More Women Stuff

Just continuing with the previous theme of women and what moves them to vote one way or the other, I offer a couple of links. More will be added as I come across them. Here Here

Why Would Any Woman Vote For Romney?

The title of this post comes from a Facebook post by someone I know. This person linked to an article like this one, regarding Romney's position regarding eliminating taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood. The recent Democratic Party Convention spent an inordinate amount of time ranting about a woman's right to choose to kill her unborn child. They had speakers, like the idiotic Sandra Fluke, to whine about the evil Republican desire to deny them contraceptives and abortions. It seems the left is heavily invested in defending one's right to abdicate responsibility and damn it, the government must pay whatever it costs to do so. All that matters is that we can have sex any time with whomever we want and to hell with the consequences, all of which are to be shared equally by all, including those who act in a mature and responsible manner despite their own innate desires. So anyway, while I'm trying to decide how best to answer this question (as well as finding the time to do so whilst working over ten hours per day), the Weekly Standard was kind enough to run a four page article in their Sept 10 issue entitled, "Can This Be What Women Want?" It turns out that, according to polls, women aren't all that concerned about using tax money for Planned Parenthood or demanding coverage of contraceptives. No. They're more interested in the protection of their right to choose which job offer to accept, except that there are few jobs from which to choose. Damned if the ladies aren't concerned about the economy and jobs. It seems abortion "rights" isn't high on their list of important concerns. Who'd a-thunk it? Well, no one who buys in to the Democratic narrative that suggests a Republican war on women and uses Romney's position against tax-payer funding of Planned Parenthood as an example. It seems, then, that the answer to the question is "Women would vote for Romney because they want jobs, a better economy, financial security to allow them to take care of themselves and their families." Or perhaps we should ask, "What kind of woman would vote for Romney?" It would be one for whom tax money for abortions and contraceptives is a decidedly impractical, if not immature, issue on which to choose a candidate. Even if we were to buy into the notion that birth control pills are the best way to deal with non-birth-control-related health issues suffered by some women, they're still only about nine bucks at WallMart. Before I go any further, I think it is important to point out very clearly that what is being discussed here is not outlawing abortion or contraception, but merely denying funding of these things with taxpayer monies. The Sandra Flukes of the world, AKA, the typical woman would wouldn't vote for Romney because of his stance against federal funding of Planned Parenthood, demand that the rest of us join in and facilitate their immoral behavior with our tax dollars. Pregnancy is 100% preventable without contraception and thus, abortion does not require funding assistance from those of us who understand and recognize the incredible immorality of snuffing innocent life. And there exists no women's health issue for which ONLY birth control pills are the solution. Therefor, there is no legitimate reason to demand that the taxpayer, the insurance companies or private corporations or companies must provide for these things. (As to the health issues where birth control pills are prescribed, how can the tax payer be certain sexual activity won't still take place during the period such treatment is ongoing? Birth control pills do not prevent all pregnancies, but will cause miscarriages. In other words, chemical abortions.) I wonder also about the person who asked the question originally. What must the person think of women in general to suppose that this issue is one that must be a major consideration for them in choosing a candidate? So here's another question: Why would any person believe that women must be turned off by Romney's unwillingness to use tax money to fund Planned Parenthood? I like my women to be a little deeper than that.

A Tale of Two Interpretations

I encourage my readers to read and compare two blogs from my lists below.  Just posted on "Winging It" is a look at a passage from Acts that is often used to justify communist/socialist economic policies.  At the same time, the most recent post at "A Payne Hollow Visit", aka "Through the Woods" has another entry in the host's ongoing series of posts looking at the Bible and economics.  I would hope it is easy to see how one is reasoned and logical, taking cues from the actual words of the text...you know...what it is actually saying, and the other...well...doesn't.  One draws conclusions from the text and the other injects meaning into it.

I can't knock anyone's desire to understand Scripture, to uncover meaning and learn what God wants us to know about Him and His will and intentions for us.  But it seems to me that there is only so much that is there, only so much that is intended to be drawn that at some point we can say, "I get it." and from that point, further study simply cements the message into our skulls.

But then there are those who seem determined to find some secrets, or perhaps regard themselves as more able to divine deeper meanings.  I think these people get themselves in trouble by supposing they are smarter than the average believer, have a better grasp that is beyond the common man and thus are no more than complete frauds on the order of a Pharisee.  I can think of two in particular who visit here.

And then there are those who want the Bible to mean something that is more appealing to them than a stark reading reveals.  We see this in the commonplace expression "God is love" that is put forth as the bottom line of Biblical teaching and all one needs to know.  In the above example, we have a clear case of one's economic preference being injected into anyplace the blogger feels he can stick the hypodermic needle.  It is clear that he feels any place will do.

There is plenty we can learn from Scripture that Scripture intends us to learn without forcing meaning upon it.  If one wants to say that It warns us against greed and the lust for money, I can deal with that, because it does.  But it says so in clear terms without pretending there are underlying messages of this type in every other verse.  Worse, the message that is so imagined by this particular blogger is used to support economic policy proposals that do not conform with the true message charitable giving and caring for the poor.

I cannot help but regard this type of interpretation as every bit heretical as any other unBiblical teaching.  It doesn't matter if the heresy is something that is actually taught elsewhere in Scripture (assuming it is).  But injecting meaning that the text itself isn't providing interferes with the message it intends to provide.  One might even ignore the intended message in favor of the "underlying" message not truly intended.  That can't be good.

What A BABE!!!

My informal poll includes only about a dozen confirmed respondents, a couple of which suggested they, in kind, polled others.  I can't count them as there are no numbers by which I can measure.  But thus far, no woman asked has expressed a negative response as regards being referred to as "a babe".  There was one who, despite my attempt to be specific, answered as if the question referred to being called "Babe", as one might use "Sweetheart", "Honey" or some other familiarity.  Another seemed to take it the same way, but had no problem personally.  Unfortunate.  But I will endeavor to poll more women as to get a better idea of how this horrible, horrible gaffe of mine is actually received.

I recall my oldest recounting how she overheard a student refer to her as "the hot teacher".  I don't recall her taking offense.  The idea is absurd.  I submit that unless a woman is some lefty man-hating feminist wackjob, I won't come across one who would seriously object to being regarded as "a babe", which, as anyone who is not some lefty man-hating feminist wackjob would tell you, is no different than being regarded as "attractive".

What woman, indeed what human being, would bristle at such a suggestion?  Geoffrey seeks whatever he can to have me regarded in a bad light, and hoped this would be another way.  I still haven't heard from him as to whether his own womenfolk would find the description degrading.  I'm certain that any woman who would so claim is being incredibly dishonest, or sadly worse, deflecting the implication that they have not, to their knowledge, been so regarded.

The poll continues.  I'll update here.

One For The Road

Having a bit of time before we leave for SC, I decided to spend it on a new post.  I read this excellent piece at Neil's blog, so I decided to steal it.  It's that good.

So much of what can be found in the article has been at least touched on in past posts here, as well as elsewhere.  Walter Hudson put it all together. 

For instance, points 6 & 5 touche on the goofy notion of our collective responsibility certain people feel whites must assume for past transgressions.  And point 3 has this:

"Prejudice is not inherently racist, and loose accusations of racism based on isolated perceptions of prejudice are premature. Words have meaning, and we have different words to describe distinct concepts. Prejudice, bigotry, and racism are not interchangeable. While prejudice can be innocent and even reasonable in certain contexts, bigotry is the irrational maintenance of a prejudice in light of evidence to the contrary. Bigotry can be informed by a multitude of factors, of which race is only one. Racism is what we call bigotry informed by race."

He then goes on to rightly conclude...

"These distinctions are important in any intellectually honest discussion of race relations. When prejudice, bigotry, and racism are used interchangeably, it is evidence that the discussion is not honest."

How often do we see our leftist visitors confuse these terms, using them as bludgeons rather than to clarify truths?  But then, intellectual honesty is foreign to our leftist visitors, so desperate as they are to demonize instead defending their position on their merits or demonstrating how they believe ours has none.

West & Wewaxation At Wast!

...as Elmer Fudd would say.  Leaving for a long awaited vacation to Charleston, SC.  Internet access unknown and not particularly a concern, though opportunity might present itself.  I'm sure Parkie will stop by and poop himself like always, so watch where you sit if you decide to visit.  He never cleans up.

From the Cornucopia

I strongly encourage my readers to check this out.  The post itself is goofy enough.  But check out the comments, too.  It takes an incredibly conscious desire to disconnect from reality to put forth such comments as if they reflect reality.  If you're up for a laugh (or maybe a good cry considering actual people claiming to be educated are making the comments), you'll get one there.