HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » lumberjack_jeff » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »

lumberjack_jeff

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Olympia, WA
Member since: Tue Nov 4, 2003, 08:02 PM
Number of posts: 29,827

Journal Archives

Interesting table. The median man's wage has dropped .7% each year since 2007.

File that under "I wonder why they don't vote for us"

From the study
http://www.epi.org/publication/stagnant-wages-in-2014/

Posted by lumberjack_jeff | Fri Apr 24, 2015, 05:09 PM (0 replies)

"All indications that the Coast Guard has is that this guy seems to be telling the truth"

In another thread, there is a great deal of speculation that Louis Jordan faked the capsize of his 37' sailboat and/or abandoned it 500 miles from shore because... something.

There was too much misinformation in that thread.

  1. why no obvious exposure? - because he wasn't exposed. This was a boat with an enclosed cabin, a place of relative safety during bad weather.
  2. why no hypothermia? - because the water off North Carolina is currently about 60 degrees... and because #1
  3. if it capsized, why didn't it sink? Capsize simply means knocked down - rolled 90 degrees. Decent cruising sailboats won't flood due to a knockdown alone. His boat was apparently rolled 360 and dismasted (which disabled the radio antenna), which is obviously worse, but normally survivable.
  4. Food? Water? Dry bibles? This was his home. It was a liveaboard, equipped with quite a bit of canned food, and probably had at least 30 gallons of water aboard. Could you survive in your home for 66 days without assistance?
  5. if it rolled over, why did it return upright? Because boats, especially monohull sailboats are designed to do that.



https://www.yahoo.com/health/health-fact-checker-does-it-add-up-south-carolina-115677168942.html
While his story sounds farfetched to the general public — and even some of his rescuers — experts say it’s completely plausible.

“All indications that the Coast Guard has is that this guy seems to be telling the truth,” says Petty Officer 2nd Class Nate Littlejohn of the United States Coast Guard, who is familiar with his organization’s ongoing case study of Jordan’s adventure.

Jordan was inside a sailboat — after initially capsizing his boat eventually righted itself — which offered him protection from the sun, Littlejohn points out to Yahoo Health. “He conserved his energy. It’s possible he found a way to manage his calories and that the freshwater he was able to get ahold of was in abundance.”

Jordan also lived on his boat, which was a huge asset during his ordeal, says survival expert Joseph Alton, MD, author of the best-selling “The Survival Medicine Handbook.” He was an experienced fisherman, and had a solid water supply and most of his worldly possessions with him at sea. “If anyone could survive that amount of time without terrible physical effect it would be him,” Alton tells Yahoo Health.

Alton says three major factors work against people when they’re lost at sea—exposure to the elements, lack of water, and lack of food. Jordan had protection from the sun and wind on his boat, which was a huge plus for him. People lost at sea typically develop severe sunburn on their skin and in their corneas in an eye condition known as photokeratitis, says Alton: “That can dramatically reduce their ability to function.”

Jordan was also seemingly smart with his water supply. “You can’t live very long without water, but if you start rationing it immediately, you end up buying yourself more time,” says Alton, who points out that someone can go 24 hours without water and then survive on 12 ounces a day afterward. The water supply that Jordan already had onboard likely helped him to survive longer before he had to drink the rainwater he says he caught in buckets.


No doubt there were parts of the story that were embellished or misreported. He wasn't retrieved from his inverted hull, for instance.
Posted by lumberjack_jeff | Mon Apr 6, 2015, 04:37 PM (2 replies)

30 days for raping a student and disseminating sexually explicit materials to kids.

You can probably guess the relevant parts of the rest of the story, but here's the link anyhow.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/05/teacher-sex-30-days-candy_n_7006672.html?cps=gravity_2425_5179944124079579358

At her sentencing hearing last Friday, Ginnetti cried in court while reading a letter of apology. The judge then compared explicit photos of the woman to "dangling candy" in front of her victim, the Bucks County Courier Time reports.

“What young man would not jump on that candy?” Page said.

Ginnetti now works at a gym as a fitness instructor. She said in court that she regularly volunteers at her church, and is rebuilding her relationship with her husband and three children.

"I don't believe you're a bad human being," Page told Ginnetti. "You did a bad act. So I have to punish you."


Posted by lumberjack_jeff | Sun Apr 5, 2015, 02:41 PM (6 replies)

Have you ever been propositioned by a woman for the purpose of pregnancy?

This thread is inspired by a comment in another thread suggesting that the belief "that men should control their fertility vigilantly" is a misogynist view because "women tricking men into sex to get pregnant is a misogynist myth".

The implied primary audience for this poll is straight men.

Posted by lumberjack_jeff | Wed Mar 18, 2015, 02:05 PM (7 replies)

NYT: Democrats Count on Edge With Women to Limit Election Losses

WASHINGTON — Democrats are nervously counting on an enduring edge among female voters in most states to prevent a Republican rout in Tuesday’s elections. Yet so great is the uncertainty that even before the returns are in, some are second-guessing the party’s strategy of focusing more on issues like abortion and birth control than on jobs and the economy.

The danger for Democratic candidates is that their advantage among women could be so reduced by dissatisfaction with President Obama and the country’s course that it is not enough to offset Republicans’ usual edge among the smaller population of male voters. Should that happen, a party pollster, Geoff Garin, acknowledged, “They’ll lose.”

But he and other Democratic strategists professed optimism, however tempered, for the party’s imperiled Senate majority, among other things. Mr. Garin pointed to surveys of states with the most competitive Senate contests showing that on average Democratic candidates lead among women by about 12 points, while men favor the Republican by an average of nine points. Since women account for more than half the electorate, Democrats theoretically can withstand some erosion of support.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/01/us/democrats-count-on-edge-with-women-to-limit-election-losses.html
Posted by lumberjack_jeff | Sat Nov 1, 2014, 12:47 PM (2 replies)

Child abuse, intimate partner violence, and reciprocity.

Intimate partner violence has been studied extensively, and one of the most repeatable conclusions of that research is that most IPV is reciprocal, and that women (especially adolescents) are at least as likely to use violence in their relationships as men are. The difference is that as that cycle of violence escalates, the women involved are more likely to suffer significant injury, and especially if the violent relationship is reciprocal.

Another well established result of IPV studies is that kids in violent relationships are more likely to themselves perpetrate violence against their partners when they grow up.

Domestic violence isn't a women's issue, it is a social issue. So long as kids continue to live in households in which violence exists, they will repeat that behavior when they grow up.

There's an argument to be made that the kind of chronic low level violence that never erupts into injury and incarceration is MORE damaging to kids psychological wellbeing because it sets the expectation that violence in your relationship is without consequence.

At Christmas, my son and his live-in girlfriend (they live about an hour from us) were bantering and joking in the kitchen about something silly. I saw her make a quick motion out of the corner of my eye when he dropped to the floor in pain. She had apparently punched him in the balls. I walked over to see what was going on, and they were both laughing, but he was in actual pain. I haven't had an opportunity to talk to him alone about this but I will as soon as possible. A violent relationship only requires one of the parties involved to be acculturated to the idea that hitting your partner is okay.

The entire spectrum of violence must be addressed to prevent it from being normalized in the next generation.
Posted by lumberjack_jeff | Wed Jan 1, 2014, 12:05 PM (25 replies)

The irony of this statistic is that it was uncontroversial when being used in a "girl power" sense

as in "Rush Limbaugh! Sense the power of our collective anger!"

Then you begin to see it used (apparently seriously) in contexts like this: "Women control 60% of the wealth? When will men stop oppressing us?"

I think it's reasonable for readers to see that and have a bit of a "hold up there" reaction. At that point it apparently became "MRA bullshit".

I don't know where 60%, 70% or 80% come from. My guess is they were pulled out of various ad executive's asses to justify an ad campaign for products like chick beer.

So, based on a link provided by Hfojvt to the census bureau, I crunched the numbers they collected (number of male, female and married households, the percentage of which are within various tiers of wealth and the average wealth within that tier), and it indicates that, rounded to three significant digits, women control 51.9% of the wealth.

There are probably a bunch of ways of computing a result. The census bureau is the one I used.

So, 60% is wrong. "Most" is not.

Does that shoot a large enough hole in marketing executives arguments to get them to stop selling trucks painted "mango tango pearl"? I hope so.
Posted by lumberjack_jeff | Sat Dec 28, 2013, 11:37 PM (1 replies)

Cost of a 1 pack a day habit, by state, at 100% of FPL

Posted by lumberjack_jeff | Fri Dec 13, 2013, 08:28 PM (35 replies)

Blackstone's formulation

Is a fundamental principle of our system of justice; to protect its legitimacy, it's better to err on the side of caution and not punish the innocent even if some guilty people may go free.

Blackstone was a judge in England in the 1700's. He wrote:
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"


He wasn't the first though... that basic principle had been in place since the 1400's. In fact, the Salem witch trial judge, Increase Mather said, "it were better that ten suspected Witches should escape, than that one innocent Person should be Condemned.", and "(I) would rather judge a Witch to be an honest woman, than judge an honest woman as a Witch,"

Ben Franklin was of the opinion that the proper ratio was 100:1. John Adams described the reason for this; '(if)it is immaterial to (a person) whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever". In other words, If justice is unjust and simply a matter of luck and caprice, there's no reason to respect laws at all.

On the other end of the spectrum are utilitarians who would say that it doesn't matter, so long as the mass of people are content, or authoritarians like Bismarck and Pol Pot (better to see 10 innocent convicted than one guilty go free) or totalitarians like the founder of the Soviet secret police ("Better to execute ten innocent men than to leave one guilty man alive." - because "When you cut down the forest, woodchips fly."). How about this from modern Columbia; "Better to condemn an innocent man than to acquit a guilty one, because among the innocent condemned there may be a guilty man."?

So, what's your personal "Blackstone's number"? How many guilty should go free to prevent injustice to innocents?
Posted by lumberjack_jeff | Fri Dec 6, 2013, 12:55 AM (9 replies)

Guys: How many of you have experience as a stay-at-home dad?

Kind of a three-part question.

It seems to me that the essential questions are:
1) are those who are in a position to consider that a realistic choice privileged?
2) do cultural norms/policy/institutions act to discourage men from making that choice?
Posted by lumberjack_jeff | Mon Oct 7, 2013, 04:58 PM (16 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »