For anyone who’s ever dabbled in that rather flawed argument for “Gender Salary Equality” ... here’s the real-life example that highlights PERFECTLY why it’s wrong to simply pay 2 people the same just because today’s overly PC society is trying to insist that it’s sexist/racist/”any-other-ist” to do otherwise.

The truth of the matter is highlighted so perfectly in this article. Employers & employees need to be able to negotiate based on everything they bring to the table (and experience-in-the-job is just part of that negotiation).

If one candidate has more experience in a roll, that should not necessarily result in a salary that’s higher than someone. Regardless of your gender, race, etc., as a candidate for a new job or a promotion you need to think of your experience as one of the chips you’ll play when it comes time to negotiate your compensation.

As such, you also need to understand (and should accept that) your skill at the negotiation table is going to play a big part in whether you get paid more than, as much as, or less than anyone else who’s ever been considered for a similar role at the same organization.

Furthermore (and perhaps most importantly), the rhetoric of Gender Pay Equality (or inequality) is actually a two-sided coin. In the overly PC echo-chamber that we seem to be living nowadays, most folks only seem to have jumped on the headline-grabbing argument that salary-practices are globally unfair to women, colored folks, other minorities, etc. However, consider the following for a moment, and understand the very beneficial flip-side to this coin...

...if you’re one of the final 2 candidates for a given position and you’re made a lower offer than a white male (for example) to fulfill the same role, even though you have the same or more experience; who do you think is the more attractive candidate? Who do you think the hiring manager (responsible not only for bringing in the right expertise, but also for managing departmental budgets) will prefer to welcome aboard? This is just another business decision, and the economics is simple: if they can get the same/more experience for a lower price... CONGRATULATIONS, you got the job (by undercutting the white male candidate who priced himself out of the market). Now stop your complaining about wanting all men, women, colors, etc. to be extended equal offers. Instead, take a few minutes to realize that your willingness to negotiate on price (rather than just trying to negotiate on experience) has scored you a job, while the other candidate is still unemployed or without a promotion.

Here’s another example of society’s need to hate. It highlights our sound-bite social media culture, in which folks like cast themselves as being so virtuous & perfect ... while casting damning judgement on everyone else via meme or sound-bite such as to promote whatever toxic propaganda they choose to sling.

As ever, mainstream media seems just as happy to help perpetuate.

In this latest example (”The Great Lysol/Conronavirus Debate”) what the media--both social & mainstream--decide to broadcast are excepts from a press briefing that show the President of the United States talking about flushing the human body with disinfectant as an hypothetical approach destroying coronavirus. Taken as a sound-bite it sounds absolutely ludicrous. Needless to say, taken without any further context, this short comment is gold to any publication that makes its money by serving audiences of people who wish for a change in President. Similarly, the same sound-bite is a dream come true for social media haters who get-off on the virtual accolades that are awarded so freely & moronically within their eco-chamber.

However, wait a minute. Just step back from the eco-chamber for a moment and try to have an independent, unbiased and respectful thought for one moment. It would appear that the sound-bite comment being broadcast within the confines of what the publisher wishes his audience to see is actually part of some contemporaneous conversation that the President was having with William N. Bryan (a man whose role with the Department of Homeland Security is, "Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary for Science and Technology (DHS)”).

To those with even the slightest of open/unbiased mind, knowing about the broader context of this interaction which was going on with Mr Bryan (in real time, there on the stage at the press briefing), one can see so clearly this was not a suggestion for individuals to start injecting themselves with Lysol (as the social media trolls have since decreed). Rather, it was an off-the-cuff expression of support for those in scientific fields who dare to think outside of the box and who work on radically different (and sometimes seemingly absurd) approaches to problems that are proving too difficult for the normal solutions.

However, because so many media outlets only wish to air the excepts of these briefings that serve their own ends (i.e. the excepts that will be blindly lapped up by web-trolls and haters), they simply neglect to provide the world with the full context that might allow everyone the chance to form a more open-minded and respectful conclusion about what was really meant.

Here’s another one ... another non-story!

People make mistakes and sometimes the folks in charge simply aren’t up to date with all the crazes & trends that are popular with the kids.

Is it funny? Yes. Is it something worthy of international outrage and cries of racism? Absolutely not. Folks need to stop being so sensationalist and making mountains out of molehills (especially where the molehill doesn’t even really exist).

Yet another example of people looking to manufacture feelings of victimization where no such sentiment ever existed.

Another great example of people missing the point. This article has certainly been getting its fair share of exposure in the “World of the Dumb” aka the Newsfeed...and, unfortunately, once again it seems to be the same lemmings following each other to decry how this story shines an apparently inescapable spotlight on the injustices of a bigoted police force who endlessly discriminate against people of color.

Once again, I’m here to call out this ignorant and short-sighted hype. Oh how easy it must be for these folks to scroll mindlessly through their newsfeed, spot a headline & picture with all the hallmarks of a new outrageous injustice, then note the “expert” peer-review (by way of emoticons and 1-liner soundbites in the Comments section) by their similarly short-sighted friends, before giving a cursory skim through the content themselves. All in a matter of a few seconds, they have added their own denouncement and expression of disbelief for the world to see. Now they can relax, having “done their part to expose injustice, while letting everyone know that they won’t stand by and let this stuff go unaccounted for.”

Well, congratulations. If this describes your thoughts and actions upon seeing this article in your newsfeed, then you’re a bonafide member of the moronic and that comment you posted for the world to see was not just absent of thought, it was flat-out irresponsible.

Truth be told, the article itself is a valuable one to read. It is indeed packed with important lessons and the title, “Lifesaving advice…” is spot on. This article absolutely imparts lifesaving advice. There’s no real need to call out the color of the woman who imparts the advice, but a little bit of sensationalism doesn’t seem too unreasonable. After all, it’s important to get folks to pay attention, so we’ll let it slide that the author decided to play a race-card to catch people’s eye.

So what’s the real lesson from this article? What are the responsible and well considered conclusions that should be drawn (in the absence of a bandwagon to jump on, in the world of “Love me, Like my Newsfeed”)?

It’s simple really. This isn’t about race. It doesn’t matter what color the storyteller is. What really underpins the incidents in this article is the fact that the Police carry guns and criminals are devious & violent.

The storyteller writes, “I don’t think I should move” and “being mindful not to raise my voice” when describing how she first responds to the policeman pointing the gun at her. BRAVO! These are the first indispensable tips in the storyteller’s lifesaving advice column. To put it another way, Step #1 when confronted by a Police Officer: be polite and courteous. Do not make rash movements and do not shout or get angry. Honestly, this should be the default behavior regardless of whether the officer is holding a gun. However, especially if there is a gun pointing at you, now is not the time for taking the moral high ground. Now is not the time for being self-righteous. Now is not the time to go on a crusade against injustice or to be telling the officer how to do his job. Nor is it the time to shouting about your rights. Now IS the time to keep a cool head and to capitulate.

There are 3 known things to keep in mind at this point (assuming, as in the article, you’ve done nothing wrong):

1.   The officer does not want to shoot you

2.   Everything will get cleared up and sorted out (even though it may not be done in the most pleasant or speedy fashion)

3.   The officer is nervous and doesn’t want to get assaulted or shot (and criminals have been know to carry guns and to shoot at the Police)

It’s this last point that holds the key to why the Police Officer behaves the way he does.

Let’s face it, criminals are devious and this comes at the expense of the rest of society. Unfortunately, because the criminal will not simply give himself up and accept defeat in such a situation, the Police Officer has little choice but to doubt everybody. In this article, the woman was innocent and she was telling the truth about owning the car and having the proper legal documentation. However, it is by no way inconceivable that a criminal intent on stealing the car would not spin an identical tale if caught in the act. In fact, the Police Officer has probably heard all manner of such tall stories from criminals as they turn to their fast-talk in efforts to wriggle out of being busted. That being case, the officer has no choice but to proceed with extreme care and treat every word from the innocent mouth as though it could easily be a lie.

Think of it this way, if you came home and found that your car had been stolen and that the Police had been there, spoken with the thief, but let him drive off because he was too trusting, you’d string the copper up for incompetence. However, at the same time, woe betide the Police Officer who treats a misunderstanding with too much suspicion. In this regard, the Police Officer really is in a no-win situation.

Is this a Trump vs Barack issue, or 1st Black vs 44th White issue?

This is latest “story” doing the rounds that’s getting my goat. IMHO, this is yet another example of lazy media. People trying to spin stories that they know will play into popular emotion and, therefore, generate clicks from both sides of a divided audience. However, in reality, is there really a story here?

It’s obvious where the lure of this trending topic lies. And yet, even though the bait is clear for all to see, I am observing everyone in my social media feeds falling right into the trap.

Republicans are denouncing Dems by suggesting that all the Trump supporters are at work, doing real jobs, and so obviously can’t be there, while Dems are understandably quick to site this as evidence of some mass unpopularity and the related doom-times that must surely be ahead over the coming 4 years.

But, as usual, I see something completely different. To me, there’s no story here. This is more irresponsible “crowd riling” and, surely, anyone with half a brain (who takes a few mins to think about causality) will realise that it’s only to be expected that Barack Obama’s 2009 attendance might well outstrip that for Trump in 2017. It’s not a matter of popularity or unrest. It’s a matter of history.

People show up for monumental events. With all due respect, whether you're Rep or Dem, seeing a white guy inaugurated as President of the US is not really a monumental event. It basically happens every 4 years. If you miss it this time, you can pretty much be sure you'll have another chance next time.

With that in mind, I looked at the stats for Clinton's first time around - he got only 800K attendees...which was less than half the numbers seen in the rather impressive images being bandied around social media in today’s “Obama vs. Trump” pics. Apparently, Barack had 1.8m folks show up in 2009, a cool one million more than Bill Clinton...in spite of the fact that both Bill & Barack were similarly popular among the Dems at the time. The difference, of course, is that only one of those occasions afforded folks the opportunity to say, "I was there in person to see the first black guy inaugurated as POTUS." 

In short, seeing a coloured chap getting the job was a big deal, and there's only ever 1 chance to see that happen for the first time. If you wanted to be able to say, "I witnessed black history being made. I was there in person," you had to show up in 2009. Period. People would have known that at the time, so people showed up. Simple. It was undoubtedly going to be a huge draw, including for parents and schools wanting to take masses of kids. The same kind of draw seems unlikely if 2009 had yielded the 44th consecutive white bloke to get the job. In support of that statement, the numbers seem to suggest that attendance for Barack in 2013 was down massively...by almost half. Some 800K fewer people showed up to see him in 2013 than 2009. I’m sure there were other reasons that contributed, but one big fact was almost certainly because 2013 was the 2nd black inauguration, not the first. To be fair, this was still far FAR better than Clinton's 2nd term (a mere 250K), or Bush's 2nd term (only 400K).

Spoiler alert: the answer is a resounding, “NO!”

The latest example of our societal downward spiral into ridiculous PC came in this article published by the BBC. It would appear that we continue to slip into our nanny state, where anything and everything has something that someone wants to highlight as being offensive. It’s almost as though these people go deliberately out of their way to hunt out something—anything—to hang out for public shaming; claiming a pseudo moral high ground by trying to call attention to something that’s not actually there. Then, by making such a fuss of virtue, they leave the everyday observer thinking, “Blimey, I never gave 2 thoughts to that…I’d better keep my mouth shut, lest everyone else things I’m sexist/racist/bigoted/tarred with whatever brush.”

Without further ado, here’s the latest, fresh from the Rio Olympics:

-          Quote BBC: When US gymnast Simone Biles gave a storming performance on the uneven bars, an NBC commentator complimented her by saying: "I think she might even go higher than the men."

o   This is not a sexist comment. It’s a solid compliment. Traditionally, throughout the documented history of men’s and women’s sports, measured on equal scales, the men have almost always outperformed the women. Therefore, to highlight that this gymnast was outperforming the men was in fact the highest form of praise.

-          Quote BBC: American swimmer Katie Ledecky was praised as being the "female Michael Phelps"

o   Not sexist. This is another huge compliment. Michael Phelps is the most prolific swimmer of all times. As such, and regardless of sex, he is the benchmark for all swimmers to aspire to. Therefore, to be described as a female Michael Phelps is akin to being described as on a par with the most prolific swimmer of all times. There is nobody better than Michael Phelps and so, as a female Phelps, there is also nobody better than you (with, perhaps, the exception of Phelps himself – which seems like a fair caveat). In what twisted world is this not the highest form of praise? The only way that particular compliment could have been any higher would have been to say that she was better than Michael Phelps. Such a statement would obviously be ludicrous at this point in history and would, therefore, remove any value as a compliment.

-          Quote BBC: After Hungarian swimmer Katinka Hosszu won gold in the 400m individual medley with a new world record, a commentator referred to Hosszu’s partner, who is also her trainer, saying: "This is the man responsible."

o   Correct. This is nothing new. Athletes across all sports commonly refer to their coaches and trainers in this way. How many times have we heard a post-victory interview with the players when someone pipes up, “I/we owe it all to the Coach. It was their master strategy/training that got me/us through. I/we’d be nowhere without them.” The truth is that these athletes who compete and win at the highest levels do so on the finest margins, and they can rarely accomplish that alone. Yes, the natural talent is their own, and the effort, concentration, focus and hard work can only be borne by them. However, it takes an experienced coach to fine-tune the engine in order to get the very maximum performance that’s necessary to edge out the 2nd place athletes by the finest of margins.

-          Quote BBC: Corey Cogdell-Unrein, the bronze medal winner in trap shooting was referenced as the "Wife of a Bears' [American Football] linesman."

o   Not sexist. It’s a true statement. Nothing more than a general interest piece of commentary – given that much of this particular commentator’s audience were likely to be familiar with the NFL. Commentators at live events are often relied on to fill otherwise dead air with random facts, gossip, statistics, etc. This was merely an example of such throw-away tidbits. Such a comment adds an element of pseudo familiarity to an athlete who, despite her success in her field, is not likely to have been much heard of by the majority of the audience before these Olympics. Meanwhile, if they know and can relate to something in the athlete’s personal life, it builds an affinity and make their accomplishment even more meaningful. That said, the next time her husband plays in a televised Chicago Bears game, it’s not unreasonable to think that a savvy NFL commentator might make the reciprocal reference and point out to viewers that he is married to Corey Cogdell-Unrein, and remind us of how great it was to watch her become America’s bronze medal Olympian in the trap shoot in Rio over the summer. FTR, such a comment will not be sexist either.

All sides of any debate have their clueless sheep

Addendum to “Brexit and the EU”

This video has its genuine LoL moments. However, it serves a valuable lesson to all (regardless of stance on Brexit).

Intolerance and ignorance can generally be found among the supporters of all sides of a debate. That’s important to be conscious of for a number of reasons. Think about what this means for an otherwise impartial observer who might have been previously removed the situation. Such an individual is left at the mercy of mainstream media when starting to form his/her opinion.

Human nature finds us wanting to form opinions and to take sides. So, for those removed from the situation, opinions are often based on portrayals in the media.

During the Brexit debate, newsfeeds blew up with content singularly focused on apparent hatred and bigotry among the Leave supporters. This was to the exclusion of most other sentiment-based coverage.

When we analyse why this might have been so, it’s really not overly surprising (as discussed at greater length in the blog post titled, “Sensationalism vs. Journalism. Being Played for Suckers in this Dumbed-down Digital Era”).

People crafting these articles know what action they want their targets to take (they want the click) and they know with algorithmic certainty how to get it. Clicks make money – both for the journalist (in terms of performance metrics for measuring & proving their success) and for the websites that host the stories (in terms of driving up the cost of adwords clicks or other such digital revenue-generating tools). Therefore, rather than engaging it true journalistic endeavors to investigate & report on all facets (which requires real investment, but which does not play well to our 3-second attention-spans while scrolling through Newsfeed), they favour any attention-grabbing headlines and video footage...because that drives the “curiosity click” as well as the “outrage click” (and, in turn, drives social sharing).

However, as this video demonstrates, it’s rare that one side be so alone in its role as the villain, while the other sits similarly alone atop the moral high ground. That may be how it works in fantasy novels and Disney movies but, in reality, all sides will generally have their share of both.

Therefore, s/he who follows along like a clueless sheep that saw something shiny and attention-grabbing in a cellphone newsfeed, will surely be led to slaughter.

Think for yourself before raising a protest or lending a voice in support of something you’ve spent no real time concluding an opinion on.

Better to remain an impartial observer, removed from the situation, rather than to conclude so definitively one way or another based on a few snappy headlines served up via social media. Remember, the newsfeed is a scourge on independent thought...leaving us at the mercy of mainstream media (which is motivated by digital clicks, as opposed to the compelling, thought-out content of the true journalists of yesteryear).

Now then, on to the somewhat partisan funnies from this particular video. Click the play button and watch out for the following lines:

“The best thing about the EU is the NHS -- the BRITISH National Health Service.”

“Brexit means that the government will no longer pay for [her to] travel to France.”

"Virtue signalling and whinging on Facebook ISN'T THE SAME AS VOTING."

“Stop denouncing old people like you know more than them...This is the generation that fought and died for your freedom to vote in the first place.”

...and, of course, the classic,