Some Monumentally Hard Decisions


The absolute irrationality of the Black Lives Matter mobs destroying property, defacing monuments without any concept of their historical background seems to grow every day.  Some people are paid demonstrators who could care less about racism.  Some may actually be Marxists who believe anything is justified to achieve communism.  There are always a few crazies to deal with in this world.

But what is really tragic is that many people are concerned, caring people that have been deceived and manipulated into actually think they are doing good.  There are Christians that don’t realize that BLM is an atheistic Marxist organization in whose world, the state is the only God.  There are good family people that don’t realize that BLM is intent on the destruction of the nuclear family.  If you think that destroying monuments and history has anything to do with racism or social justice, think again.

The article below is from The Arizona Republic op ed column, Some monumentally hard decisions.  

“One of the recently vandalized monuments is a statue of poet John Greenleaf Whittier. Someone smeared “BLM” and “(expletive) Slave Owners” on the seated figure prominently displayed in the city named after him, Whittier, California.

It happens that Whittier was a fiery abolitionist from Massachusetts. In a famous 1833 pamphlet, he called slavery “the master-evil before which all others dwindle into insignificance.”

And so, who was behind his defacing? It could have been someone from the Black Lives Matter movement ignorant of Whittier’s history. It could have been a goon just out to damage public property. It could have been a rightwing agitator trying to make the BLM movement look ridiculous.

A mindless war against public monuments has developed, and it needs taming. Removing Confederate generals who made war on the United States to preserve slavery may be an easy call, but the future of all public monuments should be determined by public deliberation.

Consider the threats against the controversial statue of Abraham Lincoln and a freed slave at the Freedmen’s Memorial in Washington. Historian David Blight agrees that the image comes off as racist and not something we would commission today. The 1876 monument shows Lincoln standing high over an African American on one knee.

But then Blight asks its critics to “please consider the people who created it and what it meant for their lives in a century not our own.”

African Americans, most of them former slaves, had raised the $20,000 needed to build the monument. Nearly every black organization participated in its unveiling. Is it OK for woke moderns to cancel these African Americans’ sense of their history? I don’t think so.

Much is subject to interpretation. Some see the former slave crouching subserviently before Lincoln. Others see him rising up. Some object to his chains. Others see chains that are breaking, which, of course, is what was happening.

That the sculptor, Thomas Ball, was white should be of no consequence. The emancipated blacks sponsoring the monument hired him, and that was their right. For the record, Ball said he considered Archer Alexander, the former slave who modeled as the freed man, an “agent in his own resistance.”

What, if anything, should be done about the Freedmen’s Memorial, which sits on federal land? Eleanor Holmes Norton, who represents the District of Columbia in Congress, plans to introduce legislation to have it removed.

But one hopes she will reconsider, that she will look again with more sensitivity toward those oppressed former slaves who had it built. And she might consider Blight’s proposal to add rather than subtract from what’s there.

Black abolitionist Frederick Douglass spoke during the memorial’s dedication ceremony. Blight, his biographer, suggests commissioning a statue of him giving his famous speech. It was a tough speech criticizing Lincoln for his early hesitation on the slavery question. Though Lincoln “tarried long in the mountain,” Douglass concluded, he eventually arrived.

This reconsideration of the historic figures standing frozen in our downtowns has produced at least one positive outcome. Those willing to engage their brains are learning a lot of complicated history. There are some monumentally hard decisions to make, and only the broader public should make them.

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at

Froma Harrop


COVID-19 Surveillance Cases II

I would guess that all states have something like this, but here is an update as of today from the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS).  (Bold emphasis mine.)

Unexpected increase as a result of changes in surveillance reporting!

As our federal partners have updated guidance for identifying COVID-19 deaths, ADHS has enhanced our processes to match. This change may cause the number of new deaths reported on our dashboard to increase more than expected for a few days

Unexpected increases due to addition of antibody testing!

Today we updated our dashboard to include additional information about laboratory testing for COVID-19 in Arizona. This new enhancement provides a look at antibody testing for the first time. Previously, data on the ADHS dashboard only included diagnostic (PCR) testing information. While we had been getting a small number of serology results reported to the Department over the past three weeks, a large number of serology results were reported this past week as testing capacity has expanded.

Unexpected increases due to other coronaviruses that cause the common cold!

Antibody (also known as serology) tests are laboratory tests that look for the presence of antibodies, which are made by the body in response to an infection. Antibody testing for COVID-19 is relatively new, so it is difficult right now to draw conclusions about antibody testing data. Additionally, an antibody test may be falsely positive for COVID-19 because the test may have detected the presence of antibodies to other coronaviruses that cause the common cold.

This information is provided as a public service without comment — well, okay if you insist — just one.

WHO Blindfolds


Testing-Adjusted COVID

This is an interesting analysis of the COVID-19 situation in Sweden where there was no government imposed harsh lock downs.

I provided a link to the article which is interesting but long so I pasted a small segment and chart below to make a point.

Overall development of the epidemic

Figure 1 shows the overall picture for confirmed weekly total new COVID-19 cases, intensive care admissions and deaths in Sweden. The dashed line normalises new cases by the dividing by the number of tests carried out each week, relative to those for the week to 10 April. Both actual and normalised weekly new cases have been divided by 10 in order to make their scale comparable to that for ICU admissions and deaths.

Fig. 1 Total weekly COVID-19 confirmed cases, intensive care admissions and deaths in Sweden


That point is that in the U.S. people are panicking because the number of cases is increasing as the country is opening up. However, the same increase is occurring in Sweden which never shut down!

Testing-Adjusted Cases Decline

The reason for the increase is that there is more testing. This analyst shows the “testing-adjusted” new case rate in Sweden in decline.

It is hard to get at these numbers in the U.S. but indicatively, in Arizona there were approximately 200k tests done in 2020 through May and more than 400k done in the single month of June. It would certainly appear that the “testing-adjusted” cases are in a decline similar to those in Sweden.

One of the major requirements for reopening has been increased testing.  It cannot come as a surprise that increased testing would result in a higher number of cases.  It stands to reason that any competent authority would normalize for the increased testing and keep the public informed of that trajectory.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but it bugs me no end that those who should be keeping us informed are continually making us dig to find the truth.



COVID-19 Surveillance Cases

I am attempting to make this post about 90% boring factual data and only 10% fun, exciting and insightful opinion.  There is a lot of valid but misleading and coincidentally, misunderstood information about what constitutes a COVID-19 “case” as it is generally reported by media and politicians.

Most people think that the number of cases reported and headlined are people sick and dying of the corona virus.  To be sure there are people being treated for and potentially dying because of COVID-19.  However, while the numbers of cases being treated may be included in the numbers being reported, they are not the same thing.

This post is not about people being treated for corona virus or the doctors and other healthcare professionals.

This is about Surveillance Cases.

The CDC definition of a case for reporting purpose is a “surveillance case”.

NOTE: A surveillance case definition is a set of uniform criteria used to define a disease for public health surveillance. Surveillance case definitions enable public health officials to classify and count cases consistently across reporting jurisdictions. Surveillance case definitions are not intended to be used by healthcare providers for making a clinical diagnosis or determining how to meet an individual patient’s health needs.

Remember the last sentence as we walk through the surveillance case reporting criteria taken directly from the CDC CSTE Position Statement(s).

“Clinical Criteria

At least two of the following symptoms: fever (measured or subjective), chills, rigors, myalgia, headache, sore throat, new olfactory and taste disorder(s)


At least one of the following symptoms: cough, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing


Severe respiratory illness with at least one of the following:

    • Clinical or radiographic evidence of pneumonia, OR
    • Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).


No alternative more likely diagnosis”


If you have ever had a fever and sore throat, or headache and chills, or other combinations, according to the CDC, you could be presumed to be a COVID-19 surveillance case.

If you have ever had a cough, according to the CDC, you could be presumed to be a COVID-19 surveillance case.

If you have ever had pneumonia, according to the CDC, you could be presumed to be a COVID-19 surveillance case.

Not what you thought?  Me either.  To be fair, you probably would not be reported as a COVID surveillance case unless you went to the doctor or a clinic.  But the flu, heat stroke, a heart attack or pregnancy might get you there, right?

Back to the boring facts in the CDC CSTE Position Statement(s).

“Laboratory Criteria

Presumptive laboratory evidence:

    • Detection of specific antigen in a clinical specimen
    • Detection of specific antibody in serum, plasma, or whole blood indicative of a new or recent infection*

*Serologic methods for diagnosis are currently being defined.”


The “specific antigen” is pretty much evidence that you are “sick” with the virus.  However, the “specific antibody” means that you had the virus at some point and presumably didn’t die and now have at least some degree of immunity.

That seems like the exact opposite of being sick with a treatable case.  In fact, they may collect your blood for use in developing a vaccine.  However, you will be recorded as a COVID surveillance case and included in the number of cases you read about in the morning paper.

I can hardly wait for serologic methods for diagnosis to be defined.  But, hey…how important could that be?

Back to the boring facts in the CDC CSTE Position Statement(s).

“Epidemiologic Linkage

One or more of the following exposures in the 14 days before onset of symptoms:

    • Close contact** with a confirmed or probable case of COVID-19 disease; OR
    • Close contact** with a person with:
      • clinically compatible illness AND
      • linkage to a confirmed case of COVID-19 disease.
    • Travel to or residence in an area with sustained, ongoing community transmission of SARS-CoV-2.
    • Member of a risk cohort as defined by public health authorities during an outbreak.

**Close contact is defined as being within 6 feet for at least a period of 10 minutes to 30 minutes or more depending upon the exposure. In healthcare settings, this may be defined as exposures of greater than a few minutes or more. Data are insufficient to precisely define the duration of exposure that constitutes prolonged exposure and thus a close contact.


“Travel to or residence in an area with sustained, ongoing community transmission of SARS-CoV-2” would seem to mean at least New York and probably any major city at the top of the COVID-19 surveillance list.  So if you go there, you are automatically reported as a case which in turns adds to the number of cases.  Kind of a vicious circle, huh?

Member of a risk cohort in this outbreak would include anyone over the age of 65 and anyone with any life-threatening disease.  What do you know?  Vicious concentric circles.

Glad to see that they didn’t let insufficient data to define—well, any word in their definition—get in the way of defining how close is close, how long is prolonged and the duration of exposure depending upon the exposure.  (sarcasm font)

Back to the boring facts in the CDC CSTE Position Statement(s).

“Criteria to Distinguish a New Case from an Existing Case

Not applicable (N/A) until more virologic data are available.”


Time-the-flock-out!  The CDC has no way to distinguish a new case from an existing case until more virologic data are available?  So…that would mean that every surveillance case must be reported as a new case.

Good thing nobody is using the number of new cases to determine reopening strategies affecting the lives millions of people and the economic future of the country.  Oh, wait—

Back to the boring facts in the CDC CSTE Position Statement(s).

“Case Classification


    • Meets clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19.
    • Meets presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence.
    • Meets vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19.”


As near as I can tell, if there is “no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19” you are presumed to have a 92.678% probability of being reported as a probable COVID-19 surveillance case.

I just made up that percentage but, as far as making things up goes, I don’t appear to be alone.


The Devil in Disguise

devil in disguise in your eyes

The media coverage of Black Lives Matter has most people feeling that it is a benevolent organization concerned about racial injustice.  But few people have been to their website and read their manifesto.

I did when they first appeared on the scene and found out that they were a radical Marxist organization pushing violent revolution.  It was not disguised.  They were quite proud of it.

When I went back recently, I found that the site had been cleansed of the Marxist references and radical background about the founders.  They do still take pride in saying they are “radical” but apparently we are expected to believe they are now radical about peace and love and…  Just trust me and click on this sweet, innocent apple attachment (sarcasm font).

Their current pictures have been given the Hollywood glamour treatment making them appear like Oprah instead of jungle fighters.  There are still Marxist references to “comrades”, “solidarity, etc.” but I had to dig to find the background they deleted.

I have not vetted every word, but sans the editorial comments the description below is substantially accurate to my memory of the history of the founders that  was on their website .

These three women who founded Black Lives Matter are not your average Americans.
All of them are radicals of varying degrees, all three share a Marxist ideology and all three appear to be taking their hashtag and their activism to the bank.

About Alicia Garza

Alicia Garza was born in 1981 and currently resides in Oakland, California and has described herself as a ‘queer Social Justice activist’ and an editorial writer. One of her heroes is Assata Shakur. Garza lauds Shakur’s contributions to the ‘Black Liberation Movement’.

For those unfamiliar with that name, Shakur is a Marxist revolutionary, a member of the Black Liberation Army, and a former Black Panther. In 1972, Shakur and an associate shot and killed a New Jersey State Trooper and injured another. In 1977, Shakur was convicted of seven felonies, including the murder of the State Trooper. In 1979, Shakur escaped prison and fled to Cuba in 1984, where she sought political asylum. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie called for her extradition earlier in 2016.

Garza’s view is that Black Lives Matter is about reviving the Black Liberation Movement and subsequent theology. Garza sees Black Lives Matter as a vehicle for the promotion of “Black queer and trans folks”. Garza’s rationale is that these groups, “bear a unique burden in a hetero-patriarchal society that disposes of us like garbage and simultaneously fetishizes us and profits off of us.”

Speaking of profits, Garza directs the Special Project at the National Domestic Workers Alliance, which is a coalition of, “nannies, housekeepers and care workers”. This organization is a 501(c)3 which has received over $50,000 from George Soros’ Tides Foundation, who has also been a major funding source for Black Lives Matter. The group received $10,000 in 2013 and $40,804 in 2014.

Garza is also noted to be the on the Board for People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER), a Board member of the School of Unity and Liberation (SOUL) and she was the Board Chair in 2011 for the Right to the City Alliance (RTCA). All of these organizations are well-funded and appear have over-lapping partnerships, funding sources, and alliances.

About Opal Tometi

Born in 1984 and raised in Phoenix, Arizona, Opal Tometi is the daughter of two Nigerian immigrants who are alleged to have entered the United States illegally. She attended the University of Arizona, where she graduated with a BA in history and an MA in communications & advocacy. Tometi now resides in Brooklyn, New York. While her two other co-founding partners are gay, Tometi is straight.

Tometi currently is the Executive Director a Black Alliance for Just Immigration (BAJI), which is a 501(c)3 non-profit based in Oakland, California. Tometi has been involved with BAJI since 2011. Tometi’s bio at BAJI says she is a “Black feminist writer, communications strategist and cultural organizer.”

BAJI is a documented front group for the socialist and Marxist-Leninist group, the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO).

BAJI has received funding from George Soros’ Tides Foundation and from NEO Philanthropy, a Left-leaning group whose mission is, “to increase funding for cutting-edge strategies that advance social change.”

Supplementing her role at BAJI, Tometi is also involved with a network called Black Organizing for Leadership and Dignity (BOLD). This organization primarily teaches black activists how to build a “social justice infrastructure.” and “organize black communities more effectively”.

BOLD appears to be aligned with The Praxis Project, which is a, “a nonprofit movement support intermediary that helps to build power in communities to improve health justice across the United States.” According to 2013 IRS filings, The Praxis Project pulled in $2,175,451 in total revenue with only just over $67,000 of that being from grants.

Tometi has a local connection to North Carolina. She serves at BOLD with Durham Black Lives Matter organizers and former Durham School Board member, Sendolo Diaminah. Diaminah resigned from the Durham School Board earlier this year after missing more than two-thirds of the meetings due to his ‘activist roles’ and ‘travel’.

Tometi is also a board member of the Puente Human Rights Movement, a group whose main purpose appears to be opposing any efforts that might stagnate the flow of illegal immigrants into the country.

Formed in 2007, the Puente Human Rights Movement website stated that, “Our membership and leadership has always been comprised of those most impacted by anti-immigrant policies and laws: currently and formerly undocumented people, those in mixed-status families, and people of color affected by rampant racial profiling.”

About Patrisse Cullors

Cullors was born in Los Angeles, California in 1984 describes herself on her website as an “artist, organizer, and freedom fighter” and also a “self-described wife of Harriet Tubman.” She holds a degree in Philosophy and Religion from UCLA and was a Fulbright Scholar. Cullors also says she is a performance artist.

Cullors is also extremely pro-Palestine, signing the “2015 Black Solidarity Statement with Palestine“, which portrayed Palestine as a victim while demonizing any actions taken by Israel and likened the detention of Palestinians to the incarceration of blacks in the United States. Cullors also traveled to Palestine under the Black Lives Matter banner to meeting in ‘solidarity’ with those that Cullors says are ‘under occupation’ by Israel.

Is Anyone But Me Surprised? — Part II

Blacks represent about 13% of the population and 26% of the people killed by police. Black Lives Matter, the press, politicians frequently repeat this as evidence of systemic bias against blacks.  This is a lie repeated.

A lie repeated

According to the study, Officer characteristics and racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings, (

We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings…

Instead, race-specific crime strongly predicts civilian race.

The study is well documented and verified and published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the official journal of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

The study is a long, complex, scientific analysis and I encourage reading in its entirety.  However, the following example, uses round numbers to illustrate the study’s general concept.

Pretend there is a mythical country with a population of 100,000,000 people and that blacks represent about 13% of the population or 13,000,000 people.

Now let’s say there are 1,000 people involved in violent crime incidents.  100 of those are killed by police of which 26 are black whereas based on percentage of population, it should have only been 13.

13 is 0.0001% of 13 million people.

 0.0001% isn’t evidence of racial bias.  It isn’t evidence of anything!

If you wanted to do an analysis of people who have drowned swimming, you would not include people who have never been swimming in their lives.  If you did, the ridiculously obvious conclusion would be that people who never go swimming don’t drown while swimming.

The only valid base for analyzing drowning while swimming is the number of people who go swimming. 

The only valid base for analyzing people killed while involved in violent crime situations is the number of people involved in violent crime.

However, 75% of people in the U.S. have no contact with police and most others have no contact other than traffic.

According to the PNAS study, when bench marking people who have been involved in incidents of violent crime instead of total population, anti-Black disparities in Fatal Officer Involved Shootings (FOIS) disappear or even reverse. 

There may be evidence of systemic racism, but this is not it.





Is Anyone But Me Surprised? — Part I



I don’t know anyone who does not feel that police who abuse their power such as those in the George Floyd death should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Black Lives Matter (BLM), the press, and politicians state vociferously that this is evidence of systemic bias against blacks rather than an isolated incident about a few “bad apples.”[1]

The media and political rhetoricians provide names of others, but I started to notice they were repeating the same five or six names…most of which are years old.

However, anecdotal evidence is notoriously weak and often represents a logical fallacy.   I began to wonder just how many blacks are killed by police every year.  Based on the headlines, I figured it had to be in the thousands…maybe hundreds of thousands in a country of 321 million people.

Is anyone but me surprised to know?

It is less than 250?

Not 250 thousand, not even one thousand…250 — per year!  So far, through half of 2020 it is 88.

Number of people shot to death by the police in the United States from 2017 to 2020, by race

FOIS Graph

The black population of the U.S. is about 41 million.  250 is 0.0006% of 41 million.

Is anyone but me surprised to know that, by this standard, systemic racial bias in the United States of America of 0.0006% — rounds to zero?

Systemic Racial Bias in the U.S. — Rounds to Zero

This is of course based on one statistic.  There may be other ways to validate systemic racial bias, but since this is the one being trumpeted by media, politicians and BLM, I started there.

We’ll address some of those in future posts.  I know.  Big surprise.



[1] Nothing about looking logically at this emotional issue should be construed as supporting racism.  In fact, we cannot expect to change racist behavior including crime unless we evaluate it objectively.  I have attempted to list sources, verify their credentials and that their data and analysis meets accepted scientific disciplines.  I have attempted to separate those from my opinions.  I am cool if you want to respectfully and rationally disagree with sources, credentials, data and analytical disciplines or my opinions.  If you want to go on a childish emotional rant, that is what got us into this mess.  Please forward those to “File 13”.

Udderly Ridiculous II

women soccer

I made a mistake giving women’s soccer the benefit of the doubt on wage discrimination without enough of an investigation. Apparently, they are not only paid significantly more than they should be based on the revenue they generate (1/10th of that for men’s soccer), but their league itself is subsidized by the men’s league.

Maybe these athletahs  have taken too many soccer balls to the head.

Here is an analysis that says it better than I can in case you’re interested.


Udderly Ridiculous

The digital ink was barely dry on my monitor after we castrated the mythical gender wage gap when someone raised the specter of the gender pay gap in Hollywood and professional sports.  Every time I read an article on this inane topic my first thought is to check The Onion to be sure the article wasn’t tongue-in-cheek and I missed it. The topic would be hilarious if people weren’t taking these jokes seriously.

To start with, am I the only one who sees the irony of multi-millionaires using a socialist argument to increase their filthy lucre?  (Titus 1:11 — yes, in the Bible.  I am not a heathen.) How it is an actress like Jennifer Lawrence is not using at least one of her faces to announce she is redistributing the $48 million she was paid when she was 27? When is enough, not enough for socialists? (sarcasm font)

To be fair, we can’t expect this ninth grade dropout who has never had any job except make-believe to understand how the real world works.  I am not sure that she ever understood, but at one point she did say that she got paid less because she did a poor job of negotiating.

Show of hands – everyone who believes cutthroat movie moguls are delighted to pay “people with dicks” (Jennifer’s words, not mine) more than they have to?  Turns out they do discriminate though – against people with poor negotiating skills regardless of gender.

'Once they noticed your tail wagging, they stopped upping their offer.'

How about professional sports?  Is it fair that the prize money for say, PGA (male) golfers is so much higher than for LPGA (ladies)?  Same question for professional tennis.

First Question

Why pay people to play games they love anything at all?

We do so because millions of people pay billions of dollars to attend, watch and buy related stuff.  Statistics on how many people watch and how much is made in ticket prices, TV contracts and advertising dollars are a maze so I will use U.S. average TV viewership of major golf tournaments as a proxy to make the point.  You have to go through seven men’s tournaments and about 34 million viewers before you get to the largest women’s tournament viewership at 800 thousand.  Note that the largest women’s tournament generates a little more than half of the 7th largest men’s tournament.  If that ratio holds true for all revenues generated, male prize money should be more than 34 times larger than that for the ladies.


The same holds true for other major sports with the possible exception of soccer where women are awesome and the men act like little girls when they get boo boos.

Professional tennis ignored economics and bowed to social pressure several years back so that men’s and women’s prize money is equal in all major tournaments.

The article, “Yes, Tennis Earnings at the Majors are Biased.  Against the Men”  includes comments by the Serbian star Novak Djokovic arguing prize money should be “fairly distributed” based on “who attracts more attention, spectators, and who sells more tickets.” Ion Tiriac, the owner of the Madrid Open, joined the chorus, arguing that it made no sense for him to pay women the same when they produced so much less in TV revenue.

John McEnroe, who was an obnoxious brat as a player has become a great commentator.  Much like Johnny Miller in golf, he often offends politically correct snowflakes by – the horror – telling the truth and, in public no less!  This was the exchange on CBS about Serena Williams:

McEnroe: Best female player ever — no question.

Garcia-Navarro: Some wouldn’t qualify it, some would say she’s the best player in the world. Why qualify it?

McEnroe: Oh! Uh, she’s not, you mean, the best player in the world, period?

Garcia-Navarro: Yeah, the best tennis player in the world. You know, why say female player?

McEnroe: Well because if she was in, if she played the men’s circuit she’d be like 700 in the world.

laugh mouse

“The Los Angeles Times, CBS, and other news outlets ran stories with headlines like, “John McEnroe refuses to apologize for Serena Williams’ comments,” insinuating that anyone who doesn’t agree with the insane proposition that Williams could beat the likes of Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal should apologize. Gotcha!”

Most reasonable people recognize the absurdity of claiming that female and male athletes are equal.

Chris Evert, clearly one of the all-time great female players, once admitted

she couldn’t beat her brother, Drew,

a collegiate player who never made it on the male tour.

But for those who don’t, there is an easy way to prove their point and let women earn equal prize money.  Combine the men’s and women’s sports, let the women play as equals and see what that does to their earnings.  Wait, let me get out of the way so I don’t get hurt in the stampede.


In the land of milk and honey, I applaud women who want to earn more honey.  But to earn equal honey, Honey they need to figure out how to produce more milk.

milk dud

Equal Work for Equal Pay


If women are really paid 77% of what men are paid for the same job,

why don’t employers hire only women and

reduce their staffing expense by 23%?

Seriously.  Can any socialist really believe that money hungry, capitalist pigs running any business, anywhere would refuse to increase profits by 23%?  If women really will do the exact same work for 23% less, why don’t at least women owned businesses hire only women?  Is it fear of long lines in the ladies’ rooms?  I am gobsmacked when a supposedly intelligent person talks about the “gender pay gap” as if it were real.  Dude!  Go buy a unicorn.

To support equality, in honor of Women’s History Month, I have decided provide a free math lesson.  In the spirit of diversity, this class is free not just to women, many of whom are more calculating than I am, but to anyone who has trouble understanding 2nd grade math regardless of the shape of their skin.

Some of you saying “Crap.  I hate math.  They promised me I would never have to use math again after high school. “


Sorry about that chief, but a word to the unwise.  Don’t open any email from African princes.

Today’s lesson is: 

Understanding the Equal Sign

I completely support equal work for equal pay.

Hmmm – “Something doesn’t sound quite right but I can’t quite put my trigger finger on it.”

Wait – I know, it is supposed to be “equal pay for equal work”.  That is the way the politicians phrase it.  If you can’t trust a politician – uh…wait.

Lesson One Oh One: 

An equation is a statement that two values are equal

(indicated by the sign =). 


Lesson One Oh Two:

If two values are equal, the equation is valid

regardless of which side of the = sign the components are on.

If the political slogan “equal pay for equal work” is stated mathematically, it would be “Pay = Work” and would be the same as “Work = Pay”.

See.  Math is easy.

Now that we understand equations and the word “equal”, life and math is easy.

Except for being congenital liars and devious manipulators, surely the politicians must actually mean “equal”, right?  After all they use the word equal twice same rhetorical device. Right?

But just to be sure, it is best to define every single f***ing word they say.  (sarcasm font)

Equal:    “like in value (quantity, quality, rank, ability, merit, etc.)

Pay:       “value of total compensation (wages, salary, commission, perks, etc.)

Work:    “value of performance (exertion, labor or activity)”

Like-value of work = like-value of pay.


Like-value of pay = like-value of work.

Same; same.

Many politicos claim that the mythical gender wage gap is that women are paid only 77 cents for every 100 cents paid to men.  The problem with this equation is that it does not include the value of “work” – or for that matter, the word “work”.  Tricky, huh?

Gender wage lie

Those political prestidigitators are employing sleight-of-mouth with words that imply equal work for equal pay for every individual but with math describing total pay of all “womenkind” versus total pay of all “menkind” while ignoring the work part.  This would more accurately be called a “Gender Payment Gap”.

What is the difference?  If we used a sample of 50 nurses and 50 doctors it wouldn’t surprise you if there was a pay gap because you know that those are different jobs and that doctors are typically paid more.  There are more male doctors than female doctors.  So, there is a pay gap between men and women in these fields but it has nothing to do with gender.  To test this, we will follow the “feminazi” creed and eliminate the men.  Wallah!  The same pay gap exists between female nurses and female doctors.  The gap is about the job, not the gender.

But, I heard it on the grapevine that there is still a gap between female and male doctors.  True, but not all doctors are equal either.  Surgeons are paid more than general practitioners.  Would it surprise anyone to know that only 19% of surgeons are female?  Once again, there is a gap between genders, but it is due to differences in jobs, not gender.

Further, not all surgeons are the same.  There is over a $100,000 gap between orthopedic surgeons and general surgeons.

Okay, okay, okay.  But, what about female and male surgeons within exactly the same specialty, exactly the same education, exactly the same experience, etc.?

Assuming you get all of the etceteras, I am with you.  If you can find two such exactly equal surgeons, it would wrong to pay them differently based on gender.  In fact it is illegal has been in the U.S. since 1963.  That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen to some individuals somewhere, some times, but those are rounding errors when considering the universe of women and men.

Now, everyone who passed our little math class agrees that both sides of an equation have to be equal in order to be equal.  Therefore, we have proven scientifically that there is no such thing as the gender wage gap.   You are welcome.

As a public service, let’s explore the gender pay gap.  What do women need to do if they want to eliminate the difference in total pay between the total people in both genders?

First, women have to die.

I know that seems extreme, but it is just math, not misogyny.  Women account for only 7% of workplace deaths.  And – that does not include long term effects of things like Agent Orange, black lung disease and asbestosis.   Women need to seriously up their peril participation in higher-paying dangerous occupations such as coal miners, construction workers and explosive technicians.  Clearly, women must strive for higher work mortality rates.  For a while, of course they have to contribute way more than 50% of the body count to catch up in their come-from-behind battle to become equal.  Go team.

hear me roar

It is easy to argue that women are smarter not to put themselves in harm’s way, sit back in comfy, safe, lower pressure, lower paying jobs and collect beaucoup insurance bucks over the long haul.  Brilliant strategy.  Of course, if the disproportionate life insurance proceeds women receive as a result of their spouses’ early deaths are added to the female side or subtracted from the male side of the “equal pay” part of the equation, it could eliminate the gap without any delicate flowers risking their petals working on oil rigs in the North Atlantic.

For the persistent and Denzel Washington fans, there are numerous other equalizers.  Here is a list of 19 more, but don’t plan on spending any quality time with the kids any time soon. That is one of the things women tend to trade for higher pay.

If supporting equal work for equal pay makes me a feminist, burn my bra.

burn bra

On the other hand, anyone perpetuating the female stereotype by regurgitating emotional, illogical gender wage gap rhetoric is no friend to women.

get away


Be Careful What You Ask For

Once AOC has eliminated all female and male differences,

The logical course for businesses is to replace all men with women

Who are willing to do the same jobs for 23% less.

Oh.  Wait.  I forgot.  That was a lie.

liar pants on fire