If You Earn $32,400 Annually You Are In the Top 1% In The World

There are those who envy the top 1%. In an interview aired on ABC News on October 18, 2011, former President Obama expressed his commitment to the Occupy Wall Street protesters. “I understand the frustrations being expressed in those protests,” Obama told ABC News’ Jake Tapper.

The top 1% are the sworn enemies of the leaders of the Democratic Party and Democrat Socialists. But who really is in the 1% globally?

In an Investopedia article titled “Are You in the Top One Percent of the World?” Daniel Kurt reports:

The growth of income inequality has long been a hot topic around the globe, but it wasn’t until the “Occupy” movement that the amount of wealth concentrated in the top 1% of society received so much attention.

[ … ]

This raises an interesting question: who exactly are the 1%? The surprising answer: if you’re an American, you don’t have to even be close to being uber-rich to make the list.

Daniel Kurt notes:

Ranking by Income

According to the Global Rich List, a website that brings awareness to worldwide income disparities, an income of $32,400 a year will allow you to make the cut. $32,400 amounts to roughly:

  • 30,250 Euros
  • 2 million Indian rupees, or
  • 223,000 Chinese yuan

So if you’re an accountant, a registered nurse or even an elementary school teacher, congratulations. The average wage for any of these careers falls well within the top 1% worldwide.

Figure 1. The percentage of global wealth owned by the top 1% surpassed 50% as of 2016.

Source: Oxfam

Kurt concludes, “The term ‘top 1%’ of global income may sound like an exclusive club, but it’s one to which millions of Americans belong. It’s a reminder of just how prosperous developed countries are compared to the vast majority of other people who share our planet.”

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Sharon McCutcheon on Unsplash

Florida Schools: Transgender Children’s Choice Must Be Hid From Parents

A Florida school superintendent in very conservative coastal Sarasota County is implementing a radically leftist transgender policy without public input or a vote of the School Board, a policy that among other things strips parents of their right to know what their child is doing in school and turns over a fundamental right of parenting to the government.

At the recommendation of the Sarasota County School District’s LGBTQI Task Force, School Superintendent Todd Bowden is issuing “guidelines” today to govern how the district’s more than 50 public schools handle transgender and gender questioning students — starting as young as kindergarten.

This surreptitious radicalization of local policy comes at the very moment that the Trump administration is considering rolling back the Obama administration’s baseless, un-scientific and lawless expansion of Title IX, the federal civil-rights statute that bans sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. Obama also did that very quietly in 2014, on his own, after Congress failed to get it changed to Obama’s satisfaction.

These are called “guidelines” presumably because an actual policy would have to go through the School Board and be subject to public hearings and public input. (The tactic is akin to when President Obama created a treaty with Iran over nuclear weapons, but called it an “agreement” to bypass the need for Senate ratification.)

Superintendent Bowden appears to be using the Obama playbook on the issue.

But while called guidelines in practice it is a policy, and it implements a full-blown transgender protocol allowing students to use whichever bathroom and locker room corresponds with the gender they “identify” as, forces everyone else to use the pronoun of the students’ choice — including “their” if they are just not sure— and checks the box of everything LGBTQI activists want.

The policy also says that parents must not be informed of their child’s decision to identify as a different gender. The student’s gender identity will be accommodated entirely in the school, which activists and some school leaders claim is a “safer” environment than the home.

If John wants to be known as Sue, his teachers and all staff must call him that. But the parents cannot be informed. John/Sue can use the girls’ bathroom, the girls’ locker room, and participate as a girl in extracurricular activities. But the parents cannot be informed. It’s all up to the child and school.

The just-released document obtained by The Revolutionary Act, entitled “Creating Safe Schools for All Students:  Gender Diverse Student Guidelines,” reads: “It is up to the student, and the student alone, to share her/his/their identity.” No parents allowed.

This policy was intended to be quietly rolled out Friday to principals overseeing 43,000 students, until one courageous School Board member was so outraged that she went public with it.

“That is completely stripping the rights of families, parents and/or guardians to be a part of this discussion,” said School Board Chairman Bridget Ziegler. “The district has no place in cutting out parents.”

If a student needs an aspirin, they need parental permission. If they want to sit out the Pledge of Allegiance, they need written permission of the parents. But if their son wants to change his gender and identify as a girl at school and use the girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms, then the parent must not even be told.

Remember, there was no vote or discussion by the elected Board, and no public or community input — in a county where Republicans outnumber Democrats 130,000 to 93,000 as of the 2016 election and that Trump won in a landslide. It was meant to be such a quiet rollout that many parents would not even be aware of it. (Part of this is due to the peculiar breakdown of the so-called “non-partisan” Board, which is 4-1 Republican, but 3-2 puppet-like supporters of the superintendent.)

Here are the core controversial parts of the new policy. Read the language. These are not guidelines, they are policy rules.

PRONOUNS: “A transgender student shall be addressed by the name and gender requested. All relevant teachers and administrators and staff shall be informed of a transgender student’s name and gender pronoun. The student’s name and gender pronoun does not need to correspond to the student’s birth certificate and other official records. It is up to the student, and the student alone, to share her/his/their identity. In the case of elementary-age students often the student and parent are involved, however, this is on a case by case basis.”

At the elementary level, the parents are involved only if the child informs them. School leaders are blocked from doing so.

BATHROOMS: “All students, who want to use the restroom in accordance with their consistently asserted gender identity, will be provided the available accommodation that best meets the needs and privacy concerns.”

Of course, this is a serious problem all on its own. But implementation will also be problematic, because in the open-ended forms of gender identity allowed in the guidelines there is “non-binary,” which “refers to anyone who does not exclusively identify as male or female. This term can include multiple gender identities, not limited to gender fluid.”

So apparently any bathroom can be used, based on the feelings of the moment?

LOCKER ROOMS: “All students, who want to use the locker room in accordance with their consistently asserted gender identity, will be provided the available accommodation that best meets the needs and privacy concerns.

FIELD TRIPS: “Day field trips and overnight field trips are opportunities for educational endeavors and social engagements and it is important to make sure that transgender students have both components. This can require some planning to ensure affirmed name, gender pronouns, room assignments, chaperones and showers are accurate and aligned with the student’s core gender identity. School administration will directly guide the process. Administration will review case by case to determine how to work with all parties involved.”

Because the School Board elections were just completed in the Florida primary, there is little that can be done to overturn this superintendent-driven policy. But expect a strong reaction from the conservative community on the loss of parental rights with their own children.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. It is republished with permission.

VIDEO: Why Do Millennials Like Socialism? Betsy DeVos Cites Lack of Civics Education

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos spoke to The Daily Signal this week about her efforts to restore local control of education, the Trump administration’s priorities for higher education, and the rising support of socialism among young people. An edited transcript of the interview is below. Full audio of the interview is available on The Daily Signal Podcast.

Rob Bluey: For the past five decades, we have seen the federal government’s involvement in education increase. Now, under the Trump administration, you’ve taken some steps to restore some of that control back to local communities. Can you outline some of the highlights?

Betsy DeVos: Yes, I’d be happy to.

It started with rolling back a number of regulations that were very broad overreaches on the part of the former administration. But it also goes to the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act, which Congress passed in the end of 2015, but it’s really only getting implemented this year.

And I think that the Democrats were counting on Hillary [Clinton] being in the White House because they, in the previous administration, wrote a whole bunch of regulations in addition to the actual statute that were going to place undue and overreach burdens on states. So that was all rescinded, rolled back, right at the start of this administration.

And we are on the proactive side of things, pointing out to states and local communities the inherent flexibilities that Congress wrote into that statute. So very important opportunities that we’re urging states and communities to take advantage of.

We’ve produced a parent guide to, again, bring the focus back to … These are parents’ decisions and parents have to be integrally involved in these discussions.

Bluey: I know one of the issues that goes alongside that is school choice and giving parents the flexibility to choose the best situation for their children. What is the Trump administration doing with regard to school choice?

DeVos: Sure, and I should have mentioned on your previous question the extension or the broadening of 529 savings plans, which, of course, provides a huge opportunity for families to take advantage of, for now, K-12 education as well. And as we are continuing to look at ways to complement what the states are doing, states really have to take the lead on this and policies within each state.

There are now over 54 different choice programs that have been implemented in states and over a half-million students taking advantage of them.

There are now over 54 different choice programs that have been implemented in states and over a half-million students taking advantage of them. But we have to look for ways not for the federal government to step in and in any way take over what states are doing, but anything the federal government does should No. 1, not be a mandate, and No. 2, complement or have the potential to complement and augment what states are doing.

Bluey: One of the reasons that parents like that flexibility is the concern about what their students, their children, are learning in schools. And we’ve seen recently some polling to indicate that socialism is on the rise in terms of a belief system that many young people seem to be clamoring for. And you even see it in some of the Democratic politicians in our country.

Do you believe this is a cause of the education system and some of the beliefs that are being taught to students? Or is there another factor why they are gravitating toward such a destructive force like socialism?

DeVos: I think it’s really a combination of things. I think, No. 1, students aren’t getting the kind of foundation in civics and government that I recall getting as a student in K-12 education. And they’re coming then into higher education without the background to even know and understand competing ideas, and then without the ability to discuss and debate them.

No. 1, students aren’t getting the kind of foundation in civics and government that I recall getting as a student in K-12 education.

I recall visiting a classroom not too long ago where one of teachers was wearing a shirt that said, “Find Your Truth,” suggesting that, of course, truth is a very fungible and mutable thing instead of focusing on the fact that there is objective truth and part of learning is actually pursuing that truth.

So roll it back, there is a very important need for students to know the foundations of our country and the ideas around which our country was formed. And to then have the ability to discuss and debate those ideas freely on their K-12 campuses and on their higher ed campuses.

Bluey: You mentioned higher ed. Under your leadership, you’ve tried a few things to make improvements in the higher ed environment. Can you outline what the Trump administration’s priorities are when it comes to higher education?

DeVos: This administration is very focused on expanding the pathways to higher education. We’ve had almost a singular focus for decades on four-year college or university as being the only path to a successful adult life. We know that not to be true.

This administration is very focused on expanding the pathways to higher education.

We know today there are 6.7 million jobs going unfilled that require that some kind of learning beyond high school, and yet there’s a mismatch. Students aren’t finding out about these opportunities, and they aren’t pursuing them because everything is very siloed when it comes to post-secondary education.

We are focused on expanding those pathways on reforming accreditation and other regulations that really have constrained higher ed across the board from innovating in the higher education arena.

I talk with those who have been innovators in higher ed, and they say the biggest impediment is the antiquated accreditation system and all of the regulations surrounding that. We’re going to be undertaking rule-making in that regard, and we’re going to continue to push and encourage the opportunities that these creative individuals have to meet students where they’re at and meet them for the needs of the 21st century.

Bluey: And on that note, final question for you today is regarding college cost because we hear about student debt and all the issues that they face once they get a degree. What is the Trump administration doing, and are there innovative things that you’ve seen in higher ed where you can address some of these issues when it comes to the high cost of a higher education?

DeVos: Well, one of the things that we’re doing is taking the framework for Federal Student Aid and modernizing it. We’re calling it Next Gen FSA. And we have taken, first of all, the FAFSA application and put in on a mobile device. You can now complete your FAFSA form on your smartphone.

And we’re going to be continuing to add more relevant information to that app so you’ll be able to know exactly what your student loan outstanding balance is. You will be reminded along the way of options you have for repayment to encourage you to take responsibility for doing so.

 You will be able to access the College Scorecard, which is going to have programmatic data for all colleges and universities so you can ahead of time determine whether you want to pursue a specific program based on what the results are for students that have pursued that program.

So that, plus a lot of other information that’s going to be at your fingertips, hopefully will help cultivate a lot more financial literacy around higher ed and the costs associated with that.

And then on the other side of things, again, opening up the opportunities for creativity and innovation in higher education is going to continue to change the cost calculations.

My visit to Georgia Tech a couple weeks ago gave a very current example of that. They have implemented a master’s of computer science program, which they were hesitant to do because they felt it was going to bring some, perhaps, negative implications to their on-campus programs.

Actually, what happened was they have several thousand students who will be graduating with their master’s in computer science. They’ve been able to take their classes and do the programming as it worked for their schedules and doing it, a master’s, all for about $7,000.

Bluey: Thank you for sharing that story. It’s the stories like that we like to highlight at The Daily Signal, and we appreciate you taking the time to speak with us today.

DeVos: Thanks, Rob, it’s a pleasure.

COLUMN BY


Doctoring the Truth about Male and Female

Dr. Miroslav Djordjevic is not your normal physician. He came to fame more than two decades ago, making a name for himself as one of the world’s premiere genital reconstruction surgeons. After years of helping men and women transition into a body they weren’t born with, he’s started to realize something: the procedure called sex reassignment surgery isn’t making patients happy. Beyond the transgender flag-waving and pride-marching are real people in real pain. And according to doctors like Djordjevic, they’re struggling, but their struggle is with something the media or LGBT activists don’t want to admit.

Over the last five years, in particular, Dr. Djordjevic says he’s been overwhelmed by the number of people who’ve approached him about reversing their procedure. The surgery that they thought would bring them the satisfaction they were looking for only plunged them into deeper despair. A growing number of them, he tells Canada’s National Post, were miserable. Six people, he says, made appointments to undo a procedure that’s not only excruciatingly painful — but expensive. “They came from countries all over the Western world, Britain included, united by an acute sense of regret.”

The majority, he points out, were men who’d undergone surgery to transition into women. When he told them that “reattaching the male genitalia” is a complex and excruciating procedure that would take several operations and thousands of dollars, they didn’t blink. They told him about “crippling levels of depression” with intense suicidal thoughts. “It can be a real disaster to hear these stories,” he says. “And yet,” the doctor points out, “they are not being heard.”

When other doctors and advocates started demanding more research into the effects of sexual reassignment surgery, they were ignored. The medical community and universities that would normally study these things were too afraid of the transgender lobby. In England, Bath Spa University turned down an application for research on the remorse Djordjevic is encountering and school officials refused to touch it. It’s “potentially politically incorrect,” they insisted. “Definitely reversal surgery and regret in transgender persons is one of the very hot topics,” Djordjevic says. But as doctors — especially as doctors — “we have to support all research in this field.”

One of his biggest concerns — and others’ — is that there’s such a rush into surgery. These days, he explains, the men and women in his field either don’t want to seem intolerant or they just want the money, but there seems to be a real lack of psychiatric evaluation and counseling. Even worse, Djordjevic points out, they’re advocating this surgery for younger and younger children. It’s a mistake, he insists. And research bears that out. Our friends at the American College of Pediatricians, who’ve labeled this ideology “child abuse,” point out just how absurd that agenda would be. “According to the DSM-5, as many as 98 percent of gender confused boys and 88 percent of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.”

FRC’s Peter Sprigg thinks it’s even more significant that a doctor who performs these surgeries has concerns.

“The rush to transition on the part of many with gender dysphoria — especially minors — and their medical enablers can only have tragic consequences. Even the American Psychiatric Association acknowledges that among children with gender dysphoria, the majority do not grow up to identify as ‘transgender’ if left to themselves. People who are wrestling with gender identity issues need to understand that ‘transition’ is not a panacea and could be disastrous, so they should not be rushed into such a radical response.”

What people need more than anything is the help that too many states want to deny them: the advice and comfort of a qualified therapist. So many of these issues are emotional and mental, argues Walt Heyer, who formerly identified as transgender. In a 2009 study by the Department of Psychiatry at Case Western Reserve University, researchers found that most of the people struggling in this lifestyle — 90 percent — “had at least one other significant form of psychopathology.” Even in a liberal country like Sweden, even after receiving the surgery they seek, the suicide rate of people who identify as transgender is 19 times higher than the general population. LGBT activists want you to believe that the humane response is encouraging and affirming these feelings. But affirming dangerous and destructive ideas is not compassion. Real compassion is helping people find their way to freedom and fulfillment which comes by knowing the truth.

President Trump, meanwhile, has been maligned, criticized, and harassed for trying to move our country away from this radical ideology that keeps people who identify as transgender in bondage. When he is working to roll back Barack Obama’s radical definition of “sex” (which included “gender identity”), actor Bradley Whitford tweeted: “This is obscene. This must not stand. This is, and I use this word intentionally, what the Nazis did. Otherization, vilification, and exclusion of vulnerable minorities.” We’ve gone so far, conservative Brent Bozell fired back, that “Calling a man a man is now the Holocaust.”

In the end, the hysteria from many on the Left only proves one thing: they don’t care about people. Not really. They care about their agenda. And just like the women they nudge into abortions — without a thought to the pain or consequences — they’ll do anything to protect it. That’s not tolerance — it’s manipulation. And for the sake of human dignity, it’s time to rise up and say: “Enough!”

For more on what the Trump administration is actually doing on the issue (hint: it’s not erasing people!), check out Peter Sprigg’s op-ed in the Washington Examiner, “Trump Transgender Policy Is Simple and Scientific: ‘Sex’ Means Biological Sex.” Also, take the time to read through FRC’s publication, “Understanding and Responding to the Transgender Movement.”


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLE: An Allowance the Left Keeps Raising

EDITORS NOTE: This column and images is republished with permission.

Marijuana users: Have withdrawal symptoms after quitting; Higher risk for stroke

Some heavy cannabis users experience withdrawal after quitting

Twelve percent of frequent marijuana smokers experience cannabis withdrawal symptoms as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 (DSM-5), according to researchers at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health and Columbia University Irving Medical Center. The symptoms include emotional, behavioral and physical symptoms.

Study participants were drawn from the 2012-2013 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III (NESARC-III) which conducted face-to-face interviews with 36,309 people in their homes. The analysis involved 1,527 participants who used marijuana three or more times a week during the year prior to the interview.

Withdrawal symptoms were associated with significant mental disability, family history of depression, and several psychiatric disorders. The latter include mood disorders; anxiety disorders such as social phobia, agoraphobia, and panic disorder; personality disorder; and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The most common symptoms people experienced were:

  • Nervousness/anxiety, 76 percent
  • Hostility, 72 percent
  • Sleep difficulty, 68 percent, and
  • Depressed mood, 59 percent

“Most users of the newer modes of administration—vaping and edibles—also smoke cannabis. Therefore, for users in modes other than smoking, the amount of consumption could be underestimated,” said Deborah Hasin, PhD, professor of epidemiology at Columbia’s school of public health. “Given the increase in cannabis potency in recent decades, developing reliable measures to investigate the effect of cannabis concentration and mode of administration will be important in advancing our understanding of cannabis withdrawal syndrome.”

Read Columbia University announcement here. Read Drug and Alcohol Dependence abstract here.


Study shows higher rate of stroke among pot smokers

Marijuana users face a 15 percent increased risk for any kind of stroke and a 29 percent increased risk for ischemic stroke, the most common kind, says lead investigator, Dr. Krupa Patel, of a new study presented Friday at the World Stroke Congress in Montreal. She is a research physician at Avalon University School of Medicine in Willemstad, Curacao.

Dr. Patel cautions that this does not prove marijuana is the cause, but that there is an association that puts marijuana users at a higher risk.

Her study found that in more than 2.3 million American recreational marijuana users who were hospitalized, the risk of stroke rose compared to those who did not use the drug. Over five years, the rate of strokes increased from 1.3 to 1.5 percent among marijuana users across all age groups, from teenagers to adults in their 80s. More than 32,000 marijuana users in the study suffered a stroke including nearly 19,500 who had an ischemic stroke.

Read HealthDay article here.


Rossen Reports Spot the pot: Schools using marijuana test kit to show results instantly

This Today Show’s Rossen Report features a new test kit that quickly identifies the presence of marijuana. Jeff Rossen travels to Colorado where marijuana is legal and visits a high school there that uses the test. He demonstrates how the test works on marijuana-infused and non-marijuana-infused cookies, gummy candies, vape pens, and backpacks.

The kit includes a swab that is rubbed on one of its testing strips. The swab turns red if any THC, the active ingredient in marijuana primarily responsible for the high, is present in or on the items.

Click arrow in photo to see how it works.


States with legal marijuana see rise in car crashes, studies find

Car crashes are up 6 percent in early states that legalized marijuana for recreational use according to two new studies. The Highway Loss Data Institute study compared collision claims filed to insurers in the legal states of Colorado, Nevada, Washington, and Oregon with claims filed in the nonlegal states of Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming.

The rates of increase range from 13 percent in Colorado and 10 percent in Washington to 1 percent in Oregon for an overall total among the three states of 6 percent.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reviewed police-reported crashes before and after recreational marijuana was legalized in Colorado, Washington, and Oregon. It found a 5.2 increase in the rate of crashes per million vehicle registrations, compared with neighboring states.

Both studies acknowledge that the presence of THC in body fluids does not necessarily mean a driver is impaired and that more drivers are tested for alcohol than marijuana. Even so, “evidence is growing that legalizing its use increases crashes,” says David Harkey, president of the two institutes that conducted the studies.

Read USA Today story here. Read more here and here.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Smoke & Vibe on Unsplash.

I Used to Be Transgender. I Support Proposed New Trump Policy on Gender Definition.

Thank you, Mr. President, for moving to make male and female great again.

In the last few years, biological girls have seen their rights violated in school bathrooms and in sports. National confusion has ensued ever since the previous administration decided to reinterpret Title IX’s sex anti-discrimination clause to include self-proclaimed “gender identity.”

That may soon come to an end under the Trump administration.

The Department of Health and Human Services has drafted a memo that would reverse the Obama administration’s action and return the legal definition of “sex” under Title IX civil rights law to what its authors meant: sex rooted in unchanging biological reality. According to The New York Times, the memo was drafted last spring and has been circulating ever since.

Title IX bans sex discrimination in education programs that receive government financial assistance, meaning schools have to abide by the government’s interpretation of Title IX or risk losing federal funds.

When the Obama administration announced it was including “gender identity” under the word “sex,” many schools felt they had to treat gender identity as the standard for determining access to bathrooms, sports teams, etc. The result was headlines like “Transgender Athletes Dominate High School Women’s Sports.”

The memo spells out the proposed definition of “sex” as applied to federal statutes as “a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth.” The proposed definition won’t include a “select a gender” option, as was offered under the Obama administration.

This is simply a return to reality. Sex is an immutable biological reality, while gender identity is a social construct that can change over time. The two terms are not interchangeable. The authors of Title IX meant biological sex, not gender identity.

The Obama administration’s conflation of the two was not just legally problematic—it also pushed transgender ideology further into the mainstream. That’s regrettable, because transgender ideology has real and harmful effects on people who are suffering and need help.

When individuals try to live out life in an ideology that has no basis in biological fact, the consequences are stark.

I know, because I lived the trans life for eight years.

I have received hundreds of regret letters from trans people who now realize—too late—that gender-pretending is damaging. Regretters have called gender change “the biggest mistake of my life.” The late transgender movie actress Alexis Arquette called her gender transition “bulls***” because no one can really change their gender.

So many have written me personally about the unhappy consequences of imitating the opposite gender for so many years, telling of lives needlessly torn apart and thoughts of suicide. I put those emails into a book, “Trans Life Survivors,” which shows the human toll caused by encouraging distressed people to undergo permanent surgeries and take powerful hormones without considering other causes and treatments.

This past weekend, I opened my email as I do each morning and found another message from a person who had ignored biology and went head-first into trans ideology. Now, this person wants out:

I am now 40 years old, post op male to female transgender person. And to put it simply, very miserable in life now. I have followed you on YouTube … and totally agree with your theories! I am at my wits’ end with life and what I have done to myself. It’s an inspiration to see and read about what I would call “survivors!”

Many trans folks, after years of “living the life,” now want to detransition. Many report to me that they were sexually abused, raped, or molested at a young age—in one case, as a toddler.

Teenage girls are flocking to gender change as an escape. One 15-year-old girl, who the gender experts diagnosed with gender dysphoria, explained to her mother that she wanted to “erase my past” because she was sexually abused by her dad.

In another case, a young 14-year-old girl confessed that “I used being trans to try and escape being scared about being small and weak. I thought that if I presented myself as a man I’d be safer.”

Another girl’s mother wrote that her daughter was raped at age 19 and desperately “is trying to remove any connection to her being female visually or sexually.”

This is the kind of suffering that has driven many to change genders. As a society, we need to honestly consider: Is changing genders an effective long-term treatment for past sexual abuse and feelings of insecurity?

Obviously not.

Billy, another trans life survivor, had been sexually abused at age 11 during a summer swimming camp by his diving coach. Billy explained to me that after the abuse, he hated his genitalia and wanted to become a female. Abuse can do that.

Billy, like so many abused as children, was diagnosed by the “gender specialist” with gender dysphoria and given cross-sex hormones and reassignment surgery. He lived fully as a transgender female until regret set in.

Now he has detransitioned back to male and is married—a true trans life survivor who prefers to live a biologically authentic life.

Trans ideology ruined the life of another friend, born male and now living as a trans female. After being diagnosed with gender dysphoria, his excellent employment allowed him financially to transition from male to female. But sex change regret has set in, and now he wants to detransition.

This nice-looking, tall, slender, intelligent transgender person is another who had been sexually abused as a child.

Too many people tell me that even when they establish a history of sexual abuse and communicate that to the gender therapist, the therapist disregards it. If a client wants to change their gender, the therapist will affirm them without reservation and help them down that path.

As a former trans person, and as someone who daily receives stories of physical and emotional devastation wrought by trans ideology, I look forward to a federal definition of sex as being rooted in immutable biology, without the option of being self-selected.

The science is absolutely clear. Sex doesn’t change over time, even with hormones and surgery—and that’s a good thing.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Walt Heyer

Walt Heyer is an author and public speaker. Through his website, SexChangeRegret.com, and his blog, WaltHeyer.com, Heyer raises public awareness about those who regret gender change and the tragic consequences suffered as a result.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Federal Gov’t Spending $1.1 Mil on Apps for Transwomen and “Hooking Up Simulation” for Gay Teens

Podcast: What Do Drag Queens Want With Your Kids?

LGBT Plays the Erase Card

My ‘Sex Change’ Was a Myth. Why Trying to Change One’s Sex Will Always Fail.

I Wish I Had Been Told About These Risks Before I Had Gender Surgery

A Former Transgender Person’s Take on Obama’s Bathroom Directive


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


EDITORS NOTE: This columns with images is republished with permission. Photo: Brian Snyder/Reuters/Newscom.

HHS Definition of Gender: ‘A biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.’

Multiple news outlets are reporting on a Department of Health and Human Services definition of gender that has “a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.” This definition is logical, true, biologically correct and politically incorrect to some.

In a New York Times article titled “‘Transgender’ Could Be Defined Out of Existence Under Trump Administration” Erica L. GreenKatie Benner and Robert Pear report:

A series of decisions by the Obama administration loosened the legal concept of gender in federal programs, including in education and health care, recognizing gender largely as an individual’s choice and not determined by the sex assigned at birth. The policy prompted fights over bathrooms, dormitories, single-sex programs and other arenas where gender was once seen as a simple concept. Conservatives, especially evangelical Christians, were incensed.

Now the Department of Health and Human Services is spearheading an effort to establish a legal definition of sex under Title IX, the federal civil rights law that bans gender discrimination in education programs that receive government financial assistance, according to a memo obtained by The New York Times.

[ … ]

The new definition would essentially eradicate federal recognition of the estimated 1.4 million Americans who have opted to recognize themselves — surgically or otherwise — as a gender other than the one they were born into.

[ … ]

Several agencies have withdrawn Obama-era policies that recognized gender identity in schoolsprisons and homeless shelters. The administration even tried to remove questions about gender identity from a 2020 census survey and a national survey of elderly citizens.

Read the full article.

In a Life Site News article titled “Pelosi threatens ‘collateral damage’ if Dems win, push radical LGBT bill as ‘top priority’” Calvin Freiburger reports:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi desperately hopes Democrats will retake control of Congress next month, and dropped multiple hints this week to the delight of liberals and alarm of conservatives about what they’ll do if that happens.

“We owe the American people to be there for them, for their financial security, respecting the dignity and worth of every person in our country,” the former House Speaker said Sunday during an event hosted by 92nd Street Y. “And if there is some collateral damage for some others who do not share our view, well, so be it, but it shouldn’t be our original purpose.”

[ … ]

“It isn’t in our ‘For The People’ agenda because it doesn’t get that specific, but there’s one more because it’s personal for me that I really want to do, and it’s called the Equality Act,” the Democrat leader said, according to the Washington Blade. “The Equality Act expands ending discrimination against LGBTQ people and women and adding that to the Civil Rights Act.”

Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill later confirmed that his boss considers the bill a “top priority,” which would be introduced “early in the year” if Democrats retake the House of Representatives.

Read the full article.

RELATED ARTICLES:

4 Things to Know About Trump’s Possible Reversal of Obama’s Transgender Policy

Old News: Gender Isn’t Neutral

We Hear You: The President, the Electoral College, Transgender Suicide, and Podcast Feedback

Bakers Fined $135K Over Wedding Cake Appeal to Supreme Court

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Scott Broome on Unsplash.

U.S. CO2 Emissions Plummet Under Trump While The Rest Of The World Emits More

  • U.S. greenhouse gas emissions fell 2.7 percent from 2016 levels, according to the EPA.
  • Emissions on a per-capita basis hit a 67-year low last year, federal data shows, and supporters are touting EPA’s data as proof Trump’s agenda is working.
  • EPA’s new data comes on news that, globally, greenhouse gas emissions are set to rise to historic highs by the end of the year, despite nearly 200 countries signing the Paris climate accord.

Greenhouse gas emissions continued to plummet during President Donald Trump’s first year in office, according to new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data.

Based on data from more than 8,000 large facilities, EPA found greenhouse gas emissions, mostly carbon dioxide, fell 2.7 percent from 2016 to 2017. Emissions from large power plants fell 4.5 percent from 2016 levels, according to EPA.

“Thanks to President Trump’s regulatory reform agenda, the economy is booming, energy production is surging, and we are reducing greenhouse gas emissions from major industrial sources,” EPA acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a statement.

Earlier this year, the Energy Information Administration reported that per-capita greenhouse gas emissions hit a 67-year low during Trump’s first year in office.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration.

EPA’s new data follows news that, globally, greenhouse gas emissions are set to rise to historic highs by the end of the year, despite nearly 200 countries signing the Paris climate accord. Global greenhouse gas emissions also rose in 2017.

China is the main culprit behind rising emissions, but India and other developing countries contribute. However, recent reports have detailed how European countries aren’t on track to meet their own emissions reduction goals.

A recent report from the Climate Action Network Europe found that emissions cuts among most European Union members were “nowhere close enough” to meet the goals of the Paris accord. Trump pledged to withdraw from the Paris accord at the earliest possibility, in 2020.

On the flip side, the U.S. led the world in emissions cuts for the ninth time this century, according to the oil giant BP’s annual energy statistics. BP reported that European Union “emissions were also up (1.5%) with just Spain accounting for 44% of the increase.

German and French emissions increased 0.1 and 2 percent, respectively, last year, BP reported, while the “UK and Denmark reported the lowest carbon emissions in their history.”

Long held up as a poster child for fighting global warming, Germany is on track to miss its 2020 emissions targets. The government will likely instead push its goal of cutting CO2 emissions back to 2030.

Reactions after Bavaria state election in Berlin

German Chancellor Angela Merkel attends a Christian Democratic Union (CDU) leadership meeting in Berlin, Germany, October 15, 2018. REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch.

Europe’s recent struggles with emissions cuts has emboldened supporters of Trump’s approach to emissions cuts, prioritizing private sector technology over government regulations.

“These achievements flow largely from technological breakthroughs in the private sector, not the heavy hand of government,” Wheeler said in a statement.

However, critics of the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda say actions today will cause emissions to increase in the future. Environmentalists and some states have sued to stop the administration rolling back Obama-era environmental regulations.

Democrats and environmentalists hope to use Trump’s rolling back of environmental regulations to drive voters to the polls in November.

“We know what everyone who wants to fight back must do: vote on November 6th. We know where the allegiances of Trump and his accomplices in Congress lie. Now it is up to us to make the change that is needed,” Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune said in a statement.

Activists opposed to the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline project tie themselves to the White House fence during an environmental protest in Washington

Civil rights activist Julian Bond (top row, 3rd L), Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune (top row, 4th L), and activists opposed to the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline project tie themselves to the White House fence during an environmental protest in Washington, DC, United States on February 13, 2013. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo.

A major reason the U.S. has been able to cut emissions is the availability of low-priced natural gas. In the last decade, drillers have been able to use hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling to unlock vast shale gas reserves.

Low-priced natural gas has replaced much U.S. coal-fired capacity in recent years, which has in turn lowered emissions. Additions of wind and solar energy have also played a smaller role in reducing emissions.

“The Trump Administration has proven that federal regulations are not necessary to drive CO2 reductions,” Wheeler said. “While many around the world are talking about reducing greenhouse gases, the U.S. continues to deliver, and today’s report is further evidence of our action-oriented approach.”

COLUMN BY

Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor.

Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Alex Epstein on Big Concepts, Solar Impact, Human Innovation, and more!

The Right Media published an interview with me stating:

Alex Epstein is the founder and President of the Center for Industrial Progress (CIP). He’s joined Ben Shields today to discuss the climate, the science, the tech, and the physics behind the energy industries. Alex’s book, ‘The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels’: http://industrialprogress.com/store/ If you feel compelled to donate, superchat should be available, but paypal cuts out the middleman (YT) and assures more of your money goes to the destination you so choose.

Liberal Profs Hit a Grand Sham in Journal Hoax

You’ve heard of fake news — but what about fake academia? According to three gutsy professors, it’s alive and well and being featured in plenty of peer-reviewed journals. Together, the trio set out to prove it in a scholarly hoax that’s taken the entire education world by surprise.

Medieval religious scholar Helen Pluckrose, author and mathematician James Lindsay, and philosopher Peter Boghossian aren’t conservative (as a matter of fact, they call themselves “Left-leaning liberals), but they certainly share a lot of conservatives’ concerns about the bias of higher education. Fed up with the “grievance studies” that they think have taken over academia, they set out to prove what a joke the field of gender and identity studies has become.

Starting in August of 2017, the professors started cranking out fake papers and submitting them to scholarly journals under different names. The more absurd the topic, the more likely it seemed to get published. Among other things, the trio wrote entire sham essays on subjects like: dog parks becoming “petri dishes for canine ‘rape culture,'” what motivates heterosexual men to eat at Hooters, the fat-exclusionary culture of bodybuilding. They even argued for replacing “western astronomy” with “feminist astronomy.”

Their experiment worked. Seven of the 20 papers were accepted, all having undergone so-called “rigorous” peer review. “Their submissions were outlandish,” the Wall Street Journal points out, “but no more so, they insist, than others written in earnest and published by these journals.” When the three professors revealed what they’d done, the academic community exploded. They were outraged that anyone would pull back the curtain on what the trio calls “absurd and horrific scholarship.”

Obviously, they wanted to get the country’s attention about a community that’s fixated on politically-correct outcomes. As Ben Shapiro pointed out in Newsweek, “Education,” he says, “has become about underscoring the preferred power politics of those who control the flow of information. Ironically, those who insist that reality is mere social construction insist that their alternative social construction be made reality. That means that politics become paramount, and truth becomes completely superfluous.”

So much so that three liberal professors were willing to risk their careers to shine a light on the problem. As WSJ tells it, “Mr. Boghossian doesn’t have tenure and expects the university will fire or otherwise punish him. Ms. Pluckrose predicts she’ll have a hard time getting accepted to a doctoral program. Mr. Lindsay said he expects to become ‘an academic pariah,’ barred from professorships or publications.” Regardless, they say, it was all worth it. “For us, the risk of letting biased research continue to influence education, media, policy, and culture is far greater than anything that will happen to us for having done this.”

Whether educators will be embarrassed enough to do something about it remains to be seen. What we do know is that it takes a lot of courage to expose a problem most liberals are too afraid to admit — let alone combat. Our hats go off to the professors for giving America a real study in academic bias!


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC Action senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLES:

Dem Tactics Rotten to the Court

Where Will You Be November 4th?

EDITORS NOTE: This column is republished with permission.

Three ‘Green’ ballot initiatives to shut down fossil fuels this November

Three initiatives are on the ballot this November in Colorado, Arizona, and Washington State, all aimed at severely restricting fossil fuel use and development within these states’ borders.

With the Trump administration putting a stop to aggressive action on climate change at the federal level, environmentalist groups across the nation are trying to achieve their goals through action on the state level.

In Colorado, Proposition 112 seeks to increase the “setback” requirement for new oil and gas activity on non-federal land – increasing it from 500-ft to 2,500-ft from designated structures and vulnerable areas. In laymen’s terms, this means that there can be no new drilling within 2,500 feet of essentially any structure – whether it is a house, fire station, garage, or whatever — on non-federal land.

Colorado Rising, the group pushing for the enactment of Proposition 112, says that the 2,500 feet setback is necessary “…based on peer-reviewed health studies indicating that health impacts are greatest within a half mile of a ‘fracking’ site.” In fact, the group even hints that this distance is not far enough. “Some studies indicate that a more appropriate minimum setback should be 1 mile, and the average evacuation distance for a well blowout is 0.8 miles.”

But such statements are rebutted by numerous other studies, including a four-year long one carried out by President Obama’s EPA which found that fracking created no adverse impact on water quality.

The Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Coalition (COGCC), a Colorado State government agency, also provided a report showing that at least three of the top five oil and gas producing counties in Colorado would be significantly impacted by the measure. The initiative would make it almost impossible to develop oil and gas east of the Rockies.

Also, according to an analysis performed by a coalition of the Colorado Association of Realtors, the Colorado Bankers Association, Colorado Concern, Common Sense Policy Roundtable and Denver South Economic Development Partnership, the definitions of what the language in the measure refer to is very unclear. Proposition 112 says that there will be no new drilling within 2,500 feet of an “occupied structure and any area designated for additional protection.”

The analysis states that “it is likely that ‘Occupied Structure’ would encompass far more buildings than ‘High Occupancy’ thus increasing not only the distance of new oil and gas activity from structures but also increasing the number of structures subject to setback.”

Bob Schaffer, a former congressman from the state, wrote an op-ed in the Coloradan against Proposition 112, formerly known as Initiative 97. He said, “85 percent of Colorado’s non-federal land would be off-limits to new natural-gas harvesting. A restriction of Initiative 97’s magnitude, according to a June analysis released by the Colorado Alliance of Mineral and Royalty Owners, could cost our state an unfathomable $26 billion in lost revenues, and legal takings claims.”

In Arizona, Proposition 127 would amend the Arizona State Constitution to mandate that 50% of power derived from public utilities must come from renewable resources by 2030. Nuclear power is not counted as a “renewable” option under the measure.

Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona Committee claims passage of this initiative will create “thousands of good jobs.” They claim that the number of jobs in Arizona’s solar industry is diminishing when compared to the national average, and Proposition 127 is needed to reverse that trend. Few specific data are referenced.

In contrast, analysis performed by the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University paints a starkly different picture. Their research found that Proposition 127 would hardly be an economic boon to the Grand Canyon State – in fact it would cause disposable personal income to plummet by a hefty $23.0 billion in the coming decades (2018-2060). In addition, the study also found that Prop 127 would cause some 305,000 “job years of employment” to be lost, and the Arizona economy as a whole would lose a whopping $36.8 billion in Gross State Product.

Added to this are other concerns. According to group “NO on 127,” the ballot measure would also cause the Palo Verde nuclear power plant to close by 2025, costing the State $55 million in property tax revenue annually.

In Washington State, Initiative 1631 proposes to enact a “fee” on carbon emissions of $15 per ton, starting in 2020, which then goes up $2 per ton every single year. The Atlantic reports that in 2035, the fee is projected to reach $55 per ton. At that point state lawmakers will have the option to either freeze the cost in place or continue to let it increase by $2 per year.

The reason proponents are calling this a “fee” and not a “tax” is because the revenues generated by this Initiative can only be spent on projects relating to climate change, carbon emissions, and transitioning from fossil fuels. Lawmakers would thus be unable to use the money generated for other purposes. A 15-member board would be in charge of deciding how to spend the funds. It remains unclear, however, exactly how this roughly $1 billion in new revenue every year would be spent by the board.

Dana Bieber, spokeswoman for the “No on 1631 Coalition” said, “This very powerful 15-member panel will be responsible for doling out billions upon billions of dollars … I think when we are talking about the greatest challenge of our time — and that’s climate change — I don’t think we should leave it in the hands of 15 unelected people.”

The Atlantic further explains that supporters of Initiative 1631 claim the measure will only cost residents $10 a month in a “worst-case scenario.” But opponents say this is unrealistic.

The Seattle Times reports that Puget Sound Energy, which relies on coal and gas for 60% of its power generation, would be hit much harder by this policy than Seattle City Light, which is supported by hydroelectricity in the region. When utilities pass the cost of the fee onto consumers, some ratepayers will be hit much harder than others.

Monty Anderson, the Executive Secretary of the Seattle Building & Construction Trades Council, which represents some 20,000 workers, is opposed to Initiative 1631. “It’s just a large gas tax. That’s the way we see it, and that’s the problem,” Anderson said. “And I don’t think they are going to stop investing in alternative energy just because we don’t have a special gas tax here.”

The voters of Colorado, Arizona, and Washington State will be making important choices this November. Their decisions will either inspire, or deflate, future efforts by environmentalist groups to continue pushing radical green policies at the state level.

About the Author: Adam Houser

Adam Houser coordinates student leaders for CFACT’s collegians program and writes on issues of climate and energy.

EDITORS NOTE: This column and image originally appeared on CFACT. Republished with permission.

CFACT public comment on Administration’s Endangered Species Act reform

Proposed Revisions to Regulations Implementing the Endangered Species Act (ESA)

Submitted by Bonner R. Cohen, Ph. D.,

Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow

September 17, 2018

Revisions of Regulations for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat and Revisions of the Regulations for Prohibitions to Threatened Wildlife and Plants

Several proposed changes relate to section 4 of the ESA, which deals with procedures for listing species recovery and designating critical habitat (areas deemed essential to support the conservation of a species). There are two key provisions in this section of the proposal. First, FWS and NOAA propose to revise the procedures for designating critical habitat by reinstating the requirement that they will first evaluate areas currently occupied by the species before considering unoccupied areas. Second, the agencies propose to clarify when they may determine that unoccupied areas are essential to the conservation of a species.

The proposal dealing with unoccupied critical habitat is no doubt rooted in the case of the dusky gopher frog. FWS’s designation several years ago of 1,544 acres of forested land in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana as critical habitat for the endangered frog has triggered a legal dispute that is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Louisiana land in question contains no dusky gopher frogs. In fact, the only such frogs known to exist are in neighboring Mississippi. The designation of the unoccupied Louisiana land as critical habitat has devalued the property by an estimated $20 million. The case underscores the importance of the proposed revisions to the ESA’s critical habitat provisions.

By limiting the power of officials implementing the ESA so that they can no longer designate an area as critical habitat that is not currently, or even in the recent past, occupied by an endangered or threatened species, the proposed revision restores a much-needed measure of integrity to implementation of the statute. It also gives landowners some assurance that their property will not be arbitrarily designated as critical habitat for a listed species that does not reside there.

Vague language is a problem with many laws, and the ESA is no exception. The ESA defines a threatened species as one that is likely to become in danger of extinction within the “foreseeable future.” But the statute provides no definition of “foreseeable future.” For the first time, the reform proposals contain an interpretation of “foreseeable future” that makes it clear that it extends only so far that it can be reasonably be determined that both the future threats and the species’ response to those threats are probable.

In a similar vein, the proposal seeks to clear up confusion on what constitutes “destruction or adverse modification” of critical habitat under section 7 of the ESA. The ESA provides no definition, leaving it to regulators to apply the term as they see fit. The proposed rule simplifies and clarifies the definition by removing redundant and confusing language. This confusion has led to protracted litigation that has benefited neither species nor landowners and has been one of the key reasons behind the slow recovery of species.

Over the decades, government officials have developed different standards for listing and delisting a species. This has resulted in substantial delays in getting a recovered species removed from the endangered species list. The proposal seeks to have the same standard used to delist that are applied to list a species and will curtail the ESA’s often arbitrary enforcement.

In a significant change of policy, the Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to rescind its blanket rule under section 4c of the ESA, which automatically conveyed the same protections to threatened species as for endangered species. The distinction between the two categories has become blurred over the years, and the administration’s proposal would end that practice, thereby restoring the original intent of the law.

Revision of Regulations for Interagency Cooperation

Poorly coordinated interagency cooperation has been a hallmark of ESA implementation since the statute was enacted in 1973. This has raised the level of confusion for communities harboring endangered species and brought additional and absolutely unnecessary delays to the recovery process. By clarifying how biological opinions and interagency submissions are to be formulated, the proposal will avoid, minimize, or off-set adverse effects on listed species and their habitats when conducting interagency consultations.

In summary, the biggest losers in the way the ESA has been enforced over the past 45 years have been landowners with listed species on their property and the species themselves. Landowners have been punished for having listed species on their land and have been given little if any incentives to cooperate in their recovery. Taken as a whole, the steps proposed by FWS and NOAA Fisheries will break some of the bureaucratic logjams that have plagued the ESA from the outset, and begin to give landowners incentives to restore and improve endangered species’ habitat.

About the Author: Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.

Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.

Bonner R. Cohen, Ph. D., is a senior policy analyst with CFACT.

RELATED ARTICLE: Ratepayers Get Cold Shoulder as Green Energy Gets ‘Preferential Treatment’ in Delaware

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Jack Hamilton on Unsplash. Republished with permission.

VIDEO: Alex Epstein’s Q&A with energy MBA students at TCU

Two years ago I got an invitation from TCU professor Ed Ireland to talk to his energy MBA students. The class had read my book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, and Ed wanted them to have the chance to ask me their toughest questions. (You can view it here.)

It was one of the most enjoyable Q&As on energy I’ve done, and so I was excited when Ed invited me back again this year to discuss fossil fuels with a new class of energy MBAs. This time we covered a lot of interesting territory including the meaning of “sustainability,” my biggest pollution concerns, the criminalization of nuclear, and California’s commitment to be “100% CO2-free” by 2045.

After reading “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels,” Professor Ed Ireland’s Energy MBA students bring their toughest questions in this remote Q&A session with me.

Upcoming Speeches

I’m getting ready for a bunch of speaking engagements that are coming up in the next few weeks.

  • 9/26 – California Tripartite Conference
  • 10/1 – Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC)
  • 10/8 – Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association (ILMA)
  • 10/9 – New Mexico Oil and Gas Association (NMOGA)

If you’re interested in having me speak at a high level event, here is the latest list of the topics I cover:

Clarity

  • Human Flourishing and Energy Progress
  • The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels
  • Our Fossil Future: Why Fossil Fuels Will Continue to Outcompete Solar, Wind, and EVs
  • What Exactly is “Social Responsibility Investing”? A Human Flourishing Approach
  • The Moral Case for Fossil Fuel Investment
  • How Moral Biases Cause Bad Investments
  • Understanding the ESG Threat
  • The Moral Case for Nuclear Power
  • The Moral Case for GMOs
  • The Moral Case for Chemicals

Persuasion

  • “Arguing to 100”: How to reframe the debate instead of reacting to the debate
  • How to Win Hearts and Minds
  • How to Talk to Anyone About Energy
  • Asymmetric strategy: How to persuade more people with fewer resources
  • Constructive Conversations Workshop
  • Asymmetric Strategy Workshop

Inspiration

  • The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels
  • Energy Heroes
  • The Oil Industry’s Millennial Problem—And How to Solve it

To host me on one of these topics or any other topic click the button below.

Send Event Details 
 

The Human Flourishing Project: Relaxed productivity (part 1)

On the latest episode of The Human Flourishing Project I discuss what “relaxed productivity” is, why it’s so desirable, and what practices can help us achieve it.

Visit our Facebook page and join in the discussion. And for the latest news visit humanflourishingproject.com where you can sign up to receive email updates.

Popular link

To learn more and get free resources visit http://industrialprogress.com/speaking

How to Spot Misleading Statistics in the Gun Control Debate

The question should not be, “Do guns prevent crime?” The question should be, “Are guns useful at resisting crime?”

The academic debate over gun control consists mainly of a war of statistics. New studies come out every few weeks, and as a result, both sides are constantly locking horns over the validity or invalidity of this-or-that study in this-or-that country.

For those who aren’t formally trained in data analysis, this debate can seem impossible to navigate. How should untrained laypersons go about interpreting the findings of statistical studies?

It’s About Resistance, Not Prevention

Statistics come in all shapes and sizes, so the first thing we need to do is determine which kinds of statistics are relevant to the gun control debate and which are irrelevant. To do this, we need a clear understanding of what the gun control debate is fundamentally about. We can’t separate the relevant from the irrelevant if we aren’t clear about how to frame the issue.

So, what is the debate over gun ownership fundamentally about? Many seem to think that it’s about deterrence; that is, whether gun ownership prevents crime. The most well-known proponent of this view is John Lott, who argues that shall-issue right-to-carry laws are effective at reducing crime rates by means of deterring criminals. Lott’s research has been corroborated by a number of other studies and criticized by others.

Regardless of whether Lott’s research stands up to scrutiny, I want to suggest that it’s mistaken to think about the gun ownership debate chiefly in terms of crime prevention. On the contrary, whether there exists a right to own guns depends chiefly on whether guns are reasonable means of resisting crime.

Although prevention is more socially desirable (it is better that a crime not happen in the first place), any deterrent benefits that guns may have would owe to their resistance benefits, so the latter is more fundamental. Guns are valued for self-defense primarily because of their ability to dispense lethal force, which means that resistance—not prevention—is primary. Prevention is an added benefit, but it is secondary.

None of this is to say that Lott’s research is wrong. Rather, the point I’m making is that prevention and resistance are two very different things, and the latter is what the gun debate is fundamentally about.

To illustrate the difference, let’s suppose that I encounter a mugger while taking a walk. I brandish my firearm to the mugger, who is undeterred and rushes me with a knife. I then shoot the mugger, stopping the crime. In that situation, my gun has failed to prevent a crime, but it was successful at resisting a crime. The gun was an effective and reasonable means of self-defense even though it failed to deter the would-be mugger.

This is a very crucial point that must be carefully appreciated. Even if guns don’t prevent crime by reducing the overall crime rate, it wouldn’t mean that guns are not a reasonable means of resisting crime. As far as gun rights are concerned, the single most important issue is simply the question of whether guns do a good job when deployed against a criminal assailant. Deterrence is not the key issue at stake.

The Wrong Kinds of Studies

With that point in mind, we are now in a position to evaluate the relevance of empirical studies. Suppose for the sake of argument that pro-control advocates are right that gun ownership or right-to-carry laws do not deter crime. What follows from this? Nothing much, actually. Since the gun debate is primarily about whether guns are reasonable means of resisting crimes, the fact that guns may not work to prevent crime doesn’t really damage the case for gun ownership.

This same is true even if guns increase crime. Let’s revisit the earlier scenario involving the mugger. Suppose that upon seeing my brandished gun, the mugger becomes enraged and charges me. In that case, not only has my gun failed to prevent a crime, it may actually have worsened one. But that wouldn’t mean that my gun wasn’t a reasonable means of resisting crime, nor that I wasn’t justified in using it to defend myself.

The point here is this: even if studies showing that gun ownership or right-to-carry laws increase crime are right, they’re irrelevant. It doesn’t follow that guns are not effective when used in self-defense. Since the merits of gun ownership center around their resistance benefits, it is misleading to attack that by focusing on their lack of preventative benefits. The failure of a gun to prevent crime doesn’t imply its failure at resisting crime.

Proponents of gun control are therefore guilty of a subtle sleight of hand when they cite studies showing that guns lead to more crime or that gun-owners have a higher risk of being killed by a gun. Even if all these studies are true (and there is considerable reason to doubt that they are), they are wholly irrelevant to what is actually at stake in the debate over gun ownership. It confuses the risk that guns have in general with their effectiveness when used for self-protection.

Now to be fair, many gun advocates are guilty of making this same mistake, in that they frame the entire debate in terms of deterrence and crime prevention. While it’s not wrong to look at these questions, they should be secondary to what really matters. Gun advocates should direct their primary attention to the number of defensive gun uses and the effectiveness of guns in self-defense, as they pertain directly to the core issue of the gun debate: resisting crime.

So, the next time you see a study showing how gun ownership may increase crime or one’s chances of dying, know that it is irrelevant to what is actually at stake. Being able to make the distinction between prevention and resistance won’t make you an expert at data analysis, but it will go a long way in helping you wade through the morass of anti-gun statistics.

The Right Kinds of Studies

The type of studies we should be paying attention to are those studies that deal directly with the effectiveness of guns when used in a self-defense scenario. On that topic, there is a clear and overwhelming consensus that guns are effective when used in self-defense.

A 1993 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology found that out of eight different forms of robbery resistance, “victim gun use was the resistance strategy most strongly and consistently associated with successful outcomes for robbery victims.”

A 2000 study published in the Journal of Criminal Justice found that men and women who resisted with a gun were less likely to be injured or lose property than those who resisted using some other means or who did not resist at all. In the case of women, “having a gun really does result in equalizing a woman with a man.”

A 2004 study published in the journal Criminology found that out of sixteen different forms of victim self-protection, “a variety of mostly forceful tactics, including resistance with a gun, appeared to have the strongest effects in reducing the risk of injury.”

Finally, a 2010 study published in Crime and Delinquency found that resistance with a gun decreased the odds of robbery and rape completion by 93 percent and 92 percent, respectively.

Taking stock of these points, the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council concluded in a 2013 review of the literature that

studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.

When it comes to the use of studies and statistics, both sides tend to focus on the impact of gun ownership and right-to-carry laws on causing or deterring violence. These are certainly interesting issues to examine, but deterrence (or lack thereof) isn’t actually relevant to the key question in the gun debate. What matters is simply the question of whether guns are effective at doing what they’re designed to do. And on that question, there is clear consensus that guns are extremely effective at self-defense.

Tim Hsiao

Tim Hsiao

Tim Hsiao is Instructor of Philosophy and Humanities at Grantham University. His website is timhsiao.org

Planned Parenthood: Pro-Sexual Assault Until It Hurts Their Narrative

On Friday, Judge Brett Kavanaugh denied an unproven accusation that he and a friend sexually assaulted a woman in high school. As the Senate decides how to react to the accuser’s claims, Planned Parenthood is jumping on the bandwagon to claim that Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination process should be halted.

The replies to these Tweets lay out the case that Planned Parenthood is simply being a left-wing attack dog. More importantly, however, is their absolute hypocrisy when it comes to treatment of women who are sexually assaulted.

2ndVote readers are familiar with Live Action’s excellent work uncovering Planned Parenthood’s widespread protection of sex abusers. Are you also aware of the time a Mobile, Alabama Planned Parenthood center gave two abortions to a 14-year old girl in four months, but concluded that she wasn’t being sexually assaulted? The center also did not report the girl’s condition to the state, in violation of health care reporting laws.

The girl had two children prior to those abortions, as well. LifeSiteNews has more:

That official said that a LifeSiteNews summary of the situation was “true,” but it “would be much better” if LifeSiteNews framed its coverage favorably. It was subsequently clarified with this official that “essentially, your department was satisfied [Planned Parenthood] had acted in good faith, and not intentionally hid this information” from child protective services.”

This official also told LifeSiteNews that Planned Parenthood had previously investigated the 14-year old’s circumstances, and determined she was not being abused. However, the spokesperson LifeSiteNews spoke with on Monday said that there are no state requirements for what questions Planned Parenthood asked of the 14-year old to determine her four pregnancies were not due to abuse.

Got that? The state health department believed Planned Parenthood “accidentally” broke state law, so it gave them a slap on the wrist. No wonder Planned Parenthood’s national spokespersons believe they can continue to flout sex abuse, baby sales, and other laws with impunity. And no wonder Planned Parenthood believes it can claim to #BelieveWomen about sexual assault despite its own poor record on that front.

The only thing Planned Parenthood will listen to is money. 2ndVote shoppers should tell corporate backers of America’s largest abortion company to stop funding sex abuse cover-ups and slaughter of the unborn.

The following companies and nonprofits have directly funded Planned Parenthood

Adobe
Aetna
Allstate
American Express
Amgen
AutoZone
Avon
Bank of America
Bath & Body Works
Ben & Jerry’s
Blue Cross Blue Shield
Boeing
BP
Charles Schwab
Clorox
Craigslist
Converse
Deutsche Bank
Diageo
Dockers
Energizer

Expedia
ExxonMobil
Fannie Mae
Freddie Mac
Frito Lay
General Electric
Groupon
Intuit
Jiffy Lube
JPMorgan Chase
Johnson & Johnson
Kaiser Permanente
Kraft Heinz
Levi Strauss
Liberty Mutual
March of Dimes
Microsoft
Mondelez International
Monsanto

Morgan Stanley
Nike
Oracle
Patagonia
PayPal
PepsiCo
Pfizer
Progressive Insurance
Prudential
Qualcomm
Starbucks
Shell
Susan G. Komen
Unilever
United Airlines
United Way
US Bank
Verizon
Wells Fargo
WD-40 Company

The following companies have supported 3rd party groups that fund Planned Parenthood

3M
7 For All Mankind
Abbott Laboratories
Accenture 
Adobe
ADP
Advanced Micro Device
Aetna
Alamo
Albertsons
Alcoa
Allstate
American Airlines
American Express
American Greetings
American Petroleum Institute 
Ameriprise Financial
AmerisourceBergen
Amgen
Anheuser-Busch
Ann Taylor
AOL
Apostrophe
AT&T
Avon
AXA
Banana Republic
Bank of America
Belk
Ben & Jerry’s
Best Buy
Black & Decker
Boeing
BP
Bridgestone
Bristol-Myers Squibb
Calvin Klein
Campbell’s Soup
Cargill
Carmax
Caribou Coffee
Central Pacific Financial
CenturyLink
Cigna
Cisco
Citibank
Choice Hotels
Clorox
COACH
Comcast
Comerica Bank
Commerce Bank
Conagra
ConocoPhillips
Costco
Converse
Corning Inc.
CoverGirl
CVS
Dana Farber Cancer Institute
Del Monte Foods

Dell
Delta Express
Deutsche Bank
Diageo
DiGiorno
DIRECTV
Dockers
Dollar General
Dollar Shave Club
Dow Chemical
DowDuPont
eBay
Energizer
Enterprise Holdings
Ernst & Young
eToys.com
Expedia
Express Scripts Inc. 
Fannie Mae
FedEx
Fifth Third Bank
Ford
Freddie Mac
Friendly’s
Frito-Lay
Fry’s Food Stores
Gap
GEICO
General Electric
General Mills
General Motors
Goldman Sachs
Google
Groupon
H-E-B
H&R Block
Hallmark Cards
Harris Teeter
Hasbro
HBO
HCA Holdings
Health Net
Hellmann’s Mayonnaise
Hershey Company
Hewlett-Packard
Hillshire Brands Company
Home Depot
Honda
Hunt’s
Hurleys
IBM
Intel
Intuit
Jack in the Box
JanSport
Jell-O
Jenn-Air
Jet.com
Jiffy Lube
John-Deere
John Hancock Financial

Johnson & Johnson
JPMorgan Chase 
Junior Achievement
Kellogg’s
Kenmore
Kentucky Fried Chicken
Kimberly-Cark
Kipling
KitchenAid
Kmart
Kohl’s
KPMG
Kraft-Heinz
Kroger
L.L. Bean
Lands’ End
Lee
Levi Strauss
Liberty Mutual
Lincoln Financial Group
LOFT
MAPCO
Mars Inc.
Marshalls
Mary Kay
MassMutual
MasterCard
Maytag
Mcdonalds
Merck & Co. 
MGM Resorts International
Mircrosoft
Mondelez International
Monsanto
Morgan Stanley
Motorola
National Car Rental
National Basketball Association
National Football League
Nautica
NBC Universal
NCAA
Nestle
New Balance
New York Life
Newell Brands
Old Navy
Oracle
Pacific Life
PayPal
PepsiCo
PetSmart
Pfizer
PINK
Pizza Hut
PNC Bank
Prudential Financial and Insurance
Procter & Gamble
Progressive Insurance

Publix
Qdoba Mexican Grill
Quaker Oats
Qualcomm
Quality Inn
QuickBooks
Ralph Lauren
Ralphs
REI
Rite Aid
Safeway
Sam’s Club
Schnucks
Sears
Seattle’s Best Coffee
Shell Oil
Shelter Insurance
The Sherwin Williams Company
Sprint
Starbucks
State Farm
Subaru
Subway
SunTrust
Susan G. Komen
T-Mobile
T.J. Maxx
Taco Bell
Tazo Tea 
Teavana
Texas Instruments
The North Face
The Travelers Companies
Tiffany & Co
Timberland
Time Warner
Toro
Toys R Us
Tractor Supply Company
Turbo Tax
Unilever
UnitedHealth Group
US Bank
USAA
Vanity Fair
Vans
Verizon
Victoria’s Secret
Walmart
Walgreens
Wawa
Wells Fargo
Western Union
Whataburger
Whirlpool Corporation
White Castle
Wrangler
Yelp
Youtube
Xerox
Zales


Help us continue creating content like this and educating conservative shoppers by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!


EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is from Shutterstock.

Copyright © 2024 DrRichSwier.com LLC. A Florida Cooperation. All rights reserved. The DrRichSwier.com is a not-for-profit news forum for intelligent Conservative commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. Republishing of columns on this website requires the permission of both the author and editor. For more information contact: drswier@gmail.com.