Cavilling for fun and profit–if someone reads your opinion.

Here’s a small sample of the daily essay headlines on Medium.com, and website for writers to establish a following: “Another kind of toxic masculinity.”

“Dear white people, please stop invading my space.”

“Sexist Halloween costumes show us how far we haven’t come.”

“The treatment of migrants likely ‘meets the definition of mass atrocity’.”

“Women shouldn’t have to be afraid of running for office.”

“Amazon is an even bigger threat to privacy than Facebook.”

“Dear men, I don’t owe you a thing.”

“The solution to feeling like life sucks, in a three minute read.”

“How Dating Men in Their 30s Compares to Dating Middle-School Boys.” (Spoiler: They’re very similar).

“You can just have sex with someone.”

“Please, Just Call Me Fat (correcting me when I call myself fat is another form of marginalization).”

“What Your Thinness Has Taken From You.” (I told you my reality as a fat person, but you weren’t able to hear it).

Cavil: to make often peevish criticisms or objections about matters that are minor, unimportant, or irrelevant. Synonyms for cavil: carp, fuss, niggle, nitpick, quibble.

Near Antonyms for cavil: applaud, commend, compliment, praise, recommend, approve, champion, endorse.

The point of writing on Medium is to have readers, the way to get readers is to start with a headline that attracts interest. The majority of the headlines sound to me like cavils or complaints. Is that what attracts interest? Has Medium and sites like it become the new alternative “progressive press”?

My favorite headline so far is: “The Progressive press is facing mass extinction.” The subheading is: “Deadspin, Splinter, and ThinkProgress are gone.” The willful blindness of someone who believes those statements is apparent in the essay (or op-ed?), some of which is reproduced here: The mainstream media is hopelessly neutral. Who’s left to check capitalism? When the mainstream press does cover contentious issues, it often paves over clear moral distinctions in favor of “impartiality,” something a leftist press has always understood is not a necessary prerequisite for journalism. People mostly assume that the mainstream media “leans left,” but that only really holds up if you hold that Fox News’s open calls for a white ethno-state are the center. John F. Harris, a founding editor of Politico, realized this in a remarkably self-aware column last week: The mainstream media is biased toward status-quo centrism, not toward “the leftTruly progressive or leftist publications don’t fall into these traps, but in doing so, they often violate the norms that most of the mainstream press adheres to. In short, as Alex Pareene wrote for the New Republic, they’re fucking rude. The problem with punching up — the core aspect of leftist writing — is that the people above you have all the money.

And the people with the money don’t tend to be all that leftist. Billionaires who do fund journalism, such as the Washington Post’s Jeff Bezos and the Los Angeles Times’ Patrick Soon-Shiong, aren’t putting money behind work that threatens their net worth — they own safe, mainstream publications. Pierre Omidyar’s support of the Intercept is the closest to crossing that line, but even then, a billionaire’s whims are fickle. It’s every progressive’s job to make sure their own press doesn’t get left behind.

Could it be that the MAIN REASON the Progressive press is facing extinction is that 1- they are liars, hypocrites and lovers of totalitarianism? Or 2- remarkably un-self aware? 3- Or both? I choose #3.

T(y)ranny follow up.

Everyone knows, devils don’t exist, but if they did…..

C. S. Lewis wrote The Screwtape Letters (1942) in response to one of Hitler’s oily tirades on the eve of the Battle of Britain. Hitler’s false pride, layered with obvious lies, had a profound effect on moral Lewis, an unabashed Christian ever since his conversion when he was 32 years old. Consisting of 31 letters, Lewis’s short novel is written by Screwtape, a major demon in hell, to his demon-in-training nephew on earth, Wormwood, whose job is to tempt a normal person and send him to hell. The letters lay out basic Christian principles and values, although turned on their head since they’re penned from the opposite viewpoint, as “His Abysmal Sublimity” explains to Wormwood what fools these Christians are and how easy it is to lead them astray. The Enemy that Screwtape refers to is the God of the Bible, or simply God. The Screwtape Letters illustrate clearly Satan’s plan, which is brought to life through leftist-progressive-totalitarian ideology.

First step, “marginalize true worship of God: If you can once get him to the point of thinking that ‘religion is all very well up to a point,’ you can feel quite happy about his soul. A moderated religion is as good for us as no religion at all- and more amusing.Second step, substitute “humanism”–worship of the created–for worship of the Creator. The thing to do is to get a man at first to value social justice as a thing which the Enemy demands, and then work him on to the stage at which he values Christianity because it may produce social justice. For the Enemy will not be used as a convenience.Third step, eradicate (if you can) the Creator’s implanted impulses to define “good” and “right” in God’s terms: Be not deceived, Wormwood, our cause is never more in jeopardy than when a human, no longer desiring but still intending to do our Enemy’s will, looks round upon a universe in which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys.” Fourth step, make it easy to go on the “wide path”: Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one–the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts, Your affectionate uncle, Screwtape.” Matthew 7:13-14: “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.  For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”

Amazon owns IMDb, Internet Movie Database. In an effort to protect their “right” to post only accurate information about actors and actresses, they: conducted exhaustive background searches on a struggling, undiscovered actress; fought off a lawsuit; lobbied against a proposed state law; went to federal court to kill the law after it was passed. All that effort, just to preserve their right to publicly blast the personal information of women without their consent. All that effort, just to retain a policy that harms the careers of actresses, encourages revenge trolling, and prevents women from having control over their professional identity. Amazon/IMDb justified that effort, and those expenses, by repeatedly citing their unbreakable rule: “We never remove factually correct personal information for any reason.

According to David Cole at Takimag.com: In August of this year, trannies demanded that IMDb erase the “birth details” of anyone who “transitions.” Any factual biographical info that a tranny rejects because it represents his/her/its “old self” must be removed, the trannies insisted. Amazon/IMDb responded, “You betcha!” Literally, just like that, Amazon/IMDb said, “We’ll remove biographical info from the profile page of a tranny, even if it’s factual.”

Junie Hoang and dozens (maybe hundreds) of other actresses asked Amazon/IMDb to give women control over how their personal info is displayed. And again and again, Amazon replied, “We will not remove accurate biographical info even if the woman in question wants it removed, and even if the presence of that info harms that woman’s life or career.” But when trannies asked for a special exception just for them, Amazon/IMDb rolled over like a dog.

There’s no better proof that what trannies are demanding is not equal rights, but special privileges. The bigger question is, why did Amazon cave so quickly? Why did it spend untold hours and dollars fighting a woman (a nonwhite woman) in court, only to bend immediately to trannies?

Cole again: The transsexual agenda represents an all-out assault on the very notion of “normal,” and destroying normal is what the left wants more than anything. Amazon surely understands the importance of trannyism to the left, and the path of least resistance was to cave to the trannies’ demands. But to those who’ve made the annihilation of normal their singular goal, the decision by Amazon/IMDb represents more than just another instance of tranny favoritism. Amazon/IMDb has aped Wikipedia, which also has a policy that allows trannies to erase the history of their former selves. Wikipedia and IMDb are supposed to be encyclopedias, archives, reference works. They’re supposed to document and preserve data for the historical record. But whereas Wikipedia’s ideological biases are well-known and inevitable due to the site’s decentralized, “communal” nature (which ensures that the loudest and most fanatical trolls—I mean “editors”—prevail), IMDb is centrally controlled, and by a corporation that wields enormous power and influence.

The tranny cult isn’t just about warping present-day reality; it’s also about erasing the past. It’s about forcing us to believe not only that a man in a dress is a woman, but that he’s always been one. Gaslighting us Terminator-style by going back in time to erase the inconvenient past of people who have decided to “reinvent” as someone else. I choose to begin this post with The Screwtape Letters, because Lewis emphasizes that “The devil’s finest trick is to persuade you that he does not exist.” And that he never did. But God’s Word says differently. The sower sows the word.  And these are the ones along the path, where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them. And these are the ones sown on rocky ground: the ones who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy. Mark 4:15-16. The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!” And he said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you. Luke 10:17-19. There are 49 references to “Satan”, 51 to the “serpent”, 18 to the “dragon” and 33 references in the Bible to the “devil”. 151 references in the Bible to a “personage” that doesn’t exist?

The two coming floods ain’t due to “climate change.”

Most of this information is courtesy of The Foundation For Economic Education, FEE.com. On January 31, 1940, Ida Fuller received a check for $22.54. She was the first person to retire under the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) scheme, better known as Social Security. At the time of her retirement in 1939, she had paid just $22 in Social Security taxes, then she lived to be 100 (laughing all the way?), cashing over $20,000 worth of Social Security checks.

If she had only paid $22.54 in contributions, where did the $20,000 she received in Social Security payouts come from? It came, as it does now, from the taxpayers of the day. As of 2019, your employer deducts 6.2 % of your wages up to $132,900 a year, matches this amount, and sends it to the Social Security Administration (SSA). The SSA deposits this with the Treasury, which spends it and receives Treasury bonds in return. This is the fabled trust fund that guarantees Social Security. But all Treasury bonds are simply IOUs redeemable against the income of tomorrow’s taxpayers. When one of the Treasury bonds held by the SSA falls due for payment, the Treasury can only get the funds to meet this liability by taxing, borrowing (taxing the taxpayers of tomorrow), or printing money (imposing an inflation tax). In each case, what really guarantees Social Security is not the money you paid in but the earnings of today’s or tomorrow’s taxpayers.

Such a pay-as-you-go scheme could chug along well enough as long as there were lots of workers relative to retirees. When the program began, every 100 workers were supporting three retirees. But politicians being what they are–always generous with other people’s money–the benefits were expanded. Originally intended to cover only about 50 % of all workers, Social Security was expanded even before Ida Fuller received her first check to provide benefits for dependents of retired workers and surviving dependents. In the post-war years, Social Security grew further. Disability benefits, payable as early as age 50, were added in 1956, and during the 1950’s coverage was extended to other previously excluded workers, making it essentially universal. Congress soon passed across-the-board benefit increases of 7 % (1965), 13 % (1967), 15 % (1969), 10 % (1971), 20 % (1972), and 11 % (1974). In 1972, benefits were tied to the Consumer Price Index, yielding an annual “cost of living adjustment.”

As if this expansion were not enough, in 1965, Medicare was signed into law, establishing a heavily subsidized federal health care program for the elderly. Former President Harry Truman and his wife received the first Medicare cards without paying a cent in Medicare taxes. Like Social Security, Medicare is financed by a payroll tax of 2.9 % split between employer and employee, up from 0.7 % in 1966. (If you are “self-employed”, as I was most of my working life, you have no employer to split costs with, and pay the entire 7.65% S.S. and Medicare tax). Like Social Security, that money gets paid right out to meet current expenses, which were vastly expanded by passage of Medicare Part D in 2003. And like Social Security, such a pay-as-you-go scheme could chug along well enough as long as there were lots of workers relative to retirees.

Two things derailed that. US birth rates fell from births 3.65 births per woman in 1965 to 1.80 in 2016, and life expectancy rose from 68 in 1950 to 79 today. Together, this meant ever more retirees relative to the workers supporting them. By 2017, 100 workers were supporting 25 retirees. Let’s not mention aborting MILLIONS of potential workers fetuses. Over 75 years, Social Security has an unfunded liability of $13.9 trillion.

The Medicare hospital insurance trust fund could run out of reserves in 2026. Medicare’s second trust fund, for physician and outpatient services and for prescription drugs, is permanently “solvent” because it has an unlimited call on the general fund of the Treasury—the incomes of future taxpayers. Premiums paid by the beneficiaries will cover only about 25 % of program costs; the rest of the spending is unfinanced. Medicare’s overall unfunded liability over 75 years is more than $37 trillion.

By the expanding eligibility for and hiking the benefits of a pay-as-you-go system while at the same time having fewer children to fund it, the generations preceding that child have left a fearsome financial obligation. Either taxes will go up sharply for the workers of tomorrow, lowering their standard of living, or benefits will go down for the retirees of tomorrow, lowering their standard of living. One group is going to feel pretty angry. Hey kids–millennials, Gen XYZ, whose idea was it to have fewer kids? My generation made plenty of mistakes, but we were killed the “baby boom” for a reason.

That’s just one coming “flood”. Ugh, you mean it gets worse? Do any of my readers know someone know someone suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease? Does anyone not? Just imagine what a coming burden Alzheimer’s will be. Doesn’t require much imagination…just ask a family member. THE GOOD NEWS: WELL BEFORE GLOBAL WARMING DROWNS THE PLANET, YOU’LL BE THOROUGHLY BROKE AND YOUR PARENTS WON’T EVEN RECOGNIZE YOU AS YOU RAIL AGAINST THEM FOR MESSING IT ALL UP.

BUT GOD IS IN HIS HEAVEN, SOVEREIGN OVER ALL!