On Monday, I tweeted that I wouldn't talk about the effort to defund Obamacare.
Well, it turns out that was not entirely true, due to all the infighting it has triggered.
As I have written previously, both sides in the debate have valid points. However, I have found myself more firmly planted on the side of the defund fight as time has gone on. This is not because defunding the law is feasible, however. It is because fighting the law in the first place is the right thing to do.
Something I have noticed since November is that many conservatives are becoming increasingly disillusioned with the Republican party. With weak presidential candidates and a propensity give up on a fight when winds shift ever so slightly in the wrong direction, many do not believe the Republicans are willing to fight for what they believe it.
This fight is energizing the conservative base. Even if it is only a handful of senators, like Cruz and Lee, leading the charge, they are salvaging support that was otherwise waning by showing the voting public that there are still people in Washington who care about them. Even if the fight is going to be lost, the public knows there are people out there not just paying lip service to the idea of ending the economy destroying leviathan that is the ACA.
They are not merely talking. They are inspiring those who might otherwise not have hope.
That has been what this fight has always been about. It has not been about winning the fight; not every fight in history has been fought because victory was a prospect. Many battles have been fought simply because they are right. It is because fighting is sometimes necessary, regardless of the outcome. In this case, this fight has far more to do with telling conservatives and anyone who will listen that the battle will not be won as we are. It is a call for reinforcements. More people are needed, both in Washington and in the average American community, calling out this travesty of a law for what it is.
That will not come if we refuse to do anything until "we've won." How will we win over hearts and minds without action?
Now, of course, there are liable to be short term consequences for picking a losing fight. That goes without saying. However, this goes back to the idea of choosing a hill to fight/die on. Conservatives have been told, time and again, that various issues have not been worth fighting over. The right has been looking for someone to take a stand since President Obama was elected and, each time, the fight has been passed over or given up before any effects have been achieved.
Put in other terms, the Republicans have given up hill after hill. At what point do we run out of hills to fight on...or people to fight on those hills at all?
Many on the right are starting to feel backed into a corner, as this fight is demonstrating. They are being told that they're being irrational, that they are foolish, even being subtly implied that they are being ignorant. They are being told this fight is not worth it. Just like every single time before. However, in failing to fight before, those who oppose this action do not realize they have brought this very moment upon us. When one limits a person's options, those have to start taking questionable action to try and make a difference, instead of sitting on their hands doing nothing.
If we are here to turn the country around, would it not only help our cause to show that we mean it? Is it so unfathomable to believe that a tactical defeat now could result in a strategic victory later?
Must we keep cowering to every media caricature of our beliefs?
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Monday, September 23, 2013
On Education
I see many a leftist talk about education and its "problems." Of course, hearing that often entails having to listen to their solutions, from more money to more teachers. The problems and solutions are always simple, more of some commodity is needed in schools and, thus, more resources are thrown haphazardly at the problem, in hopes of fixing it.
Of course many of these liberals likely haven't attended a school in decades.
It has not been so many years that I have forgotten my own school days and I recall back then that something was seriously wrong.
In my high school, there were three "tiers" of classes: Applied, Academic and Honors. According to the catalogue, applied courses were the basic, grade-level requirement courses, designed for lower achieving students. The academic courses were considered the "college" track, more challenging and designed to prepare students for higher education. Honors courses were for the highest achieving students.
Personally, I took the academic courses, except in history. Generally speaking, they were challenging enough, their ease often more dependent on how rigorously the teacher drove the students than the overall course content. The problem seemed to lie in the honors and applied levels.
I was qualified throughout high school to sign up for honors classes, but I never did. There were many reasons to, chief among them that I was never quite sufficiently challenged in academic courses and most of my friends were brilliant enough to be in honors. But then I would see the workloads of my friends. In English alone, they would read books on a near weekly basis and write at least one, if not more, papers as well. The focus seemed to be on the quantity of the work done than the quality of the work done.
Instead of studying topics in an in-depth fashion, like I became accustomed to in university, they simply seemed to do more and more work. The focus seemed to be in the wrong place. Rather than challenging the honors students with content beyond grade level, they simply received grade-level assignments in greater amounts.
On the flip side, applied courses seemed nowhere near grade level. Elective courses frequently gave me the opportunity to interact with applied students and when I did and found out the work they did, something was equally wrong. One student I knew would often do his homework in our Java class and he seemed to be doing exercises or reading books barely fit for a middle schooler, let alone juniors and seniors in high school.
Even more disturbing? Any given semester, applied classes were nearly half of the courses offered in each subject.
In other words, half of each graduating class was learning below grade level.
This problem even extends into college. Well over a third of my time spent there (and thus, money), went into "general education" courses. These courses ranged from statistics, biology to physical education. I went to college to learn about english and history, not to learn about subjects I neither cared for nor needed. And in many of those courses, the professors were perfectly content to curve grades based on the highest score, despite the fact that it skewed both how the outside world perceived the class and how students perceived how well they did.
Is more money the solution to the highlighted problems? Or is the solution instead examining how education is approached in this country?
Instead of stressing the idea of students passing, perhaps we should instead focus on them learning. School should be a place where students appreciate being challenged, instead of seeking the easiest path to graduation. It should be where students figure out where their true talents lie, no matter if its academic, a trade or nothing at all. We must banish this idea that college is for everyone. It is not.
College, likewise, should entirely be about immersing the students in their preferred field, with a handful of extra (not required) options to learn about. I don't need a remedial math class when I want to learn about the english language or the Ming Dynasty. It's simply a waste of time.
The problem is not money; it is how today's students are conditioned to view their education with so little worth.
Of course many of these liberals likely haven't attended a school in decades.
It has not been so many years that I have forgotten my own school days and I recall back then that something was seriously wrong.
In my high school, there were three "tiers" of classes: Applied, Academic and Honors. According to the catalogue, applied courses were the basic, grade-level requirement courses, designed for lower achieving students. The academic courses were considered the "college" track, more challenging and designed to prepare students for higher education. Honors courses were for the highest achieving students.
Personally, I took the academic courses, except in history. Generally speaking, they were challenging enough, their ease often more dependent on how rigorously the teacher drove the students than the overall course content. The problem seemed to lie in the honors and applied levels.
I was qualified throughout high school to sign up for honors classes, but I never did. There were many reasons to, chief among them that I was never quite sufficiently challenged in academic courses and most of my friends were brilliant enough to be in honors. But then I would see the workloads of my friends. In English alone, they would read books on a near weekly basis and write at least one, if not more, papers as well. The focus seemed to be on the quantity of the work done than the quality of the work done.
Instead of studying topics in an in-depth fashion, like I became accustomed to in university, they simply seemed to do more and more work. The focus seemed to be in the wrong place. Rather than challenging the honors students with content beyond grade level, they simply received grade-level assignments in greater amounts.
On the flip side, applied courses seemed nowhere near grade level. Elective courses frequently gave me the opportunity to interact with applied students and when I did and found out the work they did, something was equally wrong. One student I knew would often do his homework in our Java class and he seemed to be doing exercises or reading books barely fit for a middle schooler, let alone juniors and seniors in high school.
Even more disturbing? Any given semester, applied classes were nearly half of the courses offered in each subject.
In other words, half of each graduating class was learning below grade level.
This problem even extends into college. Well over a third of my time spent there (and thus, money), went into "general education" courses. These courses ranged from statistics, biology to physical education. I went to college to learn about english and history, not to learn about subjects I neither cared for nor needed. And in many of those courses, the professors were perfectly content to curve grades based on the highest score, despite the fact that it skewed both how the outside world perceived the class and how students perceived how well they did.
Is more money the solution to the highlighted problems? Or is the solution instead examining how education is approached in this country?
Instead of stressing the idea of students passing, perhaps we should instead focus on them learning. School should be a place where students appreciate being challenged, instead of seeking the easiest path to graduation. It should be where students figure out where their true talents lie, no matter if its academic, a trade or nothing at all. We must banish this idea that college is for everyone. It is not.
College, likewise, should entirely be about immersing the students in their preferred field, with a handful of extra (not required) options to learn about. I don't need a remedial math class when I want to learn about the english language or the Ming Dynasty. It's simply a waste of time.
The problem is not money; it is how today's students are conditioned to view their education with so little worth.
Monday, July 29, 2013
On Accountability
A consulate in a foreign country, sovereign American soil, is attacked on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11. But the president has a big trip to Vegas the next day, so he goes to bed. The next day, he finds out four men died in the attack, including the top diplomat in Libya.
Fortunately, the administration had no forewarning of this attack. It was spontaneous and unexpected, triggered by a low quality YouTube video. It's not like the British ambassador was nearly killed in a bombing just weeks before the attack. Nor is it like the American ambassador himself requested additional security for the consulate mere weeks before the attack. No one was responsible for the deadly attack that ensued that day.
Except Republicans and their spending cuts, of course. After all, cut funding for consulates and you most certainly cannot allocate funds intelligently. That would just be responsible.
Recently, however, the American public learned of something even greater that could very well lead to a chilling effect on speech in the nation.
For years, the IRS has been hampering conservative groups that have applied for 501(c)4 tax exempt status. Instead of granting the status in a reasonable amount of time, groups were kept waiting since 2010 and subjected to audit after audit. Is there any doubt that this increased the president's re-election chances? After all, haranguing groups, forcing them to spend money and time on lawyers and compliance with the strongest agency in the federal government had to have affected their ability to organize.
However, despite these actions being of obvious political benefit to the president, he only found out about it through the papers, like the "rest of us." This was all clearly the work of a couple of middle managers in Cincinnati, acting completely of their own accord.
Of course, President Obama knew nothing of the Justice Department's investigations into journalists, either. Not even his top man in the Department of Justice, Attorney General Eric Holder, knew anything. He recused himself and thus had absolutely nothing to do with anything, anytime, anywhere.
It goes down through the line. Whether it is the president himself, his highest ranking subordinates or his defenders, the president is always lacking in direct knowledge of what is happening in his government. Instead of taking responsibility, the president is instead the last to know. Or it is his predecessor's fault.
The tendrils of the evil George W. Bush administration run deep, it seems.
President Obama, on the other hand, doesn't know a thing about what happens in the government during his tenure. The supposed genius god-king, here to save us from our excesses and Texas, is apparently so dumbfounded by the revelations of the past few weeks, it's any wonder he can dress himself in the morning.
But wait! He did allow himself to be accountable for something! He stands by his decision to expand Bush administration policies tenfold and to the homeland! After all, President Obama has to stand behind decisions he's made that either he thinks are good or make him look good. After all, Osama bin Laden was finally killed during his tenure (in a chain of events started before his tenure).
There's something very wrong with the behavior coming out of White House during this presidency.
The purpose of a leader is to lead. A leader sets the atmosphere and the tone of his organization, whether it's a company or the government. One might argue Obama didn't directly give the orders for any of these controversies, but he created the atmosphere in which all of these things became okay to do in someone's mind. It only gets worse when they claim Obama had no idea any of this was going on.
Ultimately, Obama is the product of the "participation trophy" generation. They voted him in and then allow him a pass for everything under his watch. He tried and that is enough for them.
Unfortunately, in the real world, trying is not enough. Failing to uphold your oaths erodes liberties and gets people killed. If only we had not learned this the hard way through President Obama.
If only we had known before he was given another term.
Fortunately, the administration had no forewarning of this attack. It was spontaneous and unexpected, triggered by a low quality YouTube video. It's not like the British ambassador was nearly killed in a bombing just weeks before the attack. Nor is it like the American ambassador himself requested additional security for the consulate mere weeks before the attack. No one was responsible for the deadly attack that ensued that day.
Except Republicans and their spending cuts, of course. After all, cut funding for consulates and you most certainly cannot allocate funds intelligently. That would just be responsible.
Recently, however, the American public learned of something even greater that could very well lead to a chilling effect on speech in the nation.
For years, the IRS has been hampering conservative groups that have applied for 501(c)4 tax exempt status. Instead of granting the status in a reasonable amount of time, groups were kept waiting since 2010 and subjected to audit after audit. Is there any doubt that this increased the president's re-election chances? After all, haranguing groups, forcing them to spend money and time on lawyers and compliance with the strongest agency in the federal government had to have affected their ability to organize.
However, despite these actions being of obvious political benefit to the president, he only found out about it through the papers, like the "rest of us." This was all clearly the work of a couple of middle managers in Cincinnati, acting completely of their own accord.
Of course, President Obama knew nothing of the Justice Department's investigations into journalists, either. Not even his top man in the Department of Justice, Attorney General Eric Holder, knew anything. He recused himself and thus had absolutely nothing to do with anything, anytime, anywhere.
It goes down through the line. Whether it is the president himself, his highest ranking subordinates or his defenders, the president is always lacking in direct knowledge of what is happening in his government. Instead of taking responsibility, the president is instead the last to know. Or it is his predecessor's fault.
The tendrils of the evil George W. Bush administration run deep, it seems.
President Obama, on the other hand, doesn't know a thing about what happens in the government during his tenure. The supposed genius god-king, here to save us from our excesses and Texas, is apparently so dumbfounded by the revelations of the past few weeks, it's any wonder he can dress himself in the morning.
But wait! He did allow himself to be accountable for something! He stands by his decision to expand Bush administration policies tenfold and to the homeland! After all, President Obama has to stand behind decisions he's made that either he thinks are good or make him look good. After all, Osama bin Laden was finally killed during his tenure (in a chain of events started before his tenure).
There's something very wrong with the behavior coming out of White House during this presidency.
The purpose of a leader is to lead. A leader sets the atmosphere and the tone of his organization, whether it's a company or the government. One might argue Obama didn't directly give the orders for any of these controversies, but he created the atmosphere in which all of these things became okay to do in someone's mind. It only gets worse when they claim Obama had no idea any of this was going on.
Ultimately, Obama is the product of the "participation trophy" generation. They voted him in and then allow him a pass for everything under his watch. He tried and that is enough for them.
Unfortunately, in the real world, trying is not enough. Failing to uphold your oaths erodes liberties and gets people killed. If only we had not learned this the hard way through President Obama.
If only we had known before he was given another term.
On Civility
A common complaint with the modern age is that the myriad communication technologies we have access to has cheapened human interaction.
I believe this is true. Who hasn't seen a young person with their noses to their phones, texting or playing games on them? They are obsessed, even when in public or ostensibly hanging out with friends. Instead of talking to each other and having discussions, we sum up our lives with quaint abbreviations or amusing memes.
However, our ability to connect to each other at any time also leaves us ignorant of proper social interaction. We grow casual where we should be professional. We behave glibly when serious tragedy has struck. We call out people who have done us wrong in public where it is better left in privacy.
That last one in particular is obvious to anyone who has been on social networks.
It seems that in our mad rush to publicize every little detail in our lives, we forgot the boundaries when it comes to other people. Instead of privately discussing why "X" wronged us with X him or herself, we call X out in public, doing our best to demonize that person. We turn every minor disagreement into a major argument.
Even worse, by making these disagreements public, we drag our networks of family, friends and acquaintances in with us. We jade and color their perceptions of us and those around us with our behavior. Often, we just show them an ugly side of ourselves no one knew existed. People make assumptions, take sides and, ultimately, many more people are hurt by events that should have only ever affected two.
Something I have observed for years has become increasingly obvious over time: the anonymity of the internet leads people to behave badly.
We can, in essence, become entirely different people online. Whereas we might be polite in personal company, being nobodies on the internet causes us to break down much needed barriers in our behavior. We are a clean slate, able to behave as well or poorly as we please. There are no nuances in written communication that can tell us how another person truly feels or the mood they're in.
Even if we reveal our names, our jobs, our sexual preferences, et al. online, we're still shielded from the dynamics that develop from speaking mano-a-mano.
We forget that the one on the other side of the wires and servers are also human beings. It leads the crueler, less caring among us to be selfish and narcissistic. They behave like jerks and complain when it is thrown back in their faces.
Of course, our emails, text messages, cell phones, video games and whatever else you can think of have brought innumerable advantages. We can interact with people who were out of our reach just two decades ago. They can enrich our experiences in life and we should not be afraid to embrace them for their positive purposes.
At the same time, however, we should be vigilant not to lose our humanity in the process. Civility and manners are precious commodities and must be nurtured--most especially in this age of digital living.
I believe this is true. Who hasn't seen a young person with their noses to their phones, texting or playing games on them? They are obsessed, even when in public or ostensibly hanging out with friends. Instead of talking to each other and having discussions, we sum up our lives with quaint abbreviations or amusing memes.
However, our ability to connect to each other at any time also leaves us ignorant of proper social interaction. We grow casual where we should be professional. We behave glibly when serious tragedy has struck. We call out people who have done us wrong in public where it is better left in privacy.
That last one in particular is obvious to anyone who has been on social networks.
It seems that in our mad rush to publicize every little detail in our lives, we forgot the boundaries when it comes to other people. Instead of privately discussing why "X" wronged us with X him or herself, we call X out in public, doing our best to demonize that person. We turn every minor disagreement into a major argument.
Even worse, by making these disagreements public, we drag our networks of family, friends and acquaintances in with us. We jade and color their perceptions of us and those around us with our behavior. Often, we just show them an ugly side of ourselves no one knew existed. People make assumptions, take sides and, ultimately, many more people are hurt by events that should have only ever affected two.
Something I have observed for years has become increasingly obvious over time: the anonymity of the internet leads people to behave badly.
We can, in essence, become entirely different people online. Whereas we might be polite in personal company, being nobodies on the internet causes us to break down much needed barriers in our behavior. We are a clean slate, able to behave as well or poorly as we please. There are no nuances in written communication that can tell us how another person truly feels or the mood they're in.
Even if we reveal our names, our jobs, our sexual preferences, et al. online, we're still shielded from the dynamics that develop from speaking mano-a-mano.
We forget that the one on the other side of the wires and servers are also human beings. It leads the crueler, less caring among us to be selfish and narcissistic. They behave like jerks and complain when it is thrown back in their faces.
Of course, our emails, text messages, cell phones, video games and whatever else you can think of have brought innumerable advantages. We can interact with people who were out of our reach just two decades ago. They can enrich our experiences in life and we should not be afraid to embrace them for their positive purposes.
At the same time, however, we should be vigilant not to lose our humanity in the process. Civility and manners are precious commodities and must be nurtured--most especially in this age of digital living.
Monday, July 22, 2013
On Victim Blaming and the IRS
Yesterday, Representative Jim McDermott of Washington attempted to damage the credibility of leaders of several conservative groups when they came to testify before congress about the IRS Scandal. Complaining about them seeking a "subsidy," the congressman essentially blamed the groups for bringing the scrutiny on themselves because of their "political activity."
In so doing, he revealed the hand of the left.
First of all, he obviously believes that the targeting of the conservative organizations was just fine, contrary to his opening statement. He spends so much time justifying what the IRS did, he clearly does not care about the unfair targeting. One does not try to justify actions that are objectively wrong unless one agrees with the activity. To cover for this breach in ethics, McDermott essentially blamed the victim, claiming their political activities is what drew the unfair attention (and constant delays in the bestowal of 501(c)4 status) rather than intentional targeting by the IRS.
Also note his attempts to further justify the targeting by pointing to behavior in the George W. Bush administration. He essentially tries to justify bad behavior by pointing to other (allegedly) bad behavior. Which, of course, contradicts the point he made in the beginning (again), where he claimed to believe that the IRS did something wrong.
Congressman, either the IRS did something wrong in targeting conservatives or what they did was okay. You cannot have it both ways.
And, of course, he used the classic leftist refrain equating "tax exemption" with "tax subsidies." I fully believe he knows the difference between the two, but just doesn't care. For the uninformed, "not paying taxes" is not the same as "receiving funds from the government." It is called "getting to keep your own money."
Then again, to the left, all money is the government's money. They just haven't found a way to take it yet.
I believe there is something else that is missed when discussing the point of granting 501(c)3 and (c)4 status to organizations. While such organizations must fulfill certain requirements to gain the status, the primary reason they have it is that they are non-profit organizations. It has little to do with what the specifics of their activities are. It has far more to do with whether or not they are specifically out to make a profit. Like churches, political action groups are not in business nor are they making a profit.
And every dollar the IRS takes from them hurts far more than the dollars taken from a business. Running on donations means running purely off of the goodwill and ability of donors. Businesses can try to improve their bottom line when times are tough. Non-profits cannot.
Considering the past actions of leftists, there are likely only a handful who truly believe what the IRS did was wrong. They will pay lip service to the fact that it was abusive, but their true feelings are far more reflected by McDermott's victim-blaming and justification. They just happen to be more shrewd with their feelings.
To the left, any means are justified to reach the end of marginalizing, if not destroying, the right.
In so doing, he revealed the hand of the left.
First of all, he obviously believes that the targeting of the conservative organizations was just fine, contrary to his opening statement. He spends so much time justifying what the IRS did, he clearly does not care about the unfair targeting. One does not try to justify actions that are objectively wrong unless one agrees with the activity. To cover for this breach in ethics, McDermott essentially blamed the victim, claiming their political activities is what drew the unfair attention (and constant delays in the bestowal of 501(c)4 status) rather than intentional targeting by the IRS.
Also note his attempts to further justify the targeting by pointing to behavior in the George W. Bush administration. He essentially tries to justify bad behavior by pointing to other (allegedly) bad behavior. Which, of course, contradicts the point he made in the beginning (again), where he claimed to believe that the IRS did something wrong.
Congressman, either the IRS did something wrong in targeting conservatives or what they did was okay. You cannot have it both ways.
And, of course, he used the classic leftist refrain equating "tax exemption" with "tax subsidies." I fully believe he knows the difference between the two, but just doesn't care. For the uninformed, "not paying taxes" is not the same as "receiving funds from the government." It is called "getting to keep your own money."
Then again, to the left, all money is the government's money. They just haven't found a way to take it yet.
I believe there is something else that is missed when discussing the point of granting 501(c)3 and (c)4 status to organizations. While such organizations must fulfill certain requirements to gain the status, the primary reason they have it is that they are non-profit organizations. It has little to do with what the specifics of their activities are. It has far more to do with whether or not they are specifically out to make a profit. Like churches, political action groups are not in business nor are they making a profit.
And every dollar the IRS takes from them hurts far more than the dollars taken from a business. Running on donations means running purely off of the goodwill and ability of donors. Businesses can try to improve their bottom line when times are tough. Non-profits cannot.
Considering the past actions of leftists, there are likely only a handful who truly believe what the IRS did was wrong. They will pay lip service to the fact that it was abusive, but their true feelings are far more reflected by McDermott's victim-blaming and justification. They just happen to be more shrewd with their feelings.
To the left, any means are justified to reach the end of marginalizing, if not destroying, the right.
On Thinking About the Children
So, yesterday, Erick Erickson, editor of RedState got into a bit of hot water over commentary he made on the rise of women as the primary breadwinners in families. Outcry from both left and right complained of Erickson's "sexism," equating his words with saying that women "should stay in the kitchen." Of course, listening to and reading what Erickson said demonstrates pretty clearly that what he was saying was nowhere near offensive. At least, not in the way everyone who complained about it did.
I observed something as the complaints heated up.
Many of the arguments against Erickson, when they weren't personal attacks calling him a misogynist or worse, focused around women. Using the false assumption that he believes women should not work, many talked about themselves or women in their lives with careers or as the primary breadwinners in their families.
Their mindset was entirely focused on "women working" and whether or not it was okay.
In a sad testimony to the pervasiveness of leftism, so many women focused on themselves or on women in general. They reacted to the (false) characterizations of Erickson's opinions as a leftist feminist might. They talked about themselves. Their careers. Their choice.
The perspective they took into this (wholly unnecessary) debate was self-centered.
However, Erickson's comments seemed to have another, more important point: the children.
"In modern society we are not supposed to say such things about child rearing and families. In modern society we are not supposed to point out that children in a two-parent heterosexual nuclear household have a better chance at long term success in life than others. In modern society, we are supposed to applaud feminists who teach women they can have it all — that there is no gender identifying role and women can fulfill the role of husbands and fathers just as men do."
He's talking about the children raised in the homes where women work. Let us be honest with ourselves, the majority of homes where the women are the primary earners are not stable, nuclear homes. They are broken homes. Absent fathers, abusive fathers, lost fathers and any other scenario one can think up are the reason so many women have to work. It isn't by choice or because they can make more than their husbands; it is out of necessity.
And our society encourages it. In saying that women can replace men in the home (working or not) or that men are unnecessary creates the environment that makes single mothers. No one ever said that there weren't exceptions. Sometimes the the children of single mothers turn out alright. Look at Dr. Ben Carson. His mother pushed him, an under-achiever with anger issues, to become one of America's foremost neurosurgeons. But that exception does not make the rule.
And that rule is that single motherhood, which is truly what the study tells us about, hurts the children.
But the way we're taught to approach this issue in modern society is to see it as a "women's issue." That women and their rights are the largest. most overriding aspect to the exclusion of all else. This is why the arguments against Erickson focus around women in the workplace rather than his larger point about the family.
This isn't just about women.
It is a men's issue, too. It's also a children's issue. It's a family issue.
It's a society issue.
I observed something as the complaints heated up.
Many of the arguments against Erickson, when they weren't personal attacks calling him a misogynist or worse, focused around women. Using the false assumption that he believes women should not work, many talked about themselves or women in their lives with careers or as the primary breadwinners in their families.
Their mindset was entirely focused on "women working" and whether or not it was okay.
In a sad testimony to the pervasiveness of leftism, so many women focused on themselves or on women in general. They reacted to the (false) characterizations of Erickson's opinions as a leftist feminist might. They talked about themselves. Their careers. Their choice.
The perspective they took into this (wholly unnecessary) debate was self-centered.
However, Erickson's comments seemed to have another, more important point: the children.
"In modern society we are not supposed to say such things about child rearing and families. In modern society we are not supposed to point out that children in a two-parent heterosexual nuclear household have a better chance at long term success in life than others. In modern society, we are supposed to applaud feminists who teach women they can have it all — that there is no gender identifying role and women can fulfill the role of husbands and fathers just as men do."
He's talking about the children raised in the homes where women work. Let us be honest with ourselves, the majority of homes where the women are the primary earners are not stable, nuclear homes. They are broken homes. Absent fathers, abusive fathers, lost fathers and any other scenario one can think up are the reason so many women have to work. It isn't by choice or because they can make more than their husbands; it is out of necessity.
And our society encourages it. In saying that women can replace men in the home (working or not) or that men are unnecessary creates the environment that makes single mothers. No one ever said that there weren't exceptions. Sometimes the the children of single mothers turn out alright. Look at Dr. Ben Carson. His mother pushed him, an under-achiever with anger issues, to become one of America's foremost neurosurgeons. But that exception does not make the rule.
And that rule is that single motherhood, which is truly what the study tells us about, hurts the children.
But the way we're taught to approach this issue in modern society is to see it as a "women's issue." That women and their rights are the largest. most overriding aspect to the exclusion of all else. This is why the arguments against Erickson focus around women in the workplace rather than his larger point about the family.
This isn't just about women.
It is a men's issue, too. It's also a children's issue. It's a family issue.
It's a society issue.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
On Scandalpalooza, Part II
You know, I'm just so glad the president reassured me that tyranny isn't around the corner back on the 5th of this month. I mean, sure, as I mentioned (in passing) earlier this week, he was busy prying into the lives of journalists and their parents, but that's small potatoes, water under the bridge.
Having remembered his reassurance, I can go back to completely trusting the government to not abuse its power.
I mean, it's not like the government was using its most powerful agency to target conservatives.
Wait, what was that?
...Ah. I see.
On some level, I understand the impulse some people have to recoil at "extreme" descriptions of actions taken by the administration or the government. It may very well drive away some from our side. The question is, is it better to cater to people's weakness, hyper-sensitivity and ignorance, or is it better to be accurate?
I choose the latter when I call this administration's tactics fascistic.
What else can you call them? Abusive and evil most certainly fit the bill, but it does not pin down the depth of the administration's lawlessness.
The only real way, I feel, to grasp what the administration has been revealed to be doing is to give it historical context. And this is the early behavior of every fascist regime that has ever existed. The suppression of political and ideological dissent is a must for statists/totalitarians. Otherwise, their opponents may challenge their rule.
And now our own government is repeating these tactics. They are using the power of the IRS to suppress political and other speech. Tea Party groups have been bogged down in a maze of audits and neglect attempting to file for 501(c)4 tax-exempt status since 2010. With these organizations distracted by this sort of thing, is it hard to imagine that this did not have an impact on their ability to organize last year? Is it really so farfetched to believe that money was spent on lawyers and overhead instead of commercials and rallies?
And political organizations are not the only targets. Conservative Christian organizations were also audited. Even now, it has come out that large numbers of audits were targeted at adoptive families.
Considering the IRS's function, it is not unfathomable to believe that any of these groups wouldn't get audited. Every ideology has its dubious groups and individuals. But to see such widespread targeting of the groups the current administration does not like and/or outright opposes is almost unfathomable.
Barack Obama and other leftists constantly push the idea that the government can solve our problems and fix our lives. The speech I referenced in my opening even tried to conflate the idea of "self-governance" with the physical "federal government." The federal government is an entity unto itself, especially with the explosive growth of the bureaucracy beyond the representatives we vote for.
And the IRS scandal is a clear demonstration of what the president would rather have us ignore: the tyranny of a government run amok.
Having remembered his reassurance, I can go back to completely trusting the government to not abuse its power.
I mean, it's not like the government was using its most powerful agency to target conservatives.
Wait, what was that?
...Ah. I see.
On some level, I understand the impulse some people have to recoil at "extreme" descriptions of actions taken by the administration or the government. It may very well drive away some from our side. The question is, is it better to cater to people's weakness, hyper-sensitivity and ignorance, or is it better to be accurate?
I choose the latter when I call this administration's tactics fascistic.
What else can you call them? Abusive and evil most certainly fit the bill, but it does not pin down the depth of the administration's lawlessness.
The only real way, I feel, to grasp what the administration has been revealed to be doing is to give it historical context. And this is the early behavior of every fascist regime that has ever existed. The suppression of political and ideological dissent is a must for statists/totalitarians. Otherwise, their opponents may challenge their rule.
And now our own government is repeating these tactics. They are using the power of the IRS to suppress political and other speech. Tea Party groups have been bogged down in a maze of audits and neglect attempting to file for 501(c)4 tax-exempt status since 2010. With these organizations distracted by this sort of thing, is it hard to imagine that this did not have an impact on their ability to organize last year? Is it really so farfetched to believe that money was spent on lawyers and overhead instead of commercials and rallies?
And political organizations are not the only targets. Conservative Christian organizations were also audited. Even now, it has come out that large numbers of audits were targeted at adoptive families.
Considering the IRS's function, it is not unfathomable to believe that any of these groups wouldn't get audited. Every ideology has its dubious groups and individuals. But to see such widespread targeting of the groups the current administration does not like and/or outright opposes is almost unfathomable.
Barack Obama and other leftists constantly push the idea that the government can solve our problems and fix our lives. The speech I referenced in my opening even tried to conflate the idea of "self-governance" with the physical "federal government." The federal government is an entity unto itself, especially with the explosive growth of the bureaucracy beyond the representatives we vote for.
And the IRS scandal is a clear demonstration of what the president would rather have us ignore: the tyranny of a government run amok.
Monday, May 20, 2013
On Scandalpalooza, Part I
So, you may have noted I did not have an article last week. It is a bit of a (possibly bad) habit of mine to watch when news breaks rather than write.
That said, last week was rather interesting. Not just because of the various breaking scandals, either. But more because the media at large covered them. It was not just Fox News Channel or various (and smaller) conservative outlets. It was the mainstream media at large.
Of course, this sudden interest in the shady actions and coverups likely has little to do with the media suddenly realizing how badly it has neglected its duty as the adversaries to power. Rather, it has much to do with the AP scandal. Once the other outlets realized that the largest news organization in America had its records seized unilaterally by the government, the scandals of this administration became personal for them. Suddenly, the administration was no longer their friend; it treated them like adversaries despite all the friendly press they had given it.
Of course, some on the left are complaining about criticism over the administration's handling of the AP's records. They say it is much ado about nothing, that what the administration did was perfectly legal. Amazingly (and perhaps disturbingly), this is true.
However, what is legal is not necessarily always ethical.
And that is where the AP story goes from routine to potentially scandalous. Legality is irrelevant in the face of the government taking the phone records of the AP in the shadows. Normally, this sort of action would be done in the open, where the press organization in question would be able to challenge and/or negotiate for the records. This time, however, claiming "national security" reasons, the government took the records unilaterally.
And now we have learned today that the government pursued the personal emails and phone records of Fox News reporter James Rosen (among others) for much flimsier reasons. Some expressed concern that the scandals, after getting a week of play in the media, would slowly fade from the headlines as the press fell back into its old Obama-covering habits. However, with yet another attack on free press, there is an emerging pattern of abuse of power and suppression of the press
Even the media water carriers of Barack Obama understand this could very easily become them. They may not like FNC, but when the Department of Justice declares journalists "criminal co-conspirators" simply as an excuse to seize their private information, this steps over a line.
It is an understatement to say that this is chilling.
It is disturbing. Frightening, Alarming.
One of the keys to the continued success of our republic is a free press. It was a free press that, in many ways, allowed the country to become what it is, from inflaming the War for Independance to keeping the government in check for the better part of two centuries.
What happens when the government uses its power and reach to intimidate journalists and their sources?
That said, last week was rather interesting. Not just because of the various breaking scandals, either. But more because the media at large covered them. It was not just Fox News Channel or various (and smaller) conservative outlets. It was the mainstream media at large.
Of course, this sudden interest in the shady actions and coverups likely has little to do with the media suddenly realizing how badly it has neglected its duty as the adversaries to power. Rather, it has much to do with the AP scandal. Once the other outlets realized that the largest news organization in America had its records seized unilaterally by the government, the scandals of this administration became personal for them. Suddenly, the administration was no longer their friend; it treated them like adversaries despite all the friendly press they had given it.
Of course, some on the left are complaining about criticism over the administration's handling of the AP's records. They say it is much ado about nothing, that what the administration did was perfectly legal. Amazingly (and perhaps disturbingly), this is true.
However, what is legal is not necessarily always ethical.
And that is where the AP story goes from routine to potentially scandalous. Legality is irrelevant in the face of the government taking the phone records of the AP in the shadows. Normally, this sort of action would be done in the open, where the press organization in question would be able to challenge and/or negotiate for the records. This time, however, claiming "national security" reasons, the government took the records unilaterally.
And now we have learned today that the government pursued the personal emails and phone records of Fox News reporter James Rosen (among others) for much flimsier reasons. Some expressed concern that the scandals, after getting a week of play in the media, would slowly fade from the headlines as the press fell back into its old Obama-covering habits. However, with yet another attack on free press, there is an emerging pattern of abuse of power and suppression of the press
Even the media water carriers of Barack Obama understand this could very easily become them. They may not like FNC, but when the Department of Justice declares journalists "criminal co-conspirators" simply as an excuse to seize their private information, this steps over a line.
It is an understatement to say that this is chilling.
It is disturbing. Frightening, Alarming.
One of the keys to the continued success of our republic is a free press. It was a free press that, in many ways, allowed the country to become what it is, from inflaming the War for Independance to keeping the government in check for the better part of two centuries.
What happens when the government uses its power and reach to intimidate journalists and their sources?
Tuesday, May 07, 2013
On Tolerance and Acceptance
Something leftists love to do is berate conservatives for being "intolerant." After all, who wants to be intolerant except for a bunch of angry hate-mongers?
Not me, that's for certain. It's why I tolerate even the most ridiculous and disgusting things in life.*
"That isn't true!" you might say, particularly if you are one of my liberal friends. "You're a Christian conservative! You aren't tolerant of my abortion views, or gays and bla...well, gays!"
"On the contrary," I would reply. "I'm talking to you, aren't I?"
One of the most subversive leftist redefinitions of recent decades is the conflation of the words "tolerance" and "acceptance."
Obviously, these two words have very similar meanings and are quite interchangeable in many circumstances. However, when it comes to opinions and choices, those two words can mean two very different things.
Let's take the joke from before about my "lack of tolerance" for abortion and gays. Is that actually true? Considering I've known people who embrace the homosexual lifestyle and would have even called them friends seems to indicate that I'm fully tolerant of them. Same goes for all my friends who hold pro-abortion positions. I disagree with them, sometimes vehemently, but I do not necessarily set myself apart from them, either.
What I do not do, however, is embrace, let alone celebrate, their worldviews or lifestyles. I don't even go far enough to accept the idea that their views and choices are equivalent to what I believe. I will challenge their beliefs when appropriate and will not back down from my own. The mere existence of homosexuality or abortion is not enough for me to say they are okay, let alone good.
This is the fundamental difference between "tolerance" and "acceptance." The former concedes that there are people who think, feel or act a certain way. That they exist is an unavoidable reality and we must live with it (though not necessarily without challenging their views). The latter is actually embracing those ways of thinking, feeling or acting. It is the point where one believes that they are good and/or should be imitated.
Leftists turn the right into haters and bigots by expanding the definition of "tolerance" (as I have put forth) to include "acceptance." It is how, in their own circles, they can be perfectly comfortable with painting those on the right as "intolerant," whether or not that is an accurate descriptor. Of course, once the right's refusal to accept that which is wrong is seen as "intolerant," the left can use that fact as a "moral" justification to call us "evil."
And once our point-of-view becomes evil, it becomes fully justified (in the leftist's mind) not to tolerate it.
*Except silverfish. Disgusting creatures.
Not me, that's for certain. It's why I tolerate even the most ridiculous and disgusting things in life.*
"That isn't true!" you might say, particularly if you are one of my liberal friends. "You're a Christian conservative! You aren't tolerant of my abortion views, or gays and bla...well, gays!"
"On the contrary," I would reply. "I'm talking to you, aren't I?"
One of the most subversive leftist redefinitions of recent decades is the conflation of the words "tolerance" and "acceptance."
Obviously, these two words have very similar meanings and are quite interchangeable in many circumstances. However, when it comes to opinions and choices, those two words can mean two very different things.
Let's take the joke from before about my "lack of tolerance" for abortion and gays. Is that actually true? Considering I've known people who embrace the homosexual lifestyle and would have even called them friends seems to indicate that I'm fully tolerant of them. Same goes for all my friends who hold pro-abortion positions. I disagree with them, sometimes vehemently, but I do not necessarily set myself apart from them, either.
What I do not do, however, is embrace, let alone celebrate, their worldviews or lifestyles. I don't even go far enough to accept the idea that their views and choices are equivalent to what I believe. I will challenge their beliefs when appropriate and will not back down from my own. The mere existence of homosexuality or abortion is not enough for me to say they are okay, let alone good.
This is the fundamental difference between "tolerance" and "acceptance." The former concedes that there are people who think, feel or act a certain way. That they exist is an unavoidable reality and we must live with it (though not necessarily without challenging their views). The latter is actually embracing those ways of thinking, feeling or acting. It is the point where one believes that they are good and/or should be imitated.
Leftists turn the right into haters and bigots by expanding the definition of "tolerance" (as I have put forth) to include "acceptance." It is how, in their own circles, they can be perfectly comfortable with painting those on the right as "intolerant," whether or not that is an accurate descriptor. Of course, once the right's refusal to accept that which is wrong is seen as "intolerant," the left can use that fact as a "moral" justification to call us "evil."
And once our point-of-view becomes evil, it becomes fully justified (in the leftist's mind) not to tolerate it.
*Except silverfish. Disgusting creatures.
 |
| Hey look, it's Dan Savage, whose lack of self-awareness of his own intolerance proves my point! |
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Bush v. Obama - Governing Philosophy
 |
| "Hey, I'm on the right side this time!" |
It's time to talk about everyone's favorite president, George W. Bush!
I actually wrote this article back in December and left it with loads of typos (which I've corrected here). However, with the opening of his presidential library, this seems like a prudent time to rehash this.
That and it will actually get an audience without me begging endlessly this time.
Alright, back to the president.
You see, something that bothers me a lot is
just how much the man is criticized, even four years out from his presidency. President Obama still uses him as a scapegoat (despite making the country demonstrably worse in his tenure). Liberals constantly scream and cry about how Bush was a moron, two-steps away from becoming a tyrant (not sure how that works; idiots generally don't have the wherewithal to become tyrants). Some conservatives even (particularly more libertarianish ones) believe he and Obama are equal amounts of bad.
So where does the truth lie? Was President Bush some horrible, idiot man-child given hell bent on maliciously expanding the government until we became serfs? Or was he something less than that?
On some level, I am actually inclined to agree with those libertarians who see Bush's "compassionate conservatism" as bad policy. His solutions for many problems was bigger [federal] government. Following the September 11th attacks, the solution was the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security, both of which granted large of amounts of power to the federal government.
However, this does not make Bush comparable to Obama in any way. Each are governed by a different set of motivations for what they do. When Bush pushed for the Patriot Act and DHS, he was not doing it in some crazy attempt to massively expand the government or curb our freedoms. If you believe that was his motivation, you live in some other world entirely.
What he believed is that it was the right thing to do to keep us safe.
Now, that is not to say it was not ill-conceived. It most certainly was. In the hands of 43, however, it was relatively benign, designed and used to protect us. However, what he and others failed to realize is that such power, in the wrong hands, could easily be abused. Even now, the current administration is using defense bills to try and grant itself power to spy on American citizens. Not overseas foreign nationals suspected of terror ties, but Americans themselves. The slippery slope strikes again.
Same goes for any other big government initiative proposed by Bush. His heart was most certainly in the right place for things like "No Child Left Behind," the proposed (and passed) solution for the many failing schools around the country. Like the Patriot Act, it was just as ill-conceived and constitutionally dubious. These actions do not make him equal to President Obama, however.
President Bush, as far as I can tell, believed the government was capable of doing good things for the people. It was a tool that could serve the people and better their lives with its reach and power. President Obama, on the other hand, clearly believes that the government is better and/or smarter than the people; thus it should be doing things it is assumed they cannot, regardless of the people's actual ability.
To Bush, government was the tool for a solution; it could help the individual improve him or herself. To Obama, the government is the solution, all the time. It subsumes the individual in its infinite wisdom and benevolence.
I think that is a very distinct philosophical difference.
Monday, April 22, 2013
On Uniting as a Nation
Last week was stressful and heartbreaking. With deadly bombings and industrial accidents, it seemed an endless barrage of horrible news until Friday came around. The very kind of week that could bring a fractured nation together. Just like after September 11, 2001, when, for a time at least, America's resolve and will was united and unshakeable.
At least, in theory.
It seems as though we live in an era where such unity is impossible. This sad reality once again held true in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing. It started with the rampant media speculation that the attack was related to "right-wing terror" (whatever that is; evidence of such terrorism is scant). Leftists in the media and elsewhere wished the suspect to be white and on the right. A Christian, a Tea Partier, a conservative of any sort; that's what they wanted. Well, they got the white part of their wish, at least.
Then, the disunity was buoyed by President Obama's petulant and whiny Rose Garden appearance on Wednesday, immediately after the failure of gun control legislation in the senate. He accused his political opponents of desiring the deaths of innocents and children simply for not backing his proposals. Apparently, taking symbolic and useless legislative action that only hampers the law-abiding is the only way not to be an accessory to murder.
You'll have to forgive me if I am not particularly open to unity right now.
Of course, this all boils down to the mentality the left approaches the right with.
To us, they are wrong.
To them, we are evil.
Unity is rather difficult when people automatically assume one is a heartless, child-killing terrorist.
And yes, I do blame the left, president and all, for this disunity. Call me biased, but speaking for myself, I would be more than willing to unite on those things on which I agree with the left. They may be few, but solidarity in the face of terrorism is most certainly one.
But then the left demonizes and defames. It is leftism that pushes others away, by turning their opponents into enemies, into the "other." People not to be touched or associated with. Of course, there are some on the right who do the same to the left. However, how many "mainstream" conservatives do this compared to "mainstream" liberals?
Speaking from personal experience, I can say I rarely shun and cut ties with people I befriend simply for their personal and moral views, even when I have found those views to be reprehensible. However, I have had two friends in the past three weeks shun and slander me (out of the public eye, for which I am grateful) for articles I've recently written or things I've recently said. And I would not have treated them the same.
The roots of the disunity in this country is the left. One may deny it or try to pass it off on both sides. However, when one side consistently treats the other as degenerate and evil, it brings the reality into much clearer light.
How much longer can a nation stand once pitted against itself?
At least, in theory.
It seems as though we live in an era where such unity is impossible. This sad reality once again held true in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing. It started with the rampant media speculation that the attack was related to "right-wing terror" (whatever that is; evidence of such terrorism is scant). Leftists in the media and elsewhere wished the suspect to be white and on the right. A Christian, a Tea Partier, a conservative of any sort; that's what they wanted. Well, they got the white part of their wish, at least.
Then, the disunity was buoyed by President Obama's petulant and whiny Rose Garden appearance on Wednesday, immediately after the failure of gun control legislation in the senate. He accused his political opponents of desiring the deaths of innocents and children simply for not backing his proposals. Apparently, taking symbolic and useless legislative action that only hampers the law-abiding is the only way not to be an accessory to murder.You'll have to forgive me if I am not particularly open to unity right now.
Of course, this all boils down to the mentality the left approaches the right with.
To us, they are wrong.
To them, we are evil.
Unity is rather difficult when people automatically assume one is a heartless, child-killing terrorist.
And yes, I do blame the left, president and all, for this disunity. Call me biased, but speaking for myself, I would be more than willing to unite on those things on which I agree with the left. They may be few, but solidarity in the face of terrorism is most certainly one.
But then the left demonizes and defames. It is leftism that pushes others away, by turning their opponents into enemies, into the "other." People not to be touched or associated with. Of course, there are some on the right who do the same to the left. However, how many "mainstream" conservatives do this compared to "mainstream" liberals?
Speaking from personal experience, I can say I rarely shun and cut ties with people I befriend simply for their personal and moral views, even when I have found those views to be reprehensible. However, I have had two friends in the past three weeks shun and slander me (out of the public eye, for which I am grateful) for articles I've recently written or things I've recently said. And I would not have treated them the same.
The roots of the disunity in this country is the left. One may deny it or try to pass it off on both sides. However, when one side consistently treats the other as degenerate and evil, it brings the reality into much clearer light.
How much longer can a nation stand once pitted against itself?
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
On "Keeping it in the Church"
 |
| Stay! Stay here and like it! |
Were it not so dangerous, these kinds of comments and demands would be funny. Let's use an example.
Let us go back in time and recall the Civil War again. Ulysses S Grant attacked Robert E. Lee in 1864, he pushed the Confederate army back to Richmond and Petersburg. Unable to abandon the capital, Lee dug in to prepare for Grant. However, the Union did not attack, as the positions were well fortified, and instead besieged the cities. Lee's forces began to dwindle. He had dug into a strong position, but lost the ability to maneuver or resupply effectively. The Confederate army grew weaker as the winter wore on, spelling doom for Johnny Reb the following spring.
Now, why do I bring this up?
Because, according to liberals, that's what we, as believers in Christ, should do. We should dig into our churches and stay there, never moving. Instead of going out into the world to preach the gospel, we should remain where we are with our "private" faith. This idea appeals to some; it's not easy to leave our comfort zones. Of course, what would happen to our churches if we were to do that?
Much like Lee's army, they would wither on the vine, unable to grow, and ultimately die, like so many houses of worship in Europe.
We are commanded to spread the gospel all across the Earth. How can we do that simply sitting in our church pews? If we sit idle in our houses of worship, how do we spread the message of Christ's love and redemption? Obviously, we can't. The faith cannot spread without evangelists going out into the world to bring people to Christ.
We are to be movers and shakers, transforming hearts and minds that are broken or mired in sin. We are to come to them so that they may be healed in Christ's love. We can't wait for them to come to us. Some may be so stubborn, they'll never be moved to approach a church, even at their lowest point. We must go to where they are, no matter where they are, so we may minister to them.
Because Christ transforms. Transforms our hearts, minds, opinions, and the very way we think. However, to bring the message to others we must leave our pews and represent Christ in all we do. And all we do includes politics and the culture at large. It would be two-faced to behave one way in private and another entirely in public.
Simply put, Christianity is the antithesis of a "private" religion.
Whether they realize it or not, the leftists advocate for the slow destruction of Bible-based churches with their claims that faith should be kept in the pews on Sunday morning. Instead of seeking robust debate about our faith or our values, they desire to silence us. Whether we do it voluntarily, allowing ourselves to be shamed into staying in church, or involuntarily through the legal system does not matter.
This is something we should all be wary of.
Tuesday, April 09, 2013
On Working Full-Time
While filling out some job applications in our increasingly bleak economy something caught my attention. Many applications ask how many hours one would like to work for a particular company. Normally, it brackets them as "Less than 20"; "21-30"; "31-40"; and "40+". However, I saw something interesting while perusing the applications. From time to time, would run across one that would stop at "31+" hours.
Now why would they do that? After all, we generally consider full-time work to be 40 hours. Why would the list stop ten hours short of normal?
Well, for the attentive and intellectually honest among you, it is because of Obamacare. Under the law's provisions, employers must start providing health insurance to employees once they hit 50 full-time workers or pay the penalty for failing to comply. The catch, however, is that the law considers employees who work 30 hours per week full-time.
In other words, the government arbitrarily declared what constitutes full-time work, ostensibly to force more companies to provide health insurance to their employees. Of course, considering providing insurance adds considerable expense to any company's payroll, whether it can "handle it" or not, this is serving to have the inverse effect. Instead of giving insurance to their workers, the companies drop workers or reduce them to part time hours.
This move has had several effects. Most obviously, it reduces the amount of jobs available to people. In addition to companies hiring less to ensure their payroll does not blow up, many employees who have had their hours cut must take on additional jobs to maintain their standard of living. However, I believe this move will have another, even worse effect on the population at large.
It will further devalue the concept of the full time job. As the more or less defunct Occupy Wall Street demonstrated, there are many youth out there who believe they do not have to work. Or worse, they believe they don't have to work hard or in undesirable conditions. Working for a living has become a dated notion and, indeed, they owe the world nothing. They go so far as to believe that the world owes them something.
They are both wrong and right. They're wrong in believing the world owes them something. It owes them nothing if they fail to produce something of worth and then it only owes them that which they have earned. But they are also right in their angst against the idea that they owe the world something. They don't.
Progressivism has done much to obscure the true purpose of why we work. We work because we owe ourselves a good living. Working for a living is not some nebulous, unknowable notion. We produce to better ourselves and our families. If we can better the lives of others (and very few people don't) through our labor, all the better.
This odd concept that earning a living is somehow "outdated" misses the point. People have to produce to live, survive and thrive. What that mentality fails to take into account is that everything we use, whether we created it or not, was created by someone. Our food, our clothes and our devices did not appear on the Earth by magic. They were created by someone who needed the money to live.
We're just fortunate to live in a country where we can easily pursue goals beyond basic subsistence living.
When we don't work, we become stagnant. We don't grow when we don't work and aren't challenged. Even worse, we become leeches. If we do not provide for ourselves, often someone else provides for us. And demanding someone else provide for us, whether the parent or the state, robs us something else.
Dignity.
Now why would they do that? After all, we generally consider full-time work to be 40 hours. Why would the list stop ten hours short of normal?
Well, for the attentive and intellectually honest among you, it is because of Obamacare. Under the law's provisions, employers must start providing health insurance to employees once they hit 50 full-time workers or pay the penalty for failing to comply. The catch, however, is that the law considers employees who work 30 hours per week full-time.
In other words, the government arbitrarily declared what constitutes full-time work, ostensibly to force more companies to provide health insurance to their employees. Of course, considering providing insurance adds considerable expense to any company's payroll, whether it can "handle it" or not, this is serving to have the inverse effect. Instead of giving insurance to their workers, the companies drop workers or reduce them to part time hours.
This move has had several effects. Most obviously, it reduces the amount of jobs available to people. In addition to companies hiring less to ensure their payroll does not blow up, many employees who have had their hours cut must take on additional jobs to maintain their standard of living. However, I believe this move will have another, even worse effect on the population at large.
It will further devalue the concept of the full time job. As the more or less defunct Occupy Wall Street demonstrated, there are many youth out there who believe they do not have to work. Or worse, they believe they don't have to work hard or in undesirable conditions. Working for a living has become a dated notion and, indeed, they owe the world nothing. They go so far as to believe that the world owes them something.
They are both wrong and right. They're wrong in believing the world owes them something. It owes them nothing if they fail to produce something of worth and then it only owes them that which they have earned. But they are also right in their angst against the idea that they owe the world something. They don't.
 |
| Are they seriously trying to say lounging about in public squares... |
This odd concept that earning a living is somehow "outdated" misses the point. People have to produce to live, survive and thrive. What that mentality fails to take into account is that everything we use, whether we created it or not, was created by someone. Our food, our clothes and our devices did not appear on the Earth by magic. They were created by someone who needed the money to live.
We're just fortunate to live in a country where we can easily pursue goals beyond basic subsistence living.
When we don't work, we become stagnant. We don't grow when we don't work and aren't challenged. Even worse, we become leeches. If we do not provide for ourselves, often someone else provides for us. And demanding someone else provide for us, whether the parent or the state, robs us something else.
Dignity.
 |
| ...is more dignified than working hard? Collecting trash may not be glamorous, but at least they aren't demanding something they haven't earned. |
Sunday, April 07, 2013
On Head Knowledge and College
As a gamer, I have often had opportunity to speak with people who I might have otherwise never met. In particular, I know quite a few people from countries across the Atlantic. From these, I've gained a different perspective (albeit, in a limited fashion) of the thoughts and feelings from those in Europe.
Much as President Obama touts here, many of my EU friends love the universal university education provided by their countries. For many, it is seen as a right (or close to one). To them, higher education is virtually guaranteed to afford better opportunities, something which is statistically true. These conversations, at some point, tend to lead to a little America-bashing, where we are mocked for the perception that we are ignorant.
Several months ago, it occurred to me just how arrogant this mentality is (ironically, arrogance is the very thing many Europeans will accuse Americans of). While it is true there are many ignorant people in the United States, why would this not hold true of Europe as well? The only reason it is obvious in America is that we, as a nation, attract more attention.
However, it also begs the following question: what exactly is intelligence? I have addressed this before, however, today I talk more about “head knowledge.” This is the information you learn in school and in universities. Physics, history, literature; the subjects university students plan to use to make careers for themselves.
Of course, head knowledge varies from individual to individual. Often, people are mocked for not knowing simple information, such as locating France on an unmarked map or identifying the man on the ten dollar bill.
Much as President Obama touts here, many of my EU friends love the universal university education provided by their countries. For many, it is seen as a right (or close to one). To them, higher education is virtually guaranteed to afford better opportunities, something which is statistically true. These conversations, at some point, tend to lead to a little America-bashing, where we are mocked for the perception that we are ignorant.
Several months ago, it occurred to me just how arrogant this mentality is (ironically, arrogance is the very thing many Europeans will accuse Americans of). While it is true there are many ignorant people in the United States, why would this not hold true of Europe as well? The only reason it is obvious in America is that we, as a nation, attract more attention.
However, it also begs the following question: what exactly is intelligence? I have addressed this before, however, today I talk more about “head knowledge.” This is the information you learn in school and in universities. Physics, history, literature; the subjects university students plan to use to make careers for themselves.
Of course, head knowledge varies from individual to individual. Often, people are mocked for not knowing simple information, such as locating France on an unmarked map or identifying the man on the ten dollar bill.
But is this indicative of stupidity? Or is it, as I believe, indicative of differing priorities?
After all, how is it bad or a waste of a good mind if the plumber who is fixing my sink can not find France on a map? Who would want to? It's France.
French-bashing aside, why would it matter to the plumber? He is there to fix my sink, not teach me the map of the world. If he's making $100,000 yearly by being a practical, useful human being, why would knowing where France is help him in his job? It wouldn't. Why would the man seeking to do well so he can feed a family sit down and figure out that Alexander Hamilton graces the bills I paid him for a job well done?
Ultimately, I believe that it boils down to the conceit caused by universal college. That conceit is two-fold.
First, in propping up universities and universities alone, people place undue importance on higher education over other career paths. People who go to college often grow arrogant, feeling that they are, in some way, superior to people who have not. Many of those people are blissfully unaware of their ignorance. That is not to say there is no need a need for scientists, historians and linguists, but these fields also do not teach much in the way of practical skills which one could use in a normal job.
Additionally, it implies that other careers and jobs are somehow not fulfilling. Not that it is glamorous to pick up trash, but it's also a job that needs doing, regardless of one's level of education. And I'm sure there are some who get a sense of fulfillment out of the dirty, gritty jobs that academics would never do.
The other problem lies in the fact that “college for everyone” assumes that everyone is cut out for college. Being a university student requires a certain type of person. One who hungers and thirsts for knowledge is a must. It requires a focused mind as book-learning can become quite tedious. To assume that everyone can do this sort of thing is silly, not because some people are inherently superior to others, but because people are different. Some people absorb knowledge early, while others take time. Some have the patience to read large textbooks while others do not. Some have the ability to memorize maps of the world and do complex algebra in their heads while others cannot. It's not necessarily because some are stupid and lazy while others are smart and quick; our brains are just wired differently to do different things.
This sort of thinking also trivializes other kinds of knowledge and intelligence. Why does one need to attend university when he or she is perfectly capable of starting a business without the education? Learning the nuances, struggling to turn a profit and make payroll, and succeeding or failing on one's own merits is learning as well and no less useful than understanding the ins and outs of the American Civil War. Both have their place and both aid those who know them.
After all, how is it bad or a waste of a good mind if the plumber who is fixing my sink can not find France on a map? Who would want to? It's France.
French-bashing aside, why would it matter to the plumber? He is there to fix my sink, not teach me the map of the world. If he's making $100,000 yearly by being a practical, useful human being, why would knowing where France is help him in his job? It wouldn't. Why would the man seeking to do well so he can feed a family sit down and figure out that Alexander Hamilton graces the bills I paid him for a job well done?
Ultimately, I believe that it boils down to the conceit caused by universal college. That conceit is two-fold.
First, in propping up universities and universities alone, people place undue importance on higher education over other career paths. People who go to college often grow arrogant, feeling that they are, in some way, superior to people who have not. Many of those people are blissfully unaware of their ignorance. That is not to say there is no need a need for scientists, historians and linguists, but these fields also do not teach much in the way of practical skills which one could use in a normal job.
Additionally, it implies that other careers and jobs are somehow not fulfilling. Not that it is glamorous to pick up trash, but it's also a job that needs doing, regardless of one's level of education. And I'm sure there are some who get a sense of fulfillment out of the dirty, gritty jobs that academics would never do.
The other problem lies in the fact that “college for everyone” assumes that everyone is cut out for college. Being a university student requires a certain type of person. One who hungers and thirsts for knowledge is a must. It requires a focused mind as book-learning can become quite tedious. To assume that everyone can do this sort of thing is silly, not because some people are inherently superior to others, but because people are different. Some people absorb knowledge early, while others take time. Some have the patience to read large textbooks while others do not. Some have the ability to memorize maps of the world and do complex algebra in their heads while others cannot. It's not necessarily because some are stupid and lazy while others are smart and quick; our brains are just wired differently to do different things.
This sort of thinking also trivializes other kinds of knowledge and intelligence. Why does one need to attend university when he or she is perfectly capable of starting a business without the education? Learning the nuances, struggling to turn a profit and make payroll, and succeeding or failing on one's own merits is learning as well and no less useful than understanding the ins and outs of the American Civil War. Both have their place and both aid those who know them.
I say none of this to suggest we should discourage people from attending university. What I am saying is that it is okay to attend university, just as it is okay to attend a trade school, join a company and work your way through the ranks or start your own business. All are noble pursuits worthy of respect.
People will learn information as they need it. They don't learn based on some arbitrary assumption of information's necessity, but because it will be useful to them in their jobs or their lives. And college is but one place where one can seek out knowledge.
People will learn information as they need it. They don't learn based on some arbitrary assumption of information's necessity, but because it will be useful to them in their jobs or their lives. And college is but one place where one can seek out knowledge.
 |
| Europe, in all of its glorious, fully labeled splendor! I, once again, apologize to the Poles. |
Sunday, March 31, 2013
On the Resurrection
Today is Easter Sunday. Many have gone to church as a family tradition. Others have held Easter egg hunts for the children and/or terrified them with people dressed in bizarre and eerie bunny costumes. And everyone has gorged themselves on candy. Even now, I stare at a box of peeps, as they desperately plea for their lives and I ignore their terror.
For many others, this is a day like no other, for it is Resurrection Day.
For on this day we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Born of a virgin into a fallen world, Jesus came into the world with one purpose: to transform it.
And transformed it He did.
After preaching in the Galilee region, Jesus traveled to Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. Already detested by the Pharisees, the religious leaders of the people of Israel, His continued preaching eventually led to his arrest and execution (which is traditionally observed on Good Friday). To the disciples and the other followers, all seemed lost. The man who had transformed their lives and many others with His teachings and miracles was gone.
Then, on the third day after his crucifixion, something was amiss with His tomb.
The stone covering it was rolled away and He was gone.
For He had risen.
He had gone to Hell and battled Satan for the sake of mankind. Sin and evil had dominated the world since the original sin in Eden. And Jesus fought for a way out; of sin, of the world, of Hell. And when directly confronted by God the son, Satan was once more cowed and defeated.
Jesus returned from the dead, so that we may all have eternal life. He died and rose again so that we would no longer be slaves to our sinful nature and our personal failings. He exerted power and victory over death, hell and the grave. He transformed the world and us because God loved us enough to give His only begotten son as the sacrifice that would finally atone and intercede for our sins from Adam on.
The world has light in it once more.
Have a happy and blessed Resurrection Day.
For many others, this is a day like no other, for it is Resurrection Day.
For on this day we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Born of a virgin into a fallen world, Jesus came into the world with one purpose: to transform it.
And transformed it He did.
After preaching in the Galilee region, Jesus traveled to Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. Already detested by the Pharisees, the religious leaders of the people of Israel, His continued preaching eventually led to his arrest and execution (which is traditionally observed on Good Friday). To the disciples and the other followers, all seemed lost. The man who had transformed their lives and many others with His teachings and miracles was gone.
Then, on the third day after his crucifixion, something was amiss with His tomb.
The stone covering it was rolled away and He was gone.
For He had risen.
He had gone to Hell and battled Satan for the sake of mankind. Sin and evil had dominated the world since the original sin in Eden. And Jesus fought for a way out; of sin, of the world, of Hell. And when directly confronted by God the son, Satan was once more cowed and defeated.
Jesus returned from the dead, so that we may all have eternal life. He died and rose again so that we would no longer be slaves to our sinful nature and our personal failings. He exerted power and victory over death, hell and the grave. He transformed the world and us because God loved us enough to give His only begotten son as the sacrifice that would finally atone and intercede for our sins from Adam on.
The world has light in it once more.
Have a happy and blessed Resurrection Day.
 |
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
On Offensive Comparisons
Look at that picture for a moment. No rush. Just look at it, drink in the details, think through the implications.
I cannot stress enough how insanely offensive that picture is.
It is saying that people who oppose gay marriage are like the people who opposed the civil rights movement. It is drawing equivalency with people who wish to redefine the ancient institution of marriage, implying that they are somehow as oppressed as the people who had to use inferior facilities because of the color of their skin.
They are saying that judging someone for their actions is the same as judging someone for the color of their skin. That being a homosexual, tied to the actions of the individual, is somehow similar to having a certain skin color, which is immutable.
Is this picture trying to tell me that homosexuals are being blasted by water cannons in the streets? That they're being beaten by abusive police officers while dogs are unleashed on them to tear their flesh? Is it telling me that they are being murdered and hung in the town square for all to see?
You bet. It's drawing a moral equivalence between people who believe that government shouldn't and in fact, does not have the authority to redefine marriage and those who believed that people of color did not deserve basic human dignity.
Pictures like this are the result of leftism. The left transforms every issue into a dichotomy of "being on the right side of history" vs. "bigotry." By making the side the left disagrees with appear to be bigoted, it gives them a massive talking point which no one will disagree with, except those of conscience on the opposing side.
Because the left teaches kids what, rather than how, to think, they post and repost pictures like this without thinking it through. Anyone who thinks about this image for a bit realizes the disturbing and disgusting implications at the core of its message. The way it marginalizes the struggles of the civil rights movement by putting what amount to minor inconveniences on the same level as being treated as less than human is abhorrent. Anyone should be repulsed at the idea of drawing this comparison.
The future seems scary from where I'm sitting. Comparisons like this are becoming commonplace and people of traditional, Biblical mores are slowly being shunned and shoved to the side.
What effect do you think this mentality will have on liberty?
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Fighting On Multiple Fronts
With Jim Carrey's recent jackassery and the sudden explosion in discussion over same-sex marriage, I have seen many interesting articles and tweets over the past couple of days. Somewhat predictably (as much as it pains me to say it), I've also noted some naysayers on the right complaining about all the attention these two issues are getting.
"Jim Carrey is irrelevant," they say. This is true. Not only is he not funny, this is the first I've heard of him in some time.
"If only we saw this much energy and enthusiasm regarding the economy and taxes," they say. And I agree, it would be nice to see enthusiasm on other issues.
But of course, the real question is, what are the implications of statements like these?
I'll start with the argument against Carrey, particularly as I have seen the argument used time and again regarding various leftists from Michael Moore to Piers Morgan. You see, the point of engaging someone is not because of their importance. Otherwise, we wouldn't argue with family, friends, strangers, etc. because, comparatively speaking, they are not important. The point of engaging is to challenge a person's assumptions and conclusions when they deserve to challenged. Or in Jim Carrey's case, the fact the he is a complete ass.
As for putting energy into certain issues over others, that is just a matter of taste. Some people are more engaged by moral arguments than economic or political ones. How is that wrong? How does "shaming" those who focus on certain issues help with the ones they are perceived to neglect? Hammering one's allies strikes me as an ineffective way to build alliances.
Ultimately, what this complaining comes down to is the idea that certain issues are "more important" than others. Not that this isn't true; some issues do carry greater implications than others. However, this is not a justification to ignore particular subjects, people or ridicule someone for focusing on a subject that you deem less important. What is important to you may not necessarily be important to someone else.
This mentality is very dangerous. Determining whether an issue should be addressed by its perceived importance to someone is unwise. According to this logic, if I may use a military analogy. the Union (in the American Civil War) should never have fought in the Western theater (with General Grant and the Mississippi River). The Eastern theater, where the northern armies fought General Lee in much more publicized battles, were considered more important by the War Department. We should have focused purely on the east, according to this perspective.
The war was won in the west. The Confederates were defeated because of the many victories out west. Had this sort of short-sighted thinking been applied to that war, we might live in a radically different nation today. Assuming we would exist at all.
Frankly, having someone who is interested in social issues and having someone else who is interested in fiscal issues should be seen as a good thing. Then you have people fighting battles that they are fully engaged in. Additionally, as a movement, this allows conservatives to fight on multiple fronts. Because ultimately, every issue is important. Every issue has implications that no one has considered. Ignoring an issue for no reason other than "it's not important" will allow our opponents to get around us and subvert us. Our gains in one area will be rendered meaning by our losses in another.
How is that good strategy?
"Jim Carrey is irrelevant," they say. This is true. Not only is he not funny, this is the first I've heard of him in some time.
"If only we saw this much energy and enthusiasm regarding the economy and taxes," they say. And I agree, it would be nice to see enthusiasm on other issues.
But of course, the real question is, what are the implications of statements like these?
I'll start with the argument against Carrey, particularly as I have seen the argument used time and again regarding various leftists from Michael Moore to Piers Morgan. You see, the point of engaging someone is not because of their importance. Otherwise, we wouldn't argue with family, friends, strangers, etc. because, comparatively speaking, they are not important. The point of engaging is to challenge a person's assumptions and conclusions when they deserve to challenged. Or in Jim Carrey's case, the fact the he is a complete ass.
As for putting energy into certain issues over others, that is just a matter of taste. Some people are more engaged by moral arguments than economic or political ones. How is that wrong? How does "shaming" those who focus on certain issues help with the ones they are perceived to neglect? Hammering one's allies strikes me as an ineffective way to build alliances.
Ultimately, what this complaining comes down to is the idea that certain issues are "more important" than others. Not that this isn't true; some issues do carry greater implications than others. However, this is not a justification to ignore particular subjects, people or ridicule someone for focusing on a subject that you deem less important. What is important to you may not necessarily be important to someone else.
This mentality is very dangerous. Determining whether an issue should be addressed by its perceived importance to someone is unwise. According to this logic, if I may use a military analogy. the Union (in the American Civil War) should never have fought in the Western theater (with General Grant and the Mississippi River). The Eastern theater, where the northern armies fought General Lee in much more publicized battles, were considered more important by the War Department. We should have focused purely on the east, according to this perspective.
The war was won in the west. The Confederates were defeated because of the many victories out west. Had this sort of short-sighted thinking been applied to that war, we might live in a radically different nation today. Assuming we would exist at all.
Frankly, having someone who is interested in social issues and having someone else who is interested in fiscal issues should be seen as a good thing. Then you have people fighting battles that they are fully engaged in. Additionally, as a movement, this allows conservatives to fight on multiple fronts. Because ultimately, every issue is important. Every issue has implications that no one has considered. Ignoring an issue for no reason other than "it's not important" will allow our opponents to get around us and subvert us. Our gains in one area will be rendered meaning by our losses in another.
How is that good strategy?
 |
| GO AWAY. YOU'RE STILL NOT FUNNY. |
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Question Time
Today, I try something new. I've been entertaining this idea in my head and this seems as good a time as any to start it.
You see, I want to answer your questions. Not that I claim to be an expert, to be brilliant, or even have much in the way of experience. Often, I'll answer with my initial gut reaction. Largely, this is just an exercise to keep myself thinking and writing. With any luck (and maybe some discernment from God), I'll also answer your questions satisfactorily and maybe give you a little food for thought. With that, let's kick things off.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Have we shifted as a nation? Are we no longer center right? Have the parties shifted?" - from @MikeHancho7
I will tell you right off the bat, this is a not an easy question. Things like this are infinitely more complex than these simple concepts they're often boiled down to. I feel my answer will likewise be too simplistic for the reality.
To answer your question...I believe the president's (and progressivism's) success in the past election is borne as much out of the slow cultural and moral decay of the past forty years as much as their ability to drum up support. Despite some of us in the country being fully aware of the president's empty rhetoric, many in the country are not and are easily swayed by the flashiness of the president. It may not be deserved, but praise is still thrown his way constantly. So for right now, no, the country has not "shifted." Not yet. There is still a big, persuadable middle. However, that middle will shrink (as it slowly has been) unless we work to reverse course.
As for the parties...no. They've been like this for years. The politicians (all of them) are just less willing to hide their statist inclinations.
"Is it possible for the virtues of frugality and honor to ever regain their place in the hearts and minds of this nation?" - via @netmarcos
Theoretically, yes. However, it will require two things: hard work and, even more importantly, patience. Liberalism didn't hit our society all at once. It crept in slowly, subverting traditional values without us really realizing it. We gave ground because the pushes were otherwise so imperceptible. And now here we are.
That said, I fear reality may mean we've already slipped too far. Some aspects of our culture are corrupted so deeply, that people no longer recognize right and wrong. Even if we manage to affect a general shift back to honor and frugality, dishonorable things will still be seen as acceptable in the eyes many. Additionally, the nation is still on course to oblivion, particularly after November, which means that the fight for honor will grow harder by the day. It doesn't mean we give up the fight, of course.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, my intention with this is really to make it a little more lighthearted and mix up the content on the blog. I most certainly don't mind answering serious questions, but less serious ones are fine too. Keep in mind, the seriousness of a particular answer will be proportional to the seriousness of the question that is asked. So I will answer questions like the ones above completely seriously. If someone asks me for dating advice, I'm liable to give bad advice. If someone asks me why it burns when they pee, I'm likely to make a crack about that prostitute from last week. You get the point; this can be both serious and comedic.
You can leave questions for me on my Twitter account (@OnConservatism) or on my Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/OnConservatism).
So...get askin'!
You see, I want to answer your questions. Not that I claim to be an expert, to be brilliant, or even have much in the way of experience. Often, I'll answer with my initial gut reaction. Largely, this is just an exercise to keep myself thinking and writing. With any luck (and maybe some discernment from God), I'll also answer your questions satisfactorily and maybe give you a little food for thought. With that, let's kick things off.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Have we shifted as a nation? Are we no longer center right? Have the parties shifted?" - from @MikeHancho7
I will tell you right off the bat, this is a not an easy question. Things like this are infinitely more complex than these simple concepts they're often boiled down to. I feel my answer will likewise be too simplistic for the reality.
To answer your question...I believe the president's (and progressivism's) success in the past election is borne as much out of the slow cultural and moral decay of the past forty years as much as their ability to drum up support. Despite some of us in the country being fully aware of the president's empty rhetoric, many in the country are not and are easily swayed by the flashiness of the president. It may not be deserved, but praise is still thrown his way constantly. So for right now, no, the country has not "shifted." Not yet. There is still a big, persuadable middle. However, that middle will shrink (as it slowly has been) unless we work to reverse course.
As for the parties...no. They've been like this for years. The politicians (all of them) are just less willing to hide their statist inclinations.
"Is it possible for the virtues of frugality and honor to ever regain their place in the hearts and minds of this nation?" - via @netmarcos
Theoretically, yes. However, it will require two things: hard work and, even more importantly, patience. Liberalism didn't hit our society all at once. It crept in slowly, subverting traditional values without us really realizing it. We gave ground because the pushes were otherwise so imperceptible. And now here we are.
That said, I fear reality may mean we've already slipped too far. Some aspects of our culture are corrupted so deeply, that people no longer recognize right and wrong. Even if we manage to affect a general shift back to honor and frugality, dishonorable things will still be seen as acceptable in the eyes many. Additionally, the nation is still on course to oblivion, particularly after November, which means that the fight for honor will grow harder by the day. It doesn't mean we give up the fight, of course.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, my intention with this is really to make it a little more lighthearted and mix up the content on the blog. I most certainly don't mind answering serious questions, but less serious ones are fine too. Keep in mind, the seriousness of a particular answer will be proportional to the seriousness of the question that is asked. So I will answer questions like the ones above completely seriously. If someone asks me for dating advice, I'm liable to give bad advice. If someone asks me why it burns when they pee, I'm likely to make a crack about that prostitute from last week. You get the point; this can be both serious and comedic.
You can leave questions for me on my Twitter account (@OnConservatism) or on my Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/OnConservatism).
So...get askin'!
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
On A Culture of Decadence
We live in a society that is falling apart. Biblical morality has been tossed by the wayside in favor of loose lifestyles and "fun times." From promiscuous sex to abortion on demand to yes, even homosexuality, our society seems to steadily lose its way by the day, as we are assaulted by some new, un-Godly insanity. Worst of all, this behavior is not just tolerated by society; it is condoned.
There is something to be said for liberty, to be unconstrained by our leaders and rulers, mere men, in how we live our lives. It is another matter entirely when, as a free society, in our own personal lives, we allow for evil in our midst and call it good.
Let me tell you something about myself. I've hinted a couple of other articles I myself am not free of sin. And you know what that sin I keep hinting at is?
Pornography.
For years, it has been my a secret and a difficult one. Like the anchor of a ship, it has dragged me down. It leaves me ashamed and self-loathing, a hypocrite and a coward.
Yet our society says that loose sexual boundaries are a good thing. It tells us that exposure to porn and masturbation are a healthy. It tells us that we ought to "test drive" our partners in bed before making commitments, as though the ones we love are cars instead of people with feelings. That it's "self-righteous" to be proud of saving yourself for marriage.
Something advocates of a society with loose moral boundaries do not realize is that living in sin is not true freedom. As a friend on Twitter described it to me, sin is "like a baby rattle snake. Looks so cute at first, but grows into something venomous. Then another one bites the dust." It is fun in the beginning, for sure. New feelings, new sensations. It's all pleasant; we're naturally attracted to it.
Then the ugliness of sin rears its head as one realizes the truth. One becomes addicted to that thing that was once fun, realizing it has a hold over them. One's perspective on the world has been changed and not for the better. Everything is a bit more lewd, a bit more crude. It becomes a comfort zone of sorts, a place where we feel comfortable, even if it harms us. It becomes a crutch and a safety net protecting us from the risks of the real world.
And that is just pornography. What could it be like for so many others?
But worry not, for society says it is okay. It is healthy. Therefore we should do it as much as we're comfortable with.
But there's the catch.
There is never a place that stays comfortable for long. We are dragged down by these "anchors" because we always crave more. The more we seek, the larger those anchors grow. We seek happiness and fulfillment in our sins and it leads us astray. Society tells us to seek happiness in things and other people.
Yet, true happiness only comes from God and salvation in Christ Jesus.
Consider that for a moment. For the longest time, western society believed there was a good, all-knowing, loving God in Heaven. Even the sinner knew on some level that he was doing wrong, doing evil, in the eyes of someone...something greater than mortal men. Now, that is no longer true. That which is good is called evil and that which is evil is called good. People live in their sin and are celebrated for it.
Did I not know the truth of Jesus, I would likely not be convicted and ashamed of my secret. I'd use the justifications of a corrupt society that it was healthy and good. It might seem wrong, but I would believe that it wasn't. I would convince and deceive myself into believing it wasn't.
It for this mentality that I weep for my nation. A nation that has no clue where it is headed: the ruin of many kingdoms and empires long before it.
There is something to be said for liberty, to be unconstrained by our leaders and rulers, mere men, in how we live our lives. It is another matter entirely when, as a free society, in our own personal lives, we allow for evil in our midst and call it good.
Let me tell you something about myself. I've hinted a couple of other articles I myself am not free of sin. And you know what that sin I keep hinting at is?
Pornography.
For years, it has been my a secret and a difficult one. Like the anchor of a ship, it has dragged me down. It leaves me ashamed and self-loathing, a hypocrite and a coward.
Yet our society says that loose sexual boundaries are a good thing. It tells us that exposure to porn and masturbation are a healthy. It tells us that we ought to "test drive" our partners in bed before making commitments, as though the ones we love are cars instead of people with feelings. That it's "self-righteous" to be proud of saving yourself for marriage.
Something advocates of a society with loose moral boundaries do not realize is that living in sin is not true freedom. As a friend on Twitter described it to me, sin is "like a baby rattle snake. Looks so cute at first, but grows into something venomous. Then another one bites the dust." It is fun in the beginning, for sure. New feelings, new sensations. It's all pleasant; we're naturally attracted to it.
Then the ugliness of sin rears its head as one realizes the truth. One becomes addicted to that thing that was once fun, realizing it has a hold over them. One's perspective on the world has been changed and not for the better. Everything is a bit more lewd, a bit more crude. It becomes a comfort zone of sorts, a place where we feel comfortable, even if it harms us. It becomes a crutch and a safety net protecting us from the risks of the real world.
And that is just pornography. What could it be like for so many others?
But worry not, for society says it is okay. It is healthy. Therefore we should do it as much as we're comfortable with.
But there's the catch.
There is never a place that stays comfortable for long. We are dragged down by these "anchors" because we always crave more. The more we seek, the larger those anchors grow. We seek happiness and fulfillment in our sins and it leads us astray. Society tells us to seek happiness in things and other people.
Yet, true happiness only comes from God and salvation in Christ Jesus.
Consider that for a moment. For the longest time, western society believed there was a good, all-knowing, loving God in Heaven. Even the sinner knew on some level that he was doing wrong, doing evil, in the eyes of someone...something greater than mortal men. Now, that is no longer true. That which is good is called evil and that which is evil is called good. People live in their sin and are celebrated for it.
Did I not know the truth of Jesus, I would likely not be convicted and ashamed of my secret. I'd use the justifications of a corrupt society that it was healthy and good. It might seem wrong, but I would believe that it wasn't. I would convince and deceive myself into believing it wasn't.
It for this mentality that I weep for my nation. A nation that has no clue where it is headed: the ruin of many kingdoms and empires long before it.
Monday, March 18, 2013
On Being More Conservative
In
the wake of Mitt Romney's defeat in November, there has been a large
debate on the right as to whether or not he should have run as a
"more conservative" candidate than he did. It is a
topic worth broaching, if only because it seems to have flared up
somewhat in the wake of CPAC.
The
first element to answer: Was Mitt Romney a conservative candidate?
That
question feels a bit hard to answer. Does Mitt Romney share
(basically) the same conceptualization as the average conservative of
fiscal responsibility? More than likely. Does he share a
similar view regard small, limited government? This is less
clear, though "no" is likely closer to the truth, if his
history is any indication. Regardless of what he believes, the
Romney campaign was weakened by the fact that neither of those
questions can be answered clearly. This has led many to criticize
him and his campaign for “not being conservative enough” (a
sentiment I happen to agree with). Of course, this point of view is
not without its detractors.
Critics
of that idea often cite two reasons against a more clearly
conservative candidate. First, the electorate was not looking for a
very conservative candidate. Second, they believe that those
who think the candidate should have been more conservative also
believe that “more conservatism” automatically equals “victory.”
The
former belief may not be inaccurate. After decades of the
modern public school system and a corrupt media, many people are
inherently inclined to agree with the assumptions of the progressive
worldview. Tricked into believing that government programs and
intervention are not just compassionate, but necessary, has left many
people in the United States clamoring for it, regardless of the
results.
Of
course, this does not mean there are not people who cannot be
persuaded otherwise. The primary flaw of this argument is that
it implicitly assumes people will not be swayed by strong
conservative arguments. Keep in mind, the critics likely do not
believe this either, but in criticizing the idea that a strong
conservative would be better, they accidentally assume this.
The
second belief is both condescending and wrong. First, it
assumes that the people who agree with the idea that Mitt Romney
should have run more to the right are simpletons who actually believe
"more conservatism" = "automatic victories."
This is a false way to frame it. No one of consequence
actually says that. And I otherwise find it hard to believe
that large amounts of people think being more conservative will
automatically result in victory.
The
point of running conservatively is that it can draw a clear
distinction between us and progressives. It allows the right to
make a more effective case for liberty and small government. Romney
was completely unable to do this. From Romneycare to his
tendency to agree with President Obama in the latter two debates, he
rarely came across as a clear conservative, no matter how often he
mentioned that he was. More often than not, he unintentionally
made himself appear to be a less progressive version of the
president, blurring the differences between the two.
Tying
the two beliefs together, this sounds like the common idea that the
Republicans need to run more moderate candidates to win (despite
evidence to the contrary). By making the first assumption, they
conclude that conservatism will not work as an election theme, even
when presented clearly to the voting populace. Then they assume
that conservative ideals have been clearly presented to the voters in
the time since Ronald Reagan. Between President Bush's
"compassionate conservatism" (which likewise contains the
inherent assumption that we are not compassionate otherwise) to the
constant media distortions, this has not been the case. While
there are certainly areas of the country where a more moderate
candidate would work better, it is not universal either.
To
assume that running with stronger conservative bona fides would be
detrimental, while not necessarily a point to automatically shun, is
likewise not universally applicable. It shows a lack of
understanding of conservatism to treat it so dismissively. It
is the ideological driver of the right and should be treated as such,
both by the politicians and the voters.
Monday, March 11, 2013
On Bosses and Daddies
So, you may recall a few weeks back that Chris Rock said that President Obama was like the country's boss and daddy. Setting aside the colossal irony (think about who said it) and stupidity of such a statement, his word choice actually deserves a bit more analysis than its shallowness suggests.
That statement reveals one of the big differences between how conservatives and progressives think.
Something everyone should understand is that throughout most of history, governments have owned their people. Not in the strictest sense, as a master would a slave, but close to it. Governments had expectations and required duties of their people without any reciprocal expectations from those people. Kings could tax their populations into poverty and levy them for war without the people's consent recourse. More recently, the regimes of facists and communists curbed freedoms, demanded work and often pointless fighting for the state. This has held true throughout history and continues in most nations today.
This is a major reason why America has been different from nearly every nation that has existed on the Earth. For in America, we are not lorded over by nobles, senators, councilmen, kings or ayatollahs. We are in charge of them. We are responsible for electing them and keeping them in check (whether or not this is true in practice is another matter). Our government is there, with our consent, to keep an orderly, lawful society, for no one denies that laws, diplomats and militaries must exist.
However, no one rules over us nor do we need anyone to do so. We accept that we are free peoples who can make decisions for ourselves, for good or for ill.
For the progressive, it is the exact opposite. They think collectively, as most people around the world have and continue to do. They see people (besides themselves, naturally) as requiring, if not demanding, someone to rule over them. They see the country and its people as needing a boss to control it and direct it. They believe that without the guidance of some "benevolent" ruler, society would collapse, a victim to its own "excesses."
Though Chris Rock never said those words, he and millions of other leftists imply this belief with the value and importance they place on government. They (unwittingly) become proponents of subservience to men.
This way of thinking is dangerous. When we see men in positions of power as our "bosses" and our "daddies," as opposed to mere men, we raise them to a position in our hearts where they do not belong. This eventually translates to elevating them to those same places in reality. We end up conceding that we are incapable of governing ourselves without the help of some external force.
Unfortunately, the progressive looks to men to give them direction and make them better people.
Men who are flawed and prone to error.
Men whose egos lead them to overestimate their value and abilities. Many, if not most, leaders of history form cults of
personality around themselves, leading up to and including actual
worship. Many become so enamored with themselves and what they believe
they represent, they place themselves on pedestals over God Himself (or
any god, for that matter). In their own minds and in the minds of those who follow them closest, they become infallible and gods unto themselves.
Progressivism's fundamental weakness is its dependence on men to lead and solve problems, rather than each individual. Their ethos leaves no room for God or individual choices. By accepting other men as their "bosses," they leave themselves vulnerable to being controlled and destroyed by the men they look up to.
Quick footnote: My point (especially with the pictures), if you have not picked up on it, is that this mentality creates tyrants. It creates men who control the people, people who, because they think this way, allow these things to happen. This has nothing to do with Barack Obama, either. This applies to any man or woman, historical or in the future, who is treated as a boss or father figure when they are merely the leader of an organization or country, no less mortal or flawed.
That statement reveals one of the big differences between how conservatives and progressives think.
 |
| Julius Caesar. |
This is a major reason why America has been different from nearly every nation that has existed on the Earth. For in America, we are not lorded over by nobles, senators, councilmen, kings or ayatollahs. We are in charge of them. We are responsible for electing them and keeping them in check (whether or not this is true in practice is another matter). Our government is there, with our consent, to keep an orderly, lawful society, for no one denies that laws, diplomats and militaries must exist.
However, no one rules over us nor do we need anyone to do so. We accept that we are free peoples who can make decisions for ourselves, for good or for ill.
 |
| Napoleon Bonaparte. |
Though Chris Rock never said those words, he and millions of other leftists imply this belief with the value and importance they place on government. They (unwittingly) become proponents of subservience to men.
This way of thinking is dangerous. When we see men in positions of power as our "bosses" and our "daddies," as opposed to mere men, we raise them to a position in our hearts where they do not belong. This eventually translates to elevating them to those same places in reality. We end up conceding that we are incapable of governing ourselves without the help of some external force.
Unfortunately, the progressive looks to men to give them direction and make them better people.
Men who are flawed and prone to error.
 |
| Adolf Hitler. |
Progressivism's fundamental weakness is its dependence on men to lead and solve problems, rather than each individual. Their ethos leaves no room for God or individual choices. By accepting other men as their "bosses," they leave themselves vulnerable to being controlled and destroyed by the men they look up to.
Quick footnote: My point (especially with the pictures), if you have not picked up on it, is that this mentality creates tyrants. It creates men who control the people, people who, because they think this way, allow these things to happen. This has nothing to do with Barack Obama, either. This applies to any man or woman, historical or in the future, who is treated as a boss or father figure when they are merely the leader of an organization or country, no less mortal or flawed.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
On Libertarians
Contrary to what the media would have one believe, the right is
not a monolith. Thanks to the media, when people refer to the right, they
generally refer to conservatives. They reference those of us who are
both fiscally and socially conservative. Indeed, it is the segment
of the conservative movement most often caricatured, if only because
traditional values lack an effective messenger.
Then there are the libertarians.
That probably sounded really general and vaguely offensive...and you would be right. Too many conservatives too easily throw around the term "libertarian" in a vaguely pejorative way without trying to understand what libertarians believe. Indeed, many would find there is little difference between the two groups at their core.
Now, when I refer to libertarians, I obviously refer to the modern political ideology and philosophy. This is the philosophy that believes in minimal possible government and maximum possible personal liberties without descending into anarchy. Libertarians and conservatives alike are grounded on this belief when it comes to governance and living our lives. Thus, on basic philosophy, we agree. Yet, for some reason, it is smaller issues and ideas, ranging from marriage to pot, that causes rifts on the right.
The question is, what are the precise causes of these rifts? I do not speak of the details of each issue, however. Rather, it is the mindset, the way each issue is approached, that must be understood.
Like any ideological group, there are many different kinds of libertarians. Of all the political "camps," libertarians are the hardest to pin down (in my personal opinion). Libertarians can hold positions that can be considered right and left. Personally, I believe the real problem lies with those who personally adhere to a socially liberal belief system.
What many left-leaning libertarians do not seem to understand is freedom is not an end unto itself. Liberty requires wisdom and self-governance to be used effectively. Right-leaning libertarians understand this. Let's take pot for an easy example. "Conservatarians" (as some call themselves) may favor its decriminalization. Even I kind of do, as someone who identifies as "conservative." However, they still recognize its potential to be destructive to those who use it. So while they believe it is not within the [federal] government's power to make it illegal, they simultaneously espouse not using it, recognizing the realities of its use.
Leftist libertarians, on the other hand, believe, like progressives, that society does not need a moral code to function. At least, not a Biblical-based one. They believe that liberty means being able to do whatever you want, regardless of the consequences. As a result, there is no morally sound society to hold people back from their excesses. Sadly, many libertarians who believe in the goodness of a Judeo-Christian based society still seem reluctant to directly advocate for well-balanced living.
That is the primary problem with libertarianism today and often what puts off conservatives from joining forces with them (and vice versa). Without a morally grounded society, liberty can be just as dangerous as tyranny. Indeed, without a well-regulated heart, one often becomes a slave to his or her own desires. Those who despise tyranny place themselves under the tyranny of that which is unhealthy and evil.
This should not be taken as an indictment of all libertarians. There are many fine ones out there, wonderful people who are merely advocates for liberty. The problem lies in those who view liberty as an end as opposed to the means to an end.
For the point of liberty is to use it to live a prosperous and happy life, free of external constraints.
Then there are the libertarians.
That probably sounded really general and vaguely offensive...and you would be right. Too many conservatives too easily throw around the term "libertarian" in a vaguely pejorative way without trying to understand what libertarians believe. Indeed, many would find there is little difference between the two groups at their core.
Now, when I refer to libertarians, I obviously refer to the modern political ideology and philosophy. This is the philosophy that believes in minimal possible government and maximum possible personal liberties without descending into anarchy. Libertarians and conservatives alike are grounded on this belief when it comes to governance and living our lives. Thus, on basic philosophy, we agree. Yet, for some reason, it is smaller issues and ideas, ranging from marriage to pot, that causes rifts on the right.
The question is, what are the precise causes of these rifts? I do not speak of the details of each issue, however. Rather, it is the mindset, the way each issue is approached, that must be understood.
Like any ideological group, there are many different kinds of libertarians. Of all the political "camps," libertarians are the hardest to pin down (in my personal opinion). Libertarians can hold positions that can be considered right and left. Personally, I believe the real problem lies with those who personally adhere to a socially liberal belief system.
What many left-leaning libertarians do not seem to understand is freedom is not an end unto itself. Liberty requires wisdom and self-governance to be used effectively. Right-leaning libertarians understand this. Let's take pot for an easy example. "Conservatarians" (as some call themselves) may favor its decriminalization. Even I kind of do, as someone who identifies as "conservative." However, they still recognize its potential to be destructive to those who use it. So while they believe it is not within the [federal] government's power to make it illegal, they simultaneously espouse not using it, recognizing the realities of its use.
Leftist libertarians, on the other hand, believe, like progressives, that society does not need a moral code to function. At least, not a Biblical-based one. They believe that liberty means being able to do whatever you want, regardless of the consequences. As a result, there is no morally sound society to hold people back from their excesses. Sadly, many libertarians who believe in the goodness of a Judeo-Christian based society still seem reluctant to directly advocate for well-balanced living.
That is the primary problem with libertarianism today and often what puts off conservatives from joining forces with them (and vice versa). Without a morally grounded society, liberty can be just as dangerous as tyranny. Indeed, without a well-regulated heart, one often becomes a slave to his or her own desires. Those who despise tyranny place themselves under the tyranny of that which is unhealthy and evil.
This should not be taken as an indictment of all libertarians. There are many fine ones out there, wonderful people who are merely advocates for liberty. The problem lies in those who view liberty as an end as opposed to the means to an end.
For the point of liberty is to use it to live a prosperous and happy life, free of external constraints.
(Obviously, this particular piece is
somewhat touchy and based entirely on my personal experience and
observations. If you feel I've misunderstood or just disagree, feel
free to leave a comment).
Sunday, February 17, 2013
On Intelligence
Warning: This article may contain generalizations and
simplifications. This is all for the sake of not writing a
dissertation on this subject. I am fully aware that no single
statement can account for every possible situation, belief system,
random chance, etc. There is a point beyond that. Thank you.
It feels like a major problem among today's youth is arrogance. For some reason (that can be difficult to pin down), many feel entitled to far more than they have earned in their life. They assume that going to college is indicative of brilliance. They assume that graduating college entitles them to a corner office. They think it means they are smarter than their elders.
It creates a superiority complex, one that is completely undeserved.
Let us back up a bit. What is at the root of the arrogance of modern youth? For one, many young people today live in an age vastly different to those that have come before. Innovation is exploding. Knowledge has become commonplace. The world has truly transformed, for better or for worse, in the past century. Many youth assume this makes them more advanced than their parents and grandparents. They assume they have "evolved" past their elders and this makes them “better,” whether morally or functionally.
However, there is an even deeper root, that goes beyond modern technology and "values." (Note: I did not go to a dictionary for this. What follows is purely my interpretation and should only be considered in that light).
It comes down to intelligence. Normally, when we hear this word, we think of Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking. Or we think of the straight A students at school. What many seem to miss is that there are many facets to "intelligence" that go beyond the superficial perception that someone is smart. In my personal opinion, the most basic of these are "head knowledge" and wisdom.
Head knowledge is much more objective. It is the facts we know. It is the skills we can utilize. Head knowledge is what has become commonplace in the modern age.
Wisdom is much more subjective. It is the lessons we have learned from experience. It takes head knowledge and utilizes it to grow our intelligence. Because it takes time, it grows slower than head knowledge. This is why, as people get older, they are generally seen as wise.
The problem is that we live in a culture that sees having a lot of
head knowledge, rather than having the wisdom to use that knowledge
effectively, as "being smart." This is why common
sense is no longer so common. We teach our kids what to think,
not how to think. We teach them facts, but not how to utilize
those facts. This is why I can watch a conversation where a 17
year-old girl thinks she's morally superior and smarter than a 30
year-old woman merely because she is bright enough to go to Rutgers.
This is the kind of arrogance our culture ends up breeding. It churns out youth who think that a university degree is worth more than a decade's worth of experience, let alone a lifetime's. We are turning out young adults who will demand more than they are worth and whine when they don't get it. They don't want to work hard to become successful and end up being functionally useless.
And this is the path we are on.
It feels like a major problem among today's youth is arrogance. For some reason (that can be difficult to pin down), many feel entitled to far more than they have earned in their life. They assume that going to college is indicative of brilliance. They assume that graduating college entitles them to a corner office. They think it means they are smarter than their elders.
It creates a superiority complex, one that is completely undeserved.
Let us back up a bit. What is at the root of the arrogance of modern youth? For one, many young people today live in an age vastly different to those that have come before. Innovation is exploding. Knowledge has become commonplace. The world has truly transformed, for better or for worse, in the past century. Many youth assume this makes them more advanced than their parents and grandparents. They assume they have "evolved" past their elders and this makes them “better,” whether morally or functionally.
However, there is an even deeper root, that goes beyond modern technology and "values." (Note: I did not go to a dictionary for this. What follows is purely my interpretation and should only be considered in that light).
It comes down to intelligence. Normally, when we hear this word, we think of Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking. Or we think of the straight A students at school. What many seem to miss is that there are many facets to "intelligence" that go beyond the superficial perception that someone is smart. In my personal opinion, the most basic of these are "head knowledge" and wisdom.
Head knowledge is much more objective. It is the facts we know. It is the skills we can utilize. Head knowledge is what has become commonplace in the modern age.
Wisdom is much more subjective. It is the lessons we have learned from experience. It takes head knowledge and utilizes it to grow our intelligence. Because it takes time, it grows slower than head knowledge. This is why, as people get older, they are generally seen as wise.
This is the kind of arrogance our culture ends up breeding. It churns out youth who think that a university degree is worth more than a decade's worth of experience, let alone a lifetime's. We are turning out young adults who will demand more than they are worth and whine when they don't get it. They don't want to work hard to become successful and end up being functionally useless.
And this is the path we are on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)