No One Believes In Climate Change Science

Yes, you read that title right. NO ONE truly believes in climate change science. Especially you. It’s not your fault though. The real science is simply not palpable to most people, which is why depression, anxiety and even suicide is a real problem among climate scientists.

Realistically, your only choices are to either believe in a sanitized/fake version of climate science (as Democrats generally do) or to reject it completely (as Republicans generally do). Keep reading if you’re curious about climate scientists can only admit behind closed doors. It’s honestly not going to a make difference though. You’ll be obligated to remain a science-denier . . . if you want to remain a decent human being.

Climate Change Myths

Let’s first start off with the popular myths about climate change. With a quick online search we can find all sorts of fun and easy ways to fight climate change on a personal level. We can make our homes more energy efficient, take fewer shopping trips, use reusable bags, eat more local foods, etc.

barbara-590x370Change a light bulb, save the planet!

On the government policy level, there are ideas such as implementing a carbon tax, blocking oil pipelines, investing in renewable energy and mandating energy-efficient vehicles.

Do these ideas sound familiar? Do they sound reasonable in our effort to tackle climate change? You’re right, they are reasonable! And that’s the problem. These ideas can no more tackle climate change than a mouse can tackle a skyscraper. The scientific data on climate change is much, much more horrifying than what most people realize.

Science deniers . . . and science “believers”

Real climate science actually boils down to two concepts: the Carbon Budget and the Carbon Emissions Equation.

What is the Carbon Budget?

The carbon budget is how much more CO2 can be released into the atmosphere before irreversible damage has been caused to our environment. Drought, famine, dreadful heat waves, oceans rising, widespread flooding, devastating hurricanes, enormous snow storms, etc. (you know the drill). Once this “budget” is spent, humankind has to quit adding carbon emission to atmosphere. Period. Anything more and we have entered an area of no return.


How close are we to exhausting our carbon budget? According to the IPCC, the world’s leading authority and expert on climate change, we have about four more years before we expend our carbon budget at our current emissions rate for a chance at staying below catastrophic change. If we want to have a 90% chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change (which is arguably a good thing) then our carbon emissions budget is already at zero.

What is the Carbon Emissions Equation? The carbon emissions equation simply states that the amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere is determined by how many people are alive, how many services they use, how much energy these services need and how much CO2 is emitted from generating that energy.


Let’s start with the “easy” part of the equation and talk about renewable energy. In the next 0-4 years, climate science dictates that all fossil fuels use needs to be completely eliminated. So we need to build solar panels and wind turbines as fast as we can! How long before we transition to a completely renewable energy society? According to current estimates, this can be done by the year 2050. If we’re being wildly optimistic. What happens in the thirty years before we get there? Well, the next “easiest” part of the equation will be to limit services.

Tough Choices

The general consensus among climate scientists at the IPCC is that carbon emissions will have to be zero. But let’s be optimistic here. Some scientists say that we can emit a little carbon every year due to the natural cycle of carbon absorption (via plants for example).

These scientists say that based on our world’s current population, each individual’s yearly carbon budget is 1015 lbs., or about 2.8 lbs a day (better than nothing right?) Even these optimistic scientists say though that are real carbon budget should be half of that to account for past emissions but again, let’s be generous here and imagine the most luxurious lifestyle possible under climate science. What might we spend our carbon budget on and what should we cut out? Reminder: although these restrictions should have been implemented years ago, the absolute deadline for implementing this carbon budget is in four years according to climate science.

– No More Flying. Since one flight from New York to Paris would use up someone’s entire annual carbon budget by itself (this doesn’t even include hotel stays or other tourist activities), airline travel is a luxury that can be easily eliminated first. Hopefully you don’t know anyone that works in the tourism or travel industry!

– No More Meat: This is another luxury that will need to be eliminated. 4 oz. of beef (a typical burger patty) would cost you 6.61 lbs of carbon (remember that your total carbon budget is 2.8 lbs a day). A cheeseburger costs 13.4 lbs. A cup of milk will cost you 0.72 lbs of carbon. Since vegetables like carrots cost only 0.07 lbs of carbon for half a cup, we fortunately should be able to survive by adopting a strictly vegan diet. Which actually works out, because since refrigerators cost 4.5 lbs. of carbon a day to run, we couldn’t store milk or meat anyway.

– Driving. On average, cars emit 0.81 lbs. of CO2 per mile driven (trains emit 0.32 lbs per passenger mile). If you decided you didn’t need to eat one day, you could drive 3.5 miles instead (or 9 miles by train). But make sure you stay on top of maintenance! It will take between 3 – 28 years of saving 100% of your carbon budget before you can buy a new car. Hopefully you don’t drive to work or know anyone working in the automotive industry!

– Heating: Within about 30 years, we should hopefully be able to replace all natural gas heating systems with renewable energy. Until then, your annual carbon budget allows for (if you don’t plan on eating that year) 7.2 kWh of natural gas, or about two months of heating an average home. Hopefully you live in a place that is warm year round!

– Clothing and other products: T-shirts cost about 22 pounds of carbon to make. iPhones cost 121 pounds. A new furniture set: 2,000 pounds of carbon. Since one factor in the Carbon Emissions Equation includes energy efficiency, the carbon price for these items might drop as we find ways to be more carbon efficient. However, even if we can increase carbon efficiently by 90%, we’ll quickly realize that there simply isn’t much we can buy on a budget of 2.8 lbs of carbon a day. Hopefully you have everything you need already and don’t know anyone working in the retail or manufacturing industry!

Real Tough Choice

Do those sounds like tough choices? Look out your window now, is imagining the roads going empty in the next four years, most of the retail stores closing and everyone being forced to adopt a vegan lifestyle sound exaggerated and inhumane? That’s cute. Those aren’t even the REAL hard choices that climate science demands we make.

What about medical care? Hospitals and medical care require vast amounts of carbon, from supplies to equipment to electricity. Will we decide to take another look at the Carbon Emissions Equation and decide that not only can we not afford the carbon emissions to treat someone with a chronic disease, but it actually might be better for the climate if we simply let more people die and reduce the population?

And what about other countries? Let’s say China declines to participate and continues to operate its coal power plants. Although every diplomatic tactic will naturally be used first, force will need to be used if necessary, including outright war. After all, climate science doesn’t care about nation sovereignty. We all share the same atmosphere and there can be zero tolerance for anyone not abiding by carbon limitations. It is likely that every country in the world will need to submit to one governing body that monitors and regulates every sector of the economy for carbon emissions. Otherwise, any non-compliance could cause irreversible damage to our climate.

On that note, what kind of government is this going to require in the U.S.? The science is indisputable: almost every aspect of our lives needs to be tightly controlled. Cars will largely be banned, most animal products prohibited. Natural gas lines might need to run dry, (until the temperatures drop to a level which the government considers life-threatening). Strictly monitored energy usage until we at least make the switch to renewable energy. In short, democracy simply isn’t going to work. If we can’t even agree on how to make mild trimmings to Social Security in order to preserve it for future generations, imagine how impossible it be to convince the majority of people to sacrifice almost all of our modern comforts for the sake of reducing CO2. A type of totalitarian government would be needed, likely incorporating a group of un-elected and un-touchable climate scientists with immense regulatory and enforcement power. They need to be able to stick to the science and have the authority to shut down entire industries employing millions of people and remain unmoved if and when those millions of people take to the streets in protest.


Now you can see why no one truly believes in climate change science. Even climate scientists themselves, although they themselves are producing these numbers, will never publicly admit that we need to throw civilization back hundreds of years in order to save the planet. Realistically, some of the only available career paths in the near future will be either working in renewable energy or managing a family farm. But don’t just take my word for it. Follow all the links provided in the post above and see what climate science really says.

Just for fun, here is a fictional, although scientifically accurate, interview of  the brutal facts on climate change. So do you still believe in the climate change science? If you do, note with no small irony that in order to prevent the world as we know it from ending over the next 30-100 years due to climate change, we will need to end the world as we know it within 0-4 years.






The 6 Dumbest Arguments about Transgender Bathroom Laws

Welcome to Burn Adams’s blog for Tier 3 liberals! Maybe you’re here because some dude posted a link on some random internet forum while there was a debate about transgenders and bathrooms. If so, it is likely because someone made a really dumb argument. Since most forums have a character limit, please scroll down to locate said argument and an explanation.

Dumb Argument #1: “So how will these strict bathroom laws going to be enforced? Are we going to station a police officer on front of every bathroom in the country to check people’s IDs?”

This argument is listed first because it is the most idiotic one by far. How in the world do people think these kinds of rules were enforced for the past couple hundred years? If a man entered a women’s bathroom he would be asked to leave by the women in there. That, or he would be screamed at with various objects thrown in his direction. If he refused to leave, the manager and then the police might be called.

Dumb Argument #2: “Don’t you realize that transgender people have been using the bathroom of their choice with no problem all this time?”

Although you would think this argument would be too stupid to be made, this is still brought up surprisingly often. If all transgendered people blended so well with their preferred sex, these kinds of laws wouldn’t be brought up in the first place. No one would even know this was an issue.

Dumb Argument #3: “What about the women who decided to turn into men and now look like a man?”


On the flip side of Dumb Argument #2, there are some transgenders who blend in with their new gender extremely well. You may have seen some pictures online of a woman who decided to become a man and is now sporting a full beard. The reason why this argument is so dumb is because these kinds of people are not and never were affected in any way by these bathroom laws. As mentioned in Dumb Argument #1, there is no bathroom police. If you look like a man, everyone will expect you to use the men’s bathroom. Period.

Dumb Argument #4: “Women are safe from perverts who would abuse open-access rules. There are already laws against voyeurism, sexual assault and rape.”

2/21/12, 2:30:54 PM -- Brookline, MA Illustration for story on peeping tom problem on campus. Photo by Cydney Scott for Boston University

This dumb argument is usually made when people point out that open-access transgender bathroom laws aren’t limited to transgenders at all. They grant all men the legal right to enter women’s bathrooms, showers and locker rooms whenever they want. The only requirement is that they say they identify as a female at that moment. Remember, NO ONE is legally allowed to question this.

The reason why this is a dumb . . . and extremely dangerous . . . argument is because voyeurism, sexual assault and rape are all crimes of opportunities. Guess what happens when men with ill-intentions have the legal right to enter private places where women and girls may be in various stages of undress? That’s right, more opportunities. Oh, and don’t forget that voyeurism has effectively been legalized. Any man can sit in a women’s locker room and simply watch young girls get undressed. He doesn’t even have to pretend to be transgender. This isn’t hypothetical. This behavior has already been tested in Seattle and legally approved.

What’s ironic about the people making this dumb argument is that they likely support background checks for people buying guns. What’s the point of having gun control laws if murder and robbery are already illegal?

Dumb Argument #5: “No one is going to lie about being transgendered so that they can expose their genitals, watch women/girls undressing, take showers, etc.”

While I’m glad that the people who make this dumb argument apparently live in a society that no one lies or has ill intentions, the rest of us unfortunately aren’t lucky enough to afford such naïveness. Every 107 seconds, another person is sexually assaulted in the U.S. 44% of them are under the age of 18. Sexual deviants like Christopher Hambrook have and will take advantage of these laws to prey on women.

Remember, we live in a society where a man can be forced to register as a sex offender for life simply because he urinated in public. It’s not necessary for a child to see anything or even be present. Let’s repeat, even the slight possibility of seeing a male genital during urination is considered so traumatizing to young girls that we have agreed to convict the individual with a sex crime and then bar him from living or working within 2000 feet from a school for the rest of his life (laws vary by state).

Unless . . . he says he is a transgender?

This sex offender can now legally urinate three feet away from little girls and the only criminals now are the ones who feel uncomfortable with this. He can proudly walk completely butt-naked in a locker room and shower with other young girls with the comfort of knowing that no one can legally say they’ve been traumatized because he said the magic words “I’m transgender”. Again, this is not hypothetical. This behavior has been legally tested and approved. Here is another example in New York.

Dumb Argument #6: “Who cares if transgenders use whatever bathroom they want? Bathrooms have stalls and I never look around to see people’s genitals.” or “I was raised to ignore other people in the bathroom.”


Ah, the classic “head in the sand” argument. As mentioned above, while you may indeed be a good person, we happen to live in a world where not everyone is as well intentioned as you are.

The reason why this is listed as a dumb argument is A) it’s naive and B) this issue is much more far-reaching that just bathrooms. Thanks to the Obama Administration, any man in college can say he is a female and universities are legally required to let him become roommates with young college girls. It is also illegal for the school to notify his female roommates that the person they’ll be sharing a tiny room with for a year is biologically a man.

These rules apply to athletics too. Schools are now obligated to allow students to join whichever gender team they prefer. Since men have a natural physical advantage over women in many regards, transgenders will likely become the star athletes on women teams.

Not even speech is safe. In New York City, you can be fined $250,000 if you don’t address a transgendered individual by their chosen pronoun (him, her, zir, hir, eir, vis, etc.). Canada is moving to make even criticizing transgenders a hate crime. For example, this blog post would be enough to land me two years in prison. I’m not joking.

In summary, these transgendered “bathroom” laws have huge consequences as the legal distinctions between men and women are ripped to shreds. To argue otherwise is very, very, dumb.

Taking Apart the Measles Hysteria with 3 Logical Questions


A CNN headline recently declared “Vaccine Fight Turns Political” as politicians came out in support of people’s right to choose whether or not they or their children get vaccinated after a small measles outbreak in Disney World. An unusual thing about the vaccine debate is that just a few years ago the exact same percentage of Democrats and Republicans either supported or were against parental choice. Despite this, the debate is starting to fall along party lines as Democrats are generally very comfortable using government power to force people to do what they want while Republicans generally support personal freedom and responsibility. Although there are many vaccines out there, this article will primarily focus on the measles vaccine (MMR) and will take apart the hysteria and demands to do forced vaccinations with publicly available data and just three logical questions.

  1. Are vaccines really “safe”?

First, let’s look at what the vaccine is preventing. The measles is an itchy rash that can last between 4 to 7 days. Other possible symptoms include bloodshot eyes, coughing, fever, light sensitivity, muscle pain, redness and irritation of the eyes, runny nose, sore throat and tiny white spots inside the mouth. More severe symptoms are possible and we’ll cover that in more detail later.

To prevent this, a vaccine was created. As any good doctor can tell you, no medication is 100% risk free. But don’t just take their word for it, look at the warning labels and side effects listed on the vaccines themselves. For the measles vaccine, the listed side effects are:

  • Difficulty in breathing or swallowing
  • hives
  • itching, especially of feet or hands
  • reddening of skin, especially around ears
  • swelling of eyes, face, or inside of nose
  • unusual tiredness or weakness (sudden and severe)
  • Fever over 103 °F (39.4 °C)
  • Bruising or purple spots on skin
  • confusion
  • double vision
  • headache (severe or continuing)
  • irritability
  • stiff neck
  • swelling, blistering or pain at place of injection
  • swelling of glands in neck
  • vomiting
  • vasculitis
  • anaphylaxis
  • anaphylactoid reactions
  • angioneurotic edema (including peripheral or facial edema)
  • bronchial spasm
  • Stevens-Johnson Syndrome
  • erythema multiforme
  • urticaria
  • rash
  • thrombocytopenia
  • purpura
  • regional lymphadenopathy
  • leukocytosis
  • arthralgia
  • arthritis (usually transient and rarely chronic)
  • polyneuritis
  • myalgia
  • paresthesia
  • retinitis
  • optic neuritis
  • papillitis
  • retrobulbar neuritis
  • conjunctivitis.
  • death (reported but not yet proven)

Some side effects are no more harmful than getting measles itself, while others are more severe. Is it likely that you would suffer from one of those severe symptoms? No. According to the CDC, about one in a million people would suffer severe consequences like going into a coma from getting the measles vaccine. Since 4 million babies are born every year in the U.S., we can logically say that about four babies each year suffer severe side effects like permanent brain damage from this one vaccine (out of the 49 vaccine shots babies are expected to take before they turn six).

Another source of information on the injuries caused by vaccines is the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). The VICP was created after Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 to help protect vaccine manufactures from being held financially responsible for the death and health damage their vaccines may cause. Looking from 1988 to 2015, there were 895 claims of serious injury and 57 claims of death that caused by the MMR vaccine. Of these, 367 claims were found to be valid and were thus compensated (the U.S Dept. of Health and Human Services chooses not to provide additional details on those compensated). So simple math shows that an average of 13.6 people are severely injured or die from the MMR vaccine every year.

As stated before, no medication is risk free. Vaccines are no exception.

  1. Is it worth the risk?

The natural question you should be asking next is which is more dangerous, the disease or the vaccine? If this was 1960 and an average of 503,282 people got the measles every year with 432 people dying, it would logically make more sense to get the vaccine.

But it is not 1960 anymore. Today, even with a record number of 644 cases of measles in the U.S. in 2014, only about 2 in 1,000,000 people even caught measles in the first place with 0 people dying. To put it another way, 644 people got itchy rashes and fevers from the measles while 650,000 people got sick and had fevers from the MMR vaccine with 1,330 of them suffering seizures and 4 people getting permanent brain damage (assuming 4 million people a year are vaccinated).

Even if one person did die (because you can’t calculate odds with a zero) it would still mean 400% more people (using the CDC estimates) are suffering from permanent brain damage or in comas from the measles vaccine. Using the VICP numbers, 1,360% more people were severely injured or died from the measles vaccine compared to people dying from measles itself.

In modern society, it simply isn’t logically sound to claim parents who choose not to vaccinate the kids are putting them at more risk. This underscores the fact that the government shouldn’t own our bodies and that people should be free to evaluate their own personal situations. After all, if someone is more scared of the measles than the vaccine, they certainly have the ability to vaccinate themselves.

  1. What about people who can’t get vaccinated?

This is where the vaccine debate gets nasty. You will hear people talk about “herd immunity” as if we were animals and how the government needs to force people against their will to get vaccines to protect those who are aren’t healthy enough to get vaccines themselves. People on the forced-immunization side of the debate suggest that all those who decline vaccination need to be quarantined to protect the rest of the population or, at the very least, have all un-vaccinated children kicked out of public schools. Others demand that the non-vaccinated be held liable for any sickness they spread and perhaps even charged with murder.

Even people who generally support freedom of choice tend to be persuaded by these kinds of emotional arguments because they are made in the name of public safety. Even though all vaccines have an inherent risk, is it worth it to protect people who are too young or have compromised immune systems?

As the title of this article says, let’s look at this question logically. The thing about immunocompromised people is that almost ANYTHING can kill them. That’s simply what happens when you have a non-functioning immune system. For example, mostly people don’t freak out over the flu and yet it is currently a leading cause of death in young children and people with compromised immune systems. In fact, the flu kills between 3,000 to 49,000 people every year (in comparison, the measles killed 0 people in the last 10 years and an average of 432 people a year before the vaccine) and NO ONE is vaccinated against all flu strains. In other words, every single person in the United States is “unvaccinated” against a type of flu and a potentially deadly threat to the vulnerable population. To take it one step further, people with weakened immune systems are also advised to avoid pets since cats and dogs simply can’t be vaccinated against every disease they may encounter.

If we applied these facts to the forced-vaccination argument, this logically means we have a moral obligation to quarantine every single man, woman, child and animal in the United States. For those who are panicking at the mere thought of meeting a child who didn’t receive the measles vaccine, the data clearly shows that you are still more of a public health threat to that child and to everyone else in society. If measles is so bad and needs to be avoided at all costs, even freedom, at least the same hysteria (if not more) needs to be applied to another disease that is between 10 to 100 times more deadly.

Anything else simply wouldn’t be logical.

4 Myths About Raising The Minimum Wage That You Probably Believe


Every so often, (where the word “often” means “election time”) interest groups and politicians suddenly decide that now is a good time to start talking about increasing the minimum wage again. Taking a break from downloading pirated movies and telling the critics of their favorite singer to go home and die, hoards of internet users then swarm to message boards and suddenly transform into economic professors. Just like repeating the line “we’re currently experiencing technical difficulties” made us sound smart when we were 10 years old, many start rattling off economic terminology to explain how higher wages increase demands, stimulates the local economy and creates jobs .

Here’s a breakdown of the top four economic myths about raising the minimum wage:


Myth #4: Higher minimum wages means more employee loyalty and productivity.

Costco, where the starting hourly wage is $11.50, is often thrown around as an example of how paying employees more than the minimum wage actually helps businesses because it attracts and keeps great employees. As Costco’s CEO said, “”Instead of minimizing wages, we know it’s a lot more profitable in the long term to minimize employee turnover and maximize employee productivity, commitment and loyalty. We support efforts to increase the federal minimum wage.””

That’s great for Costco and all the great employees they attract. The question everyone else should be asking: what about all those not-so-great employees?


Because let’s face it, sometimes standing and stuffing precut ingredients down a taco shell at the same time is pushing the skill set for some people. Besides, there is also the concept of the minimum wage. A lot of workers translate minimum wage = minimum effort, no matter how high it is. Because hey, if you’re paying me the lowest amount legally required by law, why bother?

So how does this affect employee loyalty and turnover? Let’s say Walmart was forced to pay an $11.50 minimum wage to match Costco. Costo’s employees will suddenly realize they are now literally the lowest paid workers in the country and *POOF* all that touted job loyalty disappears. After all, there’s no reason why those great workers will stick with Costco now that they can get paid the same anywhere else.


Myth #3: It’s good for the economy.

This myth goes something like this: if we raise the minimum wage, people will have more money in their pocket to spend. Since minimum wage earners are the types of people who need to spend their entire paycheck right away, the money flows right back into the local economy (unlike the filthy rich people who save and invest it). This increased purchasing power then inspires businesses to hire more people to help serve this increased demand. Yay, economics!

Unfortunately, upon closer examination, this myth falls flat on its face. If attracting business from people who need to immediately spend their entire paycheck really did have corporations rubbing their hands in glee, then low income areas would be particularly attractive places to open new businesses. Obviously, the opposite is true . . . unless you’re opening a pawn shop or liquor store.

But hey, at least raising the minimum wage means there is more money being spent in the economy than before right? That is absolutely true . . . if you think that businesses burn their leftover money to heat their showers.


What? It was feeling a bit drafty in here.


Logically, any money that is now spent by employees would have instead been spent by businesses, cancelling out any “spending boost” increasing the minimum wage might cause. But who cares about business owners right? If they make less profit then we’ll just play ‘em a sad song on the world’s tiniest violin. What really matters is lifting millions of minorities, single moms and others out of poverty by getting them a “living wage”, right? Which brings us to the next myth:


Myth #2: It’ll help lift poor out of poverty.

A large part of this myth is a misconception of what kinds of people actually earn the minimum wage. For example, it is frequently pointed out that making $15,080 a year on the minimum wage is not enough to support a family of four. Though there are often-repeated legends of single moms working three jobs and still not making enough to keep the lights on, that certainly doesn’t represent the typical minimum wage earner. Here are some facts from the Department of Labor:

– More than half of people who earn the minimum wage are between the ages of 16 and 24.
– Their average household income is $65,900, a far cry from the “drowning in poverty” stereotype.
– 79% of these young people are only working these jobs part-time, probably because the majority of them, about 62%, are still in school.


Only YOU can raise the min. wage and get us out of poverty!


Ok, so half of these minimum wage earners are suburban, middle-class kids. What about the other half, the adults 25 and older? According to the Department of Labor:

–          The average household income is $42,500 and half of those are only working part time.

–          Less than 25% of these adults live below the poverty line.

A statistic sometimes repeated is how there are more women than men working at minimum wage jobs. Yet as it turns out, the many of these women are likely just looking to make a little extra money on the side while their husband is working and the kids are in or graduated from school. Only 4% of minimum wage earners are single parents working full time.

So even though they are a small minority, will raising the minimum wage at least help those who are stuck in poverty? Sadly, no. As the U.S. Census shows, the problem with people in poverty is not that they are earning the minimum wage (9% of poor people work full time). The problem is that many aren’t working at all (67%).

Well ok. But at least the few poor who are working full time will start making more money right? After all, aren’t economists saying that raising the minimum wage doesn’t hurt overall job growth?


Myth #1: What are they going to do, make burger-flipping robots?

The fundamental principle behind any minimum-wage-increase fight is the myth “my job isn’t going anywhere”. According to the organizers of the 15Now campaign, “Nobody should have to struggle on poverty wages just to satisfy big corporations’ endless thirst for profits. Fast food and low wage workers are rising up demanding a $15/hour minimum wage.” When people point out that rising union wages caused car companies to replace workers with machines, minimum wage activists roll their eyes as they imagine McDonalds replacing its staff with Terminator-style, burger-making robots.

We love to see you smile.

Unfortunately for them, making burgers by machine will be available in the not-too-distant future. One company, Momentum Machines, has almost finished developing a machine that can make fresh, customized, gourmet burgers at a fraction of the cost of a Big Mac.


But let’s just say there is some job that ISN’T doable by machines. Is your job safe? Not necessarily. A lot more people, many probably better qualifed, will suddenly get very interested in replacing you. For example, many family therapists, who usually have a Master’s Degree at minimum, make $12.28 an hour. If McDonald’s was forced to pay $15 an hour, who would the manager hire, the family therapist looking to make more money or the single parent with little job experience?

So it turns out that raising the minimum wage certainly does benefit some people . . . those with valuable job skills. Not only do they get a bigger paycheck, but it also locks out many people who have little job experience out of the job market, reducing competition. Which, not coincidentally, was the reason why the minimum wage was created in the first place.

3 Things You Probably Don’t Know About ObamaCare’s Welfare State

The Democrats who wrote the ObamaCare law believe there are two types of people in America: 1) People who need to be screwed over and 2) People who need to be put on welfare. What may surprise you is just how many people are discovering that they are now both.

Here are 3 things that most people don’t know about ObamaCare:

1. It makes health insurance more expensive for EVERYBODY

suprisedcat123“My premium is now HOW much?”

Yes, this first point does make Obama a liar when he swore that “premiums will drop for the average family by $2,500 a year”. So what about all those things the propaganda media outlets are reporting that premiums are lower than expected and that people are now finally getting affordable coverage? Yes, if you throw your critical thinking skills out the window, a lot of what Democrats say sounds very good. First of all, when the news proudly announces “premiums are lower than expected”, they are NOT saying “premiums are lower than they are now.” They know that Democrat voters are so desperate for good news from their side they won’t question what they are told and/or aren’t smart enough to be able to tell the difference.

To normal people, the reasons health insurance premiums are soaring are obvious. After all, ObamaCare pretty much throws your healthcare customization options out the window by demanding insurance companies to cover everything under the sun, even if you don’t need or want it. You see, in a free market, a single guy wouldn’t need pregnancy insurance. Of course Obama, in his infinite wisdom, decreed: too bad. You’re paying for it if you want it or not. So using our common sense, we can see how it is impossible for health costs to go anywhere but up.

“But”, you may ask, “but what about those people with pre-existing conditions? Aren’t insurance companies now forced to accept their applications and are forbidden from charging them more?” Yes, that is true. But of course, if they are already sick, it’s not health INSURANCE that they’re getting now is it? The concept of “insurance” is to protect yourself in case something bad happens.

Yaris Smashed by Rock“Uh, hello Geico? I need to get insurance . . . how do you define pre-existing condition exactly?”

There is a reason you can’t buy home owner’s insurance AFTER your house burns down. Coverage for pre-existing conditions is not “insurance” but actually a form of welfare. Which brings us to point number . . .

2. ObamaCare “subsidies” is really just another word for “welfare”.

Since prices for health insurance are obviously skyrocketing, going up by 200% – 600% for some people, how is Obama going to try to hide this fact and sell it to his fan base? Simple: he puts them on welfare. Of course, Democrats are smart enough to use a different, nicer sounding word:  subsidies. In all practical aspects though, they are exactly the same. Government raises taxes, takes people’s income and redistributes it back to their loyal supporters. When the government finally lumbers up with a working website (it only cost 3x more than they promised it would), they’ll hide the real prices from insurance seekers and instead say: “Hey, take a government subsidy to buy something you used to be able to afford! Now you’ll never vote Republican again!”

healthcaregovGovernment: “We apologize we couldn’t make a working website despite having 3 years and $500 million. But we are sure we are perfectly capable of making your medical decisions for you. Just trust us . . . and take a number.”

Since the average Democrat voter has no qualms on depending on the government for survival, this will not faze them. For people who consider themselves as part of the middle class however, being forced into a situation where you are being trained to depend on government handouts is outrageous. As for people who already have health problems, they are getting complete government protection and support (aka “welfare”) because health care in this country is simply just too expensive to pay for out of pocket. Which brings us to point number . . .

3. Saying we need ObamaCare to control healthcare costs is like asking OJ Simpson to find his wife’s killer.

One reason for the fervent belief among Democrats on the need for the government takeover of healthcare  is because healthcare is just too ridiculously expensive to pay for on your own. What you may not know (and average Democrat certainly doesn’t know) is the REASON health care is so expensive in the first place is because of . . . . government regulations!

So isn’t this like asking the Joker in the Batman movies to perform reconstructive plastic surgery to help with the sudden increase in mutilations in Gotham City? Yes, yes it is.

Nurse-JokerJust think of him as ObamaCare’s version of “Patch Adams”.

Although we could write a book on the thousands of ways government interference in the healthcare industry can cause one toothbrush to cost $1,000 (I’m not kidding), here is just a quick list of innumerable ways the government created the problem they are now claiming to fix.

  1. Disengaging the customer (you) from the costs of healthcare
  2. Legal rules allowing multi-million dollar lawsuits
  3. Government restricting the sale of insurance policies across state lines
  4. Artificial limit on number of doctors
  5. Ridiculously high costs on medical innovation
  6. Regulations limiting the amount of medication that can be made
  7. Refusing to enforce immigration laws

Well, that’s enough discussion of some of the ugly secrets hidden in ObamaCare. After all, if our politicians are willing to live under the same rules they wrote for the rest of us, how bad can it really be? Oh wait . . . .

ObamaCare Exemption

The Psychology of Talking Politics on Facebook



You can say there are three certainties in life: death, taxes and the fact that you will lose friends if you talk about politics on Facebook. After being un-friended by multiple people (sometimes later re-friended so they can shoot back another attack), I decided to look for some advice on how to best discuss political issues online. The one thing everyone seems to agree on? Don’t do it.


So now I guess it’s time to let you in on a little secret: I don’t discuss politics on Facebook to change anybody’s mind. It is a fundamental fact of human nature that you will NEVER change anyone’s opinion on anything in an argument, even if you bring dozens of irrefutable facts to the table and they have nothing more than what they heard on Saturday Night Live (yes, that has actually happened). So why do I bother? Besides being naturally more interested in extremely important, world-changing (and often bad) decisions being made by our country’s leaders than that picture of the taco you had for dinner, there is principle I learned in business that I like apply. It’s called: Market Noise.


In business, it is known that you advertise not only to sell your own product, but to keep your competitors from selling more of theirs (also called: preserving market share). For example if Coke stopped advertising and people only saw ads with celebrities saying how wonderful Pepsi is, people will naturally start assuming the Coke is passé and Pepsi is the “it” thing that everybody hip and cool drinks.


You: Do you want a Coke or a Pepsi?

Young Person: Coke? Are you kidding? Only old people drink Coke these days!

You: But I like the flavor . . .

Young Person: *smirks* Looks like someone is still living in the 1950s!


In business terms, Pepsi ads are very effective because they are heard loud and clear by the consumer with no competing “noise” from other competitors.


Now let’s say that Coke realizes their mistake and starts advertising as much as Pepsi does. The soft drink marketplace will get very “noisy” from competing advertisements and people will start naturally tuning both of them out and go back to whatever they were doing/drinking before.


So how does this relate to politics? Currently in the United States, everyone is by default a liberal because their teachers are liberals, the movies are liberal, the TV shows are liberal, the news is extremely liberally biased and it is just plain darn easier (read: lazier) to be a liberal (“Hey that’s a pretty serious problem . . . the government should do something about it!”).


You can say that our current pop culture is all singing the same song and God help anyone who whistles a different tune (it’s been scientifically proven that it is more socially acceptable to tell people that they have sex with their mom than to wear a Bush t-shirt that didn’t have a Hitler mustache). It’s as if Pepsi ads not only promoted themselves but also portrayed all Coke drinkers to be inbred racist religious freaks that believe that Jesus rode around on a Triceratops with an AK-47 strapped to his back with a belt made from unicorn skin.


The solution? Start making noise. At first it will be difficult because many people have been well trained to call anyone who stands for traditional moral values a hateful homophobe. But if you stick to the facts, soon people will get confused because all the evidence you bring up clashes with what pop culture is telling them to believe. Frustration and annoyance is a common result of this confusion (also known as “cognitive dissonance”). Finally, many people will throw their hands up in the air, announce they don’t like politics (anymore) and then go back to posting pictures of their tacos.


So there you have it. You now know my secret that when I post some new political fact on Facebook, I don’t really have any expectation to change your mind. I’m simply trying to counteract the flood of liberal groupthink messaging by creating a little noise. Maybe, just maybe, enough people will tune out and therefore won’t be so quickly taken in when pop culture starts telling people that if you don’t believe anyone can pick their own gender then you must be a racist close-minded Coke drinker still living in the 1950s.


What’s Happens After Gay “Marriage”?


So you changed your profile picture on facebook or twitter to be a red equal sign to show your support for gay marriage? Congratulations, chances are you pride yourself on being open minded and don’t think we should let other people’s personal views on morality stand in the way of people’s civil rights and happiness. You probably also believe that everyone has a right to left alone and has a right to establish their families as long as they don’t harm others.

Let’s say that the Supreme Court does change the definition of marriage. What happens next? As the slogan goes, “don’t be on the wrong side of history” and it is time to “evolve”. This implies that gradually we progressing as a society toward some ideal society/world. Did you ever stop and think about what this ideal world, the one the LGBTQIA movement is fighting so hard for, will look like? Fortunately, we don’t have to guess. It’s right there out in the open if you just know where to look.

Obviously, in this ideal society, gay marriage will be just as widely accepted as traditional marriage. No one is judgmental and trying to impose their religious or moral values on anyone else. Experts even believe that gay marriages can help strengthen heterosexual marriages as society evolves toward accepting more sexual freedoms. Although not yet well known outside of the LGBTQIA community, traditional rules such as monogamy have already been tossed aside as gay couples regularly have agreements to allow each other to have sex with other people.

Like the movement’s LGBTQIA name suggests, transgender and bisexuality will not judged as immoral or ‘weird’ in this ideal world either. Sex ed will start at kindergarten as it already has in many schools and all kids will be taught that there are many different types of families, there is no difference between boys and girls and they should explore their sexuality and discover if they are more attracted to boys, girls or both. After all, sex is what your body is and your gender is what you think you are. You might be a woman or you might be a man, or you might be both, switch around, or be neither. (this is called being bigendered, genderfluid and asexual). We will fully allow men who believe they are women to use female bathrooms and to take public showers with other little girls because no one is narrow-minded anymore.

The exciting thing is, after people shed their prejudices, our culture will discover a wide and rich sexual diversity that was previously forced to live in the shadows. For example, some people fall in love with their brother or sister. As long as they use birth control and no one is getting hurt, why should anyone try to stand in the way of their affection? You may not know this, but adult incest is already legal in OH, RI and NJ. The other states will soon follow their example, because everyone knows you can’t choose who you fall in love with and being with your soul mate is your civil right. Additionally, as any bisexual will tell you, sometimes you just were born being able to love multiple people. Are we really going to stop people from being with the people they love, even if it is more than one? As Jonathan Turley, a law professor for George Washing Univ recently said on NPR in defense of polygamy, “You cannot defend a new civil liberty by denying it to others.”

Sound exciting so far? Oh, it doesn’t stop there. In this ideal world, we wouldn’t allow a man-made invention like the age of consent get in the way of love either. The age of consent in Canada was 14 years old as recent as 2008. Why are we being so close minded in the US? Crazy Christians and their outdated bibles might label people pedophiles, but we all know that harmful slur is just like calling a gay person a “fag” or a “dyke”. As the American Psychological Association has said, consensual inter-generational sex is not harmful, but even beneficial for the child. Experts from Harvard and John Hopkins agree, adding that people don’t choose their sexual orientations and that pederasty has a long and rich history in many cultures. As Alfred Kinsley, the father of the Sexual Revolution and the award-winning feminist play “The Vagina Monologues” state, even child rape, if done properly, is a good rape and beneficial for the child. Though not currently well-known outside of the gay community, LGBTQIA organizations like the GLSEN have long been recommending cutting-edge school literature, where children as young as six are sexually active and kids learn that having sex with adults can be a great boost to their confidence and self-esteem.

The best thing about everything mentioned above is that there will be no organized disagreement. Any church that speaks out against gay marriage or anything mentioned above can have their tax shelter taken away from them. People and business that donates to a Christian or other intolerant group can and will be fired or put out of business while being kicked out of universities and cities. We don’t put up with racists today and gay marriage has already been called the civil rights movement of our generation.

Then there is the other ideal world. This is the one that the “old people who are slowly dying off” still believe in and are fighting for. In this other ideal world, there are strong families with one dad and one mom who are committed to each other for life. People with alternative sexual orientations are loved just like any other human being, but they keep their various lifestyle choices private. Laws are changed to allow people to choose who can visit them in the hospital and are granted other necessary benefits, but society still holds on to old traditional notions like having a mom is still important for kids.

In this society, we would be smart enough to take a look at history to see what happened whenever a civilization changed the traditional family structure and sexual freedom became normal. We would discover that when family values were strong the civilization flourished and when they started “evolving”, the civilization would collapse within three generations, never to rise again. With no exceptions.

So which ideal are you fighting for? Unfortunately, as the LGBTQIA movement has frequently said, there is no middle ground here. Either marriage is redefined or it isn’t. And you can’t stop there and draw a line in the sand saying no more because if you don’t keep evolving, you’ll just end up on the wrong side of history and be imposing your own morality on other people’s civil rights.

As Robert Frost said so well, we are standing at a fork in the road with each path heading toward different ideal societies. It’s your choice which one you go down, and that will make all the difference where we end up.