Biden the so-called "Good" Catholic.

 I knew it was all just a facade to build an image.

Why expanding government services to aid newborns won't greatly reduce abortion rates.

 Ever since the overturn of Roe v Wade, many well-meaning Christians, whether Catholic or not, have immediately been turning to the talking point that if US government would just have better healthcare (they usually mean universal healthcare) and expanded on more childcare services (i.e. universal Early Childhood Education, maternity centers) that it would incentivize women to keep their baby. 

Full disclose: I am empathetic to ECE being integrated nationwide. 

One poster on Reddit said that since Roe v Wade is now gone that Catholics should now vote for Democrats because of their support for government aid and social services; these Catholics only saw the Republican Party as a one voter issue where their Pro-Life stance was the only thing that kept them from voting for the Democrats. (These probably are the ones that also suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome.)

I don't buy into this argument. If we look at this map even countries that have universal healthcare have a relatively high abortion rates per capita (i.e. UK, France, Sweden, Canada). Even then, welfare in the States and Canada has incentivize that if you fall below a certain annual salary threshold you're given money for each child you have. I know this because one I work in social services and two I have a family who's a physician that, at one time, had a patient that kept on having kids because she was being paid by the Canadian government for each kid since she was on welfare. She's the typical case of being a welfare queen.

I wish Milton Friedman was alive so he would talk some sense into these "gotta vote Democrat now because of the social services" Catholics/Christians. This isn't to say that Friedman was pro-life, but he surely question the assumptions of those who trust the Big Government for an easier life. 

Many who get abortions do get it because the baby is an inconvenience. Yes, they may list down "socioeconomic instability" or whatever as a the main driver to abort but like all surveys the question is flawed and not all-encompassing. Many in the States that abort are poor, are in their twenties and already have at least one other kid according to the Guttmacher Institute. If we put to and two together this tells me that many aren't making smart decisions - to withhold sex until marriage or to have sex when one is not ovulating. 

Furthermore, women have listed the following why they decided to get an abortion -

The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.

The "could not afford a baby now" is a relatively vague statement since it gives no standard on what income would be acceptable to have and raise a child. It's presented as a single factor where other factors are not put into affect such as responsibility and relationship problems.

As mentioned, if other countries such as Sweden, a rather socially "progressive" country with, ironically, a more restrictive abortion policy in comparison to the States, has a relatively high abortion rate per capita with universal healthcare then the connection between robust government social services in regards to newborns and health are specious at best. 

But what drives a woman to reject abortion? Not the aid of the state if I bet my money, but conscious and values. 

Compared to What? That's the Question Thomas Sowell Asks.

 Non-Americans and Americans alike, usually they lean left, are quick to point out issues found within the States. But compared to what? They act like the issue the US is facing is solely a US issue or that it's such an issue to a degree that's unique to the US. Take for example this post on Reddit written about a year ago by a non-American when an American brought up the fact that non-American rarely ever compliment the cultural impact it has on the world in the form of authors and music; usually non-Americans comment on the geography of the place.

But compared to what? Trump? Non-Americans think anything not Obama is a freak show or some white privileged person, so I don't take a European's opinion on Trump anymore seriously; I take it as seriously when a ten year old speaks about politics. Violence, death, hate, war? So what. All those can be found in Western Europe as well. If you don't live in the States then you don't have much of a right to criticize it for the things that you dock points from it. 

Antivaxxers? Who cares. In a place like America antivaxxers are allowed to voice their opinions. White supremacists? Same thing with antivaxxers - non-Americans are stunned to think such a group exists despite them being a minority. It's called difference of opinions. Poverty? Okay, and? Awful healthcare? The people who say this are non-Americans and people who are underemployed. Sorry but if you're gainfully employed and you know how to use your healthcare network healthcare in the States serves you with relative decency. US healthcare has its issues but to say it's awful, by a European, is showcasing your own ignorance. 

As for the "US had been in the news negatively for decades" that's probably more so the anti-American/weird fasciation with America Western Europeans have with the country. I heard Germany is relatively anti-American in its media. BBC is a shit show like CNN and MSNBC. I mean, what country is shown positively that's a global superpower? Not one. 

Another Example of LGBT+ Fragility

 

There is great irony to this all. A lesbian so gosh darn worried to live in "the Bible belt." I think she's more afraid and prejudiced against the South than the South are against her kind. 

With that said, I'd rather not she move to Charleston. I don't think she'd do any good there given her mentality. 

Online Meltdown By Leftists/Social "Progressives" Concerning the Overturning of Roe v. Wade

 Reddit -

Anti-Car People Part II

The zealotry of urban residents eats it own. Like the LGBT+ movement, it never truly reveals its hand all at once. 

What do I mean by this?

It's been the sentiment of urban residents, whether they're suburban or rural transplants, that it's a dream to not own a car because they can use public transportation in the form of busses and trains; and that the city they currently live in is walkable. But then something happened in the past five years or so.

These urban residents went to salivating over public transportation to bikes. If you listen carefully to their rhetoric they tend to focus on their preferred method of transportation versus their disdain for cars. Little mention to trains and busses. 

The "save mother Gaia" movement is a weird one. Many liked not owning a car because it saved them money and it helped reduce their carbon footprint. This is all good and I agree that not owning a car brings a certain type of freedom (you're not beholden to car maintenance, car insurance, gas prices, finding parking or paying for parking), but then they turned to electric cars to help further reduce air pollution. You'd think they'd be pleased by this. They were - sorta. 

Now I do agree that it's totally possible for each city in the US and its suburbs to become bike-friendly. I think the US would greatly benefit from it as a society. 

You see, it's not just busses and trains are provided, but that cars become electric. As the Go Green movement marched forward certain people like the Mayor of Emeryville - John Bauters - outright admits that he wants to deemphasize the use of cars despite his city being relatively car centric and to move to an "bike centric" city mindset. Even his public bio states that he's an enthusiastic bicyclist. Talk about forcing your secular beliefs down people's throats. This sorta kinda comes to no surprise given Emeryville is a city right outside Oakland, California. 

What's missing from this equation that there isn't much emphasis on balance. It's not enough to make cars electric - the Go Green movement ultimately wants cars to either become the minority mode of transportation even if its electric as they move society to a more European (think Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium). Sound familiar? 

These people tend to be of the same mindset that want the US to adopt universal healthcare and so-called free higher education.  They're the ones that use the moral relativism card in order to get their way - as with abortion and the normality of sodomy and other deviant sexual behaviors. But they turn a moral code when it comes to their own missions. Funny how that works out. 

Even in some urban residents say that they sorta kinda don't want to be dependent on public transportation schedules. This is where they prefer an e-scooter or biking if the place they need to go is longer than, say, 3 miles. They like the idea and the reality of getting on their scooter or bike and to come and go as they please. I guess public transportation, to a degree, has become the new car where some want to rid themselves of it. To some degree the scooter and bikes have slowly imbued the freedom that a car gives/gave to a person - the freedom to come and go as they please, but in an urban environment. 

As mentioned in the previous post, I am not opposed to America emphasizing bikes, walkability and the further investment in creating a more comprehensive and efficient bus and rail lines throughout the US. I encourage it. But the whole anti-car sentiment is a weird one given, that yes, the sense of actual freedom that makes the US unique is getting into a car and partaking in that classic American road trip that no other county is known for. In this case, I do not want to be dependent on the schedule of a train to get from LA to Boston. Flying would cover the same distance much quicker - even quicker than a bullet train. I'd rather hop in an electric car and go at my own pace. I want to stop in the middle of a deserted intersection in Utah or somewhere in Southwest America and embrace the vastness of the American landscape. On my own time. That's freedom. 

The Anti-Car People

 Are ignorant of history. 

They tend to admire the walkability of European cities - as do I - where many of these cities are "livable." I wish all American cities had more density and focused more on efficient public transportation - be it the combination of train, bus, cycling and foot traffic. 

I wish that, somehow, the suburbs could become less car centric with the transition from urban public transportation to the suburbs either become more seamless and thorough, or be created if they don't exist already.

I wish that swaths of parking lots found in the suburbs would shrink because the strength of the public transportation. Of course, more rural areas not withstanding. 

I wish many things that I want America to implement - the dream that interstate train transportation would reach Japan-like standards. One day. If the US can prioritize taking man to the moon than it can prioritize transportation not using cars. 

This is not say that I am anti-car. Far from it. Though I empathize with those who want good, efficient pubic transportation to grow in the existing urban centers of America, I also don't go as far to stigmatize those that do rely on a car every single to "participate in society" (as one bleeding heart puts it). I don't go as far as to call for a ban of cars (yep, there are those out there who want to ban cars). I will suggest that there should and can be an equilibrium between car driving and public transportation, especially in regards to commuting from the suburbs to the city and vice versa.

I say revolutionize car driving. The US should be the leader in electric cars and automobile research. Taking a cross country trip in America with an electric car would be a pain; charging an electric car takes too long and there isn't enough electric charging stations as there are gas stations. So if you do plan your trip to make carefully planned stops to recharge that recharge could take up to 4 hours until you hit the road again.  

Unlike some anti-car people like the YouTube channel Not Just Bikes (who is a prick and he actually admits this - most of his most watched vids are trashing American citifies and suburbs), I won't go all 1st world problem like him in a passive aggressive way. NJB is a Canadian who moved to the Netherlands because he was so enamored by how walkable their cities are. Okay, fair enough. You don't  got to be a prick about it and trash talk other countries. But enough that prick who retreats to the Old World because "grass is greener."

If America ever does realize that its lack of density just isn't attractive - or even sustainable, I propose the following:

• green trains and buses; expand already existing train lines and bus routes (with 5-7 minute departures each hour depend on city population)
• make every major and secondary city pedestrian friendly depends on the terrain of city
• make every city, big or small, if terrain allows (i.e. not Appalachia region) bicycle friendly with thorough bike paths 
• connect urban and suburban train railways with schedule that permits people to go to and from said locations from early work hours to well past midnight (i.e. last departure to suburbs is 2am with 10 minute intervals of departures)
• each state should have an comprehensive train and/or bus system that connects every and all cities to one another; the train system should connect to neighboring state's train system - basically forming an interstate train system/highway
• bullet trains connecting West, Midwest, South and East Coast (see: Shinkansen bullet trains)

But what that have to with history as I said in the beginning? Everything. People bash the US because isn't setup like Western European countries or Asian countries. They don't look into the history as to why. Instead, they just blame capitalism and say that America is crap and that they'd would never live there. It's okay. We send men to the moon as I pointed out earlier. You didn't build any of the already existing train and or bus routes, or any of the sidewalks or bike lanes. You benefit from those that came before you as you project a sense of smugness and superiority. 

Anti-car people will say when met with the talking point that American cities are relatively young therefore it grew and developed differently (this is 100% true) that cities like Rotterdam, Netherlands is also a new city. This is only half the truth. Sure, Rotterdam is new, but it grew out of an already existing city before Hitler raided and bombed it to ashes. The city was given a blank slate in order to build a "second city" where pedestrian friendly cities were the norm already in Europe (before the advent and normalization of automobiles as way of transportation). 

Small things like that are left out because they're too enamored of being in walkable environment. They fall in the same camp of zealotry for universal healthcare and "free" higher education. You see a pattern? It's Europe, Europe, Europe, Europe and maybe Japan. But mostly Eurocentric. 

I'd would like to see a compromise being made in the States between cars and public transportation. If there's a country that can say "we did our way" it's America. I believe that there's a healthy equilibrium somewhere in the far future where the US can rival Japan's public transpiration scene as electric trucks, cars and motorcycles zip across Route 66 as well. America can have it all - it just needs to be willing to accept the challenge as it did with the moon.