|
Check out my recent interview with Henry at Bro History, which delves into the dangers of Big Tech censorship and its slow merger with the surveillance state. In addition, I make the case as to why libertarians shouldn't just say "they're private companies so they can censor if they want." They really aren't that private. The interview was based on this article I wrote or The Mises Institute.
We also diss neocon warmongers a bunch, which is always fun. Enjoy:
Comments
 So I've republished my series from SwiftEconomics on economic lies, damned lies and statistics. Now I should push the book form of it (which includes some other articles as well). I mean, check out the Amazon reviews:  There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. We hear numbers everyday in support of arguments. Most of the time, the arguments sound pretty good. But after you peel the statistical layers back, you may find that the arguments are quite weak and sometimes fallacious. How about the fact 47% of Americans don't pay Federal income taxes? Outrageous, isn't it? Well, this doesn't take into account total taxation e.g. local, state, and payroll taxes, some of the most regressive taxes out there. All of the sudden, the Federal income tax figure looks more reasonable. And the other review (yes there are only two reviews as of this writing):  It was ok; an easy read; what can i say, it was interesting but not something I would read again. OK, not quite as stellar, but not shabby...
Anyways, I think it's a good book and it's quite cheap and makes for a quick read. If you're interested in economics, check it out!  So here is the final piece I wrote in my series on economic lies, damned lies and statistics for SwiftEconomics (which I turned into a book, by the way). I also wrote an updated piece on it for The Mises Institute. Enjoy! ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Previous in Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics Series: Part 9: The BMI ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ The surest way to the good life is a college degree, right? Hey, both my colleague Ryan Swift and I have one. As Hillary Clinton said, “Graduates from four-year colleges earn nearly an estimated one million dollars more [than high school graduates].” Oh so true Madame Hillary, and oh so irrelevant. After all, isn’t it true that the most hard-working and intelligent people usually go to college? I’m not making a nature/nurture argument here, the factors behinds these qualities are irreverent to the discussion at hand. If one grants, however, that the more ambitious and talented go to college in great proportions than their peers, couldn’t we just say that people that are the most hard-working and intelligent make “an estimated one million dollars more.” Whoop-de-friggin’-doo. Furthermore, as John Stossel notes, that “one million dollars more” includes super earners such as CEO’s which skew the average upward (although some, such as Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates didn’t graduate college). This is why it’s better to use the median (the middle number in the data set) than the mean or average. It’s also why Hillary Clinton and other repeaters of this factoid don’t. When one thinks about this honestly, it truly becomes absurd. Indeed, who exactly are we comparing? We’d not only be comparing Jane-Lawyer to Joe-Carpenter, but we’d also be comparing financial analysts with the mentally disabled, medical doctors with welfare dependents, building engineers with drug addicts, architects with pan handlers, marketing directors with immigrants who can barely speak English and university professors with career criminals (whose earnings, by the way, are rarely reported). Many of these troubled people didn’t graduate high school, but you’d be shocked how they shuffle people through the system these days. And something tells me that these particular non-graduates need something other than four years of drinking and studying Lockean (OK, more likely Marxian) philosophy. When we control for the type of people entering college things change. As I pointed out in my article about the female-male college gap, if we take the average earnings of a high school graduate and college graduate, account for cost of college and the opportunity cost of going to college (time not spent earning money) and assume a 5% savings rate for each, the college grad has a net worth of $400,000 when he retires. The high school grad: $1.3 million. Revenge of the jocks. It certainly could be good to earn a college degree. If you want to be an accountant, engineer or doctor you need one for sure. And those jobs have very high incomes. But do you really expect to make a killing with a degree in sociology or Medieval-African-Women’s-Military-Ethnic Studies? Pretty much the only jobs those degrees help one get, in any other way than the “hey, they got a college degree,” are jobs teaching sociology or Medieval-African-Women’s-Military-Ethnic Studies. And that requires an Advanced degree as well, i.e. more money down the tube. Look at this chart showing the lowest average salaries based upon particular college degrees (which by the way, the proponents of college never differentiate between):  OK, not horrible. But think of what an industrious young person could do without a college degree. One possibility would be entrepreneurship. I have at least two friends who dropped out of college and are now millionaire entrepreneurs. Both of them are under 30 years old. Another possibility are apprenticeship programs. The average electrician makes $22.32/hr and the average plumber makes $21.94/hr. Multiply that by 40 hours a week and 50 weeks a year (two weeks vacation) and you have average salaries of $44,640 and $43,880 a year. While those are near the bottom of the pack in the above list, it comes without the debt and lost years of college (apprentices are usually paid). And while it’s true that plumbers have to work with poo, there are many other jobs and career routes that involve neither college nor poo. Furthermore, not everyone is cut out for college (through either nature or nurture) and trying to hack it (or not caring and simply drinking your way through it) can have serious financial consequences. As James E. Rosenbaum points out: Seventy-one percent of the class of 1982 planned to get a college degree. Ten years later, 63.9 percent of those with A averages had attained an A.A. degree or higher, but only 13.9% of those with C average (or lower) had done so. Yes, some people simply don’t belong in college, I’m sorry. And these same people will do better if they’re not wasting their time and money slogging through an alcohol-drenched, college curriculum they can’t or don’t want to keep up with while accumulating large sums of debt to boot. But the “college for everyone” proponents don’t see it that way, Rosenbaum again: Indeed, 57 percent of seniors in the bottom half of the academic rankings reported that counselors urged them to attend college. Again, this wouldn’t be so bad if there weren’t any downsides to going to college, but there are. Tuition rates are going up at about four times the rate of inflation:  Furthermore, as The Chronicle reports, student loan default rates are much higher than usually reported: …one in every five government loans that entered repayment in 1995 has gone into default. The default rate is higher for loans made to students from two-year colleges, and higher still, reaching 40 percent, for those who attended for-profit institutions. Indeed, some think that student loans is the next big financial bubble. It should also be noted that a large percentage of students don’t even graduate from college. According to US News many don’t: Studies have shown that nonselective colleges graduate, on average, 35 percent of their students, while the most competitive schools graduate 88 percent. Harvard’s 97 percent four-year graduation rate might not be that surprising… [but then] Texas Southern University’s rate was 12 percent. 12% is simply ridiculous, but the 35% for nonselective schools is extremely bad, too. Even the 88% for competitive schools leaves 12% of their students with no degree, but plenty of debt.
College is good for some people. If you go into a field that has high earning potential (engineering, medicine, accounting, etc.) or you really like a certain subject and want to dedicate your life to that even if it may not make financial sense, go for it. But don’t go to college, because, as Colin Hanks says in Orange County, “that’s what you do after high school!” No Colin, that’s what the educational establishment wants you to do after high school and a few bogus statistics here and there doesn’t make it a good decision. Photo Credit: Fintrend, Michael Priceless and Trucker Deluxe ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics Series Part 1: A Primer Part 2: Income Stagnation Part 3: All Fiat Currencies Fail Part 4: Iraq War Casualties Part 5: Female-Male College Gap Part 6: Male-Female Wage Gap Part 7: Roger Maris’ Asterisk Part 8: Women Do All the Work but Men Keep All the Money Part 9: The BMI Part 10: A College Degree is Worth One Million Dollars  My brother and I will be giving two presentations for MAREI (the Mid-America Association of Real Estate Investors). The first presentation will be Tuesday, March 12th at 6:00 at the Holiday Inn at 8787 Reeder Road in Overland Park, KS. That talk will be on BRRRR investing (Buy, Rehab, Rent, Refinance, Repeat).
The second one will be a half day workshop on due diligence (which is my big thing right now) and property management (which is my brother Phillip's big thing). It will be Saturday, March 16th at KCRAR at 11150 Overbrook Road, Suite 100 in Leawood, KS. If you'll be around the Kansas City area this week and are interested in real estate investing, make sure to check it out!  So I got into the most recent cohort of ScaleUp (the ninth one in Kansas City) which is four-month series of classes run by a joint venture between the Kauffman Foundation, UMKC and the Small Business Association. The class is very selective and only accepts those with businesses that gross over $200,000 a year (a qualification we fortunately meet) and is all about, well, scaling up. Particulary, it's about the difference between growth (just getting bigger) and scaling, which Investopedia defines as, Scalability is a characteristic of a system, model or function that describes its capability to cope and perform well under an increased or expanding workload or scope. A system that scales well will be able to maintain or even increase its level of performance or efficiency even as it is tested by larger and larger operational demands. In other words, it's about building the foundation to be able to handle further growth. As far as my profile goes, it reads as follows if you're interested:
 And here's another piece in my series for SwiftEconomics on economic fallacies. This one goes outside the "economic" fallacies and take on the good ole BMI: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Next in Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics Series: Part 10: A College Degree is Worth One Million Dollars Previous in Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics Series: Part 8: Women Do All the Work but Men Keep All the Money ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Some fallacies aren’t simply a one-and-done stat, but an entire methodology. I cannot for the life of me think of a dumber example of this than the Body Mass Index (BMI). The BMI was invented between 1830 and 1850 (wasn’t the germ theory of disease still a “theory” back then?) by the Belgian polymath Adolphe Quetelet. It breaks people down into the following categories: – Underweight – Normal Weight – Overweight – Obesity Class 1 – Obesity Class 2 – Morbidly Obese OK, so far, so good. Graphically, it looks like this:  And mathematically, it’s all based on the following simple equation:  OK, now we have a problem. As you can see, there is absolutely nothing about muscle composition, body type of either gender (although some more advanced models do take this into account). Regardless, some nerd who’s never picked up a dumbbell in his life is not healthier than a body builder, which this equation would lead you to believe. Let’s take a look at some examples using BMI-Calculator.net to do our calculations. We’ll start with professional athletes, using ESPN.com’s player profiles. – Super Bowl winning quarterback Aaron Rodgers: 6’2″ 225 pounds, BMI: 28.9. Prognosis: Overweight  Lebron James: Fatty Seriously, Carl Nicks is a very big man, but morbidly obese implies he can barely move. More accurately, there’s hardly anyone this guy can’t move. It’s as if proponents of the BMI didn’t know that muscle weighs more than fat. Indeed, if this Wiki answer is correct, Denzel Washington weighs 216 pounds. He’s 6 foot even, so his BMI is 29.29. In other words, he’s overweight and just a shade under being obese. And how about the other way. If this Ask answer is correct, than Angelina Jolie—who, at least to me, appears to be one of the more normal-sized, ridiculously beautiful Hollywood actresses—weighs 120 pounds. She’s 5’8″. BMI is then 18.24, or underweight. (At least Calista Flockhart came in underweight too, that’s a small token in the BMI’s defense.) Kate Harding put together a slide show of pictures of mostly normal people whom the BMI has judged to be “overweight” or “underweight” or “obese.” It’s worth looking at. And if you actually want science not just ridiculous examples, NPR points out that the BMI is basically completely bogus. They give ten reasons, a small sample: 1. The person who dreamed up the BMI said explicitly that it could not and should not be used to indicate the level of fatness in an individual. And on and on and on… You get the idea. Yes, there is such a thing as obesity, and yes it is a serious problem, but no, the BMI is not a good way to measure it. How this stupid measurement of nothing has stuck with us for so long is beyond me.
Photo Credit: BBC and TampaBay.com ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics Series Part 1: A Primer Part 2: Income Stagnation Part 3: All Fiat Currencies Fail Part 4: Iraq War Casualties Part 5: Female-Male College Gap Part 6: Male-Female Wage Gap Part 7: Roger Maris’ Asterisk Part 8: Women Do All the Work but Men Keep All the Money Part 9: The BMI Part 10: A College Degree is Worth One Million Dollars
If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend checking out the documentary film Free Solo about Alex Honnold climbing the 3200-foot El Capitan in Yosemite free solo. Or in other words, climbing it without any rope or partner or safety gear at all; nothing but climbing shoes and a bag full of chalk.
The trailer enough is awe-inspiring/terrifying:
The film won the Academy Award for best documentary and has been almost universally praised. Although there have been a few sort-of critics. While Peter Rainer at The Christian Science Monitor enjoyed the film, he couldn't help but ask "Why on earth would anybody do this?" Lucia Graves took this sort-of criticism in a more environmental direction noting that "'Free Solo' Celebrates Man Vs. Nature-But Nature Lost Long Ago."
This is, of course, an exaggeration, but she regardless says "...it's become accepted wisdom that man's relationship to nature is primarily an oppositional one of "man vs. nature" (and the conceit of bold opposition, historically speaking, would certainly seem to skew male)." Of course, saying something like "Alex Honnold conquered El Cap" is not meant to be taken literally. But while Graves goes off in a weird direction, I do understand Rainer's and others sort-of criticisms that what Honnold did is insane or even reckless. He does have a girlfriend after all. That being said, I can't agree with them. Climbing El Cap may serve no practical purpose, but there's something in us as humans that needs to constantly push the boundaries of what is possible. In the realm of science, technology and business, this spirit has pushed humanity to new heights. In the realms of music, literature and the like, it has provided joy and provoked thought. In athletics, such as rock climbing, it can inspire. In the modern West, there is a debilitating lack of purpose floating about. Humans need a goal to "conquer." And while this applies to all, the obsessional quality to reach new heights does seem to "skew male." This is likely part of the reason why despite living in the wealthiest age of human history, suicide is rising and male suicide is at epidemic levels. The near-constant male-bashing doesn't help, but more broadly, we simply lack purpose. Climbing El Cap free solo is surely not for most (including me, obviously). But it does elucidate the need for a purpose that is lacking in so many people's lives, men particularly. In one part of the film, Alex Honnold discusses the "warrior mentality" that he thinks climbers share. "It doesn't matter about the cause necessarily" he says, "This is your path and you will pursue it with excellence."
And that's what I really took from this great film (other than the edge-of-your-seat tension and incredible cinematography). It doesn't need to be free soloing El Cap. (And for 99.99999999% of people, it really shouldn't be.) But find a path and "pursue it with excellence." Don't just settle for existence, but strive. That's what makes life truly worth living.
 Continuing my series from SwiftEconomics on economic falsehoods passed off as truth, we move to a particularly stupid one regarding women and wealth. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Next in Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics Series: Part 9: The BMI Previous in Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics Series: Part 7: Roger Maris’ Asterisk ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Barber Conable Jr made the following statement sometime ago that may be the most absolutely ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard: Women do two thirds of the world’s work. Yet they earn only one tenth of the world’s income and own less than one percent of the world’s property. It has, unfortunately, been oft-repeated as if the very fact it was once said lends it credibility. Singer Annie Lennox regurgitated it, as well as some other fallacious statistics best saved for another time, and concluded: It shocks, disappoints and angers me that in a world where man has traveled to the moon and where we can connect to people anywhere on earth instantly online, men and women are still not equal. Ahh, the old “if we can put a man on the moon” line. And hey, why haven’t we put a woman on the moon? Neil Armstrong = misogynist. Gee, we men sure are evil. Back in reality, the only thing interesting about this statistic is how embarrassingly false it is. Let’s start with wealth. OK, according to the Wall Street Journalthere is a total of $140 trillion dollars of wealth in the world. This number is surely a bit speculative, but it should be close enough to work off of. Now the United States has $47.6 trillion of that, or 33.4%. Now let’s look at how that wealth is distributed only in the United States (the United States is all I need to refute this nonsense). This data from the St. Louis Fed is a bit old and yes, you’re not supposed to compare different statistics across time. Still, the data comes from about the time this assertion was made and the ratios haven’t changed considerably, so it will illustrate the point: As one can see, the vast majority of wealth is owned by married couples. Women without children even have more than men without children (primarily because men die younger (do you have anything to say about this Annie?) and women thereby take over the family’s financial assets). The large majority of the wealth owned by single men and women is that owned by the elderly who have been widowed, not the young who are just entering the workforce. And since single men and women with children have such paltry sums, it makes almost no difference. Even though marriage is on the decline, 49.7% of people over the age of 18 are married as of 2005 (in 1992, 54.8% were married). Do women who are married have no wealth? If so, someone certainly forgot to tell the divorce courts. Legally speaking, in the United States, married couples co-own their assets. Thereby, women own at least half the wealth of married couples, and own slightly more than half of the wealth of singles (especially given the fact that women make up 51% of the population). Well, if women own or co-own half of the wealth of the United States, which owns 33.4% of the world’s wealth, then women own at least 16.7% of the world’s wealth, even if only women in the United States owned anything. But hey, it’s all relative; some people may consider it “close enough” being off by only 1670% after discussing one of the world’s 190 some countries. Hell, even if you boiled it down to just single women, who, according to the St. Louis Fed in 1992, made up 29.1% of the American population (7.4% with children and 21.7% without) they would still have, according to my calculations, 14.1% of the wealth. 14.1% of 33.4% is 4.7%. So if we only counted single women in the United States, women would still own 4.7%, not 1%, of the world’s wealth. And if we add the Euro Zone ($26.6 trillion), the U.K. ($6.7 trillion), the rest of Western Europe ($3.6 trillion) and New Zealand, Canada and Australia ($5.0 trillion), the total comes to $89.3 trillion. Since marriage is considered effectively the same in all those countries (both parties co-owning the assets), women own probably slightly more than half of that as well, or at least $44.65 trillion or 31.9%. Add in Japan ($17.3 trillion), which has alimony and child supportby the way, and you’re over 40%. Laws may not be fair to women in Middle Eastern and African countries, or perhaps even China, other Asian countries and Latin American countries. But if you consider that wealth co-owned, women probably own about half and possibly slightly over half of the world’s wealth. But how do you count it? I would say a woman living under the shackles of Sharia Law should not be “counted as having wealth in marriage.” But a woman in China who’s married, yeah I would probably count that. And the Middle East is so poor it hardly makes a dent in the statistics. So where did they get this ridiculous statistic from? Well, nowhere it appears. According to the Wikipedia entry on the subject “…although oft-cited and used as a slogan this statement seems not to be supported by any data.” No kidding. This is nothing new for the more vulgar feminists among us. At least the wage gap is simply being interpreted incorrectly. I can’t say that about the one under discussion here or other such femstats. In 1993, the media “watchdog/make-stuff-up” group FAIR decided by fiat that domestic violence rates rose astronomically on the day of the Super Bowl. No evidence was necessary (because none existed). A big scare began that 150,000 women die each year from anorexia. The actual number, maybe 100, at the most (Who Stole Feminism?, Pg. 11-12). Tragic still, but only about 1/1000th to 1/3000thas tragic. Lenore Weitzman claimed in her extremely influential book The Divorce Revolution that after divorce women saw their standard of living go down 73% while men’s went up 42%. But as John Stossel noted: …Arizona State University psychologist Sanford Braver set out initially to examine the reasons for the shocking data… [but instead] was surprised to discover that the Weitzman figures were wrong, the result of a mathematical error. Weitzman later admitted she was wrong… [in fact] men and women come out almost exactly equally. (Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity) Then there’s Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore. When they aren’t making bad movies or pledging to serve their president, they are on a crusade because, as Kutcher says, “there are between 100,000 and 300,000 child sex slaves in the United States today.” That sounds horrible. But the study they (and many others) cite actually concluded 100,000 to 300,000 kids were “at risk” of being forced into prostitution. The study included all runaways as being at risk, even though almost 80% return home in less than a week. Of course their critics aren’t perfect. I’ve mentioned the college gap nonsense and the old cliche of women being bad drivers isn’t exactly born out by the fact that men get into more accidents. I think we’re just more reckless, though (not that that makes it any better). Anyways, back to the matter at hand, the other two parts are little better. With income we go from an outright falsehood to a partially outright falsehood and partially spurious conclusion. Women in the United States now make up about half the labor force. As stated in my article on the wage gap, women earn about 77% of what men do. U.S. GDP is $14.2 trillion and the world’s is $58.3 trillion. Let’s use that as a rough estimate for wages (again, imperfect I know). If women make up 50% of the labor force and earn 77% of what men do, they earn 43.5% of American income. U.S. GDP is 24.3% of the world’s and the overall income is roughly equivalent in ratio. That would mean women in the United States earn 10.6% of the world’s income by themselves. Include the rest of the Western and Asian countries and you come up with something that’s certainly above 30% and probably pretty close to 40%. Furthermore, what does income even mean? Feminists like to say that housewives do “unpaid labor.” But how so? Do housewives starve? Or do their husbands actually pay them just without direct compensation (again, the courts recognize them as co-owning the families assets). After all, women make some 80% of a family’s financial decisions. So how exactly is she unpaid? Since some families still go by traditional or semi-traditional roles—and many countries do to a much greater extent—even if the statistic were true, which it isn’t, it would still be spurious. Finally, we have the work difference. My guess is this is based off something like The Second Shift by Arlie Hochschild. In her book, she claimed that working women still have to do all of the chores associated with being a housewife and men weren’t helping anymore than in the past. Of course this assumes working men and working women work the same amount outside the home. They don’t. Men work more away from home and women work more in home. Even so, Hochschild neglected to include all sorts of things in her “calculations” that men typically do, from barbecuing to financial management. Oops. Recent studies have shown repeatedly that men and women work about the same amount when you include everything. Both Time Magazine and The New York Times have come out and said so. And when we go outside the United States, a major study concluded the same thing. Joel Walfgagel summarized the methodology and findings as follows: Three economists, Michael Burda of Humboldt University in Berlin, Daniel Hamermesh of the University of Texas, and Philippe Weil of the Free University of Brussels have analyzed data from surveys in 25 countries that ask people how they spend their time. Some of the countries are rich, like the United States and Germany, some are poor, like Benin and Madagascar, and some are in the middle, like Hungary, Mexico, and Slovenia. The people surveyed were asked to fill in diaries indicating how they spend each segment of their day. Equality. Yay!
Photo Credit: Direct Radio Sation Blog and St. Louis Federal Reserve ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics Series Part 1: A Primer Part 2: Income Stagnation Part 3: All Fiat Currencies Fail Part 4: Iraq War Casualties Part 5: Female-Male College Gap Part 6: Male-Female Wage Gap Part 7: Roger Maris’ Asterisk Part 8: Women Do All the Work but Men Keep All the Money Part 9: The BMI Part 10: A College Degree is Worth One Million Dollars ______________________________________________________________________________________________________  Here's an analysis of the Ward Parkway Center; a regional shopping center located at 8600 Ward Parkway in Kansas City, MO: The Ward Parkway Center is one of the largest malls in the Kansas City metro area and home to two major and quite different anchor tenants (Target and AMC Theaters). The center is a total of 800,000 square feet and has 43 businesses; making up a diverse range of outlets from groceries (Target and Trader Joe’s), restaurants (Five Guys, Midici’s Pizza), specialty stores (PetSmart, Kay Jewelers) and other niche outlets (Genesis Fitness, Massage Heights). The mall was opened in 1959 and was renovated in 2017 by Legacy Development, whose management arm, Legacy Asset Management, manages the mall.  The mall has plenty of parking, is well lit and has great ingress/egress as it is conveniently located between two major, well-trafficked streets (State Line and Ward Parkway). The zip code (64114) the mall is in has a relatively high household income (15 percent higher than the Missouri average as of 2016). Furthermore, the property lies on the border with Leawood, Kansas, which is one of the most affluent suburbs in the Kansas City metro area. The violent crime rate for its zip code is slightly higher than the national average, but the majority of that crime is located in the eastern half of 64114 whereas the Ward Parkway Center is located in the far west part of the zip code.
Management Opportunities
The Ward Parkway Center went through a major redevelopment and expansion in 2017 (although not without allegations of wrongdoings for no-bid contracts). Currently the mall is in great shape and there are no noteworthy needs for additional renovation. While there are other shopping centers nearby, there are no other regional malls in a four-mile radius. Online retail is always a constant threat as well though. Adding some sort of experiential “destination” spot to supplement AMC Theaters could help (i.e. bowling, miniature golf or a concert hall). In addition, there are relatively few dining options (four sit-down restaurants) and no fine dining. A higher-end restaurant could add a lot of value as many people like to eat out before or after going shopping.
Perhaps it's fitting that I've been on a tear about due diligence lately (both here and on my BiggerPockets blog). Of course, I've been talking about due diligence on real estate, whereas this latest journalistic/academic catastrophe comes from a lack of due diligence elsewhere.
"Butt-Fisting..."
Here's how Gizmodo's article begins, If you look up Dr. Damian Jacob Markiewicz Sendler online, you might think he has a MD and a PhD from Harvard Medical School. He presents himself as the chief of sexology at a non-profit health research foundation based in New York. His website states he’s one of the youngest elected members of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, and that Barack Obama gave him a President’s Gold Service Award for his contributions in medicine and mental health.
This guy has been published or extensively quoted in all sorts of noteworthy publications; from Forbes to The Huffington Post to Vice to Men's Health to Women's Health to Bustle to I Fucking Love Science. He'd also been on Dan Savage's podcast. And it was to promote a fraud.
Perhaps if you don't want to be labeled "fake news," a bit more background research than perusing the Internet is called for... |
Andrew Syrios"Every day is a new life to the wise man." Archives
November 2022
Blog Roll
The Real Estate Brothers The Good Stewards Bigger Pockets REI Club Meet Kevin Tim Ferris Joe Rogan Adam Carolla MAREI 1500 Days Worcester Investments Just Ask Ben Why Entrepreneur Inc. KC Source Link The Righteous Mind Star Slate Codex Mises Institute Tom Woods Michael Tracey Consulting by RPM The Scott Horton Show Swift Economics The Critical Drinker Red Letter Media Categories
|
RSS Feed
