If I've heard it once, I've heard it a thousand times. At some point in any abortion debate, someone is on the "pro-choice" side is going to retort with the question of how many babies the people on the pro-life side have adopted. Whether they realize it or not, this is their premise: "You are not allowed to desire that a person does not murder another person unless you are willing to take on full, cradle-to-grave responsibility for the would-be murderer's potential victim."
That's the surface premise, anyways. The deeper premise is even more ostentatious and cruel than they realize, because they lack the full picture.
Once upon a time, an unwed pregnancy resulted in either a shotgun wedding or a woman struggling to raise her bastard child alone. The lucky single mother raised hers among her own extended family. Famous men could usually get away with fathering children they had no intention of supporting; in other cases, the woman's family, the male members in particular, acted to make sure that he paid in one way or another.
At one point, society decided that the government needed to be involved in this situation. First unwed mothers were required to live in group homes. Then welfare was extended to their families. Then welfare (originally meant only for widows) was restructured so that unwed mothers received more goods and services than other family types. Finally, abortion was both legalized and encouraged, with highschools enabling it secretly, receptionists glancing the other way, and advisers of all sorts telling young women that, if they carried their pregnancies to term, their entire lives, hopes, and dreams would be over. The fact that society's willingness to glance the other way has enabled many predators and outright rapists to hide the evidence of their crimes is another sordid story entirely.
What happened was this: At first, the unwed pregnancy was the responsibility of the father and then, should he manage to escape it, the mother, with an expectation that her family would step in. Then, the unwed pregnancy became the responsibility of all of us. Now, "we" are trying to escape "our" unearned responsibility by coaxing, pressuring, or outright coercing the mother into an abortion.
"So how many have YOU adopted?" means, in a deeper context, "She shouldn't be allowed to keep her baby. If she won't kill it, it should be taken away from her for her own good." Oh, it isn't a matter of legality, not yet, but the clear majority of women in even the most "pro-choice"-friendly polls and studies say that they wanted to keep their babies, but that they felt pressured or forced into getting an abortion instead. "So how dare YOU vote to lower these social programs?" means, in a deeper context, "This baby is your responsibility. If you don't pressure her to kill it, it falls to you to support the child." Have you noticed yet what is missing from this equation?
My grandmother is strongly in favor of requiring an unwed mother to give the father's name before she is allowed to receive government services, so that the State can seek him out for recompense. She was born in the mid-'30's, and is appalled at the current state of affairs, where men are 'free' to have sex with as many women as they like, without consequences, and the men (and women) who buckle down, work hard, and wear themselves out providing for their own families must now return for several more hours of work to deal with the freeloaders. When she says "freeloaders", she is not speaking of the unwed mother and her children. She is speaking of their absent fathers.
What she sees, and what I see, is a new form of patriarchal oppression. Modern Feminism loves to talk about 'patriarchal oppression', and for the most part, they are blowing smoke. That doesn't mean that there were never forms of patriarchal oppression in society from time to time. This was one of them: Men of certain stature were allowed, during certain areas of society, to avoid responsibility for impregnating women. We saw it among royalty and nobility in the feudal systems. We also saw it among slaveowners in the Deep South. Everyone else would shuffle about and cover it up, and those few men 'at the top' would know that they could do as they liked without repercussions or responsibility. In modern times, aided and abetted by Modern Feminism, we have the same situation again: Men are allowed to avoid responsibility for impregnating women.
The 'adoption/welfare' argument assumes as a beginning premise that, when a man is a cad, we are the ones personally responsible for the result. The 'pro-choice' argument itself concludes that the only way for us to absolve ourselves of his responsibility is to encourage or urge her to have the abortion.
Monday, April 18, 2016
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
Judge not.... what?
I saw a lovely post up yesterday talking about how homeschooling is growing sharply in popularity. Of course, I, like many homeschooling parents, cheered at the news. We firmly believe in what we're doing, and it's good to see more people swelling our ranks; if nothing else, there is safety in numbers, and there are still people who want to prohibit us from making this choice.
This morning, however, I saw a comment on that post, something that I suppose I could have seen coming, because it seems to happen at least once in every single conversation about homeschooling that is thrown out where the public can see it.
"Well, homeschooling isn't the best for everybody. Some kids do better in public school, and some kids do better in private school."
Of course.
If you take the absolute worst that homeschooling has to offer and compare it to the absolute best public school ever, no doubt the public school education will be superior.
I am getting so tired of lifestyle/moral equivalency. You can't say that homeschool is simply better than public school. If you do, you're judging, on a personal level, every single person who has ever been public schooled as 'inferior'. If you truly aren't, they will all believe that you are, and treat you as if you are. People are so quick to judge other people. We are all sinners. We all have inferiority complexes. Those of us who can't accept that have to try to make ourselves out to be 'righteous' by proving ourselves to be more 'righteous' than other people. Then comes the attempt to make yourself better than others by proving that you are "less judgmental" than others. It's hard, though, to not be judgmental, when you aren't allowed to view yourself as a sinner who is not really any better than anybody else.
So instead you take the easy way out. If all choices are equally good, then you don't have to try to view someone whom you think is making worse choices as if they are, nevertheless, no less perfect than you are. Or perhaps you think that, if they judge your choices and you "don't judge theirs", that makes you better than them. I'm not 100% sure what's going through these people's heads. All I know is that they have decided that the only way for them to show moral superiority is to show moral equivalency, because it never occurred to them (or they simply could not accept it) to view themselves and everyone else as sinners in need of a Savior. Their righteousness is not in Christ, so they need to find it elsewhere.
Meanwhile, this hurts every single person who is honestly, humbly, willingly trying to learn the best way forward. Young men and women beg for sexual advice, only to be told, "Well, ya know, maybe it's wrong to sleep with him, but maybe it's not. It's up to you, I guess. Do what'll make you happy." And if the young person points out in exasperation that he or she doesn't know what will make him or her happy, the best these people can do is to kind of vaguely repeat their useless advice.
So let me be the one to tell it straight.
Homeschool is better than public school.
Also, a home-prepared lunch is healthier than McDonalds, breastfeeding is better than bottlefeeding, your clothing will fit better and last longer if you make it yourself (or, at least, don't buy it from a cheapy place like Walmart), a small sedan will put out less pollution than a minivan, and you really ought to use those wipes on your hands and the handle of the shopping cart before you go in.
Guess what.
I will pull on an old t-shirt and pair of jeans from Walmart, herd my kids into the minivan, head off to a homeschool field trip without once using wipes, and pick up McDonalds on the road.
What we need to do is to focus, not on pretending that all options are 'equal', but on not judging each other. After all, life isn't about doing everything 'right'. We can't, even if we want to. It isn't about doing everything 'the best way'. If you make that your goal, you will be so stressed out that your health will fail far faster than if you eat a McDouble once every few weeks, or even *gasp* carry about twenty pounds more after having your children than you did when you got married.
Life is about growing, about loving and taking care of each other, about learning to change our priorities, about understanding that "superiority" and "inferiority" mean nothing next to Christ's sacrifice and love for us. I know that's hard for non-Christians to take in, but I hope for your sake that your worldview can come up with something close enough to follow my example here. She who is without sin can throw the first stone. By all means, stand there and state clearly that homeschooling is better than public school. But don't stand there in Walmart jeans with your kid eating a Happy Meal in your minivan (or even eating whole wheat sandwiches in your minivan) and say that the public schooling parent is not as good a parent as you are.
And if someone asks you which is better, breast or bottle, you can say 'breast' without going crazy trying to prop up the ego of every single woman who didn't take that path. But if you know a woman with an infant who is bottle-feeding, you go over there with a good meal, send her to bed, clean up her kitchen, and prepare that bottle so that she can actually rest for more than two hours.
It's much harder to learn how to not judge a person when you are willing to accept that not all choices are equally good.
But it's much, much more rewarding.
This morning, however, I saw a comment on that post, something that I suppose I could have seen coming, because it seems to happen at least once in every single conversation about homeschooling that is thrown out where the public can see it.
"Well, homeschooling isn't the best for everybody. Some kids do better in public school, and some kids do better in private school."
Of course.
If you take the absolute worst that homeschooling has to offer and compare it to the absolute best public school ever, no doubt the public school education will be superior.
I am getting so tired of lifestyle/moral equivalency. You can't say that homeschool is simply better than public school. If you do, you're judging, on a personal level, every single person who has ever been public schooled as 'inferior'. If you truly aren't, they will all believe that you are, and treat you as if you are. People are so quick to judge other people. We are all sinners. We all have inferiority complexes. Those of us who can't accept that have to try to make ourselves out to be 'righteous' by proving ourselves to be more 'righteous' than other people. Then comes the attempt to make yourself better than others by proving that you are "less judgmental" than others. It's hard, though, to not be judgmental, when you aren't allowed to view yourself as a sinner who is not really any better than anybody else.
So instead you take the easy way out. If all choices are equally good, then you don't have to try to view someone whom you think is making worse choices as if they are, nevertheless, no less perfect than you are. Or perhaps you think that, if they judge your choices and you "don't judge theirs", that makes you better than them. I'm not 100% sure what's going through these people's heads. All I know is that they have decided that the only way for them to show moral superiority is to show moral equivalency, because it never occurred to them (or they simply could not accept it) to view themselves and everyone else as sinners in need of a Savior. Their righteousness is not in Christ, so they need to find it elsewhere.
Meanwhile, this hurts every single person who is honestly, humbly, willingly trying to learn the best way forward. Young men and women beg for sexual advice, only to be told, "Well, ya know, maybe it's wrong to sleep with him, but maybe it's not. It's up to you, I guess. Do what'll make you happy." And if the young person points out in exasperation that he or she doesn't know what will make him or her happy, the best these people can do is to kind of vaguely repeat their useless advice.
So let me be the one to tell it straight.
Homeschool is better than public school.
Also, a home-prepared lunch is healthier than McDonalds, breastfeeding is better than bottlefeeding, your clothing will fit better and last longer if you make it yourself (or, at least, don't buy it from a cheapy place like Walmart), a small sedan will put out less pollution than a minivan, and you really ought to use those wipes on your hands and the handle of the shopping cart before you go in.
Guess what.
I will pull on an old t-shirt and pair of jeans from Walmart, herd my kids into the minivan, head off to a homeschool field trip without once using wipes, and pick up McDonalds on the road.
What we need to do is to focus, not on pretending that all options are 'equal', but on not judging each other. After all, life isn't about doing everything 'right'. We can't, even if we want to. It isn't about doing everything 'the best way'. If you make that your goal, you will be so stressed out that your health will fail far faster than if you eat a McDouble once every few weeks, or even *gasp* carry about twenty pounds more after having your children than you did when you got married.
Life is about growing, about loving and taking care of each other, about learning to change our priorities, about understanding that "superiority" and "inferiority" mean nothing next to Christ's sacrifice and love for us. I know that's hard for non-Christians to take in, but I hope for your sake that your worldview can come up with something close enough to follow my example here. She who is without sin can throw the first stone. By all means, stand there and state clearly that homeschooling is better than public school. But don't stand there in Walmart jeans with your kid eating a Happy Meal in your minivan (or even eating whole wheat sandwiches in your minivan) and say that the public schooling parent is not as good a parent as you are.
And if someone asks you which is better, breast or bottle, you can say 'breast' without going crazy trying to prop up the ego of every single woman who didn't take that path. But if you know a woman with an infant who is bottle-feeding, you go over there with a good meal, send her to bed, clean up her kitchen, and prepare that bottle so that she can actually rest for more than two hours.
It's much harder to learn how to not judge a person when you are willing to accept that not all choices are equally good.
But it's much, much more rewarding.
Monday, April 11, 2016
The 2016 Election Season and Asimov's Caliban
From time to time, I focus on one of the books I've read as a good way to describe and understand the political climate. Lately, I have been reminded most strongly of the Caliban trilogy, sometimes called the "Second Robot Series", written by Roger McBride Allen, but set in Isaac Asimov's 'universe' from which came the well-known Three Laws of Robotics.
While Asimov spent a lot of time delving into discussion of what would happen when the Three Laws go wrong, Allen built his trilogy based on what might happen if the Three Laws worked just as they were meant to. He envisions worlds in which the people have cocooned themselves, living in large houses by themselves, every need and whim provided by the robots. The household robots, in addition to seeking their master's physical safety, also seek to meet his emotional needs. Understanding only that change is scary, they try to keep their masters soothed by 'protecting' them from any alteration in schedule. Overuse of robots has become combined with the belief that such overuse is necessary; people may have one robot driver for each day of the week, despite the fact that just one robot comes equipped with the ability to drive the vehicle, clean the house, cook the food, and manage the master's schedule.
In the course of the trilogy, the government needs to use robot labor to fix the terraforming job on the planet of Inferno, so the number of robots permitted in each household is limited to ten. Of course, there is widespread outrage, but this occurs at the same time that a leading roboticist begins to question the role of robots and humanity's perceived need for them. Many people begin to realize that they prefer having some human agency restored to them. They find that they like choosing their own clothing, standing at a balcony without five robots fretting over whether they might suddenly fall. and basically interacting with each other and their own lives in a way they have not done for decades.
The ACA, otherwise known as Obamacare, is unquestionably an unmitigated disaster. Even in the states where it was perfectly implemented, costs have become ridiculously high. Millions of people have lost their insurance plans. The HMO/PPO plan, once considered the standard of care, is now treated like a bauble for the wealthy. Before Obamacare, 1 in 10 people refused medical care at some point during a year because they could not afford it; last year, 1 in 3 people had the same problem. Just two years previous to that, the number was 1 in 4, so the problem is worsening.
At the same time, though, Obamacare did us a service that was likely unintended by its creators. Those of us who lost our insurance and could not afford another policy are discovering what health care actually costs, and how we can save for it ourselves. Even those who have a policy are forced by higher deductibles and lower coverage percentages to think about the care we are purchasing and how we can lower our costs. Unfortunately, due to the structure of Obamacare, we cannot lower costs sufficiently to please the government without foregoing care that we need, and monthly premiums are often so high that care cannot be obtained once they have been paid. People are starting to understand that they have to choose between having insurance and affording health care.
In short, I am not praising Obamacare.
However, many conservative and libertarian proposals which seemed terrifying in the days of the HMO/PPO are now looking more and more reasonable. People have been forced off the teat and crushed under a heavy burden, and they are more amenable to changes that would lift that burden than they were when they thought that they could not survive without the teat. They are beginning to understand that a single bout of strep throat will not bankrupt them. They are beginning to realize the reality of the study done pre-Obamacare, in which the uninsured reported the same level of satisfaction, availability, and affordability of care as the average Canadian citizen.
These people, who would have panicked had they been offered a market in which the high deductible plan would likely be king when they thought that the HMO/PPO was necessary for life and health, are now far more amenable to a deregulated market. They, like the people of Inferno as they were bereft of many of their robot coddlers, are beginning to enjoy their human agency in this new situation, and many may be unwilling to return from crushing government regulation to heavy government regulation when they have much more to gain from lightening the load far more than they would have dared in the 1990's.
While Asimov spent a lot of time delving into discussion of what would happen when the Three Laws go wrong, Allen built his trilogy based on what might happen if the Three Laws worked just as they were meant to. He envisions worlds in which the people have cocooned themselves, living in large houses by themselves, every need and whim provided by the robots. The household robots, in addition to seeking their master's physical safety, also seek to meet his emotional needs. Understanding only that change is scary, they try to keep their masters soothed by 'protecting' them from any alteration in schedule. Overuse of robots has become combined with the belief that such overuse is necessary; people may have one robot driver for each day of the week, despite the fact that just one robot comes equipped with the ability to drive the vehicle, clean the house, cook the food, and manage the master's schedule.
In the course of the trilogy, the government needs to use robot labor to fix the terraforming job on the planet of Inferno, so the number of robots permitted in each household is limited to ten. Of course, there is widespread outrage, but this occurs at the same time that a leading roboticist begins to question the role of robots and humanity's perceived need for them. Many people begin to realize that they prefer having some human agency restored to them. They find that they like choosing their own clothing, standing at a balcony without five robots fretting over whether they might suddenly fall. and basically interacting with each other and their own lives in a way they have not done for decades.
The ACA, otherwise known as Obamacare, is unquestionably an unmitigated disaster. Even in the states where it was perfectly implemented, costs have become ridiculously high. Millions of people have lost their insurance plans. The HMO/PPO plan, once considered the standard of care, is now treated like a bauble for the wealthy. Before Obamacare, 1 in 10 people refused medical care at some point during a year because they could not afford it; last year, 1 in 3 people had the same problem. Just two years previous to that, the number was 1 in 4, so the problem is worsening.
At the same time, though, Obamacare did us a service that was likely unintended by its creators. Those of us who lost our insurance and could not afford another policy are discovering what health care actually costs, and how we can save for it ourselves. Even those who have a policy are forced by higher deductibles and lower coverage percentages to think about the care we are purchasing and how we can lower our costs. Unfortunately, due to the structure of Obamacare, we cannot lower costs sufficiently to please the government without foregoing care that we need, and monthly premiums are often so high that care cannot be obtained once they have been paid. People are starting to understand that they have to choose between having insurance and affording health care.
In short, I am not praising Obamacare.
However, many conservative and libertarian proposals which seemed terrifying in the days of the HMO/PPO are now looking more and more reasonable. People have been forced off the teat and crushed under a heavy burden, and they are more amenable to changes that would lift that burden than they were when they thought that they could not survive without the teat. They are beginning to understand that a single bout of strep throat will not bankrupt them. They are beginning to realize the reality of the study done pre-Obamacare, in which the uninsured reported the same level of satisfaction, availability, and affordability of care as the average Canadian citizen.
These people, who would have panicked had they been offered a market in which the high deductible plan would likely be king when they thought that the HMO/PPO was necessary for life and health, are now far more amenable to a deregulated market. They, like the people of Inferno as they were bereft of many of their robot coddlers, are beginning to enjoy their human agency in this new situation, and many may be unwilling to return from crushing government regulation to heavy government regulation when they have much more to gain from lightening the load far more than they would have dared in the 1990's.
Wednesday, April 6, 2016
The opposite argument against women in combat
Recently, I saw a redux of a claim that I've seen made many times, on the subject of women in combat. "There are women who can be just as bloodthirsty as men," she proclaimed. "And they are just as fit to fight as men are!"
It occurs to me that many people seem to think this, and it is quite wrong.
Now in come the feminists screeching out what they appear to believe: "You Christians just don't believe that women can be rough and tough! You don't believe that women can fight! You believe that they have to be gentle and meek all the time and never stand up for themselves!" What they don't realize is that this is like telling someone who is taking high blood pressure pills that his real problem is that the doctors persist in thinking that his blood pressure is too low.
Yes, you are going to find plenty of Bible verses exhorting women to be gentle and sweet. Why do you think God keeps saying this? Do you think that God exhorts honest people to not lie? Do you think that God exhorts the naturally chaste to avoid sexual temptation? Jesus said it Himself: "I have come for the sick. People who are healthy have no need of a doctor." When we are reminded to not cheat, it is because we are tempted to cheat. When we are reminded that even looking at a woman with lust is tantamount to mental adultery, it is because we think that it's okay as long as we don't do anything physical. When God tells us to remember to give to the poor, it is not because we never think, "But then I won't be able to afford my new this-or-that." Women aren't continually exhorted to be gentle because God thinks we're nothing but gentle. It's because women need to be reminded to be gentle!
Anyone who works in public highschools, juvenile centers, women's prisons, and similar places will laugh in your face if you tell them that women are meeker and gentler than men. Women, they know, unrestrained by gentleness, will fight all the time. They won't just fight, however. They will try to do permanent injury. They will fight to disfigure. They will wage their battles on multiple fronts: physically, mentally, emotionally, and socially. People who will think nothing of breaking up a fight between two men will hesitate to enter a war between two women.
When men fight, they fight for dominance, and they learn that a loser can maintain social standing by losing well. The truth of this can be seen over and over again in stories based on studies and tons of widespread personal experience. When a boy has to deal with a bully, he has to strike a blow sufficient to show his worth. Either he has to defeat the bully once so that they can become friends, or he has to at least put up a good enough fight that his worth is proven within the group and he can join it as an equal member. When a girl has to deal with a bully, however, the only way to resolve the problem in most cases is that she must not knock her opponent down, but must humiliate her opponent to the point where said opponent cannot show her face in public again. Men can fight, lose (or win), brush themselves off, and become friends. Women, if driven to fight, fight to destroy utterly, so that their opponent can never rise again.
Consider an analogy in which women are like cats and men are like dogs. Uneducated folk might come to the conclusion that a 'good kitty' does not have claws at all. Nobody could make that mistake with a dog. The dog's claws tap on the floor. They show when he runs. If a dog launches himself on top of you, you will feel the claws. Now, though the claws can be used in fighting, they don't have to hurt you. You will feel the claws every single time, but they will not shred you. A cat, on the other hand, has retractable claws. If her claws are out, you will feel them. They will do damage. Furthermore, if a dog's claws are always out, you think that he is just a dog; if a cat's claws are always out, you know that there is something wrong with the cat. Just like cats, women are more than capable of fighting, but they need to remember to keep their claws sheathed - to practice gentleness - because with claws as sharp as these, it is all too easy to wound when you do not intend to do so.
Women are not sweet. Women are dangerous.
Now, just as countries are larger forms of tribal groups, just as a mountain is a larger form of the stone you pick up on the road, wars are simply larger forms of individual fighting. The reason why conservative Christians encourage fighting, when necessary, to be done between men rather than women is not because "women can't be bloodthirsty". It's because most fighting men are not bloodthirsty, and bloodthirstiness in battle leads to trouble. When men fight, they are more likely to regard women and children as non-combatants. Those who do not are treated with contempt by other groups of men, and may find themselves ganged up upon. Men can go into battle, fight, win (or lose), and then make friends with the warring countries. When men fight, enemies can become allies. They have a sense of mutual honor. We see this in World War I, on Christmas Day, when fighting stopped utterly in many areas and both sides shared meals and played games before returning to their trenches to try to kill each other the next day. Most women find this very hard to understand, and to most men it is obvious! Men always have their claws out, but their claws do not need to do damage; women do not unsheathe until they mean business.
I had to tell the woman who made the 'bloodthirsty' argument in her comment that, rather than being the best argument in favor of women in combat, it is actually the best argument against. God keeps reminding women to be gentle, not because we are in some way inherently meek, mild, and helpless, but because we need to be reminded to be gentle. In this day and age even more than most, when too many secular women glory in stalking about all the time with their claws unsheathed, causing casual wounding everywhere they go and stressing out bodies that were not meant to be 'on the bounce' all the time, we need to remember that the Bible calls for women to sheathe those claws and, inasmuch as we are able, to be at rest.
It occurs to me that many people seem to think this, and it is quite wrong.
Now in come the feminists screeching out what they appear to believe: "You Christians just don't believe that women can be rough and tough! You don't believe that women can fight! You believe that they have to be gentle and meek all the time and never stand up for themselves!" What they don't realize is that this is like telling someone who is taking high blood pressure pills that his real problem is that the doctors persist in thinking that his blood pressure is too low.
Yes, you are going to find plenty of Bible verses exhorting women to be gentle and sweet. Why do you think God keeps saying this? Do you think that God exhorts honest people to not lie? Do you think that God exhorts the naturally chaste to avoid sexual temptation? Jesus said it Himself: "I have come for the sick. People who are healthy have no need of a doctor." When we are reminded to not cheat, it is because we are tempted to cheat. When we are reminded that even looking at a woman with lust is tantamount to mental adultery, it is because we think that it's okay as long as we don't do anything physical. When God tells us to remember to give to the poor, it is not because we never think, "But then I won't be able to afford my new this-or-that." Women aren't continually exhorted to be gentle because God thinks we're nothing but gentle. It's because women need to be reminded to be gentle!
Anyone who works in public highschools, juvenile centers, women's prisons, and similar places will laugh in your face if you tell them that women are meeker and gentler than men. Women, they know, unrestrained by gentleness, will fight all the time. They won't just fight, however. They will try to do permanent injury. They will fight to disfigure. They will wage their battles on multiple fronts: physically, mentally, emotionally, and socially. People who will think nothing of breaking up a fight between two men will hesitate to enter a war between two women.
When men fight, they fight for dominance, and they learn that a loser can maintain social standing by losing well. The truth of this can be seen over and over again in stories based on studies and tons of widespread personal experience. When a boy has to deal with a bully, he has to strike a blow sufficient to show his worth. Either he has to defeat the bully once so that they can become friends, or he has to at least put up a good enough fight that his worth is proven within the group and he can join it as an equal member. When a girl has to deal with a bully, however, the only way to resolve the problem in most cases is that she must not knock her opponent down, but must humiliate her opponent to the point where said opponent cannot show her face in public again. Men can fight, lose (or win), brush themselves off, and become friends. Women, if driven to fight, fight to destroy utterly, so that their opponent can never rise again.
Consider an analogy in which women are like cats and men are like dogs. Uneducated folk might come to the conclusion that a 'good kitty' does not have claws at all. Nobody could make that mistake with a dog. The dog's claws tap on the floor. They show when he runs. If a dog launches himself on top of you, you will feel the claws. Now, though the claws can be used in fighting, they don't have to hurt you. You will feel the claws every single time, but they will not shred you. A cat, on the other hand, has retractable claws. If her claws are out, you will feel them. They will do damage. Furthermore, if a dog's claws are always out, you think that he is just a dog; if a cat's claws are always out, you know that there is something wrong with the cat. Just like cats, women are more than capable of fighting, but they need to remember to keep their claws sheathed - to practice gentleness - because with claws as sharp as these, it is all too easy to wound when you do not intend to do so.
Women are not sweet. Women are dangerous.
Now, just as countries are larger forms of tribal groups, just as a mountain is a larger form of the stone you pick up on the road, wars are simply larger forms of individual fighting. The reason why conservative Christians encourage fighting, when necessary, to be done between men rather than women is not because "women can't be bloodthirsty". It's because most fighting men are not bloodthirsty, and bloodthirstiness in battle leads to trouble. When men fight, they are more likely to regard women and children as non-combatants. Those who do not are treated with contempt by other groups of men, and may find themselves ganged up upon. Men can go into battle, fight, win (or lose), and then make friends with the warring countries. When men fight, enemies can become allies. They have a sense of mutual honor. We see this in World War I, on Christmas Day, when fighting stopped utterly in many areas and both sides shared meals and played games before returning to their trenches to try to kill each other the next day. Most women find this very hard to understand, and to most men it is obvious! Men always have their claws out, but their claws do not need to do damage; women do not unsheathe until they mean business.
I had to tell the woman who made the 'bloodthirsty' argument in her comment that, rather than being the best argument in favor of women in combat, it is actually the best argument against. God keeps reminding women to be gentle, not because we are in some way inherently meek, mild, and helpless, but because we need to be reminded to be gentle. In this day and age even more than most, when too many secular women glory in stalking about all the time with their claws unsheathed, causing casual wounding everywhere they go and stressing out bodies that were not meant to be 'on the bounce' all the time, we need to remember that the Bible calls for women to sheathe those claws and, inasmuch as we are able, to be at rest.
Monday, April 4, 2016
God as an Economic Ruler
On Easter Sunday, I was reminded of the Jewish holiday which was fully fulfilled by Jesus's death on the cross. On Passover, the people spread the blood of a lamb on the lintel and posts of their door, to show that they were set apart by blood sacrifice, and the angel of death passed over them. That got me thinking, of all things, about economics and the upcoming election.
See, it's an oft-mentioned Christian (and Old Testament Jewish) notion that we are to give God everything we own and everything we are. We're afraid to do that, usually because we get this image of God acting as an earthly king, using up what He feels like having, and returning little or nothing to us. When a king demands your gold, he wants it so that he can decorate his throne. When he demands your daughter, he is looking for a maid and a concubine. When he demands your son, he is looking for a guard or a soldier, someone to die for his safety or even his comfort or convenience.
When people give things to God, though, God has a long-standing habit of giving the things back, as a sacred duty and stewardship rather than simple, selfish ownership. You offer your computer to God, and you find yourself typing out resumes and formatting flyers, or maintaining websites, for churches and other ministries while still being quite able to entertain yourself with a video game in the evening. You offer your house to God, and it becomes a quiet, refreshing place that offers shelter periodically to people in need. Instead of you keeping a house of your own, you are now steward of a shelter of God, and you are, of course, expected to enjoy it while you are keeping it.
We see this in the Passover story with Moses, who was born during a time when the Egyptian Pharaoh's men were killing baby boys, but letting the baby girls live. Moses' mother hid him for as long as she could, keeping him by her own power, but then she knew that all she could do was to give him to God. Of course, we know the end of the story. The Pharaoh's daughter found his basket in the water and decided to keep him. The detail we often miss is that the baby still needed to be fed, and his 'new mother' needed to find a wet-nurse for him. His sister, who had been watching the basket, stepped forward and bravely told the Pharaoh's daughter that she knew a woman who could do the job. And so Moses' mother, who had given her baby away to God, had her baby back in her arms by evening, with orders from royalty preventing him from death!
Where does this become political? Right here.
I see this election season as being a choice in direction, in which economic system we will take one more step towards in the coming years. Our choices are capitalism, corporatism, fascism, and communism.
Bernie Sanders embodies communism - the system in which the government collects and redistributes goods and services directly. Though the stated purpose is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," in practice this becomes "from each according to the government's need, to each according to the government's preference."
The economy in this system is controlled directly by the government as an oligarchy (rule of the few).
Hillary Clinton embodies fascism - the system in which the government controls the private companies, deciding what they are permitted to produce and fixing their wages/prices, but allowing them to act otherwise as 'private' organizations. People make the mistake sometimes of thinking that fascism is 'capitalist' because it involves 'nationalism'. The nationalism of fascism is not flag-waving and setting off illicit fireworks in vacant lots, but the action of permitting the government to take away rights, responsibilities, and freedoms for the (perceived) good of the nation. What decides what is good for the nation? The government, of course.
The economy in this system is controlled indirectly by the government as an oligarchy. There can be some crossover with corporatism, as members of government-favored companies may have a hand in setting policy.
Donald Trump embodies corporatism, previously called mercantilism - the system by which the corporations have the power to influence (or downright set) government policy. Through government taxation and regulation applied unevenly throughout the private world, the larger companies raise artificial barriers against their competition. With lack of competition, the pressure to provide a high-quality product at a lower price and the pressure to raise wages while improving working conditions are both greatly reduced.
The economy in this system is controlled (usually) indirectly by a few corporations as an oligarchy. There can be some crossover with fascism, as members of the government garner corporate support by promising increased corporate power in return.
Ted Cruz embodies capitalism - the system in which the government is empowered to prevent companies from using lawlessness to stifle competition, and the government is constitutionally fettered to prevent companies from using laws to stifle competition. In this system, neither the government nor the corporations are allowed to enact a "command economy".
The economy in this system is not controlled by any centralized authority.
The economist Adam Smith described a capitalist economy as being controlled by an "invisible hand". In short, he argued, even though you don't have an authority in charge of ensuring that prices are low, wages are high, and the poor are fed, it happens naturally through the process of capitalism. Though secular capitalists may have any of a number of explanations for this, including 'game theory' and belief in the power of 'nature', Christian capitalists (including those who first set up the system in this country) view that "invisible hand" as being God.
In this way, capitalism is a rather scary system. We basically give the economy to God, and trust Him to give it back to us as stewards. Just as Moses' mother only gave him up when she saw no other way for his survival, people who are otherwise comfortable may be afraid to give up their economy to this "invisible Hand", unless they believe that they will lose too much otherwise. In this day and age, capitalism means reducing some government social programs and ending others. Cruz has said that he will end the Department of Education. That means that the Federal Government will no longer have ultimate control over what public schools teach children. For someone who sees no authority above that of an authoritarian oligarchy, this is a frightening thought. They don't want to trust God with these things. Those who don't believe in God, of course, don't want to trust "chance", "fate", "luck", or whatever they call it, even though capitalist systems tend to work very well as long as the people aren't panicking and giving their freedoms away in hopes of being able to point to specific people and claim that they, at least, are in 'control'.
See, it's an oft-mentioned Christian (and Old Testament Jewish) notion that we are to give God everything we own and everything we are. We're afraid to do that, usually because we get this image of God acting as an earthly king, using up what He feels like having, and returning little or nothing to us. When a king demands your gold, he wants it so that he can decorate his throne. When he demands your daughter, he is looking for a maid and a concubine. When he demands your son, he is looking for a guard or a soldier, someone to die for his safety or even his comfort or convenience.
When people give things to God, though, God has a long-standing habit of giving the things back, as a sacred duty and stewardship rather than simple, selfish ownership. You offer your computer to God, and you find yourself typing out resumes and formatting flyers, or maintaining websites, for churches and other ministries while still being quite able to entertain yourself with a video game in the evening. You offer your house to God, and it becomes a quiet, refreshing place that offers shelter periodically to people in need. Instead of you keeping a house of your own, you are now steward of a shelter of God, and you are, of course, expected to enjoy it while you are keeping it.
We see this in the Passover story with Moses, who was born during a time when the Egyptian Pharaoh's men were killing baby boys, but letting the baby girls live. Moses' mother hid him for as long as she could, keeping him by her own power, but then she knew that all she could do was to give him to God. Of course, we know the end of the story. The Pharaoh's daughter found his basket in the water and decided to keep him. The detail we often miss is that the baby still needed to be fed, and his 'new mother' needed to find a wet-nurse for him. His sister, who had been watching the basket, stepped forward and bravely told the Pharaoh's daughter that she knew a woman who could do the job. And so Moses' mother, who had given her baby away to God, had her baby back in her arms by evening, with orders from royalty preventing him from death!
Where does this become political? Right here.
I see this election season as being a choice in direction, in which economic system we will take one more step towards in the coming years. Our choices are capitalism, corporatism, fascism, and communism.
Bernie Sanders embodies communism - the system in which the government collects and redistributes goods and services directly. Though the stated purpose is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," in practice this becomes "from each according to the government's need, to each according to the government's preference."
The economy in this system is controlled directly by the government as an oligarchy (rule of the few).
Hillary Clinton embodies fascism - the system in which the government controls the private companies, deciding what they are permitted to produce and fixing their wages/prices, but allowing them to act otherwise as 'private' organizations. People make the mistake sometimes of thinking that fascism is 'capitalist' because it involves 'nationalism'. The nationalism of fascism is not flag-waving and setting off illicit fireworks in vacant lots, but the action of permitting the government to take away rights, responsibilities, and freedoms for the (perceived) good of the nation. What decides what is good for the nation? The government, of course.
The economy in this system is controlled indirectly by the government as an oligarchy. There can be some crossover with corporatism, as members of government-favored companies may have a hand in setting policy.
Donald Trump embodies corporatism, previously called mercantilism - the system by which the corporations have the power to influence (or downright set) government policy. Through government taxation and regulation applied unevenly throughout the private world, the larger companies raise artificial barriers against their competition. With lack of competition, the pressure to provide a high-quality product at a lower price and the pressure to raise wages while improving working conditions are both greatly reduced.
The economy in this system is controlled (usually) indirectly by a few corporations as an oligarchy. There can be some crossover with fascism, as members of the government garner corporate support by promising increased corporate power in return.
Ted Cruz embodies capitalism - the system in which the government is empowered to prevent companies from using lawlessness to stifle competition, and the government is constitutionally fettered to prevent companies from using laws to stifle competition. In this system, neither the government nor the corporations are allowed to enact a "command economy".
The economy in this system is not controlled by any centralized authority.
The economist Adam Smith described a capitalist economy as being controlled by an "invisible hand". In short, he argued, even though you don't have an authority in charge of ensuring that prices are low, wages are high, and the poor are fed, it happens naturally through the process of capitalism. Though secular capitalists may have any of a number of explanations for this, including 'game theory' and belief in the power of 'nature', Christian capitalists (including those who first set up the system in this country) view that "invisible hand" as being God.
In this way, capitalism is a rather scary system. We basically give the economy to God, and trust Him to give it back to us as stewards. Just as Moses' mother only gave him up when she saw no other way for his survival, people who are otherwise comfortable may be afraid to give up their economy to this "invisible Hand", unless they believe that they will lose too much otherwise. In this day and age, capitalism means reducing some government social programs and ending others. Cruz has said that he will end the Department of Education. That means that the Federal Government will no longer have ultimate control over what public schools teach children. For someone who sees no authority above that of an authoritarian oligarchy, this is a frightening thought. They don't want to trust God with these things. Those who don't believe in God, of course, don't want to trust "chance", "fate", "luck", or whatever they call it, even though capitalist systems tend to work very well as long as the people aren't panicking and giving their freedoms away in hopes of being able to point to specific people and claim that they, at least, are in 'control'.
Monday, March 28, 2016
The National Enquirer and Ted Cruz
Now, here are my thoughts on the National Enquirer story.
My greatest concern is that people are taking it as being automatically true. They justify this by pointing out a few times when the Enquirer broke a story about someone having an affair and, though the details were more or less wrong, the basic idea (a particular person having had an affair) turned out to be true.
(The National Enquirer also says that Michelle Obama is a lesbian, that Barack Obama has had multiple secret affairs because of this (redux: they used to say that the reason why Bill Clinton had all those affairs was because Hillary Clinton is also a lesbian), that Hillary Clinton has brain cancer, and, back in 2009, they claimed that Oprah had three years left to live.)
C'mon, guys, be smarter than that.
It's like fortune-telling.
Do you know how fortune-telling works? The fortune teller concentrates on you, but not on some spiritual aspect of your presence. She looks at your expression and your body language. Then she starts throwing out a few things that are extremely common among human beings. "You want to find someone to love." Or perhaps, "You feel the need to be acknowledged for the work you do." In the body language of your response and the words you say, you give her some extra information. "Yeah, my boss never appreciates me!" Now she knows that you work outside the home for a boss whom you believe does not appreciate you. People in that situation are often hoping for a promotion. So she says, "That promotion you are hoping for is not long off." Now, if you get a promotion any time in the next five years, you will think it is an answer to the prediction.
(Newspaper horoscopes work the same way. When my eldest asked about horoscopes, I mentioned his birthdate, found his astrological sign, and read a prediction out from a random site. When he said that it fit, I read another one. Then another. Then another. Each one, he said, fit his situation. Then I revealed to him that I had read to him every astrological sign prediction except for his own.)
Multiple studies and surveys claim that the adultery rate among men is roughly around 20% That means that, statistically speaking, if you accuse five men of adultery, you'll probably be right once. If you have six headlines on your page and three of them accuse someone new of adultery, you're probably going to get a hit about once every two or three months, unless you're really unlucky. If you're concentrating on politicians and Hollywood, your rate is going to go up.
Does that mean that you actually know what's going on? Does that mean that everyone you accuse should be automatically considered guilty?
No. It just means that you know how to guess well enough to make money off the fools who want to believe what you have to say.
Just like fortune tellers.
Does this mean that I absolutely do not believe that Cruz has ever had an affair? No. As noted, at least 20% of the male population has. This percentage climbs when you hit Hollywood and the political scene. Maybe he has. Maybe he hasn't. He says he hasn't. At least two of the women contacted so far have also said that they did not have an affair with him. From what I hear through the grapevine (about as useful a source as the National Enquirer itself), the high-price prostitute is suggesting that she might have a story and dickering for a price. I'll take that with about as much seriousness as it is worth.
But for all I know, maybe it is true.
All I'm saying is this: If you believe it because the National Enquirer says so, you're a fool. And if you believe it because the National Enquirer says so and you want to believe them because you hope it's true, you are worse than a fool.
My greatest concern is that people are taking it as being automatically true. They justify this by pointing out a few times when the Enquirer broke a story about someone having an affair and, though the details were more or less wrong, the basic idea (a particular person having had an affair) turned out to be true.
(The National Enquirer also says that Michelle Obama is a lesbian, that Barack Obama has had multiple secret affairs because of this (redux: they used to say that the reason why Bill Clinton had all those affairs was because Hillary Clinton is also a lesbian), that Hillary Clinton has brain cancer, and, back in 2009, they claimed that Oprah had three years left to live.)
C'mon, guys, be smarter than that.
It's like fortune-telling.
Do you know how fortune-telling works? The fortune teller concentrates on you, but not on some spiritual aspect of your presence. She looks at your expression and your body language. Then she starts throwing out a few things that are extremely common among human beings. "You want to find someone to love." Or perhaps, "You feel the need to be acknowledged for the work you do." In the body language of your response and the words you say, you give her some extra information. "Yeah, my boss never appreciates me!" Now she knows that you work outside the home for a boss whom you believe does not appreciate you. People in that situation are often hoping for a promotion. So she says, "That promotion you are hoping for is not long off." Now, if you get a promotion any time in the next five years, you will think it is an answer to the prediction.
(Newspaper horoscopes work the same way. When my eldest asked about horoscopes, I mentioned his birthdate, found his astrological sign, and read a prediction out from a random site. When he said that it fit, I read another one. Then another. Then another. Each one, he said, fit his situation. Then I revealed to him that I had read to him every astrological sign prediction except for his own.)
Multiple studies and surveys claim that the adultery rate among men is roughly around 20% That means that, statistically speaking, if you accuse five men of adultery, you'll probably be right once. If you have six headlines on your page and three of them accuse someone new of adultery, you're probably going to get a hit about once every two or three months, unless you're really unlucky. If you're concentrating on politicians and Hollywood, your rate is going to go up.
Does that mean that you actually know what's going on? Does that mean that everyone you accuse should be automatically considered guilty?
No. It just means that you know how to guess well enough to make money off the fools who want to believe what you have to say.
Just like fortune tellers.
Does this mean that I absolutely do not believe that Cruz has ever had an affair? No. As noted, at least 20% of the male population has. This percentage climbs when you hit Hollywood and the political scene. Maybe he has. Maybe he hasn't. He says he hasn't. At least two of the women contacted so far have also said that they did not have an affair with him. From what I hear through the grapevine (about as useful a source as the National Enquirer itself), the high-price prostitute is suggesting that she might have a story and dickering for a price. I'll take that with about as much seriousness as it is worth.
But for all I know, maybe it is true.
All I'm saying is this: If you believe it because the National Enquirer says so, you're a fool. And if you believe it because the National Enquirer says so and you want to believe them because you hope it's true, you are worse than a fool.
Liberal cage match: Trump vs. Cruz
So what exactly happened over the past couple of weeks?
In summary, this is exactly what happened.
Anti-Trump liberals sent violent protesters to attack Trump's followers at a couple of events, one of which Trump canceled for the safety of the attendees. They then claimed that Trump's followers were violent. Cruz (among others) fell for it and told Trump that he ought to make it clear that he does not condone violence. Trump supporters responded by basically saying, "Stupid Cruz, don't you see it was the Democrats who did it?"
Then an Anti-Trump group put out an ad showing an old picture of Trump's (current) wife mostly-undressed as an attack ad. Despite the fact that both the group and Cruz clearly explained that liberals were behind this, Trump showed himself to be at least no smarter than Cruz, blaming Cruz and Cruz alone for the ad, and making veiled threats about Cruz's wife. Then Trump's buddy at the National Enquirer, the same one who ran a story about Carson's supposed barbaric maiming of children ("wields the scalpel like a machete", among other claims) when Carson was doing well in the polls and ran a story about Fiorina's supposed secret druggy daughter (she has never made a secret of her step-daughter's struggle; said step-daughter was in her mother's custody) when she was doing well in the polls, suddenly decided to claim that Cruz had a whole bunch of affairs with various staffers, associates, and a high-price prostitute (because if you're going to throw a bunch of charges at the wall, you might as well make them interesting).
Now I have my own things to say about condemning Cruz based on nothing more than the National Enquirer, but that's not my current concern, so I'll leave that part until the end. The short, short version of what happened was this:
Liberals managed to turn the GOP race from a discussion of the issues into a cage match, stopping all this uncomfortable talk about lower taxes and stronger military that resonates with the people whom the liberals hope will vote for Hillary or Sanders, and get people's attention on "more important" (to their candidate's victory) issues, such as whether Melania Trump is hotter than Heidi Cruz.
This is, frankly, the kind of thing that rich people can afford to worry about. If we wind up with Hillary or especially Sanders as our next president, we will no longer be rich. In the midst of making sure that we don't say the 'wrong thing' in public and bring the Federal Government down on our heads in a nation governed by people who staunchly oppose a simple law preventing gay couples from suing pastors who do not wish to conduct their 'marriage' ceremonies, while trying desperately to find enough post-tax cash to buy on the black market the health care that the government refuses to allow us to receive, we will laugh bitterly at our naive selves who worried so much about the issues that the liberals want us to worry about - some woman's partly-clothed body or some man's alleged affairs. Do you think that celebrity worship happens in countries where the people are scavenging for their basic needs after getting government-paid for their government jobs and being given what little shelter and food that the government can manage to provide for them?
Remember the real issues.
Discuss the real problems.
Never mind all this 'sex and violence'.
In summary, this is exactly what happened.
Anti-Trump liberals sent violent protesters to attack Trump's followers at a couple of events, one of which Trump canceled for the safety of the attendees. They then claimed that Trump's followers were violent. Cruz (among others) fell for it and told Trump that he ought to make it clear that he does not condone violence. Trump supporters responded by basically saying, "Stupid Cruz, don't you see it was the Democrats who did it?"
Then an Anti-Trump group put out an ad showing an old picture of Trump's (current) wife mostly-undressed as an attack ad. Despite the fact that both the group and Cruz clearly explained that liberals were behind this, Trump showed himself to be at least no smarter than Cruz, blaming Cruz and Cruz alone for the ad, and making veiled threats about Cruz's wife. Then Trump's buddy at the National Enquirer, the same one who ran a story about Carson's supposed barbaric maiming of children ("wields the scalpel like a machete", among other claims) when Carson was doing well in the polls and ran a story about Fiorina's supposed secret druggy daughter (she has never made a secret of her step-daughter's struggle; said step-daughter was in her mother's custody) when she was doing well in the polls, suddenly decided to claim that Cruz had a whole bunch of affairs with various staffers, associates, and a high-price prostitute (because if you're going to throw a bunch of charges at the wall, you might as well make them interesting).
Now I have my own things to say about condemning Cruz based on nothing more than the National Enquirer, but that's not my current concern, so I'll leave that part until the end. The short, short version of what happened was this:
Liberals managed to turn the GOP race from a discussion of the issues into a cage match, stopping all this uncomfortable talk about lower taxes and stronger military that resonates with the people whom the liberals hope will vote for Hillary or Sanders, and get people's attention on "more important" (to their candidate's victory) issues, such as whether Melania Trump is hotter than Heidi Cruz.
This is, frankly, the kind of thing that rich people can afford to worry about. If we wind up with Hillary or especially Sanders as our next president, we will no longer be rich. In the midst of making sure that we don't say the 'wrong thing' in public and bring the Federal Government down on our heads in a nation governed by people who staunchly oppose a simple law preventing gay couples from suing pastors who do not wish to conduct their 'marriage' ceremonies, while trying desperately to find enough post-tax cash to buy on the black market the health care that the government refuses to allow us to receive, we will laugh bitterly at our naive selves who worried so much about the issues that the liberals want us to worry about - some woman's partly-clothed body or some man's alleged affairs. Do you think that celebrity worship happens in countries where the people are scavenging for their basic needs after getting government-paid for their government jobs and being given what little shelter and food that the government can manage to provide for them?
Remember the real issues.
Discuss the real problems.
Never mind all this 'sex and violence'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)