Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Humor and Gender

I’m an equal-opportunity hater, I guess, because a couple of days ago, I linked to a Cracked article that I agreed with and said so. 

Today?  Not so much. 

This article, about why we don’t find women to be as funny as men (a premise that I don’t necessarily agree with to start off, because I think many women are funny as hell, just in a different way than men) starts from so many false premises and incorrect assumptions that it is truly startling that the author didn’t see it. 

From the first point made, the author assumes that the reason that young boys tell more jokes, and are more often the class clown than young girls is because we “train” young girls to not be funny, not tell jokes, and not be the class clown, while we encourage that behavior in boys.  Of course, no evidence to this effect is presented; it is just assumed that because there is an actual difference, and because feminism requires that we don’t insinuate that there may be reasons other than social conditioning to explain it, that the explanation is obviously social conditioning.  The author never once stops to consider that this difference may occur simply because little boys and little girls are different on more than a physical level. 

Certainly, we can’t consider such nonsense, right?!  Everyone knows that boys and girls are exactly the same in every way, except for the ways society teaches them to be different!  Misogynist!

Except that they aren’t the same.  Not by a long shot.  The survival of our species absolutely depends on them not being the same, and to ignore the fact that there may be a genetic, evolutionary explanation for the “humor gap” between boys and girls ignores the fact that evolutionarily speaking, there must be one. 

I know that I’m treading thin ice here; that isn’t acceptable neo-feminist thinking, is it?  We aren’t allowed to consider the fact that women and men are different on any level other than the socially-conditioned level.  You know, the “patriarchy,” making women the weaker sex for eons because men suck and are evil and want to subjugate women and such. 

No discussion allowed about why a sex that is equal on every level would allow itself to be “subjugated” for so many eons, though.  Don’t even bring that up.  That’s grounds for public castration.

As if women were “subjugated” in general practice in western society, anyway.  Yes, they held different roles, but “different” does not mean “less.”  This is where so many people go off the rails  when discussing both gender and race. 

When the men marched off to war, for instance, and were slit, split, slashed, and flayed; dying in the bloody mud, in order to protect the women of their society (who weren’t required to do these things), one wonders how subjugated the women felt.  When women were watching the kids and gathering berries, and the men were off engaging in mortal combat with a fucking wooly mammoth using nothing sharpened sticks, one wonders how subjugated they felt.

When you start an article from the premise that boys get to do whatever they want, while women are forced into a burdensome gender role right off the bat, you start from an incorrect premise.  Men were froced into their roles, too, even more forcefully than women ever were.  A man who didn’t want to go to war went anyway, because he was a man.  His gender role required him to kill or be killed in order to protect his offspring.  Such has been the way of it for the entire history of mankind.  Each gender filled out the role that their unique abilities caused them to fit best, and for the benefit of the group or tribe, they were damn well expected to fill that role.

The reason for this is because men and women are different, not only physically, but mentally and psychologically.  There is no arguing against this point.  If you believe in evolution, then you absolutely have to believe this, because the survival and success of our species proves it. 

Given the different sociological, psychological, and resource-driven requirements of reproduction between males and females, why is it so hard to believe that women and men have different requirements in the reproductive game?  If you believe that (and let’s see, how could you not, given that women get pregnant and give birth and breastfeed, whereas men’s entire investment in a reproduction, should he so choose, is about 5 minutes of effort and a warm squishy feeling), then you have to believe that there are differences that run deeper than the skin or the genitalia. 

Or would you like to eliminate men’s and women’s professional sports, and just lump them all in together?  Even in feminine sports like figure skating, you’d see the last of the professional women’s athletes if you did that, because the men would dominate.  There are differences.  You cannot ignore that. 

So here’s the deal, feminists.  I know you aren’t going to like what I’m about to say, but I’m going to put it out for you to chew on here, and you tell me how wrong I am after:

Men are evolutionarily wired to be funny.  They are wired to more easily develop camaraderie, and create closer bonds with others, than women are.  They had to become this, because their lives and fortunes depended on the man standing beside them.  It was his spear that might kill the mammoth that is about to trample him some day, or skewer the enemy soldier who was about to kill him, and that man will be more likely to try harder and even risk his life to save yours if he is your friend.  Men did dangerous things.  They did this because it made sense evolutionarily.  Men are more expendable than women, because a woman’s ability to reproduce is limited to maybe five to ten babies in her life, where one man can sire hundreds of babies.  It is easier for a tribe to absorb the loss of a male, and so males evolved to do the things that were likely to get them killed.  They got stronger, faster, and more aggressive, and since these dangerous tasks required the help of other men to get them done, men are more predisposed to telling jokes around the campfire late at night in order to maintain and strengthen these necessary bonds.  Other men were not so much competition to a man, and so evolution favored men who were funny and genial, as well as capable and strong.  In fact, I think it was often an “either/or” premise, where the weaker men would make up for their physical lack of strength by becoming more valuable to the others by being fun to be around.  This, I think, is why you don’t see very many strong, powerful, athletic comedians, even today.

Women, on the other hand, are evolutionarily wired to see most other women as competition.  Her man, back in the day, would be disposed to promiscuity, and if he invested in another woman by having children with her, too, then his resources would be split between them both.  Any resources that went to other women and their children, would not go to her and her children.  While gathering roots and picking berries, whatever the other women picked, she generally did not get.  The friendship bonds that she creates would be with a few, and they would be tight, because the benefit of friendship that a woman gets is to have someone to share child rearing duties with; someone to watch the kid while she dug roots and gathered berries.  It was beneficial to create an “us vs. them” dynamic within that group, so that she would not lose her friend to other groups, and hence, the woman’s predilection to gossip and back-biting between groups. 

It is for this reason that we still see women generally having smaller groups of friends, with a few with very tight bonds, that gossip about other women for fun, while men generally have much larger groups of friends, generally with all of them being similar in closeness, and when they get together for fun, they drink, tell jokes, and fart on each other. 

If you look at the comics of today, you see a wide range of comedy types coming from male comics.  Some are innocent, some dirty, and some nasty.  Most women comics, however, base their routines on the shock value of being nasty.  I can’t think of very many that don’t.  Ellen, maybe, but a person could argue pretty handily that she’s wired more like a man than a woman. 

I know that to many of you, even to the non-feminists out there that have bought into the prevailing narrative, this will all be offensive.  However, I think if you ruminate on it hard enough, you’ll see that I’m right.  It will be a hard thing to accept, because you’ve been told your entire life that you’re not allowed to think such things, but the fact is, evolution does not care about political correctness.

Women are less funny than men because they are wired to be so.  It has nothing to do with societal conditioning, and everything to do with evolutionary game. 

One of these days, we’re going to get past this “different must mean better/worse” and accept the fact that differences don’t necessarily mean that one is better and one is worse.  It is fallacious thinking.  Our species needs both genders, filling out both gender roles, and to lose either one would result in ruin.  I think our society has reached  point where we can give individuals the choice of which role they want to fill, and to be honest, our “patriarchy” has always made room for great women (Joan of Arc, Marie Currie, etc.) when they rose to the top of the pile.  Great women were always allowed to cross gender boundaries.  It was generally the men who wanted to cross gender boundaries who were shunned and ridiculed.  We have room for that now, so we should be okay with it happening.  What I’m not okay with, however, is refusal to admit the truth.  A woman that wants to try out for men’s basketball needs to understand that it isn’t societally-induced conditioning that causes her to fail, it is her sex that makes her less physically capable than the men she’s up against.  This is the truth, whether you like it or not.  

"Weapons Free" Zone - Revisited

I had a guy respond to my post about the “weapon’s free” zone at the New Year’s party, in which he made several points:

  1. Failing to live up to the “no weapons” requirement was as bad a faux pas as all the folks that failed to live up to the dress code requirements.  The owner asked that we all dress in “black tie” and showing up in anything less is disrespectful, the same as showing up with a weapon when the owner asked us to not bring them.
  2. Taking my weapon into a venue where there was a “no weapons” requirement is a violation similar to trespassing.  The claim was that entering a piece of property in a manner contrary to what the owner requires as a condition of entry is the same as trespassing, just like driving past a gate that is posted “no vehicles beyond this point.”  You have permission to enter, but only under certain conditions, and if the conditions aren’t met, you are breaking the law.
  3. I’m an asshat for breaking the rules, and then bitching about people that broke other rules.  

Response to item #1: He never asked us not to bring them. If the owner had made it clear that it was a “no weapons” event in the same manner that he’d made it clear that it was a “black tie” event, then I’d absolutely agree with this sentiment.  It is well within the owner’s rights to determine the conditions of your entry into an event, be it dress code or otherwise.  If, given those requirements beforehand, you decide that you cannot live up to the conditions, then do not attend.  The reason that I don’t equate the two issues is because, while the invitations and information available for the event made it completely clear that it was, indeed, a “black tie” event, there was no indication that the event was “weapons free” at any time, right up until I got in line for the metal detectors.  Coming to an event that is clearly determined to be “black tie” in anything less than said attire is disrespectful.  Coming to an event with a pistol, and finding out only after you’ve bought your tickets, made the trip, and have no other recourse than to not attend at great personal expense and loss of the evening, that the owner doesn’t want you going in with it is completely different.  He misrepresented the issue, and accepted my money without addressing that requirement, so it was not part of our agreement as far as I (and the law) was concerned.

Response to item #2:  There was never an explicitly stated “no weapons” policy, even after the wanding and the metal detectors.  It was unclear what they would have done had they determined that I had a pistol.  They may very well have allowed me to enter once they checked that it was being carried legally with a CC license and so forth.  There was never an explicitly stated “you may not enter with a weapon,” it was only “we’re going to check and see if you have any weapons” with no indication of what the recourse would be if they had actually found one, so I don’t think that this applies.  Since they did not find it, I never found out, and it certainly is not my legal requirement to declare to a private citizen that I have a pistol on me.  If they’d made it clear that it was, indeed, a “no weapons” event, then I might feel differently, except for one thing: don’t forget that the owner and I entered into an agreement where he’d take my money for the tickets, and he’d allow me to enter the venue with the condition that I was dressed in “black tie” attire.  There were no other conditions stated, so in my belief, his springing an additional condition on me at the door to which we hadn’t agreed at the time of payment was not binding to me, legally or otherwise. 

Response to Item #3: you could also make the representation that the owner of the venue was an asshat for springing un-agreed-to conditions on me at the last second, giving me no other option but to either break the rules or forfeit my ticket and my evening.  Two wrongs don’t make a right, but you’ll forgive me for being an asshat to a person that would renege on an agreement at the last second like that.  

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Ritualistic, Stylized Human Sacrifice - With Cooperation From the Victim...

One of the more scalding episodes of South Park from a while back had society gaining power and sustenance off of the melt-down of Britney Spears.  At one point in time, one of the characters explains how societies have always had ritual sacrifices to appease the masses, and that ours was no different.  He went on to explain that we required a sacrifice of a young star on occasion to satiate our lust for sacrifice, and that Britney was just the most recent target. 

It seems to me that the most recent sacrifice has stepped up to fill the role.  Justin Bieber is doing everything that he can to firmly install himself into the role of “human sacrifice du jour.” He’s done this himself, by being a total prick that spits on his fans, drives drunk, and street races in what he assumes is a consequence free environment. It’s almost like he wants people to hate him (if that is, indeed, his goal, he’s doing a bang-up job).   

Given his money and fame, it may very well be a consequence free environment, at least in his estimation, and at least in the criminal justice aspect of it, but it is only consequence-free in that aspect, alone.  There are more consequences to these things than just legal trouble.  I can already see the talking heads lining up, slavering in an almost Pavlovian manner, ready for their next sacrifice.  You can already see the self-righteousness, and the gloating, gleeful nature in which they are reporting his downfall.

I don’t have a lot of love for Justin Bieber, so don’t get me wrong.  I think he is a messed up soup sandwich of a person, who spits on the very people that caused him to become famous, who uses illicit drugs and lives a careless life doing careless things like the child he is.  I also think the music that he “creates” is pure shit. 

However, I’m not willing to see him sacrificed like Britney and so many others have been.  I can only hope that he realizes that in this banquet of life that he he’s been living, gorging himself on the fame and fortune that his talent has afforded him, that he may very well be the main course.  I can only hope that someone in his life, who loves him, can get through to him that what he is doing is not consequence free, and that it will catch up with him in the end. 

It is inevitable as the changing seasons, however, that he won’t change, and that it will, indeed, catch up with him at some time, and the slavering, Pavlovian media will be there to make sure none of us miss a bit of it.  

Monday, January 27, 2014

No One's Needs Outweigh Those of Another...

When people say "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual," semantically, reasonably, and otherwise, all they are saying is that "the needs of some are more important than the needs of others."

It gets even more worrisome when you realize that for most of these folks, you could substitute the word "some" with any of the following terms:

-"politically connected"
-"People that I agree with"
-"psychopathic, but well-spoken"

Can you think of any others?  Any more horrifying than this list?

The Perpetuated "Trades vs. Management" Myth

As a manager in a large construction firm (I’m something like 4th in command, in a company with a hundred employees) I get a lot of resentment from certain front-line craft employees for being the manager, and that I “get” to “boss them around” when I “couldn’t even do their job.”  Most of the guys get it, but there are the select few that just don’t understand that it doesn’t matter one whit whether I can plumb a toilet or frame a wall (I can do both, by the way, but they don’t know that). 

I’m not an electrician.  I understand a lot about the electrical trade.  Much more than your average American, but if you asked me to properly wire anything bigger than a basic house, I’d be lost. 

That doesn’t mean that I can’t manage the efforts of the electricians under my purview.  I’ve explained it to one guy who, instead of being resentful and angry about it, was genuinely curious how I was able to manage people whose job I couldn’t do, myself, and he was quite surprised and pleased with my explanation, because I think he understood exactly what I was talking about. 

I asked him a series of questions, each of which was easily answered, and each answer illuminated his understanding of what I was talking about:

“As a carpenter,” I started, “you construct the formwork for the concrete foundations on large commercial and institutional buildings, correct?”

He nodded in assent.

“Where does that building come from?”  I asked.  From the confused look on his face, I saw that he didn’t understand.

“How is it that you come to be working on that foundation?” I clarified.  His face went from bemused to understanding.

“It’s because you bid the project and got it for us to work on it,” he said.

I shook my head.  “Yes, but there’s more to it than that.  How do you think that we came to know about that building going out for bid?  How do you think that we got on the list of acceptable bidders to bid on the project?  How do think that you, specifically, were slated to work on this project, as opposed to one of the other projects that we have going in town?  How do you think that the 30 plus subcontractors that will work on this project all know what scope of work they’re supposed to be doing, when to have their materials ready, when to be on site, where to start, how much time they’ve got to install their materials, and which materials will be needed, and when?  How do you think that the man lift that you needed to form the high walls arrived on site exactly when you needed it, and that the manlift was full of fuel and greased and ready for you to use?  Or the safety rails on the second floor and roof?  Or the forklift, or the crane that you used to pick form panels?”

He shook his head, I think understanding for the first time that all of these things don’t happen organically, but rather because someone is somewhere directing traffic to make sure that these things happened.  He’d never really thought about it; the manlift that he needed just always seemed to be there.    

I finished with one final, pointed question that I think drove home the point:

“Given all of those things, how important do you think it is for me to actually be physically capable of building some concrete formwork?”

He shook his head. I continued:

 “Why would that be something that I’d need to know how to do, other than to know how long it will take to build a panel, how much material goes into one, and how many times we can re-use it?  Consider that concrete formwork is one part of a massive whole, and if I was to be required to know how to do the job of every tradesman that worked on the building, do you think I’d ever be able to learn all of that?  To set wood floors, to polish concrete slabs, to plumb a rooftop unit, to run HVAC ductwork, to install a fire alarm system, to wire streetlights, to pave the parking lots, pour the sidewalks, install the masonry…  How could one man ever know how to do all of those things?  How important would it be for me to even know how to do these things, anyway?” 

He shrugged.  “I guess not very important at all.” 

“My job is to manage.  That is my trade, and it is what I’m good at.  The idea that a manager must know how to do the job of every single person that he manages is just silly, and is not a realistic goal at all.  There shouldn’t be any animosity between you and me because you know how to do something that I don’t know how to do, or because I’m directing you to do it.  If it weren’t for me, you wouldn’t have any foundations to build, and if it weren’t for you, I wouldn’t have anyone to build the for me.  We’re a team, not adversaries.”

He shook his head, smiling, and I think, finally understanding.

But this attitude of adversity between management and the trades has been created and perpetuated for so long in our country, mainly by labor unions who exploit the adversarial relationship to their own benefit, that there are a lot of trade guys who literally have an “us vs. them” attitude when it comes to management.  They act as if management is just coasting along on their labor; a parasite that doesn’t accomplish anything but to suck the profits of their labor and claim as their own the sweat of their brow. 

It really is shameful that it got this way, because if it weren’t for management, none of these guys would have any work to do, at all.  It doesn’t matter how good this guy is at building a foundation, without me to procure the project, he’d be sitting at home doing nothing.

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Fundamentalist Cultish Behavior

This article by Cracked was interesting. The comments even more so. A lot of the comments were written to make points along the lines of “what are we to do about this?” Fact is, there is nothing you can do, in a free society, besides ensure that these folks aren’t breaking the law, and coming down on them like a ton of bricks if they do.

Child endangerment is child endangerment, regardless of whether it is done in the guise of religion or anything else.

Furthermore, I don’t think we solve this problem by lampooning or denigrating the members of the church. If you create an “us vs. them” dynamic, it will only reinforce their delusions of persecution and drive them deeper underground; away from non-church society. I think we solve this problem by outreach to the people inside the church, so that they will feel like they’ll have a support group outside. If they see something that they cannot live with, they can then blow the whistle without the fear of alienating the only people on Earth who accept him.

 A man who thinks that his choice is to stay in a church of people that accept him, but abuse children, or to leave that church and enter a society of people who hate him and will lampoon, denigrate, and shun him, may choose to stay in the church, given no other alternative. A man given an alternative might blow the whistle and put a stop to the abuse.

 And yes, purposefully denying your children needed medical treatment is abuse, regardless of your religion.

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Security Theater

I’ve been somewhat reticent to blog about this incident, because I don’t know if I broke any laws in doing this or not.  I think, at worst, I’m guilty of trespassing or something, but the fact is, posting about doing illegal things on the internet is kind of dumb, so I don’t want to be that guy.   

When I went to the black tie affair over New Years, I was surprised to see that they had a metal detector at the door and were checking for weapons. 

This was a problem for me.  I tried not to adjust or mess with the Smith & Wesson J-frame in the pocket holster in my front pocket as I walked through the metal detector, preparing to explain to them that I was a legally permitted CW permit holder in the State, and that they had not posted any warnings of the “no weapons” policy on their website or in the invitation that they sent me, and that it was therefore unfair to exclude me from the event based on my having been given incomplete information about the requirements for the events. 

Man, that J-frame suddenly felt really heavy.  It got even heavier when the guy ran the wand over me, but suddenly I realized that neither the wand, nor the walk-through detector had alerted to the presence of my .38.  He smiled, told me to have a good night, and sent me on my way. 

I was gobsmacked.  Mrs. Goober was giggling nervously all the way down the entry corridor and we were both laughing as we entered the ballroom. 

If this is truly the quality of the security theater that we have to offer, then why the hell bother?  I carried a fully loaded .38 into an event that had metal detectors and a “no weapons” policy and no one batted an eye. 

“No Gun Zone” indeed. 

Or, alternatively, “No Gun Zone” my ass!  

Income Inequality, Revisited... Again...

So it was suggested to me in passing by a person that I work with that it isn’t necessarily hypocrisy or hunger for power that is causing the previously mentioned congresscritter to go on about the wealth gap while being super rich, herself. 

She may not be the useful idiot standing in front of the country shouting “Eat the rich!!!” to the masses, while she is, herself, rich. 

Pictured: Possibly not asking to be eaten.
She may also not be the tyrant wanna-be, using class warfare and the politics of envy to maneuver herself into a position of power. 

Pictured: Possibly not evil incarnate

She may just be a complete idiot.  

Pictured: Possible drooling fucking moron

This isn’t what my co-worker told me.  She was actually much nicer about it, suggesting that maybe instead of “eat the rich!” Congresscritter Elitebag saying “help the poor!” 

My co-worker apparently doesn’t understand, like Congresscritter UltraMoron likewise seems to be missing, that wealth is not created out of whole cloth.  There is a limited amount of wealth, and to give more wealth to one person, you must take it from another.  

This is why I feel so strongly that men must be free; it is because nothing else in life can be! 

So the suggestion is made that this congresscritter just doesn’t understand the truth behind the wealth dynamic.  It is supposed that she is not talking about taking from someone before she can give it to someone else.  So what is her suggestion? How does she plan to accomplish such a thing?

Raising of wages?  As if the average American is an infantile idiot who cannot negotiate his own fair wage without the government stepping in to do it for him?

"Uh, durrr, whassa "negosheashun?" Durrrr... "
Average American, according to Congresscritter Buttnugget

Well, there is a problem there, because to do that, you have to lower the wages of those higher ups, or else you'll end up raising the prices of everything.  This will lead to a situation where people have more money in their bank accounts, but their actual purchasing power is exactly the same.  So once again, you're taking from someone and giving to someone else, if you want to accomplish anything at all.  I’m not talking about just CEOs with their million dollar golden parachutes, here; I’m talking about middle management, too.  You know, that "middle class" of people we're always talking about getting royally butt-screwed by both sides, every time they turn around?

Remember us?  Yeah, we're kind of getting tired of it.  

You’d have to lower their wages, too, in order to keep purchasing power on par and actually accomplish something. 

That doesn’t seem to palatable now, does it, because suddenly you're taking from the deserving in order to fund others now?  

So strike that.

There is, of course, the other problem of heartless bastards like me, who look at those higher wages, and in turn, expect my crews to earn their money.  Some of the men in my employ are not skilled.  Some of them aren’t even that bright.  Some of them aren’t the hardest workers on Earth.  The only reason that I keep them on is because I have negotiated a wage with them that makes them “worth it.”  If you were to pass laws saying that I have to pay these men more, or even worse, pay them the same as my skilled, intelligent, highly paid workers, I would lay them all off immediately, no questions asked.  This congresscritter forgets that I cannot pay a person more than the value that they contribute to the company, or else I will no longer be in business, and ALL of my workers will be out of jobs.

Read that again.  This has nothing to do with greed, folks.  It has everything to do with me choosing the lesser of two evils, when faced with laying some employees off, or having to lay them ALL off when my business goes in the tank.  

What will end up happening is that I will have to lay most of my low-paid guys off, burden my higher-paid guys with the low-pay work, in addition to the work they already have, and then pay them a higher wage to make up for the additional hours. 

With that being said, does anyone else recognize the flaw in this plan?  That it is going to INCREASE the wealth gap, as opposed to shrinking it, as men that are working now will be laid off, and men that don’t get laid off will be paid higher wages? 

I do not think that the wealth gap is something that can be fixed.  I do not think that the wealth gap is something that we should try to "fix" at all.  

There is one huge reason for this, and I will make that point, and then hopefully sign off on this issue once and for all.

The point is this:  Let’s say you get your way, Congresswoman Fuckhead.  Let’s say that you get your hands on a trillion dollars of other people’s wealth, and redistribute it to every man, woman, and child in America equally.  (of course, I’m confident that YOUR personal wealth will make up exactly zero percent of the trillion that you get, but that’s just a perk of the job, isn't it, you absolute shit-sandwich?)  Let’s forget that doing this would tank our economy forever.  Let’s forget that there probably isn’t anywhere close to this much in free cash to take, and you’d be liquidating tangible assets to free it up.  Let’s just pretend that we could somehow find a trillion dollars in liquid cash-equivalent assets in the hands of the rich in America (a preposterous premise, but bear with me). 

Take 1 trillion, divide by 350 million (the number of people in the US of A), and what do you get?  

Drumroll, please!

About $2,900 per person.  What can you do with $2,900?  

Pay a couple months’  rent?  Maybe?  Are the American people going to be that much better off with this massive wealth re-alignment?  Hell no, they aren’t, and that's only if you forget about the massive negative economic impact of doing such a thing.  Even if you take ten times that (an absolutely ludicrous number) and it works out to $29,000 per person, what can you do with $29,000?  Buy a car?  Pay off a third of your mortgage balance?  Really, in the grand scheme of things, this isn’t going to make a huge difference in the well-being of poor Americans, beyond maybe a short period.  When you consider that even the poorest of Americans will make three-quarters of a million dollars over their career, on average, $29,000 is a paltry drop in the bucket. 

But if left in the hands of the rich who have it now, what could that trillion dollars do?  Say one man has a million dollars of it, and Congresscritter Asswipe here “allows” him to keep it.  He invests that in a startup, which hires people to work for the next 30 years.  Maybe that million dollars creates 20 jobs.  Say the jobs pay $15 an hour.  Over 30 years, that job is worth $936,000 to that employee.  Over 20 jobs, that's nearly $20 million in economic benefit just in wages alone, created by that initial million dollar investment.  

What fool would take $29,000 now?  What absolute fool would take $29,000 now, so that IF they didn’t touch a penny of it, and they were able to invest it at 6% over that 30 year period, they could get $174,000, and still have to work at a job they may not be ale to find now (see above), when the sacrifice is a job that will pay you fucking near a million dollars over the same timeframe, that you get to spend as you go along? 

$29,000 in the hands of one man doesn't start a business.  One million dollars in the hands of one man DOES. 

Congresscritter Asshat would give you $29,000 instead of giving you a job.  She would implement policies that would make everyone more poor in this country, and call that “fairness”.  Even if you don’t believe that she bears the much more likely evil motivations that I discussed in my previous rant, she still falls short of being a person that I would encourage anyone to vote for, because she is an idiot.  

Derp, durr-hurrr

Insanely Wealthy Congresswoman Rants About Wealth Inequality

One wonders if one could even consider these creatures to be self-aware at this point...

It boggles the mind.

It also proves a point.  This isn't about fairness, or inequality, or "leveling the playing field." If it were, how could this lady live with her own hypocrisy?  How could she possibly be worth $25 million dollars in a world where wealth inequality is truly the greatest evil facing our society and not hate herself?

She couldn't; and she doesn't have to, because this isn't about all that.

This is about power.  This is about a woman, who is already insanely wealthy by anyone's standards, wanting more.  She wants her hands to be on the controls.  She wants her fingers to be flipping the switches.  She wants the ultimate say in who gets to join her fraternity of the wealthy elite; to have the ultimate power to decide who "gets" to be rich, and who does not.  She feels like she has the unique ability to engineer society to her desires, and to her requirements, and wants that power so badly that she will stand before you, worth $25-fucking-million dollars and rant on about income inequality in America without even once considering how nut-squashing stupid that is; she'll do this without once missing a beat.

She doesn't give two flying fucks about the poor, except for to use them as the vehicle by which she gains more power.
Pictured: A useful tool to Congresswoman Fuckhead

Fuck her.  Anyone that votes for this would-be tyrant and monumental hypocrite is a drooling moron.