The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Social Issues]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Unless, of course, you're a Christian.  Then Congress and other organs of government will make lots of laws that dictate how your religion must operate, such as what they've apparently done here.

Two Christian ministers who own an Idaho wedding chapel were told they had to either perform same-sex weddings or face jail time and up to a $1,000 fine, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court.

So about that Catholic Synod recently...

The Church teaches: "No grounds whatsoever exist for assimilating or drawing analogies, however remote, between homosexual unions and God's design for matrimony and the family." Nevertheless, men and women with homosexual tendencies should be accepted with respect and sensitivity. "Any sign of unjust discrimination in their regard is to be avoided."

Uh...... got handcuffs?

Now here's the problem, in a nutshell: None of this has anything to do with who you love and what gender they are.  If you think so you have rocks in your head.  If you promote this from a public-policy standpoint you're a financial rapist.

Most people know about the so-called marriage penalty which applies generally to those who are married and have two incomes in the family.  Most of the time you wind up penalized for being in this situation compared against one of you filing head-of-household (if you have kids) and the other as single.  Not always, but most of the time.

The government of course loves gay couples in this regard if they can be "married" because a very large percentage of them will have no children (which is generally not true for heterosexual couples.)  

But where the real screw job comes in is when you get older!

See, Medicaid covers nursing home care -- after you spend all your assets down first.  Here's the problem -- your assets are joint if you're married, and that's a huge problem if one of you gets sick and the other is not.  Before you can avail yourself of that program you must dissipate the marital assets first, which means your surviving spouse is ****ed after you die.  (While there is allegedly "spousal impoverishment" protection in this regard it's crap in point of fact and will screw the surviving spouse; the annual income that can be "protected" in this fashion is only around $23,000.)  And oh by the way, if you try to transfer assets to get around this you will run into lookback and penalty clauses designed to prohibit that.

The only other meaningful exception is your primary residence (with a cap on value) if your spouse (or a dependent offspring) is still living there.

Marriage should be between you and a religious order, nothing more or less.  It most-certainly should not result in your most-loved individual being hosed should you get older, because we all do.  Yet it does, will, and as the noose of ever-higher medical scams continues to tighten this becomes a larger and larger problem that bites more and more people.

Heh look over there, gays -- you signed up willingly to get reamed like this 10, 20 or 30 years down the road -- and I bet you didn't understand that when you argued for "marriage equality", did you?

Be careful what you wish for -- you might get it.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Oh please...

After a celebrity hacking scandal revealed nude photos of Jennifer Lawrence, the actress is calling the attack “a sex crime.”

“It is a sexual violation. It’s disgusting. The law needs to be changed, and we need to change. That’s why these websites are responsible. Just the fact that somebody can be sexually exploited and violated, and the first thought that crosses somebody’s mind is to make a profit from it,”  Lawrence, 24, said in Vanity Fair’s November issue. “It’s so beyond me. I just can’t imagine being that detached from humanity. I can’t imagine being that thoughtless and careless and so empty inside.”

So how do you define hawking your body for years, Jennifer?  And don't try to tell anyone that you didn't and don't -- it's all you and the rest of these people who were "hacked" have to sell!

You know it, I know it, the magazines and other places where you prance around not only know it they market it with your explicit permission and then when someone gets ahold of it suddenly it's more than simple theft of service (gee, what were you selling again?) and you want to make an argument that your sexuality is "private."

Horsecrap!

That your clothes were completely off at that particular point in time is the only argument you've got -- and while it's a decent argument, it certainly doesn't get anywhere near the territory of a "sex crime."

That you've pranced around for quite some time selling your sexuality as what has marketable value is fact.

If you were concerned about people seeing you with your clothes off perhaps taking pictures of yourself unclothed wasn't such a good idea?  If the issue is simply who saw them and exactly what clothes were on or off, well, now we're really getting down to brass tacks, aren't we?  

And there's the rub, you see, because in the general sense what all these models are and have been selling -- all of them -- is in fact their sexuality.

It pays well, I might add, and since it's a voluntary transaction who's arguing?  Not I; if you can get people to pay you to strut around and look pretty, clothes or no, more power to you girl.

But -- if your boyfriend is a cad (and posts the pictures, which he legally acquired) or if you are stupid (either in using poor security measures, none, or choosing a bad place to store such things) and they get stolen then at worst there was theft of the images (your, or someone else's if you gave them to him/her, property) and at best there was no offense at all as the person to whom you gave them, absent some sort of obligation otherwise, has them through legitimate means.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Men have chased skirts since, well, I suspect since women started tying pieces of trees around their waists.

And many men have behaved badly since the first one grabbed a stick and beat another man to death, then grabbed his "wife" (partner) by the hair and had his way with her.

But we're supposed to be better than that, and I find it very difficult to quietly view some of what goes on today and the justifications for it without commenting.

The man who meets a woman, knows she is severely emotionally impaired (because she tells him), fills her full of booze and then, when it becomes apparent she's not interested in sex, he essentially bails off -- leaving her far beyond the legal limit to drive home.

The man who openly admits he's an ******* when it comes to women precisely because he's tired of watching all the jackasses get laid while he does not (get as much, or as good, or whatever.)

The man who cheats on his pregnant wife -- because she is uncomfortable having sex while the basketball is in her belly that he put there.

The man who decides to cold-cock his wife in the elevator.

There are men who will justify this with some sort of thinly veiled line of crap about feminism and equality.

Well, let me tell you this boys, that's crap.

Women and men are different.  Different doesn't mean inferior or lesser, it means different.  Here are just a few of the differences.

We fart in the car.  Loudly.  And under the sheets.

We don't contemplate compassion when our children are assaulted, we contemplate rage.  We might not do it, but we sure as hell think about it.

We tend to see make a decision and find a dark and a light side -- a black and a white.  We're not (generally) fond of shades of gray when it comes to decisions.  Should we bomb those *******s gets a "yes" or a "no" from us, generally speaking.

No woman says she'd like a steak and a BJ. 

Men will get into a fight with another man they know, wind up actually punching each other (and maybe doing a fair bit of damage too) and after dusting up and cleaning off they'll drink a beer together.  Not always, to be sure, but it happens more often than you'd think.  Ever see women who get*****ed off at one another for something much less-important than what often sends men to raise fists?  They can (and sometimes do) stay upset at one another for years.

Is there a towel near the shower, does the stall have a bar of soap and is there some sort of shampoo in there?  It's all good, and we probably pee down the drain while soaping up too.  Walk into a woman's place and the bathroom looks like something out of a Martha Stewart catalog and smells like a perfumery.  

Women have curves.  They feel soft.  They're different.

And that's good, not bad.  Different doesn't mean lesser, greater, or anything of the sort.  It means different and I don't care how many times some feminazi tries to claim otherwise -- she's full of crap and she knows it.

So here's the deal, as I see it.

Chivalry should not be dead, and if you think it should be or act like it's a jungle out there when it comes to women around you, as a man, you're an *******.

Can you find a way to justify that in today's metrosexual world full of crazy feminists that insist on faux equality where none really exists?  Can you find a woman that can bench press more than virtually any man, can hump a hose up a stairwell or carry a limp body down a fire ladder from a 3rd floor window?  Probably.  Can even 1% of the women out there do that?  No, but half the men can.

Does any of that, or the screaming from the feminist harpies (many of who are openly gay and thus have as much use for a man as a boar has use for*****) change things?  No.

Let's cut the crap: If you're a man and there's a woman you're around, interested in, hanging out with, or more, you're the dude and that means you are some sort of protector of her whether she asked for you to be in that role or not.  Not because she's less, but because she is human, she's female, and you're human, male, and probably stronger, more black-and-white in how you see the world and, if you're both engaged in some activity that might come with risk, you probably are evaluating that yourself.

It's called chivalry boys.  There are all sorts of small things every day that come with it, whether they're as simple as putting the seat down on the can after you whizz in her apartment (or when she's in yours!) or holding a door open if there's a woman behind you as you enter a building.  Ignore the harpies that sneer at you when you do either.

The somewhat-larger parts include not participating in getting a gal smashed at the local pub unless you have some means of making sure she gets home -- to her home, not yours, if that's what she chooses to do.  And yes, men, this means that you are accounting for the fact that you out-mass her 2:1 and thus she can only drink half as much as you can before she's smashed to the gills.  If she decides to dismiss you that's on her but when you start you should have considered whether you have cab fare for her in your pocket (and are willing to spend it) or whether you'll be sober enough to get her home personally.

The much-larger parts include not ****ing around on your wife while she's got a basketball in her belly that you put there because she's uncomfortable and doesn't want sex, and, of course, not playing me cave man, me smash you over the head and drag you by the hair to my lair games -- no matter how civilized you try to claim you are in that regard.  There's a whole continuum of that behavior and guys, you know damn well what I'm talking about.

There are plenty of crappy things that I see women do these days when it comes to men too; the list is amazingly long and it makes me shake my head.  But none of that justifies you, as a man, deciding to be an ******* just as the fact that some guy is a douche means that you don't go hang out with your buddies at the local bar.  You can separate out the jackass men you see doing bad things and you can separate out the harpies from the women too.

I know this isn't anything new guys -- men have behaved badly for as long as there have been men.  But consider this -- we're supposed to be capable of better, and if you want other guys -- like me, for instance -- to look at you as something better than a cave man then it's on you to act toward women in a way that demonstrates that you aren't one.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Notice what is not said here -- that this choice has consequences but that it's valid.

Now ask yourself this -- would this article have ever been published if the CEO in question was a woman?

The CEO of a $2 trillion investment fund said he made the decision to resign from his post after his young daughter wrote him a note listing 22 milestones he had missed in her life.

California-based Mohamed El-Erian left his job as chief executive of PIMCO in mid-March. The 56-year-old El-Erian, who made $100 million in 2011 alone, chose to leave his post after his 10-year-old daughter wrote about all the special moments he was absent for in her life.

Now granted it's rather easy to say "nuts!" when you're that rich.  But let's face it -- this is something that, once you choose to have kids, you face daily.  It's a decision that is deeply personal and has both risks and benefits.  It is often put forward as a "woman's issue" but it is not; it impacts both genders.

And no, you have no right to claim that there's something magical or special about you being a parent in the context of your career or even just your job.  The decision to have children is in fact a personal one and a choice, as it comes with both benefits and costs.

Years ago I decided to walk away from opportunities to start another company or engage in the sort of work schedule that I used to have.  My daughter was very young, and I made the decision to sell MCSNet and semi-retire.

She recently turned 18, and I don't regret my decision in any way.  I don't regret for one minute earning (much) less money over that period of time, the law degree I did not pursue, the various business ventures I didn't chase or the decision to move to and live in a place far safer and more friendly than the common big city -- but without any of the big city opportunities.  I was with her at the bus stop for the first morning of school, I was there for the soccer practices and games, I got to see both the smiles and the not-so-great expressions over the years.

I believe that the first and foremost job of a parent is to manage the transition from a relationship of utter dependence and therefore power to one founded in the mutual respect of equals, and while nobody does a perfect job of that I'm largely satisfied with my performance.

Most importantly I wouldn't take that decision back for one second but utterly nobody owes me anything for having made it, and I refuse to give one bit of respect to anyone arguing they should in some way be given a pass in their career (or some sort of handout) for making a similar choice irrespective of degree.  Indeed, any man or woman who so-argues is a pig and an extortionist, as you already got the benefits directly simply by being there.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Get Adobe Flash player
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.