler ruffled many a feather after reporting in his book Inside the White House: The Hidden Lives of the Modern Presidents and the Secrets of the World’s Most Powerful Institution that, when discussing the importance of the civil rights bill with two governors, LBJ explained it was important because it would “…have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years.”

Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin wrote that LBJ made this statement:

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

In the 1960s roughly 66% of blacks voted Democrat, after 1964 that percentage quickly rose to above 90%, LBJ’s plan worked. LBJ didn’t care about black people, he didn’t respect black people, what he did respect was power and influence. Creating an en environment that made black people more dependent on the government was a genius way to make them more dependent on the Democratic Party.

Planned Parenthood
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a known eugenicist. Even today, 79% of Planned Parenthood clinics are in minority populated neighborhoods. Black people make up 13% of the population but make up 35% of abortions.

Defenders of Sanger give her every benefit of the doubt imaginable. Can you imagine if Trump was caught saying, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members,” as Sanger did? I’m horrified by that statement but defenders brush it off as an “inartfully written” sentence.

Sanger famously wrote about sterilizing the weak stating, “the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit,’ admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization.” Sanger didn’t have kind thoughts about the mentally or physically handicapped and that really is undeniable.

Sanger even presented at a Ku Klux Klan rally in 1926. Again, can you imagine if any political figure did this today the outrage that would follow? In 1939, Sanger initiated the Negro Project, one that intended to weed out the “unfit” from black communities.

Marriage Licenses
George Washington himself was married without government issued documentation. Why would the government be involved with marriage? It’s a religious ceremony that’s between you, your partner and whatever church you belong to. It wasn’t until the 1920s that marriage licenses were implemented. All states at one point had laws outlawing interracial marriages and these licenses were designed to stop people from marrying outside their own race. Interracial marriages were not recognized by the state and therefore those couples lost inheritance, medical rights and every other benefit of common law marriage. In 1923 the federal government established a uniform marriage and marriage license act and by 1929 every state had adopted marriage license laws.

Marriage licenses were sold to the people as a way to help protect couples but were actually a way to monitor and control who was allowed to start a family with whom. There’s no reason for the government to know whom you marry. Concerns about inheritance, medical rights etc. could easily be handled by private lawyers and contracts. Marriage licenses are another way the government has a hand in our personal lives and are rooted in racism.

Affirmative Action
Wait, how can affirmative action be harmful to blacks? It was literally designed to help them?! If you aren’t familiar with affirmative action, it’s a policy that “favors” minorities. In other words, policies that require companies to hire a certain number of minorities or schools to accept a certain amount of minorities.

Right off the bat this should insult hard working people of all colors and backgrounds. Do you want to be hired because you were the most qualified and deserving of the job or because they needed a black person to hit their quota? If you have any pride whatsoever I would hope you’d choose the former.

This system also sets up minorities to fail. Unqualified people are hired, students who aren’t actually ready for university are accepted and it’s an uphill battle right from the start. In academia, race based admissions contribute to higher dropout rates. In order to hit the correct quotas for each ethnic group, different standards are applied even amongst minorities. For example, in order to get into Princeton, an Asian person must score 140 points higher on their SAT score than their non-asian counterpart. Tech companies are also being pressured not to hire “too many Asians.” Judging someone’s qualification based on their race is backwards and not what Martin Luther King Jr. advocated.

Occupational Licensing
Occupational licensing and regulation is so commonplace today it’s hard to imagine life without them. Occupational licensing was started in congruence with Jim Crow laws of the south. When you made it harder to start a business with fees and additional costs the extra burden is harder on poor people. Black people were and still are on average poorer than whites, causing this burden to fall disproportionately on blacks. Even braiding hair requires a license. Occupational licensing laws cover roughly 10% of jobs, often going beyond health and safety objectives that would be deemed appropriate by the average human. Black people are still being hindered with regulations today.

Gun control
I’ve always thought it odd when the people telling me the police target black people are often the same ones who want us to turn over all of our guns but this train of thought isn’t new. Gun control laws were first implemented to disarm recently freed slaves and there was even an effort to prevent the Black Panthers from carrying weapons.

Nowadays, gun control laws often feature mandatory minimum sentences making it impossible for judges to take into consideration the circumstances at hand which results in unfair sentences for those attempting to protect themselves against corruption whether race based or not. If racism is alive and well in America, disarming those in the targeted minority makes little to no sense.


If you want to do away with anything that has ever been linked to racism or the decline of black communities go ahead. Just keep in mind that the list should include welfare, gun control laws, licensing, Planned Parenthood, labor unions, minimum wage and affirmative action.

I hope you take away two things from reading this. One, that something can have an imperfect history and still have a net positive effect on society (i.e. the brilliance that is the United States Constitution) and two, the expansion of government has never really helped black people out.

If you’re concerned about the well being of black people join the club! But you might want to read the Constitution and dig into the data on what’s actually hurting black communities before you start making a fuss over the Star Spangled Banner.  

0 Why the Wage Gap isn’t a Big Deal

  • March 29, 2017
  • by Connie Morgan
  • · In the News

I want men and women to have the same opportunities and because of awesome feminists before me I don’t have to worry about that. Men and women both have the right to vote, divorce, own a bank account, run their own business, serve in the military, play sports etc. Growing up there wasn’t a single thing my brother was allowed to do that I wasn’t, and I am grateful for that. America is a pretty rad place to be a woman and I hit the jackpot when I was born here.

Despite all the opportunities women have in America, third wave feminists tell me I’m still facing systemic oppression. One of the ways feminists say I am disadvantaged is the “wage gap” between men and women. Let me break down why this is utter nonsense.  

Chelsea Clinton recently shared this map showing the differences in wages between men and women in each state. It’s true, women on average make less than men but there is no evidence it is because women are discriminated against. Seeing data like this map and immediately blaming gender discrimination shows a deep misunderstanding of how to analyze data.

This map doesn’t control for the many reasons men and women have differences in their wages. What is a control? It basically means “all other things equal.” It’s a way researchers make sure they aren’t falsely attributing causation.

Here’s a simple example. Over a year ago I ran a Boston qualifying marathon. I waited a year and with a different pair of shoes I ran another marathon about a half hour slower. Now if I came to you and said, “I ran a half hour slower, it’s because of the shoes!” you’d probably say “well wait a minute, maybe, but how much did you train for the second one?” Then you’d ask how hard each course was, then you’d ask about weather, then you’d ask about how much sleep I got the night before each race, then you’d ask what I ate for breakfast each day, then you’d ask me how much I weighed for each race…and so on and so forth.  And the only way you’d know my shoes were indeed the reason I ran slower would be if every component of each race was the same, except for my shoes.

The same thing goes for differences in wage between men and women. If you really want to know if there is gender discrimination you’re going to have to control for many things, but here are the top three that jump to my mind.

  1. Children – Only women get pregnant. If you get pregnant you will have to take some time off which sets you behind your male counterparts in terms of experience. Some women stop working all together. Some women go part-time. Obviously this brings the average wage for women down.
  2. Choice of Profession – Men and women are not drawn to the same professions at an equal rate. That’s because men and women have different brain chemistry. A study done by the National Autonomous University of Mexico found that men and women differ in how compassion is experienced and expressed. Because women on average absorb more emotive information, are more patient, and more reflective they are naturally drawn to positions that put these skills to use. These tend to be lower paying jobs in fields such as social work, esthetics, education etc. And no, these jobs aren’t lower paying because women typically have them, they’re lower paying because they are jobs that don’t contribute to the sale of a product. For example, when Apple sells more computers they earn more money and can pay their employees more. When the Red Cross receives more blood donations their budget doesn’t change at all and everyone’s salary stays the same.

    Men on the other hand, are generally more interested in direct information, physical work and constantly changing environments. Men are drawn to fields that exploit these interests such as carpentry, commercial fishing and computer science. These tend to be higher paying fields. There is no evidence that men are keeping women out of construction (97.4% male) or that women are keeping men out of nursing (92.1% female). What does seem clear is that men are more drawn to some fields and women to others. And that’s ok.
  3. Women aren’t as career obsessed – Poll after poll after poll tell us that the average woman is more interested in staying at home to raise children than working for someone else. Men also work more on-the-clock hours than women. Employed men on average work 42 minutes more per day than employed women. Women also aren’t as interested as men in even having leadership positions. According to a Rochester Institute of Technology study, money is the primary motivator for 76% of men vs 29% of women. Women care about shorter work weeks, proximity to home, fulfillment, autonomy and safety more than the paycheck. So even comparing women and men with the same education, in the same career field has additional components one must control for if wanting to prove discrimination.

Do women make less than men on average? Absolutely. Is there evidence of discrimination? Not really.

So has there been a study that controlled for everything but gender? Well, that would be very difficult to do as factors like motivation, aspiration, etc. are hard to measure but what we do know is single women without children in major cities earn more than men. That’s right, when you take families out of the picture, young women make more than men. Let me say that one more time to be clear; when you control for the above point number one (children), women make more than men. According to the the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, the median pay for young childless women is 8% higher than men in their peer group.

Forbes, Time, CBS News, Wall Street Journal, The Economist and many other sites have reported on the myth of wage gap related discrimination yet the issue won’t go away.

Probably because of sites like the Huffington Post that spit out nonsense along these lines; women may choose career paths that aren’t as financially lucrative but that’s not because they are freely choosing to do so! It’s because sexist stereotypes force them to.     

This in itself is a sexist argument. The idea that modern American women can’t make intelligent career decisions for themselves based on their own needs and preferences is insulting. The notion that we can’t make decisions for ourselves opens the floodgates for more, not less  control over women’s lives. If we’re deemed too “brainwashed” by the patriarchy to make our own career decisions, what’s to stop someone from claiming they should not only make those decisions for us, but decisions on where we should live, or who we should marry or what we should wear. It’s actually an archaic idea, one I thought we had moved past.

What’s more is there is evidence of the opposite, that in fact women today are more capable than ever of making their own decisions. Since the 1970s women have been more likely to graduate from high school than men. Women are more educated than men earning 57.4% of all bachelor degrees in 2010 and 58% of all graduate degrees. And from an anecdotal standpoint, I have never in my life heard a female friend tell me she chose her career despite having no interest in it because it was one women should do. Maybe women are just smart enough to know a paycheck doesn’t mean everything.

Young childless women make more than their male counterparts but that’s not where the differences that favor females stop. Men have made up 97% of combat deaths since the first Gulf War and 93% of work related deaths. Are there man-hating sexists forcing men into dangerous jobs or is this the result of free choice and human biology? I know I am not physically strong enough to do many of the high paying but dangerous jobs that men do. The fact that I can’t stack hay like my brother or even move my stuff into a new house as quickly and efficiently as him is just a fact of life and nothing for me to feel embarrassed about.

There’s one more example wage gap propagators throw out that I would like to address. The U.S. Women’s soccer team. (*Note. One example, or even ten examples of women getting paid less than men doesn’t prove systemic sexism exists but I’ll play along). It’s true that the women’s soccer team made far less than their male counterparts in 2015 even though they had a much better year (they won the World Cup). But despite what you might think, athletes aren’t paid based on how much they win anymore than singers are paid based on how talented they are. Oftentimes talent and salary coincide but it’s not actually the driving factor behind pay. No, athletes and singers are paid based on the amount of money they make for their employer. Sorry to say it, but women athletes just don’t fill seats like male athletes, meaning they don’t bring in the revenue, and therefore are paid less. Even in 2015, the year the women’s team won the World Cup, revenue brought in by the men’s team was about $11 million more than the women’s team. If you want female athletes, entertainers, artists, etc. to succeed, buy more of their product, attend more of their events, and watch more of them on t.v. Case in point, Taylor Swift was the highest grossing singer of 2016, but I think we can all agree she’s not the most talented singer in the business. People bought her product and she made lots of money. A simple concept really.

Now I will grant you this, 2016 was the first year ever that the women’s team did in fact make more than the men’s team. A “coming home” celebration tour helped the women edge out the men by $4 million in revenue. This is the first and only year it has ever happened. Ratings for men’s games have been more than double those for women’s games, on average, since 2012, according to Nielsen calculations. Regular season men’s team’s ratings are almost four times as high as women’s. For how huge those differences in ratings are, women actually are paid pretty fairly. At least five men and five women have been paid over a million dollars since 2008. In fact, the 10th highest paid female player received over $100,000 more than her male counterpart.  I would expect that if women continue the 2016 trend of creating more revenue than their male counterparts their salaries will rise, but to immediately call out sexism after a potentially fluke year is not a reaction founded in reason. An excellent piece by the New York Times explained the pay disparities in more depth.

Of course there are still sexist people out there who will treat men and women differently. There will always be sexist people (in both directions) and when they are discovered they should be dealt with accordingly. But there are 319 million people in America and the vast majority of us don’t care about gender but rather who can do the job most efficiently and effectively. So can we move on already?

*Cover Image from The Dallas Morning News

0 God Bless The Mormons

  • March 8, 2017
  • by Connie Morgan
  • · In the News

After the November election things were tense in the United States to say the least. That being said, I saw things that contradicted the narrative given by the media almost daily. My favorite example was one day when I was walking my dog and passed a man who was from the Middle East struggling to start his car. The car had been sitting for quite some time and was covered with at least a foot and a half of snow. He eventually got it started and drove it a very short distance across the street where the car got stuck on the icy slope leading to a parking lot. It was a fairly busy street as far as foot traffic goes and I continued walking past as did others. When I came back there were now two men helping the dude push his car up the slope. They were blonde haired blue eyed Mormons, name tags and all. As I rounded the corner there were two more on bikes making their way to the scene. “They called for backup,” I thought to myself smiling. It was a tiny moment but it made my eyes a little watery.


There’s a weird double standard regarding religion in America that continues to puzzle me. Certain religions are praised while others are close to demonized (no pun intended). Some are mocked regularly in Family Guy skits while it’s a hate crime to make fun of others.

In America there are “cool” religions and uncool religions, at least as exemplified by the media, and I mean all media, not just the news. You meet some folks at a coffee shop in Seattle and tell them you’re Buddhist and you’ll get respect, tell them you’re Mormon and the reaction probably won’t be the same.

Now all religions have some wackiness to them and the Mormon faith is no different. This religion is particularly fascinating to me, not just in their inner workings but in the way society treats them.

I think the best comparison I can make is to Islam. Around the world Muslims far outnumber Mormons but in the U.S. they are closer to comparable. There are roughly 3.9 million Mormons in the U.S. and roughly 3.3 million Muslims, so as far as population goes they are similar in the U.S.

They are also similar in the way they both spark controversy. Ask random people on the street what they think about Islam or Mormonism and you are likely to get an emotional response. Ask folks about either religion and you will encounter positive and negative reactions and a lot of false stereotypes as well. Both faiths are generally against gay marriage but very pro-traditional marriage, meaning both religions lead to large families and more traditional gender roles. They both have a male founder who claimed to have revelations and created new religious text. Both religions usually promote socially conservative beliefs. Yet on the social issue of religious tolerance the two couldn’t be treated much different.

The greatest example of this is the very popular Broadway musical called “The Book of Mormon.” This is not a show that celebrates the missionary work Mormons do or their commitment to helping thy neighbor or their general polite and respectful culture. No. It’s a play that mocks the whole faith. And to be honest it’s not difficult to mock Mormons. But let’s try wearing the shoe on the other foot…what if there was a play called “The Quran” that mocked Islam and the beliefs that accompany that faith? Can you imagine the reaction? Well, actually we don’t really have to imagine the outcome as it’s already been tested.

In 2005, a Danish newspaper ran a cartoon featuring the Prophet Muhammad. Eventually, protests broke out all over the world, the artist received thousands upon thousands of death threats, a fatwa, and worldwide leaders took action denouncing, investigating and holding meetings over the series.

Now as far as I know, after The Book of Mormon premiered not a single major protest took place, there weren’t death threats, the playwrights did not need to go into hiding or hire security and the only question being asked around the globe in regards to the show was “when are you going to go see it?”

What’s funny is refusing to make fun of all religions equally is in itself a form of discrimination. When you refuse to touch Islam for fear of what may happen afterwards, the assumption you are making is Muslims are wild humans with no sense of humor. Gays, Blacks, Christians, Jews, atheists, crossfitters, we all get mocked and it’s sort of a badge of honor when it happens. Kind of like when Weird Al covers your song. SNL refusing to do a skit poking fun at Islam is sending the message Muslims can’t take a good-natured joke. It’s an odd parable few like to point out.

And Mormons have seen their fair share of persecution and massacres. Do you know why Mormons populated Utah so abundantly? It’s because they were being persecuted and driven out of New York, Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois, usually violently. The founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Joseph Smith and his brother were killed in an angry mob while jailed in Carthage, Illinois. Haun’s Mill Massacre resulted in the death 17 Mormons and their are many other cases of Mormons being injured and sometimes killed in mob like fashion. Even today, Mormon missionaries are attacked for their beliefs, but these instances get little news coverage, if any. Utah was a place no one else wanted, so Mormons were essentially forced to flee there.

I reached out to a couple of folks I know who are Mormon and even today they face discrimination, harassment and general hate despite being law abiding citizens who just happen to be Mormon. One friend had someone yell loudly “YOU’RE A MORMON NOOOOO” when they found out her faith. Another spoke of how sports were more difficult because even though his faith had nothing to with it, his teammates constantly brought it up. Another friend relayed certain people don’t want to be your friend when they learn of your faith. These are similar stories I hear Muslims telling.

People in the LDS church express the same frustrations that Muslims do when it comes to the actions of a few changing the public perspective of the faith as a whole. Muslims get frustrated when a terrorist hijacked their faith to commit acts of terror. Mormons get frustrated when a handful of people who claim and tarnish the LDS name (specifically Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints) participate in underage polygamy despite the Mormon faith officially denouncing everything related to such behavior over 100 years ago.

I’ve always viewed the Mormon faith as a little preposterous but well intentioned and worthy of respect (just like pretty much any other faith out there) but my appreciation grew tenfold for the Mormons after the last election. Conservatives were called out for supporting a candidate who was barely that. Those who claim to have Judeo/Christian values but supported Trump were called hypocrites and rightly so. But if you want to play identity politics (which I hate doing) there was one group that held true to their principles, one group you couldn’t call hypocrites… you guessed it, the Mormons.

If conservatives were looking for options outside of Trump, they essentially had two, Gary Johnson and Evan McMullin (who was only on 11 state ballots). Funny enough, the two states with the greatest percentage of voters voting for either of these candidates are also the two states with the highest percentage of Mormons. 60% of Utah’s population is Mormon and 24% of the votes went for former Republican third party candidates. Mormons make up 19% of the population in Idaho and 11% of the votes went for McMullin or Johnson. Despite being told by the masses that they aren’t “real Christians,” the LDS church appears to be one of the only groups that voted according to Christian values.

As one Mormon said about Trump, “That’s not the kind of person that I want representing our country. I would hope that our leader would be honest, civil, kind, open.”

It seems many in his church agree.

I want to thank the Mormons. Thank you for being intellectually honest about Trump. Thank you for putting up with mainstream mockery by holding your head high instead of rioting. And thank you for that one time you helped me pull weeds in my yard, appreciate it.

1 An Open Letter to the City Of Ocean Shores

  • February 13, 2017
  • by Connie Morgan
  • · In the News

*This letter was greatly condensed in a version that was submitted to the Daily World in accordance with their word count standards.

Horseback riding on the beach has been an Ocean Shores draw for decades and is part of what makes our beach experience so special. It’s been brought to my attention that the City of Ocean Shores is doing everything it can to get rid of the business my father owns (Honey Pearl Ranch) while doing nothing to infringe upon another horseback riding business (Chenois Creek). If there was a movement to get rid of all horses on the beach fine, but it seems only Honey Pearl Ranch is being targeted and there is a history of unfair mistreatment of my father’s business.

Every year the mayor adds new requirements to the contract HPR must sign making it increasingly more difficult for my dad to stay in business. For example, one year she wanted to make it a requirement for HPR to clean up all the manure left by the horses along the beach. HPR already cleans up all the manure near the trailers and horse lines but it is simply not feasible to send someone walking miles up and down the beach behind the horses cleaning up all the manure. The horses walk close to the water so the manure is washed away by the sea. What’s more is that to my knowledge, no requests have been made of Chenois Creek to clean up their manure. Seems odd.

The request wasn’t feasible and HPR expressed these concerns in front of the Ocean Shoes City Council. Thankfully the requirement was voted down. What’s interesting is that this year (and last year too) the mayor gave HPR less than a month’s time to question, adjust and sign the new contract. In 2016, HPR had from December 5th to December 29th to sign. Worth noting is that there was no council meeting in this time frame meaning HPR had no opportunity to dispute the contract in front of city council….again, seems odd.

This year, the mayor is demanding HPR get special immunizations for its herd. These immunizations would cost $5,000 to $10,000. These immunizations are not required for any other horseback riding business in the state. There is no public health or safety issue being addressed. These immunizations are simply not important or needed, (my father has confirmed this with multiple vets) they are just another financial burden to impose upon HPR. No other horses need be immunized. This means tourists and locals can bring their horses to the beach without the immunizations just fine, only HPR horses must be immunized. How does this make any sense? Why is HPR being specifically targeted? What’s more is that just outside the city limits is the other horseback riding business, Chenois Creek. Chenois Creek horses are not required to be immunized and Honey Pearl Ranch’s horses walk along the same path. Why must only one set of horses be immunized?

Apparently the mayor is getting advice from an anonymous equestrian group. This group only lobbies against HPR even though their powers are not restricted by city limits like the mayor’s are. My father told me that he has not been allowed to meet with the equestrian group nor know who is amongst it’s members. My father told me he would be more than happy to talk with the group but their identity has remained a secret and all meetings are closed door. This equestrian group has never lobbied against, sued or made complaints about Chenois Creek which is essentially running the same exact business as my dad.

These are just a few examples of the city and said equestrian groups attacks on Honey Pearl Ranch. These attacks are made on Honey Pearl ranch alone.

Look, I’m a vegan with no problem calling out anyone including my own father. The last thing I want to see is abused horses but there is no evidence that my dad is abusing his horses or that they are sick. In fact, he has more land and barn space for his animals than Chenois Creek. That’s not to say Chenois Creek is abusing horses, I have no reason to believe they are, I’m simply pointing out the flawed logic backing these one-sided accusations.

I am not quick to come to this conclusion but the only difference between Chenois Creek and Honey Pearl Ranch operations that I can find is the skin color of the one in charge of the operations. It is with great shame that I even consider that people in my community are targeting a man because of his skin color. It’s disgusting and not something I take lightly. If someone can point out a fair reason why one business is being targeted while another is not that would be greatly appreciated. Why does this equestrian group take such great interest in HPR while ignoring Chenois Creek? Why does the mayor want to enact laws that would only effect my dad’s horses and ignore others? I trust the people of Ocean Shores and Grays Harbor County are with me when I say racial injustice will not be tolerated here. I hope this is not the issue but until someone can show me why my father is being specifically targeted it is the only logical conclusion I can come up with.

Sincerely,
Connie Morgan

0 Are you an Environmentalist?

  • January 20, 2017
  • by Connie Morgan
  • · Health and Fitness

I have long been interested in becoming a vegetarian or at least trying it out. Originally, I was interested mostly for the health benefits.

When I went vegetarian, it didn’t last long (literally a week) because the more research I did, the more I realized vegan was the way to go. At first I switched to veganism with the exception of family farm animal products but that only lasted another two weeks because more research showed me that I should go full on vegan. (Free range farming is actually less sustainable than factory farming, a fact that should’ve seemed obvious but alas it wasn’t.)

Now that I’ve practiced this diet for over a year, health is probably the least important reason for me to stick to it. Now the biggest reason I am vegan is for sustainability. I follow quite a few pro-plant based diet environmentalists and there is a big question being argued amongst environmental and vegan threads. Can one be an environmentalist and eat animal products? Can you eat animal products and at the same time claim to care about the earth?

This question got a lot of attention after the documentary funded by Leonardo DiCaprio came out called Cowspiracy where the consensus was no, you can’t claim to care about the environment and eat meat. Of course a lot of meat eaters who consider themselves environmentalists were offended.

One can be an environmentalist in many forms. Maybe you are focused on ending global warming or maybe you want more biodegradable packaging, maybe manatees getting beat up by boats is your cause. We can argue about global warming, or what animal abuse looks like or what amount of litter is unavoidable ‘til our faces turn blue which is why I tend to lean towards sustainability as my brand of environmentalism.

There are roughly 7 billion people on Earth. On average, each person eats 74.6 pounds of meat per year (in the U.S. it’s 270.7). So that’s 523,000,000,000 pounds of meat per year. This figure includes beef, poultry, lamb and pork, not seafood. This number is expected to rise as more countries adopt westernized diets although as more Americans have jumped on the vegetarian/vegan train, the last 10 years have seen a decline in the amount of meat consumed per year though we still eat more meat than we did in the 1970s.

environmental-cost-metrics-of-meat-productionOk so 523 billion pounds of meat. How do we create 523 billion pounds of meat? Well, first we have to raise the animals. Let’s break down America’s favorite (beef) first.

Roughly 19% (99.4 billion pounds) of the world’s meat consumption comes from beef. The average yield of retail cuts from beef is roughly 434 pounds per cow. 99.4 billion divided by 434 is roughly 229 million cows. So about 229 million cows are needed per year to feed the world. That’s a lot of cows….and that’s not including  dairy cows, or cows that aren’t slaughtered nor produce milk. This is just how many cows are eaten each year.

So what does it take to raise the cows (we eat)? To produce one pound of meat it takes 1799 gallons of water, so roughly 1.5 trillion gallons of water for all of the cows we eat yearly. It takes 6.6 pounds of grain per pound of meat so roughly 656 billion pounds of grain. AND it takes 15 pounds of CO2 per pound of meat so roughly 1.5 trillion pounds of CO2.

So you think ok, I’ll eat poultry or pork or lamb instead. They’re smaller so they should be more sustainable. Let me break those options down for you too.

 

Lbs Needed to Feed World Animals Needed Gallons  H2O Needed Lbs of Grain  Needed CO2 Emissions
Beef 99.4 billion 229 million 178.8 trillion 656 billion 1.5 trillion
Pork 193.5 billion 1.9 billion 111.5  trillion 812.7 billion 1.3 trillion
Lamb 26.2 billion 748.6 million 19.1 trillion 81.2 billion 419.2 billion
Poultry 204 billion 29.1 billion 95.5 trillion 856.8 billion 687.5 billion

 

That’s a lot of finite resources being used.

But there are a couple of other issues I haven’t even talked about. Deforestation and manure.

Beef production accounts for the destruction of 6.7 million acres of tropical forest each year. That’s an area roughly the size of Massachusetts, each year. About half the world’s tropical forests have already been cleared. Because much of this destruction is happening in foreign lands, many of us are not even aware of the rapidly disappearing forests.

Just the cows the world eats produce about 4.9 trillion pounds of manure each year. That’s roughly 60 pounds of manure per cow per day. Or 13.5 billion pounds of manure a day. About 8% of that is recoverable. And that’s just cow shit. Poultry – 6.3 trillion pounds of waste a year. Lamb – 1.2 trillion pounds of waste a year. Pigs are the “shittiest” accounting for 10.9 trillion pounds of waste a year. Combine the four animals the world eats the most and that’s 23.3 trillion pounds of waste a year.

So where does it all go?

You may be thinking “well the animal poops out in the field and the manure acts as fertilizer.” This sometimes applies to cows or sheep/goats who are grazed on open fields. That’s a small percentage of the animal population. Factory farms certainly don’t have this luxury.   hog_confinement_barn_interior

Generally speaking, most animals drop their waste in a house or barn where they are kept. The waste then must be transported out of the building (using thousands of gallons of water) and is stored in a giant outdoor pit known as a lagoon. As the waste decomposes it emits gases such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. These lagoons also tend to leak or rupture destroying local ecosystems. In June, a ruptured hose lead to hundreds of gallons of hog manure being leaked into local creeks and ditches in Iowa. There are countless cases just like this, some worse than others.

Water usage and CO2 emissions aren’t unavoidable no matter what your diet is. In fact, some plants such as lettuce (why anyone wants to eat green crunchy water is beyond me) have a high emissions rate and regular potatoes are the 10th highest food when it comes to environmental impact. (Funny enough, the healthier sweet potato has one of the lowest environmental impacts.) But guess what, the first nine foods with the highest environmental impact? All animal products.

At a basic level we all can see how animal products (whether meat, eggs, dairy etc.) require more resources to produce. A carnivorous diet is a two tier process. Grow the plants to feed the animal, raise the animal until it’s slaughtered. A plant based diet has one tier, grow the plants.

So back to the original question. Can you be an environmentalist and still eat animal products? Of course you can. The same as you can be a dog lover who doesn’t own any dogs or a great athlete who’s not very athletic (lookin’ at you Yao Ming). I get it, bacon is really hard to give up and we’re all human.

That being said, powerful leaders practice what they preach. It would be harder to take health advice from an overweight doctor who smokes right? Same thing with animal product consuming environmentalists. But guess what? You don’t have to go all in and you don’t have to do it right away. Pescatarian, vegetarian, lacto-vegetarian, ovo-vegetarian and vegan diets are all options. You could also become a vegan except for your weakness food. So, you’re a vegan except when it comes to cheese. Or you don’t eat any meat except for the steak your dad is famous for. Looking at the chart above, you can see that cows and pigs have a higher impact per animal unit (1000 pounds) than poultry so even eliminating red meat from your diet is helpful.

Here’s the thing. A traditional American diet, especially one that is increasingly becoming the norm around the world is not sustainable. Math shows us this. We have a finite amount of land and water to use for agriculture. If we keep our diets as is, eventually we will have no choice but to switch to plant based diets. I’d like to keep meat as an option. A special treat, for a special occasion. With current diet and population trends, one day meat will be something only the wealthiest in the world can afford.

 

Additional sources:
thefatewe.com
www.oda.state.ok.us
Stonebarnscenter.org
oecd-ilibrary.org

 

Page 3 of 7
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • …
  • 7

Blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel

 
Loading Comments...
Comment
    ×