I don't make decisions like this lightly, but I do hold them lightly. I will not pledge right here and now that I will unquestionably not vote for Donald Trump if he is the Republican nominee. I will, however, state that, as the election currently stands, my decision is that I will not vote for him, even against Hillary.
Nobody is going to guess the real reason.
Oh, there are plenty of reasons that liberals like to talk badly about Trump. They accuse him of being racist because he has an immigration policy that legally-residing Hispanics love. They send people to his rallies to violently attack his supporters and then call his supporters violent when they defend themselves. They take half of what he says so badly out of context that it doesn't even resemble what he actually says. They seem determined to attack him in all the ways that will make his supporters dig in their heels and promise to stay with him forever.
I'm not even all that concerned about many of the attacks on the Right. This whole kerfuffle about his wife... I can take that in a candidate. I can even take a certain level of moderate politics in a candidate. After all, I voted for McCain over Obama, and then I voted for Romney over Obama, and I encouraged my friends and family to do the same.
So what has changed?
I believe that the leadership in the Democrat Party has, for decades now, desired to establish full-out government control along socialist principles, whether by Fascism or straight-out Communism. They want command. They want to be in charge. This isn't really the condemnation that it may seem like. Throughout history, the majority of higher-ups have desired control over larger groups of people. Everyone wants to be the king, the general, the emperor, the supreme leader. The unusual thing in human society has been a free society, a system in which the people are, as individuals, in control of their own lives. It is no accident that these societies have invariably been Jewish or Christian. You have to feel as if someone is in control and, if that someone is God, then it is wrong for you to subjugate your fellow man. (Even in areas where they have failed in this, the precepts of Christianity have been a correcting action that have caused Christians, not outsiders, to correct it.)
But I digress.
Socialism doesn't just happen. It takes sacrifice. Even on the face of it, it takes sacrifice that the people believe will yield benefits down the line. In implementation, of course, the sacrifice continues to strengthen and the benefits do not appear. The important thing is, people don't just take to socialism "because". They start by believing that it is a better system than what they have. Either they lose faith in that "invisible hand" in a free market (whether you believe in God or in the laws of nature), or they live in a system that is not a free market, or both. Socialism took hold in Germany under a war-torn country forced to make heavy reparations from a destroyed economy. Socialism took hold in Russia as a replacement for the iron hand of Imperialism; early Party members were fighting, not for a command economy, but merely for the allowance of sick days for workers. When socialists started trying to find ways to implement their system in the U.S., they ran into a problem... they could not easily convince anybody that socialism was better than what they had, because what they had was freedom, prosperity, and even the poorest considered themselves to be "temporarily embarrassed millionaires".
To peddle their system, they would have to change the one we already had.
Do I have proof that this is a conspiracy theory led by the leadership of the party? No, not really. I know this; though the "Red Scare" and McCarthyism went too far and was misused for witch hunts, history has vindicated McCarthy himself. Though most of the people he investigated were not foreign agents seeking to betray America to her enemies, they were dedicated socialists seeking to transform America into a socialist country over time. We've seen their efforts in the school systems (where they've been pretty brazen about their goals and plans) and in other areas of society. There's one in particular that I want to focus on today, and that is the effort to spread corporatism (what in the 18th century would have been called 'mercantilism') while redefining capitalism such that people believe that capitalism is really corporatism, and socialism is the other choice in the false dichotomy that they are working to set up.
We've seen this whenever Democrats have derided Republicans for being "pro-big business" for wanting to lower taxes or regulations on all businesses (because, of course, a big business makes more profits from it than a small business, even if the small business benefits at a much higher percentage). Then those Democrats tighten regulation and taxes, but they define loopholes for big businesses that support them, and declare this to be "their willingness to enable capitalism". They present the worst parts of corporatism to us, call it 'capitalism', and say that 'capitalism doesn't work'. I have been confused when I've watched movies like Robocop after being told that it's about the evils of capitalism, because it isn't about capitalism at all. It's about corporatism. (I've given you a few sketches here. I could probably write a book on this process and the harm it's doing.) And now we come to the crux of the reason why I don't think I can vote for Trump.
Trump is a corporatist running as a capitalist.
If Hillary wins because I vote for a third party, it's going to be bad. It's going to be tough. Short-term, it's going to be awful. But if Trump wins because I vote for him, then I have colluded in the Democrat effort to rebrand corporatism as 'capitalism'. In the short term, he will not be as bad as Hillary in most respects. In the long term, however, if he provides that last big push, if his reign in office brings us to the point where we truly believe the false dichotomy, the long-term ramifications will be far, far worse.
We will be choosing between Corporatism and Socialism.
And whichever wins, we will lose.
Friday, March 25, 2016
Friday, March 11, 2016
"Feeling the Bern" - The Middle Class Experience on Social Programs
Is my family middle-class? I persist in believing that we are. The term "class" is not as easy as the term "income". It carries with it a sense of lifestyle, of priorities, of emotion and atmosphere. The "working class" has one set of jobs, lifestyles, and priorities. The "middle class" has another.
Our family income alone would mark us as a member of the working class. That said, the way I usually try to describe us is by typing "working/lower-middle class" or simply using the term "lower middle class". The job is white-collar educated, my husband has his college degree (so do I), and we own our own home in a quiet rural area with a large yard. We really do not have much in common with the blue-collar lifestyle. We actually don't have much in common with other lifestyles either, to be honest.
Our food budget is less than that of the average family on welfare, yet we eat well, with my cooking and careful pantry choices. We have the lack of processed foods usually associated with the wealthy. Our furniture may be used, but it is kept in good repair. We get our clothing for free (a church giveaway room, to which we contribute as children outgrow clothing), and I can sew the type of well-fitted outfits for myself that one might associate with the upper-class, even if I have to take trashcan-bound XXXL clothing and cut them down to get the cloth. We take pride in appearing as well as we can with what we have. We take no vacations, and we buy our vehicles used, quite old (both are currently over 10yrs), and with cash on hand. We actually have several thousand dollars in the bank, in a time when the vast majority of this country, even people twice as rich as we are, live paycheck-to-paycheck.
I feel strange whenever I find myself asking for need-based scholarships for my children to go to summer camp or engage in similar opportunities (my daughter did a year of high-class preschool on a half-tuition need-based scholarship, and my grandmother helped us cover the other half), yet when I sit down with Social Services to deal with bureaucracy, the person helping me is always perplexed at our family size and income and has no clue how we manage to make our ends meet at all.
So what happens when a family like mine encounters Sanders'-style economics? (Also known, by me, as 'social programs creep') There are three stages that I've been able to identify over the past about seven and a half years, as liberal economics have caused the process to begin already.
Stage 1: Self-Sufficiency
This is the very best stage, and the reason why families in situations like mine tend to be "surprisingly" conservative rather than wanting to "feel the Bern", as they say. In this situation, the family has low taxes and a high percentage of disposable income. The family uses this income, setting its own priorities, choosing its own lifestyle. Alternative lifestyles or uncommon needs (such as rare medical conditions) are accommodated quickly and easily, as the point of decision-making rests with the family. Money is tight, yes. We don't have the new television. We don't take the vacation. We don't buy the boat. We simply don't have the money, we say to ourselves, because we have already chosen to spend it.. on a curriculum that fits a child's special learning needs, or a doctor who specializes in a parent's medical condition. We are, indeed, by historical standards, wealthy.
Stage 2: The Transition
Anyone would expect this to be the hardest part, a temporary difficulty that results in a family like ours being better off than it was before. It is, in fact, not. As taxes rise, we begin losing our ability to afford that curriculum or that specialist. Income never rises when taxes rise, and so our budget narrows. We wind up giving up things we want, and then things we need, in order to allow the government to give things we already could not afford to people who are poorer than us. As the process continues, we start going into our savings, cutting to the bone, and praying for relief. Unfortunately, we already know from experience that this relief will never come.
Stage 3: Social Programs
Now the government has finally seen fit to "help" us, not by allowing us to meet our own needs again, but by 'graciously' deciding to meet them for us. We are now eligible for the social program. We do the paperwork. We wait for months, since we are one of a large influx of people joining the program, and the staffing for the program has not increased. Finally, we receive our shiny new cards and vouchers, stamped with our identities... our entire lives, experiences, hopes, and dreams, everything that makes us people, collated down into a number and entered into a government file somewhere. We have now been stamped, filed, and categorized. At least now we can access education and medical care again, right?
No. This is the point where we find out that we can't.
The specialist is not covered by the government program. The educational curriculum is not on the government list. They've run out of the bread that's on the WIC list, and the cheaper, healthier store-brand loaf is not on the WIC list, so it won't be covered. If you want bread this week, you'll have to pay for it yourself... out of what's left when the higher taxes have been taken from your paycheck. This is the point at which you learn that the government apparently doesn't think you're supposed to have that medical condition, or need that curriculum.People try to claim that conservatives just plain don't want to help the poor. That's unquestionably a lie, provable, if by nothing else, by the statistics that show how much more generous conservatives are to the poor with their own personal money. Even conservatives on the libertarian side do not oppose government programs as well, programs meant to aid those who simply cannot get what they need by any other means, programs that pay for surgeries and food for the destitute and the disabled. I think I can best explain my opinion on the matter by simply saying this:
In the end, you are transformed from a family that does not have what the wealthier families have, but meets its own individual needs with its own money, to a family that still does not have what the wealthier families have, and is now bereft of the means by which to meet its own individual needs on top of it.
The government should not be giving social programs to anybody who is paying taxes; in reverse, the government should not tax anyone who is receiving social programs.
Before a family is aided by the government, they should be permitted the full body of their resources in order to minimize or meet their needs.
We should never, ever be in the position we are in now, a position that Sanders seeks to worsen, in which the government takes money from us and gives us the goods or services we desire (or those that the government thinks we ought to desire, which does manage to coincide on occasion).
Feeling the "Bern"
What exactly do people mean by "Feel the Bern"? I was startled to see this phrase begin to pop up, especially when used by supporters to encourage other supporters! Apparently, in the world of bodybuilding, "feel the burn" describes the sensation you achieve by working your muscles to the point where you know that they are going to start building themselves higher and stronger. I find that to be a rather bizarre coupling with the cries for taxpayer-funded swag, but perhaps the statement is only meant to indicate the 'good pain' that comes only with hard work and personal sacrifice for personal gain.
I am not a body builder. Though I will exercise to the point of "feeling burn", I am not exercise-inclined, and won't do it for the sake of doing it. I usually exercise for enjoyment and in hopes of weight loss. I do, however, engage in quite a bit of Internet debate, in which the phrase means something very different. Commenters will say "Burn!" or "Feel the burn!" when one member of a debate manages to put down the other in a very satisfyingly thorough and often demeaning way. For many people, the more demeaning the put-down, the more satisfying, and they crow "Feel the burn!" as the other debate opponent reels back, half-blinded by impotent fury.
Given that, when I first saw the phrase appear, I thought it meant, "We are going to vote for someone who is going to take things away from your already-embattled finances and crow about it as you struggle to make your ends once again meet!"
I have never really been able to rid myself of the utter distaste I hold for the term. As I see more and more of Sanders' policy stances, I doubt I ever will.
I am not a body builder. Though I will exercise to the point of "feeling burn", I am not exercise-inclined, and won't do it for the sake of doing it. I usually exercise for enjoyment and in hopes of weight loss. I do, however, engage in quite a bit of Internet debate, in which the phrase means something very different. Commenters will say "Burn!" or "Feel the burn!" when one member of a debate manages to put down the other in a very satisfyingly thorough and often demeaning way. For many people, the more demeaning the put-down, the more satisfying, and they crow "Feel the burn!" as the other debate opponent reels back, half-blinded by impotent fury.
Given that, when I first saw the phrase appear, I thought it meant, "We are going to vote for someone who is going to take things away from your already-embattled finances and crow about it as you struggle to make your ends once again meet!"
I have never really been able to rid myself of the utter distaste I hold for the term. As I see more and more of Sanders' policy stances, I doubt I ever will.
Saturday, January 2, 2016
The End of a Worldview
The title of this post may be a little misleading. I am not talking about a particular worldview coming to an end. Instead, I would like to take a moment and talk about the results when a worldview is followed to its logical end. More specifically, I would like to talk about the Avengers: Age of Ultron movie, and why atheists probably ought to be bent out of shape about it.
Ultron was created when an AI was repurposed from Loki's staff and successfully interfaced by Jarvis. Multiple times during the movie, one Avenger or another pointed out that Ultron had picked up a lot of his view on the world from Tony Stark. Presumably, the AI was listening when Tony told Banner about his vision for 'world peace'. As a result, Ultron took in all the information it could, set it against Tony's stated objective, and came to the interesting conclusion that the best way he could benefit the human race was to initiate an extinction-level event and see what survives and evolves from it.
Ultron was strongly written and played as a madman, and yet his plan was not utterly nonsensical. It was the logical end of secular environmentalism, unchecked by the basic humanity that defies even the atheists who prefer to believe that it does not exist. According to atheistic evolution, humanity is continuously improving through evolving. According to the history proposed by the theory of evolution, this planet has gone through a number of extinction-level events - catastrophies that wiped out all or nearly all life - and risen from each one better than the one before. In defiance of entropy, this worldview (when not seasoned by any other) insists that order comes from chaos.
Tony was interrupted in his plan to attack one AI with another. Ultron had uploaded part of his broken self into the new body. Parts of Jarvis had been uploaded as well. The body was created around one of multiple key stones which appear to represent elements; in this case, the Mind Stone. However, this time, Vision's earliest-heard words were words of caution from Steve Rogers (Captain America), and he was turbocharged into existence by Thor, with whom he apparently had some sort of special bond. (Thor was the first one convinced of Vision's benevolence, the one who enacted his plan with him, and the one who spoke to him at the end.) Now, if you are going to draw a line from "Most religious" to "Least Religious" and plot the Avengers along it, Tony Stark would sit at one end, and Thor and Captain America would sit at the other. Vision was very clearly influenced by the thoughts produced by taking the religious (particularly Christian) worldview to its natural end.
Though I have been comparing Vision and Ultron, this theme moves through the rest of the Avengers as well. Ultron is willing to sacrifice a few (the residents of the city) in order to sacrifice the many, in hopes of improving the whole. At first, the more atheistic members of the team (like Tony!) insist that the few may rightly be sacrificed in order to save the many. The more religious ones overrule them, and help them understand... each individual person is important. You cannot save 'humanity' by sacrificing the unwilling in a numbers game. As Rico correctly pointed out in the book Starship Troopers, in a question of the logistics in risking multiple people to rescue a fallen comrade, "Men are not potatoes."
When Ultron and Vision face off at the end of the movie, Vision says, "There is grace in [humanity's] failings. I think you missed that."
Ultron was created when an AI was repurposed from Loki's staff and successfully interfaced by Jarvis. Multiple times during the movie, one Avenger or another pointed out that Ultron had picked up a lot of his view on the world from Tony Stark. Presumably, the AI was listening when Tony told Banner about his vision for 'world peace'. As a result, Ultron took in all the information it could, set it against Tony's stated objective, and came to the interesting conclusion that the best way he could benefit the human race was to initiate an extinction-level event and see what survives and evolves from it.
Ultron was strongly written and played as a madman, and yet his plan was not utterly nonsensical. It was the logical end of secular environmentalism, unchecked by the basic humanity that defies even the atheists who prefer to believe that it does not exist. According to atheistic evolution, humanity is continuously improving through evolving. According to the history proposed by the theory of evolution, this planet has gone through a number of extinction-level events - catastrophies that wiped out all or nearly all life - and risen from each one better than the one before. In defiance of entropy, this worldview (when not seasoned by any other) insists that order comes from chaos.
Tony was interrupted in his plan to attack one AI with another. Ultron had uploaded part of his broken self into the new body. Parts of Jarvis had been uploaded as well. The body was created around one of multiple key stones which appear to represent elements; in this case, the Mind Stone. However, this time, Vision's earliest-heard words were words of caution from Steve Rogers (Captain America), and he was turbocharged into existence by Thor, with whom he apparently had some sort of special bond. (Thor was the first one convinced of Vision's benevolence, the one who enacted his plan with him, and the one who spoke to him at the end.) Now, if you are going to draw a line from "Most religious" to "Least Religious" and plot the Avengers along it, Tony Stark would sit at one end, and Thor and Captain America would sit at the other. Vision was very clearly influenced by the thoughts produced by taking the religious (particularly Christian) worldview to its natural end.
Though I have been comparing Vision and Ultron, this theme moves through the rest of the Avengers as well. Ultron is willing to sacrifice a few (the residents of the city) in order to sacrifice the many, in hopes of improving the whole. At first, the more atheistic members of the team (like Tony!) insist that the few may rightly be sacrificed in order to save the many. The more religious ones overrule them, and help them understand... each individual person is important. You cannot save 'humanity' by sacrificing the unwilling in a numbers game. As Rico correctly pointed out in the book Starship Troopers, in a question of the logistics in risking multiple people to rescue a fallen comrade, "Men are not potatoes."
When Ultron and Vision face off at the end of the movie, Vision says, "There is grace in [humanity's] failings. I think you missed that."
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
Over-application of the Mary Sue
Warning: This contains spoilers about Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Be warned before reading this.
....
My warning is going to look really silly when I come back to read this post in five years from now.
...
So let's talk about 'Mary Sue'. There have been people online who are claiming that the new heroine in the seventh Star Wars movie, Rey, is in some way far more of an unrealistic 'everything goes right and everyone loves her immediately' figure than, say, Luke Skywalker, or Anakin Skywalker in the prequels.
I contest this, and want to present a comparison of Luke Skywalker in the very first Star Wars movie to Rey of Star Wars 7 as proof.
And yet she's the Mary Sue.
(By the way, do you want to know where the inspiration for Rey's outfit came from? There was a time when Lucas considered making Luke into a girl. The concept sketches were reused for Rey, just as a set of rejected concept sketches for R2D2 were used for BB8.)
I'm tired of female characters constantly having to ride that line between Helpless Flower and Mary Sue. Padme wasn't a Mary Sue? What about Uhura? Zoe? Delenn? Susan Ivanova? Andromeda Ascendant? Cortana? For that matter, what about Galadriel? Amalthea? Kira?
I was watching the CinemaSins "Everything Wrong With" videos for a while, until I got sick and tired of a consistent theme. They 'sin' a movie for a coincidence that makes the movie possible, and then they 'sin' the movie again for making an attempt fail until it succeeds. Folks, there are a million alternate universes where She walks into any coffee shop but His... but the one in which She walked into His is the one in which the story exists. There were no doubt dozens of girls who tried to grow up as scavengers on a desert planet and died young; this is the story about the one who lived. No doubt many women joined the Resistance and died in their first firefight; this is about the one who didn't. There are plenty of Force-sensitive people who cannot adapt to danger quickly enough and are snuffed out early; this is about the one who made it.
That's what stories *are*!
....
My warning is going to look really silly when I come back to read this post in five years from now.
...
So let's talk about 'Mary Sue'. There have been people online who are claiming that the new heroine in the seventh Star Wars movie, Rey, is in some way far more of an unrealistic 'everything goes right and everyone loves her immediately' figure than, say, Luke Skywalker, or Anakin Skywalker in the prequels.
I contest this, and want to present a comparison of Luke Skywalker in the very first Star Wars movie to Rey of Star Wars 7 as proof.
- Luke started out as a sheltered farm boy, his uncle trying to keep him from all notions of adventure and struggle, hoping to make him want to stay on the farm forever.
- Rey started out scavenging for a subsistence living. She had to defend herself, she had to make her own living space, and she had to deal with a rough crowd. She protested at what little she got for the stuff she brought in, but she had no ability to negotiate, and her feeble attempt was easily rebuffed.
- When Luke found out that he was Force-sensitive and that the only parental figures he'd ever known were murdered and his home destroyed, he took a moment in grief and sadness and then chose to go with Kenobi and learn to be a Jedi.
- When Rey found out that she was Force-sensitive and was confronted with the knowledge that her family would never come back for her, she burst into tears and ran away.
- Luke got given a one-handed blaster - granted, we know he already knew how to use some sort of two-handed desert rifle thingy. He immediately got a near-perfect hit score with it from the start, and picked off stormtroopers and other targets with ease. He had no experience with a lightsaber or anything like it, yet he was passable with it from the start and, upon one iteration of Obi-Wan telling him to 'stretch out with his feelings', was able to pull a complex move out of nothingness (the Force) and could 'almost see the remote' despite fighting blind. He also picked up the Falcon ship guns remarkably quickly.
- Rey got given a blaster, had to be taught how to use it, forgot to take the safety off when she first tried, her first shots were laughably bad, and it took her several encounters of fighting for her life before she started managing some sort of accuracy with the thing. When she got the lightsaber, she tried to use it like a spear/staff, and was finally able to pull a complex move out of nothingness (the Force) when upon the very point of death. She managed, *barely*, to temporarily take down an already doubly-wounded foe once before they were separated by explodium.
- Luke was able, within hours of spending time with Kenobi, to utterly master the "hearing the voice of your mentor from beyond the grave" knack, which was something Yoda had given Kenobi to study and learn how to do over the eighteen or so years that he was going to spend in near-complete isolation on Tatooine. Never mind simply reaching to the Force; Luke was receiving instruction straight from his master. He was the one who took out the Death Star with one Force-placed shot.
- After a period of time of direct Force manipulation on her brain (not verbal instructions trying to describe a very subjective task), Rey was able to learn-while-doing how to pull back and catch Ren unawares. After that, she managed after something like *three or four* totally unsuccessful tries to turn a Stormtrooper - the very definition of the 'weak-minded' and basically the easiest possible prey - into doing her will for about half a minute. Look at her face when she's trying to escape and when she runs into her friends. She was terrified that her tenuous grasp on the situation would fail at any time. She had nothing to do with the destruction of the Starkiller. She didn't even know it was something to be destroyed.
- Luke was able to ferry Leia across a chasm with a fancy belt grapple.
- Rey couldn't even carry Finn back to the ship; she had to get Chewbacca to do it.
- Luke climbed into an X-Wing with nothing but planet-based bush pilot experience and Force sensitivity and mastered it immediately. He already knew how to clean and fix up droids, and was giving R2 instructions on the fly on how to keep the damaged X-Wing going.
- Rey ran into the Falcon, which she had obviously worked with and worked on in the past, with planet-based bush pilot experience and Force sensitivity, and made several very rough starts and mistakes before getting a handle on how to maneuver the darn thing, while complaining about the lack of copilot. Then, on Solo's ship, she shorted out the *wrong* group of circuits and set the xenomorph-like creatures all loose. Whoops.
- Luke's very first encounter with the Bad Guys resulted in him making a plan to rescue the Princess, coaxing a reluctant smuggler to help, and pulling it off more or less.
- Rey's very first encounter meant managing to temporarily successfully run away, nearly getting the ship destroyed in the process. Then she was instantly utterly helpless in the face of Kylo Ren, who held her in place and then dropped her *easily*. Finally, she barely managed to escape with the help of her friends.
And yet she's the Mary Sue.
(By the way, do you want to know where the inspiration for Rey's outfit came from? There was a time when Lucas considered making Luke into a girl. The concept sketches were reused for Rey, just as a set of rejected concept sketches for R2D2 were used for BB8.)
I'm tired of female characters constantly having to ride that line between Helpless Flower and Mary Sue. Padme wasn't a Mary Sue? What about Uhura? Zoe? Delenn? Susan Ivanova? Andromeda Ascendant? Cortana? For that matter, what about Galadriel? Amalthea? Kira?
I was watching the CinemaSins "Everything Wrong With" videos for a while, until I got sick and tired of a consistent theme. They 'sin' a movie for a coincidence that makes the movie possible, and then they 'sin' the movie again for making an attempt fail until it succeeds. Folks, there are a million alternate universes where She walks into any coffee shop but His... but the one in which She walked into His is the one in which the story exists. There were no doubt dozens of girls who tried to grow up as scavengers on a desert planet and died young; this is the story about the one who lived. No doubt many women joined the Resistance and died in their first firefight; this is about the one who didn't. There are plenty of Force-sensitive people who cannot adapt to danger quickly enough and are snuffed out early; this is about the one who made it.
That's what stories *are*!
Thursday, November 19, 2015
A Christian Nation when it suits us...
Back in the dark days before science and progress and all the things we prize so much, humanity was ruled mostly by a series of tribes led by a leader who claimed either direct godhood or speakership with godhood. 'For some strange reason', it seemed that the god particularly favored the leader in that it invariably gave orders resulting in the leader having whichever property, goods, and women he wanted. These ancient 'gods' also had a tendency to value peace while the tribe was doing well and then suddenly demand war when the leader wanted to expand his territory or saw another tribe as a threat. There is no doubt that this convenience had been noticed by other tribal members, but that little seed of doubt would remain... Human leaders can be toppled, but gods are quite a different story.
One of the radical innovations brought into the world by Judaism and then Christianity was a knowable God whose precepts did not change, and to whom every man, especially leaders, were answerable. King David was punished by God for exercising his 'divine leadership' in order to take Uriah's wife for himself; King Ahab was punished by God for taking Naboth's vineyard. Under God, a leader cannot claim divine right to what he pleases. This goes on to modern times... when religion has gone wrong, even Christianity during some historical ages and in some parts of the globe, at the center you can often find a human being using it in order to gain personal power.
Socialism, whether its pretend-private form (fascism) or outright state-control form (Communism), by necessity sees Christianity as a threat. Socialism, especially liberal socialism, teaches that the world can be made a paradise as long as everybody agrees to follow the rules laid down by the human beings who created it. This devotion to the State (and hence, they argue, to the community - though the State, which speaks for the 'god' of the community, seems to deliver edicts that benefit the State more than the people... how about that?) must be paramount, and any secondary devotion to the family or another god must be suborned or destroyed. This was touted as a brand new thing, a non-religious (and therefore, somehow, pure) type of government meant to bring us into a new age, but scratch the surface and you will find the same old pagan tribalism as before.
That brings us to today.
Now the role of homosexuality in our society and our attitude towards refugees from the Middle East are really separate issues, and I do honestly believe that those on both sides of both issues should be wary of this argument being produced and spread by liberal Democrats. Have I been the only one to notice that, when 'gay marriage' is being discussed, we are a 'secular nation', yet when Syrian refugees unwittingly harbor terrorists, we suddenly have a 'Christian duty' to let them in with current vetting (or lack thereof) procedures?
Never mind your feelings about gay sex or Muslim terrorists for the moment. Ask yourself this. Are we a Christian nation, required to follow Christian edicts on aiding the needy equally with Christian edicts on forbidding sexual immorality? Are we a nation which, for cultural effect even among those who do not follow Christianity, has public schools offer prayers to the Christian God? Are we a nation that imposes a religious litmus test for leadership?
Or are we a secular nation? Do we follow the desires of our Christian forefathers to make this a country in which, as Christianity does demand, we permit only voluntary conversion? Is this a place where an atheist can have equal access to government programs and justice? Is this a nation which does not ban practices which, though they may offend God, do not cause imminent harm to innocent bystanders? Do we approach national security and response to violence, not directly as followers of a Lamb to the sacrifice, but with a no-nonsense desire to safeguard our borders first? Do we examine social welfare programs based on their cost, their merit, and their effect on our freedom, rather than enshrining a religious zeal in government procedure?
If the Democrats do not want this to be a Christian Nation, then they cannot appeal to Christian duty when trying to push for open borders or social welfare programs. If the Democrats do want this to be a Christian Nation, then they cannot use the government to force people to accept gay sex as identical to marriage, or to refer to decorated trees on public property at Christmastime as "mitten trees", or to ever, in any context (even the correct one), make reference to the "separation of Church and State".
When Democrats vie for a "secular state" in permitting the social issues they wish to promote, and then turn around and demand our "Christian duty" in government-controlled, government-mandated practices they wish to demand, they are the same as the leaders of the ancient tribalism, declaring themselves to be God (or God's direct servant) and using claims of divine power in order to force us all to follow flawed human beings as if they were perfect.
One of the radical innovations brought into the world by Judaism and then Christianity was a knowable God whose precepts did not change, and to whom every man, especially leaders, were answerable. King David was punished by God for exercising his 'divine leadership' in order to take Uriah's wife for himself; King Ahab was punished by God for taking Naboth's vineyard. Under God, a leader cannot claim divine right to what he pleases. This goes on to modern times... when religion has gone wrong, even Christianity during some historical ages and in some parts of the globe, at the center you can often find a human being using it in order to gain personal power.
Socialism, whether its pretend-private form (fascism) or outright state-control form (Communism), by necessity sees Christianity as a threat. Socialism, especially liberal socialism, teaches that the world can be made a paradise as long as everybody agrees to follow the rules laid down by the human beings who created it. This devotion to the State (and hence, they argue, to the community - though the State, which speaks for the 'god' of the community, seems to deliver edicts that benefit the State more than the people... how about that?) must be paramount, and any secondary devotion to the family or another god must be suborned or destroyed. This was touted as a brand new thing, a non-religious (and therefore, somehow, pure) type of government meant to bring us into a new age, but scratch the surface and you will find the same old pagan tribalism as before.
That brings us to today.
Now the role of homosexuality in our society and our attitude towards refugees from the Middle East are really separate issues, and I do honestly believe that those on both sides of both issues should be wary of this argument being produced and spread by liberal Democrats. Have I been the only one to notice that, when 'gay marriage' is being discussed, we are a 'secular nation', yet when Syrian refugees unwittingly harbor terrorists, we suddenly have a 'Christian duty' to let them in with current vetting (or lack thereof) procedures?
Never mind your feelings about gay sex or Muslim terrorists for the moment. Ask yourself this. Are we a Christian nation, required to follow Christian edicts on aiding the needy equally with Christian edicts on forbidding sexual immorality? Are we a nation which, for cultural effect even among those who do not follow Christianity, has public schools offer prayers to the Christian God? Are we a nation that imposes a religious litmus test for leadership?
Or are we a secular nation? Do we follow the desires of our Christian forefathers to make this a country in which, as Christianity does demand, we permit only voluntary conversion? Is this a place where an atheist can have equal access to government programs and justice? Is this a nation which does not ban practices which, though they may offend God, do not cause imminent harm to innocent bystanders? Do we approach national security and response to violence, not directly as followers of a Lamb to the sacrifice, but with a no-nonsense desire to safeguard our borders first? Do we examine social welfare programs based on their cost, their merit, and their effect on our freedom, rather than enshrining a religious zeal in government procedure?
If the Democrats do not want this to be a Christian Nation, then they cannot appeal to Christian duty when trying to push for open borders or social welfare programs. If the Democrats do want this to be a Christian Nation, then they cannot use the government to force people to accept gay sex as identical to marriage, or to refer to decorated trees on public property at Christmastime as "mitten trees", or to ever, in any context (even the correct one), make reference to the "separation of Church and State".
When Democrats vie for a "secular state" in permitting the social issues they wish to promote, and then turn around and demand our "Christian duty" in government-controlled, government-mandated practices they wish to demand, they are the same as the leaders of the ancient tribalism, declaring themselves to be God (or God's direct servant) and using claims of divine power in order to force us all to follow flawed human beings as if they were perfect.
Friday, November 13, 2015
The INTJ in Star Wars
The Meyers-Briggs personality sorter test is one of the most popular personality tests out there, such that it is even trusted in the educational and corporate world. Given that, it should come as no surprise that people have enjoyed illustrating the sixteen personality types in 'prayers', in soundbytes, and even in depictions of popular culture, which brings me to today's complaint. I am one of the rarest Meyers-Briggs types in existence, the female INTJ, and somehow I find that people never look past the word "mastermind" when trying to figure out which Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Twilight, or other such character fits the INTJ archetype. Somehow, for some reason, we are relentlessly typecast as the villain, even when the villain very clearly shows anti-INTJ traits!
Most Star Wars diagrams, for instance, claim that Emperor Palpatine is the INTJ in the series. There are several things severely wrong with this supposition. The INTJ does not seek power, and will only take it reluctantly if nobody else steps up to lead. Palpatine, on the other hand, actively disrupted existing systems in order to grab power. The INTJ, once in power, views his situation objectively and seeks efficiency, dwelling not on blame and punishment for mistakes, but merely on correcting the mistake and moving on. The INTJ is always making contingency plans, and is quick to change plans once he sees a problem with the status quo. Palpatine appears to lead by intimidation. The lead for the second Death Star's construction, if Palpatine had been an INTJ, would be glad to, as Vader put it, "explain it to the Emperor when he arrives" that they simply need more men to stay on schedule. The INTJ would evaluate the request, see if it seemed reasonable, and render an objective decision. Palpatine tended to slowly set up complicated plans, but he did not divert readily from them, even when they were beginning to go wrong. Finally, his very status as a Sith Lord casts the "T" and the "N" of his code into doubt, as the Dark Side of the Force is quicker and more easily accessed through anger, aggression, fear, and a desire for power.
Now, I am a properly-functioning INTJ. If the "bad guy" tended to be the INTJ, I would accept it, even though I do not like to think of myself as a "bad guy". In this case, though, as in most cases (Draco Malfoy is also often listed as an 'INTJ' even though he craves the approval of classmates who can barely speak and boasts about any rise in status that he might have been accorded), the shoe simply does not fit!
So who is the INTJ in Star Wars? The answer is not immediately obvious, until you look past the surface of each of these well-developed characters. The INTJ in Star Wars is Lando Calrissian.
Lando shows all of the traits of an INTJ through the two movies in which he participates. He cooperates reluctantly with Vader when it seems to be the best way to safeguard his people, but when he has had enough of cooperation, he clearly has already put a contingency plan into place. That plan is quickly and easily altered to meet the changing situation. Later, when he joins the Rebellion, he seems embarrassed about having been given the title of "General". He is not seeking power, but when it is thrust upon him, he takes his responsibility seriously. When he finds himself leading the Fleet into a trap, he figures it out first, and within a few minutes he has adjusted his strategy accordingly.
The INTJ action that impressed me the most, however, as an INTJ, was during his escape from Cloud City. He pulled out a microphone into the PA system, told his people that the Empire had taken direct control of the station, and urged them to leave before more Imperial troops arrive. This was not, in fact, a benevolent gesture, nor was it an evil action. He knew that the stormtroopers were uninterested in shooting civilians and would probably get into deep trouble if they did so. The Empire, reeling from the loss of the first Death Star, did not need news of an Imperial massacre to further encourage their enemies and risk increasing the forces of the Rebellion. So what did he do, when he sent that message? He filled the corridors with panicking families, making the stormtroopers work harder to find and safely target him and his companions, and giving himself the cover he needed to slip out a little more quietly. That level of quick-thinking and manipulation, able to dispassionately judge the level of danger and continuously change his plan in order to fit reality, is what makes an INTJ.
I have not yet found the INTJ in Star Wars or in Harry Potter. I can tell you for sure that neither Draco Malfoy nor Spock fit the bill.
Most Star Wars diagrams, for instance, claim that Emperor Palpatine is the INTJ in the series. There are several things severely wrong with this supposition. The INTJ does not seek power, and will only take it reluctantly if nobody else steps up to lead. Palpatine, on the other hand, actively disrupted existing systems in order to grab power. The INTJ, once in power, views his situation objectively and seeks efficiency, dwelling not on blame and punishment for mistakes, but merely on correcting the mistake and moving on. The INTJ is always making contingency plans, and is quick to change plans once he sees a problem with the status quo. Palpatine appears to lead by intimidation. The lead for the second Death Star's construction, if Palpatine had been an INTJ, would be glad to, as Vader put it, "explain it to the Emperor when he arrives" that they simply need more men to stay on schedule. The INTJ would evaluate the request, see if it seemed reasonable, and render an objective decision. Palpatine tended to slowly set up complicated plans, but he did not divert readily from them, even when they were beginning to go wrong. Finally, his very status as a Sith Lord casts the "T" and the "N" of his code into doubt, as the Dark Side of the Force is quicker and more easily accessed through anger, aggression, fear, and a desire for power.
Now, I am a properly-functioning INTJ. If the "bad guy" tended to be the INTJ, I would accept it, even though I do not like to think of myself as a "bad guy". In this case, though, as in most cases (Draco Malfoy is also often listed as an 'INTJ' even though he craves the approval of classmates who can barely speak and boasts about any rise in status that he might have been accorded), the shoe simply does not fit!
So who is the INTJ in Star Wars? The answer is not immediately obvious, until you look past the surface of each of these well-developed characters. The INTJ in Star Wars is Lando Calrissian.
Lando shows all of the traits of an INTJ through the two movies in which he participates. He cooperates reluctantly with Vader when it seems to be the best way to safeguard his people, but when he has had enough of cooperation, he clearly has already put a contingency plan into place. That plan is quickly and easily altered to meet the changing situation. Later, when he joins the Rebellion, he seems embarrassed about having been given the title of "General". He is not seeking power, but when it is thrust upon him, he takes his responsibility seriously. When he finds himself leading the Fleet into a trap, he figures it out first, and within a few minutes he has adjusted his strategy accordingly.
The INTJ action that impressed me the most, however, as an INTJ, was during his escape from Cloud City. He pulled out a microphone into the PA system, told his people that the Empire had taken direct control of the station, and urged them to leave before more Imperial troops arrive. This was not, in fact, a benevolent gesture, nor was it an evil action. He knew that the stormtroopers were uninterested in shooting civilians and would probably get into deep trouble if they did so. The Empire, reeling from the loss of the first Death Star, did not need news of an Imperial massacre to further encourage their enemies and risk increasing the forces of the Rebellion. So what did he do, when he sent that message? He filled the corridors with panicking families, making the stormtroopers work harder to find and safely target him and his companions, and giving himself the cover he needed to slip out a little more quietly. That level of quick-thinking and manipulation, able to dispassionately judge the level of danger and continuously change his plan in order to fit reality, is what makes an INTJ.
I have not yet found the INTJ in Star Wars or in Harry Potter. I can tell you for sure that neither Draco Malfoy nor Spock fit the bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)