William Thien

Archive for June 2014

Here is an interesting study on domestic violence that I wanted you to read. Click here, Male Victims of Domestic Violence, or copy this link into your address field, http://www.saveservices.org/2012/02/cdc-study-more-men-than-women-victims-of-partner-abuse/

To me this information is significant because it supports my position that domestic violence laws discriminate against men. It turns out women are frequently not the statistical majority when it comes to domestic violence and related victimization. On an annual basis, men frequently comprise the statistical majority of victims. Yet, all of the laws governing domestic violence are primarily aimed at curbing historically male behaviors. After hearing in the media about the subject of domestic violence on any given day, you would think the statistical majority of victims of domestic violence would be female. As it turns out, that is not the case.

Go figure.

Advertisements

In the past I’ve blogged that it is likely that domestic violence laws discriminate against men because men are statistically more likely to own firearms in comparison to women due to social norms such as the tradition of hunting, which statistically and historically has been a sport enjoyed by men. Since those subject to a domestic violence conviction are barred from owning or purchasing a firearm, domestic violence laws by default statistically and numerically discriminate against men. That is the subtle nature of discrimination that you always hear members of protected classes talking about, that discrimination is often subtle, behavior changing activity. Taking away a man’s constitutional rights is not so subtle, of course. I say a “man’s” constitutional rights because as you will see once again later on in this particular observation, it is men that domestic violence laws are truly aimed at and that they truly discriminate against. Domestic violence laws do discriminate against men. We know this is true by default because it is most often the male which must significantly adjust his behavior as a result of the laws when in fact women are more likely to commit offensive acts of domestic violence.

The Centers for Disease Control have concluded research which indicates that it is in fact men, when researched annually, it is men that are numerically the true victims of domestic violence. Though, due to social norms and social definition primarily by the media and the marketplace men do not seek some form of societal response. Men are more frequently victims of sexual coercion (women withholding sex as a measure of control or to obtain something) and often just as frequently are victims of physical violence and false accusations of impropriety, yet men do not seek protection because they are concerned about any social stigma which coincides with that protection. Consequently, society’s mechanisms are structured primarily to address domestic violence aimed the woman by the man.

I bring this up now because I recently read an article on Foxnews.com which discusses a law up for consideration in the area of Washington D.C. that aims to confiscate firearms from someone during a temporary restraining order. I was surprised to discover when reading the article that in fact two states, California and Massachusetts have similar laws in effect.

When reading the article on Foxnews, it is clear that the law is not meant to protect men but is in fact meant primarily to protect women from physical violence (being shot) by someone subject to a restraining order. At the outset, it sounds like a good idea. During that period of the temporary restraining order local law enforcement is tasked with confiscating a person’s firearms until a court hearing proceeds. But we all have heard horror stories about how difficult it is to get your firearms back from law enforcement once they are confiscated.

Furthermore, upon reading the article, you will see that there is clear discrimination aimed at the men in that one quoted source in the Fox News story, one Karma Cottman, executive director of The D.C. Coalition Against Domestic Violence, clearly states that when a man in a relationship is involved in a temporary restraining order it is the woman that is the only potential victim when Karma Cottman states, “but also her own risk, in terms of being able to feel safe — are incredibly heightened.” She is referring to the female and only the female in a domestic violence situation. “Her own risk…” Karma Cottman says. The male is totally excluded. Karma Cottman is discriminating against men in situations of domestic violence, which is particularly unfortunate and disingenuous when it is in fact men which The CDC, the CDC no less, found with statistical significance to be the primary victims of domestic violence, victims of sexual coercion, false accusations, and physical violence, all perpetrated by the female, not the male.

Clearly domestic violence laws discriminate against men.

Copyright © William Thien 2014

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address.

Here is the article from Foxnews to which I refer: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/24/gun-control-advocates-push-to-take-firearms-from-those-accused-threatening/?intcmp=latestnews

The URL may change, but I will try to keep a copy of the text for later review.

Yesterday I tuned in to that national conservative radio talk show host who broadcasts during the day. He brought up the subject of the two major big-box retailers we all know of, one whose name begins with a W and the other a C, and their support for an increase in the minimum wage. The radio host contends that the two retailers support an increase in the minimum wage because they can afford it and it will displace their competition who cannot afford to pay their own workers an increase in the minimum wage.

That was my position regarding the potential onset of a national internet sales tax. Certain retailers such as big box retailers who also have an internet presence can absorb the cost to the customer of a national internet sales tax, thereby pricing their competition out of the market. Smaller retailers would by default be increasing prices when adding the sales tax to the total receipt. Previously the smaller retailers were able to keep prices close to or competitive with the big-box retailers when adding in the cost of shipping because their overhead was naturally lower. They do not have to pay to maintain a retail location or locations. The implementation of a national internet sales tax would change all of that.

An increase in the minimum wage is another issue altogether. The motivation by the two major big box retailers to seek an increase in the minimum wage is due to the fact that their customers are no longer able to afford to shop at their stores. Retail prices, all except those that are subject to governmental price controls such as that of milk and food staples in general, have seen a large and certain jump in prices since 2008 and just prior as a result of various economic stimuli at the national level.

As a country, we are now starting to see the real and detrimental effects of the various economic stimulus plans. We are seeing the effects of the economic stimuli in the form of substantial levels of inflation and the least affluent customer, that customer to which the two big-box discount retailers primarily cater can no longer afford to shop at their stores. Sales are down at those discount retailers because prices are up substantially due to inflation, inflation which the retailers can no longer control with their economies of scale and purchasing power. Yet, their customer base has not seen a corresponding increase in wages in five years if you consider the national minimum wage while at the same time prices are being driven substantially higher. The economic stimuli we have seen since 2008 and prior have done little for the poor and lower economic classes, quite the opposite in fact.

One issue, that of the internet sales tax is a price control issue, the other issue, that of the minimum wage, is one of money supply on the demand side. When the customer has no money, that’s bad for retail business. And the customer has no money to cover the cost of inflation. The economic stimulus made sure of that.

To prove my theory I did a rather unscientific study. I went to the closest big-box retailer whose name begins with the letter W. Of the thirty or so lanes located to check out, only two lanes were open right in the middle of the afternoon (a little after 4pm), and the only line that had formed was at the self-checkout lanes and that line had only three or four people in line. The store is new and is considered a “Supercenter.” By retail standards, I’m sure it would have been considered a bit of a ghost town.

Their customer simply has no money to shop there anymore.

Copyright © William Thien 2014

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address.

Marital property laws and community property laws may not be about “equality” as was originally thought.

Marital property and community property laws are about wresting control of income from the breadwinner, traditionally the male of the household, though that is changing, and giving control of that money to the lady of the house. Why? Because all of the marketing sciences are directed at the consumer and the lady of the house has been designated as the focus of America’s marketing efforts. She was and still is the primary consumer of the household. She does most of the spending. Almost all of America’s discretionary income marketing is focused on her. By giving her control of all of the money, marketing can get her to spend more of it. It is as simple as that.

When divorces started increasing during the sexual revolution of the 1960’s and 70’s, and women were left with little or nothing, women were taken out of the marketing equation because they were not getting as much money from the divorce. The solution was for states to enact marital property laws and community property laws to stimulate sales. You have to remember, sales taxes play a key role in sales at the register. When consumers spend, they also pay sales taxes. When spending slows, so do tax revenues.

Marital property laws did not come about simply due to issues of equality, they were created out of economic necessity in the marketplace.

Copyright © William Thien 2014

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address.

One does not need to be a liberal candidate to demonstrate good environmental stewardship. In fact, research indicates demonstrating good environmental stewardship may be one of the best ways for conservatives (I am talking about conservatives, not what I call the “big business robot frontmen” that have hijacked that one particular party) to increase voter turn out in their favor at the ballot box. Liberalism and environmentalism are not as synonymous as liberals would have us all believe. It’s a front, a damn good one and mostly to raise taxes, but a front nevertheless

Copyright © William Thien 2014

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address.

I think as long as the two major parties toy with this particular issue of Constitutional Rights, consideration of a third party at the voting booth may be in order.

William Thien

As a political issue, gun ownership has been a significant point of contention between both major political parties in The United States during campaigns and following any major gun crimes.

Republicans have sought to claim the right to the issue of the right of gun ownership while the Democrats have sought to claim the issue of gun control. In that regard it would appear to an outside observer I’m sure that the Democrats fall flat on their faces when it comes to protecting the right to keep and bear arms in The United states, often hiding behind false statistics or fear mongering in an attempt change the laws governing firearms ownership and usage, clearly for matters of political expediency.

In reality the issue of gun ownership in The United States belongs to no political party and it is in fact a Constitutional Right which even the Supreme Court has found…

View original post 241 more words

Pardon my getting to this one so late, I don’t watch much television, don’t even own one really that gets a signal, but I was visiting someone and did you happen to watch that “hour long” news program last Sunday evening that is made up of a number of minutes, sixty of them to be sure? They opened with a piece on all of the mass killings, shootings in particular (they focused on gun crimes for some reason which is revealed later in this observation) that have occurred over the last couple of years, by men. The reporter interviewed two notable psychiatrists who concluded that the shooters were all suffering from some form of schizophrenia though the two psychiatrists/psychologists approached the matter from apparently different angles.

One of the psychiatrists suggested there was a genetic connection to the behaviors and showed some pictures of the brain. Wow, nothing like expert testimony. Another said people were not being treated in the United States who needed treatment. Millions, he concluded, need treatment and were wandering around cities, it was suggested, like zombies. There may be a lot of schizophrenics ambling around, but the story wasn’t really about them. The net effect, the hope of the producers I am sure was to create a panic, but not about schizophrenia, the hope was to create a panic about guns, another panic about guns.

For one thing, most of the people they were talking about, not the ones who committed the mass shootings, the ones who were ambling around in the cities the one psychiatrist suggested, wandering around “untreated” that needed treatment don’t have the financial wherewithal to purchase guns. Most don’t know how to put on their own clothes. Many may even be victims of the most recent “great recession” and haven’t eaten properly or had a good night’s sleep in years. That’ll make you look schizoid, I’m sure. They probably can’t even afford a good hair cut.

The segment focused on people with guns, pictures of people with guns, stories about people with guns, people pointing guns, people talking about guns, heresy about guns, word of mouth about guns, one of them pointing a gun at himself. Then they went to file footage of asylums and other treatment facilities of the past with lots of really strange looking people walking around and bumping into each other wearing improperly tied medical gowns, then right back to the issue of guns. See where I’m going with this? Clever bunch, they are.

Yes, their methods SHOULD be alarming to you.

The story didn’t talk about the woman who recently suffocated her baby boy with a pillow because she was having “troubles.” They didn’t talk about Susan Smith who drove her boys into a locked car into the pond, drowning them so she could have another lover, none of that. None of the really unusual murders committed by women were mentioned. Oh no. Can’t insult the female viewer, she controls eighty percent of the discretionary income in America because ‘genius’ comes home and surrenders his check to the little wife and that’s the last he’s seen of it because now the marketers actually have control of it with their science of advertising control and manipulation of the female brain. Oh yes, it’s a science, one of the most researched and one of the most effective. And you thought you were thinking on your own. Gotta fit in, right? Gotta lose weight, so buy that pill. Gotta be fashionable and buy those clothes made by children. That’s more important than keeping your own people in home-made threads, right.

But we can take away constitutional rights from the American male. That’s who they fear, anyway. Betties historically don’t show up and overthrow governments, but they buy what’s on TV, you can be sure, especially stuff they don’t even need. They’ve turned shopping into a form of therapy. How often have you heard one say she shops to relieve stress. Gotta keep those Betties happy, even if it means taking away George’s rights. George? George?! Are you there? He’s in there somewhere. Why don’t you psychiatrists see if you can find George instead of helping charlatans figure out how to get his wife to spend all of his money? What, you say? There’s no money in that? Betty spent it all, already? Well…I see your point.

What the report did not say is that sitting in front of the perpetual violence on television from a very young age brings on a lot of the type of behavior we are seeing today. In fact, in my opinion, therein lies the foundation for such behaviors, the television, not schizophrenia. Perhaps the television, with its constant, flickering images, its strobing lights, perhaps that is the real source of the violence in America. Epileptics have been known to have seizures after watching flickering television screens. Maybe that’s the real connection, the real source of all of this violence, the television. Haven’t they even done scientific studies on that? Of course they have. They didn’t mention that in the piece. Hmmn. Hey you guys, you left something out. I think it might be the main point.

It was as if, no, it wasn’t as if, the producers WERE glossing over that very and oft-repeated fact for a more subtle argument that was supplanted in the story, that of gun control. Because the story did not focus on any other type of murders. All of the murders, if I’m not mistaken, involved guns or at least that was the main focus. There was talk of guns in every portion of the segment, use of guns, fear of guns, file footage of weird men bumping into each other in overpopulated asylums, then back to guns. Recognize a pattern?

What’s worse, the producers were doing what television does all the time, pointing its finger at the other guy, blaming him for the result of its own behavior. Instead of a ban on guns, how about a ban on disingenuous television news shows that purport to be news and not some form of subtle corporate/big government propaganda or how about a ban on the shoot-em-up shows that are nothing more than propaganda that kids watch? Why not have some real shows with people who are getting taxed to death and whose constitutional rights are constantly being trampled by the triad I speak of in my other essays?

If the media had their way, soon everyone who owned a firearm would have to take some sort of government authorized-standardized psychological battery where if you answered one question that indicated anything they determined they didn’t like, you picked the wrong color for example and people who like that color are statistically more violent, you wouldn’t be able to buy a firearm and you would probably have to go on some form of psychoactive medication when it was all the fault of the flickering television screen and not “guns.” Go figure. It is big pharma’s dream, disarm the population and addict them to psychoactive drugs. The news show is merely doing the dirty work is all.

Just thought I would share my interpretation of that particular segment of last week’s Hour Long BS News episode with you.

Copyright © William Thien 2014

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address.


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Find by month

Find by date

June 2014
M T W T F S S
« Apr   Jul »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30  
Follow William Thien on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: