San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, April 5, 2013

Many Kids Should Not Be In School

There was an article in the Denver Post on Monday entitled "More kids than ever diagnosed with ADHD".  Here are some of the things written in the article:  "Nearly 1 in 5 high-school-age boys in the United States and 11 percent of school-age children overall have received a medical diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, according to new data from the federal Centers for Disease  Control and Prevention....The figures showed that an estimated 6.4 million children ages 4 through 17 had received an ADHD diagnosis at some point in their lives, a 16 percent increase since 2007 and a 53 percent rise in the past decade.  About two-thirds of those with a current diagnosis receive prescriptions for stimulants like Ritalin or Adderall....Even more teenagers are likely to be prescribed medication in the near future because the American Psychological Association plans to change the definition of ADHD to allow more people to receive the diagnosis and treatment."  There are so many things wrong with the content of the article I hardly know where to begin with my criticisms.  Still, despite my inability to concentrate without my daily dose of Ritalin, I will try.
I am going to be honest.  I am going to say what everyone with a lick of common sense knows, but is afraid to say.  Here it is:  there is no such thing as "mental illness".  Yep, we all know this to be true but we are afraid to say it.  "Mental illness" is just a term the psychiatrists and psychologists have cooked up to justify taking hundreds of dollars an hour from people just for talking with them and calling it "therapy".  Maybe you bristle at my assertion that mental illness is a myth.  Then let me ask you just one question.  What legitimate disease exists that doctors can change the definition of in order to get more people diagnosed as suffering from it?  Either you have a headache or you do not.  Either you have cancer or you do not.  Either you have a heart attack or you do not.  No doctor can decide that he is now going to say that "heart disease" consists of some vague feeling of dread in a patient that brings about emotional discomfort that can be partially alleviated by talking with someone with a degree in psychology once a week.  The mere fact that the APA can change what it means to be "mentally ill" in order to get more cases of a particular "illness" is proof positive that no real illness exists.  "Mental illness" is little more than a fancy description of a behavior that some people don't like or appreciate.
Let me ask you another question, what disease out there has grown in incidence by 53% in the last ten years?  Are there 53% more flu viruses?  Are there 53% more AIDS viruses?  Are there 53% more cases of rubella?  Are there 53% more cases of stroke?  The mere fact that ADHD has been diagnosed 53% more in the past year, when compared to ten years ago, clearly shows that ADHD is not a real disease. If "mental illness" is actually a disease, what is it's cause?  Is it a virus or a bacteria?  Is it a fungus?  How is it transmitted?  Is it in the blood?  Is it contagious?  Is it not obvious to everyone that all of the things we typically think of when we think of a disease do not apply to "mental disease"?
"Mental illness" is nothing more than the moniker we put on people who behave differently than most of us.  There are bell curves for everything.  The intelligence bell curve shows us that most people are of average intelligence and people at either end are either very smart or very dumb.  The weight bell curve shows us that most people are of average weight and people at either end are either skinny or fat.  None of us has a problem with understanding the concept of a bell curve.  Yet, when it comes to human behavior, we suddenly decide that any behavior displayed by people who find themselves on the ends of the bell curve must be symptomatic of some disease called "mental illness" and subject to treatment by government authorized agents armed with boxes of pills.  Being different does not mean one is sick.  In fact, it means nothing at all.
What does any of this have to do with the title of today's post to this blog?  Everything.  Government schools are designed to function best when the students who populate them are complacent, compliant, and willing to sit still for long periods of time and listen to things they might not care about.  Government schools are basically indoctrination centers.  In order for indoctrination to proceed efficiently it is very important an orderly setting be maintained.  Students who are either unwilling or unable to sit still for long periods of time and listen to things they do not care about are diagnosed as being "mentally ill" and given drugs that have the impact of inducing them into zombie-like states where they are no longer a problem.  Let's all admit it shall we?  Teachers give Ritalin to students because they do not want to deal with non-compliant, non-complacent kids.  It is as simple as that.  Drug up the feisty ones and the problem goes away.  Turn the kids that should not be in the classroom in the first place into zombies and the others can be effectively instructed.  There has to be a better way.
Not all people learn the same way.  Remember the bell curve.  Government schools are fine for indoctrinating kids who can learn in an academic setting.  For kids who do not learn that way, Ritalin is the answer.  It should not be this way.  Allow me to make a simple proposal.  Once a kid has learned how to read, write and do arithmetic, he should be free to leave school and do something else.  In other words, no kid should be required to go to school after the sixth grade.  Let's face it, shall we?  Not all kids are scholars.  Non-scholars should not be forced to go to school and learn scholarly things (as if government schools actually teach scholarly things....that is another issue).  Many kids learn best by getting out and doing things.  Let those kids go.  The state needs to repeal all laws prohibiting kids from working.  Where else are these kids going to learn?  By the time a child reaches the age of 13 he should be free, under parental supervision of course, to quit school and go to work.  When 25% of all male children at the age of 17 have been diagnosed as being ADHD at some point in their past, there is something seriously wrong with the government school system.  None of those male children should still be in school.  They should be out in the real world, learning from their hands-on experiences and preparing themselves to be productive members of society.
While I am on the topic, allow me to make one additional point.  Many, probably most, high school graduates should not go to college.  The issue here is not ADHD.  The issue here is the simple fact that college should be for those who need the necessary skills taught in college to pursue their future careers.  Many, probably most, skills that are necessary in future careers are taught in the business world, not in college.  I know it is every parent's dream for his son or daughter to go to college but it is a silly dream.  Every parent's dream should be for his children to grow up, leave the nest, and become productive members of society.  It is frequently the case that a kid can integrate into the adult business world much more efficiently and productively by skipping the college experience and directly entering the job market.  More often than not college is nothing more than a four or five year extension of the adolescence period experienced during high school.  In other words, it is a waste of time and money.  The quicker a kid can get into the business world, the better.  Most high school graduates should not be in college.

Thursday, April 4, 2013

A Simple Way To End The Litigation Lottery

I was watching the Rockies beat the Brewers last night on the television when it occurred to me that there is a very simple way to put an end to the litigation lottery that exists in our Socialist Democracy of America.  Regular readers of this blog are probably familiar with the term "litigation lottery".  I use it in reference to the fact that thousands of envy filled people regularly hire unscrupulous lawyers to file lawsuits against deep-pocketed corporations in the hope that some minor injury they suffered can be blown all out of proportion and result in a huge cash settlement for them.
I was personally offended by the fact that the Rockies broadcast was sponsored, in part, by ambulance chasing lawyers in search of pathetic new clients.  The mere thought that these legal scum bags would think they could induce me to hire them was nauseating to me.  In fact, the more I thought about it the more I realized that I see these commercials all the time.  Maybe it is because I spend too much time watching Judge Judy.  Judge Judy comes on during the late afternoon when men who claim to have been injured on the job are sitting at home polishing off that day's six-pack.  With nothing better to do and being too inebriated to stand up, they tune in to watch Judge Judy verbally assault the people foolish enough to appear before her bench.  Most of the commercials aired during her show are produced by lawyers with names like "Bulldog" and "Strong Arm" who promise to go after that evil company that is allegedly responsible for the fact that some bozo is now passed out drunk on the couch.
These commercials are quite enticing.  They show other pathetic losers who tell their respective tales of woe.  All of their stories conclude with statements like "the Bulldog got me $450,000" or "the Strong Arm got me $1 million".  I can just see the glazed over eyes of the drunks on the couch light up at the prospect of never having to work again.  I am sure the switchboards at the legal offices light up after those commercials are aired.
Those of us who are not envy-filled parasites realize exactly what is going on here.  Immoral lawyers exploit an unethical legal system to enrich themselves by pandering to the sinful envy of people who would rather not have to work for a living.  Every product that has ever been produced is now subject to product liability lawsuits.  Anytime an accident occurs any company that is even remotely associated with the production, sales or use of that product will be sued for negligence.  Empty headed juries, which are filled with people who are themselves filled with envy and hatred for successful corporate entities, are more than happy to force those corporate entities to open the coffers of their shareholders and dispense the largess to lazy bums and their rat-faced lawyers.  What a wonderful system we have.
In a vain attempt to protect themselves from such lawsuits corporations have taken to putting warning labels on everything they produce.   A friend of mine recently purchased a step ladder.  He told me it had ten separate warning labels on it.  I never realized a step ladder was such a deadly tool.  Ball point pens come with the warning that "the cap in your mouth can obstruct breathing if swallowed."  A dust mask came with the warning that it "does not supply oxygen."  A hot tub came with this bit of wisdom:  "Avoid Drowning--Remove Safety Cover When In Use."  I recently purchased a new vehicle.  I actually read the Owners Manual.  I was shocked to discover that the first twenty or so pages of the manual were filled with warnings that even the most ignorant fool could not possibly be unaware of.  I was looking for the maintenance schedule and instead I was treated to exhortations to not close the door on my hand, open the garage door before turning on the ignition, and not to drive with flat tires.  Thanks.
Citizens of the SDA unite.  We must put an end to this nonsense.  We need to put these pathetic victims back to work and get them off the bottle.  We need to put lawyers on the unemployment rolls.  We need to allow shareholders to keep their profits.  Is there any way to solve this problem?  Yes, in fact, there is.  It is a very simple solution.  It also happens to be a biblical solution.  That, of course, is why it will never happen.  Still it is worth considering.
Biblical law allows for the prosecution of people who produce goods or services that do harm or damage to those who use them.  However, unlike the system we have in the SDA where the plaintiff has no skin in the game, biblical law precisely stipulates that the plaintiff is responsible to pay the defendant the exact amount of money he was seeking if his claim proves to be fraudulent or frivolous.  In other words, there is always a winner and a loser when product liability litigation takes place.  Nobody is able to continually file lawsuits with no attendant responsibility for those lawsuits.  If you believe you were damaged to the tune of $240,000 when you fell off the ladder I made and sold you, go ahead and make your case.  If you win, you get $240,000.  If you lose, you owe me $240,000.  And that, folks, solves the entire problem.  In fact, it would quite literally solve the problem of the litigation lottery overnight.  I am not holding my breath.

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

TSA Baggage Inspections

My wife recently returned home from a trip in which she had to fly.  We try to avoid flying if at all possible.  Neither one of us is intellectually equipped to suffer the indignities associated with the mandatory strip searches and personal invasions associated with air travel.  For some silly reason we still believe in our Fourth Amendment right to be secure in our persons, papers and possessions.  We still believe that we should not be forced to prove to the government that we are innocent prior to being allowed to behave with some modicum of freedom.  We are both amazed at how most citizens of the SDA are more than happy to act like sheep and allow themselves to be herded along by TSA agents who are shouting at them like sheep dogs barking at the flock.  We can't conceive of how people could willingly give up their freedom for a promise of "security" that does not exist.  Still, it happens.  That is life in the real world.
Upon her return she noticed that a piece of paper had been slipped into her suitcase.  It was from the TSA and entitled "Notice of Baggage Inspection".  Here is a bit of what it said, "To protect you and your fellow passengers, the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) is required by law to inspect all checked baggage.  As a part of this process, some bags are opened and physically inspected.  Your bag was among those selected for physical inspection."  Now that sentence strikes me as being extremely odd.  In fact, it is extremely odd for several reasons.  First, the notion that a bunch of thugs with IQs in the forties and fifties can be empowered by the federal government to "protect" me from terrorists by searching my wife's bags is ludicrous.  These people are idiots and thieves.  They only work for the TSA because they are incapable of finding a job in the real world.  I have had numerous things "lost" (translate "stolen") by TSA agents over the past several years.  Do they really expect anybody to believe that their presence actually makes us more safe?  Do they really expect anybody to believe that they are not doing anything more than stealing our property? 
Second, if they are "required by law to inspect all checked bags", why do they not inspect all checked bags?  Why do they, by their own admission, only inspect "some bags"?  I have no idea what percentage of checked baggage they "inspect" but it must certainly be less than half.  Given that reality, how can they possibly claim that they are protecting my safety?  More than half of the checked bags are put on the plane with nothing more than a cursory glance in their direction.  Either all bags must be inspected or none of the bags should be inspected.
Third, why was my wife's bag "selected for physical inspection"?  Is it because it looked like it might having something worth stealing inside of it?  I suspect so.  From the outside it looks just like millions of other bags that go through airports every single day.  Were TSA agents watching her approach the baggage check station in order to determine if they might find something worth taking from her bag?  Fortunately she could not find anything that had been stolen.
The next sentence on the TSA form amazed me.  It said, "During the inspection, your bag and its contents may have been searched for prohibited items.  At the completion of the inspection, the contents were returned to your bag."  What do they mean when they write, "may have been searched"?  If they have taken the time to take the bag off the line and inspect it, why would they then tell me that they might not have actually inspected it?  Either they inspect all of the bags they grab or they do not.  What do they mean when they say they "may" have inspected it?  Are they trying to play mind games with me?  Are they trying to act like some sort of secret organization?  Are they trying to force me to guess if they actually inspected the bag or not?  I have no idea.  It makes no sense at all to me.
The form goes on by telling me that, "If the TSA security officer was unable to open your bag for inspection because it was locked, the officer may have been forced to break the lock on your bag.  TSA sincerely regrets having to do this, however TSA is not liable for damage to your locks resulting from this necessary security precaution."  Ha!  What a sentence that is.  First, the "may" word shows up again.  Either the TSA thug broke the lock or he didn't.  There is no "may" about it.  Second, don't lie to me you idiots!  The TSA thug does not "sincerely regret" breaking into the bag.  In fact, I suspect he had fun doing it.
After breaking into my wife's bag the thugs at the TSA then have the unmitigated gall to inform me that they are not liable for damage they have done to the bag and its contents.  Nobody else in the world can claim an exemption from liability prior to committing a unconstitutional action.  Nobody else in the world can claim exemption from liability for a crime prior to committing the crime.  Why do we put up with this invasion of our constitutional rights?  Why do we put up with this invasion of our privacy?  Why do we allow the federales to claim they are exempt from liability for their actions?  I just don't get it.
The goons at the TSA conclude by telling me that what they have done to the bag is a "necessary security precaution".  Everything about that phrase is wrong.  What they do is not a "necessary security precaution".  What they do is an "unnecessary criminal action".  I know, I know.  I can hear you telling me to calm down.  Why get so upset about something as trivial as a TSA exam?  Why throw a fit over something so insignificant as having a private bag searched by an agent of the government without my knowledge or consent?  My answer is a simple one.  I am unwilling to give up a nano-gram of my freedom in exchange for a promise of security from the government, whether they can deliver it or not.  You heard that right.  Even if the government could make me as secure as they say they can, I would not give up any freedom in exchange for that security. I don't want it.  It costs way too much.  It may sound strange but my position on this issue used to be the position of the majority of the citizens of the United States of America.  In the Socialist Democracy of America I am afraid I stand almost alone.  Majority rules and my freedom, along with yours, goes out the window.

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

Free Will, Behaviorism And The Death Penalty

The shooter in this past summer's Aurora theater massacre is a fellow by the name of James Holmes.  Last week he made an offer to the Aurora district attorney.  He agreed to change his plea from innocent to guilty if the district attorney would take the death penalty off the table.  The Aurora district attorney refused to take the offer and informed Holmes that he will be seeking the death penalty anyway.  That little exchange got my attention and I was originally going to post an article to this blog talking about the stupidity of the justice system and  how a reprobate like Holmes can manipulate it to his advantage.  However, the more I thought about what had happened, the more I realized there is something else at work here.  Allow me to explain.
The great majority of human beings despise the doctrine of predestination.  The great majority of human beings in the west wrongly believe that John Calvin was the father of the doctrine of predestination and they also hate him with a passion.  Merely bringing up the doctrine of predestination is usually enough to get a heated argument going, with believers and non-believers alike.  Of course I am not telling you anything you do not already know.  You have been involved in many of those arguments yourselves over the years.  There is an almost universal agreement among people that God would never do anything that would infringe upon the free will of men.  The doctrine of man's free will is one of the most sacred and closely held doctrines in the hearts of most all citizens of the Socialist Democracy of America.  It is inconceivable to almost everyone who lives in this un-free land that God would ever do anything to infringe upon man's ability to act freely.  Upon that, I believe, we can all agree.  I believe it is fair to say that one of the most precious beliefs of the great majority of the citizens of the SDA is that men behave freely, without compulsion, and according to their own free will at all times. 
Behaviorism is a doctrinal belief which asserts that man's actions are not free.  According to behaviorist theory a man will do what he has been conditioned or trained to do.  That training can come from the state, other people or the environment.  It really does not matter where the conditioning comes from.  What does matter is that man is perceived as being born with a mind that is a "blank slate" which is then written upon by the multitude of experiences he has.  Those experiences train him to become the man he eventually becomes.  All human responses to life experiences are examples of stimulus-response behaviors which further ingrain each person's conditional responses to future life events.  Quite obviously, under the terms and conditions of behaviorism, man does not have free will.  Everything he does is determined by his previous experiences.  I believe it is fair to say that, aside from a small group of psychologists dedicated to the dictates of behaviorism, the doctrine itself is generally unpopular with the public precisely because it rejects the doctrine of the free will of man.
Everything up to this point is introductory.  I will now get to the point of today's posting to this blog.  As I was working out on the treadmill yesterday (vainly trying to stamp out the bitter memory of the Colorado Rockies opening day loss to the Brewers) it occurred to me that there is an enormous contradiction in the thoughts and actions of people who discuss the death penalty.  James Holmes murdered many people in the Aurora theater last summer.  Of that there is no doubt.  His plea of not guilty does not stem from the fact that he is not guilty of the murder of those people.  It does stem from the fact that he is conjuring up a defense in which he can declare himself not guilty precisely because he is not responsible for his murderous actions.  In other words, he killed because he was forced to do so by forces outside of his control.  He did not kill anybody because he exercised his free will to do so. No, he killed because he was predestined, either by previous experiences or God, to commit murder.  He therefore cannot be held responsible for his actions. 
Although many people are angered by his response to the charge of murder, it still remains true that almost everyone involved in this case abandons his regular belief in human free will and adopts the behaviorist position about conditioning when murder is involved.  One of the reasons this case will not even come to trial until at least a full year after the murders were committed is because the state is spending a huge amount of time and money building a case as to why Holmes did what he did.  There is a long list of people who are presently being held responsible for the murders other than Holmes alone.  Many people hold the theater owners responsible for the murders.  Those lawsuits have already been filed.  Others hold the manufacturers of the guns he used responsible for the murders.  Laws have been proposed to allow people to pursue lawsuits in this line of thought.  Some people hold the psychiatrist Holmes was seeing responsible for the murders.  I suspect she has already been sued.  Others hold the company the psychiatrist was working for responsible for the murders.  The pockets are deeper there.  Some people believe the doctors who prescribed the drugs Holmes was taking are responsible for his murders.  Still others believe the pharmaceutical companies that made those drugs are responsible.  There are literally dozens of allegedly responsible parties in the Holmes murder case and all of them can be sued.
However, the only way that people other than Holmes can be held responsible for the murders he committed is if we first presuppose that the hated doctrines of behaviorism are true.  If something or someone other than Holmes is morally culpable for the murders that he committed, then the teachings of behaviorism must be true.  He was only doing what he was conditioned to do.  Those who conditioned him are the real culprits.  Yet almost nobody actually believes in the doctrines of behaviorism.  In an amazingly irrational and bizarrely ironic twist, people who would affirm the doctrine of human free will in every single life event are the first to reject that doctrine the moment a murder takes place.  Why would that be the case?
I suggest that lust for money is the answer.  If we really believe in free will we would acknowledge that Holmes killed those people because he wanted to.  Any reason beyond that is irrelevant.  It does not matter if he had a bad relationship with his father.  It does not matter if he was taking drugs.  It does not matter if he was bullied in school.  It does not matter if he was under psychiatric care.  It does not matter if he is "mentally ill".  It does not matter if he is not "mentally ill".  No behaviorist conditioning or explanation matters.  All that matters is that he did it.  Holmes exercised his sovereign free will and murdered people.  End of discussion.  Therefore, the proper response to Holmes would have been to spend a day or two, at the most, making sure he was the murderer and then he should have been publicly executed.  No time and effort would have been spent trying to determine "why" he did what he did.  All that would have mattered is that he did do what he did.  He exercised his free will, that under any other set of circumstances everyone would fight for vociferously, and killed people.  The proper response of a just state is to kill him.  A quick and public execution would have been the end of the matter.  But that is not what has happened.
Follow the money.  If Holmes would have been executed a day or two after the murders there would have been little opportunity for the "victims" to sue the theater owners.  If Holmes had been executed a day or two after the murders there would have been no opportunity for legions of lawyers to create thousands of billable-hours (at $500/hour) for their services in trying to figure out why he did what he did.  The same is true for the shrinks who have been called into the case.  The behaviorist system is now in full operation and it is going to make many judges, lawyers, psychiatrists, psychologists, and "victims" very wealthy.  Am I the only one who sees a contradiction here?  For all of our protestations about how we have free will, the moment various groups can profit off the idea we do not have free will comes up, that sacred belief is jettisoned and we all become behaviorists in search of an answer to the "why" question.  What hypocrisy.

Monday, April 1, 2013

The Curse And The Blessing Of Hair

I was watching a commercial on the television the other night that almost made me upchuck my mac and cheese.  It was from a group called No No Hair Removal Systems.  I never thought it took a system to remove a hair.  When I have a hair growing out of my ear I just grab a hold of it and yank it out.  Same thing with nose hairs.  I had a hair growing out of my neck last week that was so long I kept thinking somebody was pestering me with a feather.  I yanked it out.  I guess I am not very hip when it comes to hair removal systems.  Still, the commercial really bothered me.  Let me tell you why.
It began with images of women with mustaches and sideburns.  In each case there was a "before" and "after" picture.  The "before" pictures showed women with various degrees of facial hair.  Mind you, these were not the bearded women of circus days gone by.  No, they were just women with a bit of extra hair on their faces.  Apparently it is a tragic situation to have this extra hair.  The "before" pictures always showed the women looking very sad.  In the "after" pictures they were smiling.  Not being a woman I don't really know what to say about that part of the commercial.  I will leave you to make your own judgements.
The part that bothered me was the part immediately following the pictures of the women.  A shirtless man is sitting on a bed and his wife (I hope it was his wife) is approaching him with a device that looks like a small barber tool.  The next thing we know the wife is shaving the hair off his chest and both of them are smiling beatifically.  Fast forward and she is rubbing his chest which, by now, is as slick as a baby's bottom. Neither one can contain the joy that they feel about his hair-free chest.   UUGGHH.  That was when the mac and cheese almost made a reappearance.
Something is wrong with a man who feels the need to shave any part of his body not directly related to his head.  Something is even more wrong with a man who does shave any part of his body not directly related to his head.  Men are meant to be hairy.  The Welsh are an especially hairy race.  At the beach, on those rare occasions when we get there, we are often mistaken for Bigfoot.  Several Welshman have made a career out of going around with their shirts off pretending to be Bigfoot.  It is kind of an inside joke on those poor folks who produce that "Searching for Bigfoot" show on the History channel.
Hair on the face is especially manly.  I am not talking about a wispy, birds nest type of mustache or beard.  I am talking about a Grizzly Adams beard.  Now that is something a man can be proud of.  It makes him look great and it can be an emergency source of food if a man ever finds himself stranded in the wilderness.  Those of you who have never had a Grizzly Adams beard might have missed that last reference.  Grizzly Adams beards tend to catch all of the food that drops out of the mouth of a bearded man.  Bearded men, being as uncouth as they generally are, tend to have lots of food dropping out of their mouths.  Hence the wilderness survival tip.
I finished my dinner, wiped some food out of my beard and settled back to watch an episode of Star Trek-The Next Generation.  I suppressed, as best as I could, the memory of that woman shaving the hair off her man's chest.  Then, about halfway through the episode, another commercial came on that made me equally upset.  It was by a group called Hair Club For Men.  As much as the No No people hated hair, this Hair Club For Men love it.  At least they love it on the top of their heads.  I don't know if any of them also happen to be members of No No when it comes to their chest hair and I certainly do not want to find out.
What I did discover is that not having hair on top of my head is a "tragedy".   Now I am used to the word 'tragedy' being used in reference to my life.  Sentences like "His was such a tragic waste of a life" and "It is a tragedy every time he tries to write" are frequently made in reference to me.  However, I have never, until now, known that my baldness is also a tragic condition.  The commercial showed me why.  Men with hair on top of their heads had large pectoral muscles, six pack abdominals and were constantly surrounded by bikini-clad women.  Bald men, on the other hand, wore glasses, had paunches, and only were found in the company of women when the women were their mothers or sisters.
Welshmen, as you have probably already guessed, tend to go bald early in life.  We have never considered that to be a tragedy.  In fact, it is quite convenient.  As young men with flowing locks we are able to quickly catch a woman.  Most of the time we have to choose among many fair lasses who desire to be eternally in our company.  We don't brag about it and we certainly do not want to draw attention to ourselves but it is a pretty well known fact that Welshmen are chick-magnets. Then, around 25 to 30 years of age, all our hair falls out.  That makes taking a shower more efficient and we never have to waste any money on shampoo.  Not to worry, the hair on the rest of our body is really starting to thicken at that point and there is more than enough to to clog the shower drain.
Still there is something I do not understand about those poor fellows who feel bad about being bald.  Are they completely unaware of male physiology?  I guess so.  Everyone should be aware of the fact that male hair loss is directly related to the amount of testosterone coursing through our bloodstreams.  The more testosterone, the less hair.  Therefore it necessarily follows that bald men are the most manly men in the world.  Why else would otherwise reasonable men with full heads of hair actually take the time and energy to shave their heads?  They certainly are aware that bald men are the most manly.  Why, then, would anybody want to cover that bald badge of honor with a hairpiece?  I have no clue.
As I was thinking all of these things through another strange thought came to my mind.  I have recently noticed television commercials (I watch a lot of television) advertising the tragic male condition known as "low T".  Low T is low testosterone and it is a tragedy, or so I am told.  Men suffering from low T are exhorted to take supplements to increase their level of testosterone.  But do they know that taking testosterone supplements will then bring about the tragedy of hair loss?  Either way they lose.  Men, you can either suffer from the tragedy of baldness or the tragedy of low T but you can't fix both of them.  Pick your poison.  Unless, of course, you happen to be Welsh.  Then you live in the best of all possible worlds.