I have long hoped to be presented with evidence that shows the brilliance of our current president. He has been touted as one helluva smart dude. "Smartest guy in the room" and such. I guess that depends who is with him in the room. If it's Joe Biden...
This Mark Steyn piece provides some insights. He speaks of a recent speech the Einstein-in-Chief gave and the side-splitters he issued to mock his opponents. What also isn't funny, however, is that I hadn't heard of these "gaffs" before reading Steyn's column. Why is that, do you think?
Anyway, the subject of Obama's brain, such as it is, has been on my mind of late due to the price at the pump lately. Around my neck of the woods, its been between about $4.19-4.29 per gallon for regular unleaded. And what's President Solyndra been doing about it? Pretty much anything he can to drive that price up higher while favoring failing alternative energy companies that aren't employing anyone.
I recall an interview I heard not too many years ago wherein the man being interviewed spoke of supposedly dry oil wells having oil once more. I've mentioned this in past discussions regarding the subject of limited resources. Apparently there is a theory that is in opposition to the fossil fuel theory. This was first presented by the Russians from research begun during Stalin's time. The attendant link, from another poorly written article at American Thinker (where, as we know, among the hundred plus contributors, there's not a decent writer in the bunch) includes links of its own to sources that flesh out this theory for those so inclined as to read them.
The link also includes a video of a collection of clips of Obama repeating a mantra that there is no "silver bullet" answer to dealing with our energy problems and dependence on foreign oil. Is this stupidity from the smartest prez ever, or a calculated lie? The link that carries said video presents a refutation of Barry's claim that we possess only 2% of the world's oil supply (down from 3% according to previous speeches). Whatever the case, it is not very smart to fail to understand what is at stake here.
Regardless of whether or not one believes we have enough oil for the next 200 years, or the next fifty, there is no doubt that lifting moratoriums and prohibitions on drilling and production will lower the price at the pump. It's simple supply and demand where if the supply is perceived to be about to increase, the price will drop to reflect that increase. The positive effect on the economy should be obvious. If the cost to transport goods goes down, profits from the sale of those goods goes up.
This is so basic. I thought this guy wants to be re-elected? I'm guessing he has some plan to make some of this happen before we get too close to November. Then the question will be how smart the voters are.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Sunday, March 04, 2012
Rush Is Just SO Mean!
My current job leaves me little time to remain abreast of all that is going on in the world. Just this past week I put in a bit over an hour shy of 70 hours. Add almost seven hours of total commute time, and sleep is about all I do during the week and too much of the weekend when not working. I skim the newspaper, check emails, read a few blogs leaving an occasional comment and curse my inability to watch every Bulls game.
So this Rush Limbaugh controversy was unknown to me. As I typically start my shift at 7PM, I don't ever hear his show these days, since it's long over when I wake up. But Parkie was kind enough to draw my attention to it.
Now, it should be known that I was already aware of Sandra Fluke's testimony, as I had read of it Wintery Knight's fine blog, which also gave a bit more background regarding Fluke.
I must admit, that after reading WK's piece, and watching the attendant video, that I had similar thoughts regarding her and students like her. That is to say, I was not impressed with their character. It's not so much that they are promiscuous, and yes, unmarried sexual behavior is sexual promiscuity, but that they now wish for their shamefulness to be subsidized.
Frankly, there are so many problems with this controversy and the arguments put up by Fluke that it is hard to know where to begin. So I'll dive in in no particular order.
1. Why are students having sex? The purpose of a university education does not include providing opportunity to indulge in that which one is not prepared to handle. And at such an institution as Georgetown, it seems most out of line. Fluke tried to make a lame point regarding the obvious fact that one attending a faith based institution should know of the expectations of that institution. She made some noise about such a place living its own creed by thinking of the student's entire well being, which I guess to her includes their possible indulgence in bad behavior. She apparently feels students, due to their legal ages, have a right to sex. This is not true.
2. Fluke makes the point regarding married students burdened by the cost of contraception. Boo-hoo. What is important here? Having sex or getting the sheepskin? Sacrificing to gain success in any endeavor is not a matter of picking and choosing what should be sacrificed, and then, deciding what one won't sacrifice, gain subsidies to cover the costs involved. It should be noted that there are cost efficient means of contraception, such as denying one's self for the purpose of not interfering with the achievement of the goals sought, as well as lowering the chances of pregnancy by employment of the rhythm method. I don't know what it costs to stock up on rubbers, but to have some on hand for those married couples who can only hold out so long can't be that much.
3. Ovarian cysts. The pill is not the only means of preventing and treating ovarian cysts. Fluke tried this argument as well, and while there is likely ways to have this dealt with on the side, such as possibly a rider on one's policy (just guessing here as I am not an insurance expert) that can be funded by the student or her family and not the institution, it is really just another case of using the rare exception to provide for all the more selfish, self-gratifying goals of achieving the goal of forcing the institution to cover this totally elective behavior. (That is, it is much like the argument for abortion by constantly referring to the few cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother, and then demanding that it be allowed for any reason whatsoever.) Proper nutrition and exercise can go a long way toward preventing this totally preventable situation.
And really, the case she cited is an incredibly cheap one. If the girl in question is a lesbian as Fluke says, then why go on with the whining about having a child? This goes further into the issue of forcing an institution to fund something that totally conflicts with its ideology and religious beliefs. First, the lesbianism, and then, a lesbian getting pregnant to provide a child for her and a grandchild for her parents. Sorry, but this is totally forcing a religious institution to act against its beliefs and is not constitutional.
4. Contraception as health care. Huh? How so? The purpose of health insurance, at least when it was invented, was to provide a means of pooling funds of a large population of premium payers so that the smaller percentage of that population that experiences a catastrophic illness or injury won't be wiped out financially. It is not meant to handle the expense of hangnail level injuries, common cold level of illness and definitely not the consequences of morally questionable lifestyles.
Talk about moral decline! First we have people preaching free love and now it is considered so necessary to sustain life that we must subsidize it by covering contraception?
5. Regardless of Fluke's attempts to muddy the waters with tales of married students' financial burdens and lesbians with cysts (I know. It's ain't just lesbians. Don't waste my time.), Rush's comments aren't inaccurate even if a bit crude. Unmarried women who engage in sex ARE sluts (I know. So are men. Don't waste my time.) Though the word has slightly alternative meanings, it has come to be commonly known as a woman who is promiscuous and that term fits any who have sex outside of marriage.
So as I said, there is so much wrong here. I could go even further and speak of sponsors who have left Rush's show or are considering it. From what I've been able to read in this short time, these sponsors left more out of pressure than a personal belief that Rush went too far. I'm not about to investigate each one, but I do feel compelled to apply opposite pressure with letters of my own. I would threaten to never patronize their business, and encourage others to ignore them as well, for their cowardice of caving to the wailings of morally corrupt people. This flies in the face of Parkie insisting that no one takes Rush seriously anymore. Apparently they do if they would allow a few sluts to threaten them if they continue to advertize during Rush's show.
Parkie often accuses me of "crying" about things posted here and there. THIS is "crying". A bunch of liberal jackwagons (H/T R. Lee Ermey) crying over Rush calling a loose woman a slut. To the Parkster, it is far worse to be called by the word attached to a behavior than to engage in the behavior known by the word used to describe it.
UPDATE...ALREADY!!!
It seems that Rush has apologized. Notice that he didn't say "if I offended anyone". He acknowledges the offense of his words and just straightforwardly apologizes. Libs take note how it's done.
So this Rush Limbaugh controversy was unknown to me. As I typically start my shift at 7PM, I don't ever hear his show these days, since it's long over when I wake up. But Parkie was kind enough to draw my attention to it.
Now, it should be known that I was already aware of Sandra Fluke's testimony, as I had read of it Wintery Knight's fine blog, which also gave a bit more background regarding Fluke.
I must admit, that after reading WK's piece, and watching the attendant video, that I had similar thoughts regarding her and students like her. That is to say, I was not impressed with their character. It's not so much that they are promiscuous, and yes, unmarried sexual behavior is sexual promiscuity, but that they now wish for their shamefulness to be subsidized.
Frankly, there are so many problems with this controversy and the arguments put up by Fluke that it is hard to know where to begin. So I'll dive in in no particular order.
1. Why are students having sex? The purpose of a university education does not include providing opportunity to indulge in that which one is not prepared to handle. And at such an institution as Georgetown, it seems most out of line. Fluke tried to make a lame point regarding the obvious fact that one attending a faith based institution should know of the expectations of that institution. She made some noise about such a place living its own creed by thinking of the student's entire well being, which I guess to her includes their possible indulgence in bad behavior. She apparently feels students, due to their legal ages, have a right to sex. This is not true.
2. Fluke makes the point regarding married students burdened by the cost of contraception. Boo-hoo. What is important here? Having sex or getting the sheepskin? Sacrificing to gain success in any endeavor is not a matter of picking and choosing what should be sacrificed, and then, deciding what one won't sacrifice, gain subsidies to cover the costs involved. It should be noted that there are cost efficient means of contraception, such as denying one's self for the purpose of not interfering with the achievement of the goals sought, as well as lowering the chances of pregnancy by employment of the rhythm method. I don't know what it costs to stock up on rubbers, but to have some on hand for those married couples who can only hold out so long can't be that much.
3. Ovarian cysts. The pill is not the only means of preventing and treating ovarian cysts. Fluke tried this argument as well, and while there is likely ways to have this dealt with on the side, such as possibly a rider on one's policy (just guessing here as I am not an insurance expert) that can be funded by the student or her family and not the institution, it is really just another case of using the rare exception to provide for all the more selfish, self-gratifying goals of achieving the goal of forcing the institution to cover this totally elective behavior. (That is, it is much like the argument for abortion by constantly referring to the few cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother, and then demanding that it be allowed for any reason whatsoever.) Proper nutrition and exercise can go a long way toward preventing this totally preventable situation.
And really, the case she cited is an incredibly cheap one. If the girl in question is a lesbian as Fluke says, then why go on with the whining about having a child? This goes further into the issue of forcing an institution to fund something that totally conflicts with its ideology and religious beliefs. First, the lesbianism, and then, a lesbian getting pregnant to provide a child for her and a grandchild for her parents. Sorry, but this is totally forcing a religious institution to act against its beliefs and is not constitutional.
4. Contraception as health care. Huh? How so? The purpose of health insurance, at least when it was invented, was to provide a means of pooling funds of a large population of premium payers so that the smaller percentage of that population that experiences a catastrophic illness or injury won't be wiped out financially. It is not meant to handle the expense of hangnail level injuries, common cold level of illness and definitely not the consequences of morally questionable lifestyles.
Talk about moral decline! First we have people preaching free love and now it is considered so necessary to sustain life that we must subsidize it by covering contraception?
5. Regardless of Fluke's attempts to muddy the waters with tales of married students' financial burdens and lesbians with cysts (I know. It's ain't just lesbians. Don't waste my time.), Rush's comments aren't inaccurate even if a bit crude. Unmarried women who engage in sex ARE sluts (I know. So are men. Don't waste my time.) Though the word has slightly alternative meanings, it has come to be commonly known as a woman who is promiscuous and that term fits any who have sex outside of marriage.
So as I said, there is so much wrong here. I could go even further and speak of sponsors who have left Rush's show or are considering it. From what I've been able to read in this short time, these sponsors left more out of pressure than a personal belief that Rush went too far. I'm not about to investigate each one, but I do feel compelled to apply opposite pressure with letters of my own. I would threaten to never patronize their business, and encourage others to ignore them as well, for their cowardice of caving to the wailings of morally corrupt people. This flies in the face of Parkie insisting that no one takes Rush seriously anymore. Apparently they do if they would allow a few sluts to threaten them if they continue to advertize during Rush's show.
Parkie often accuses me of "crying" about things posted here and there. THIS is "crying". A bunch of liberal jackwagons (H/T R. Lee Ermey) crying over Rush calling a loose woman a slut. To the Parkster, it is far worse to be called by the word attached to a behavior than to engage in the behavior known by the word used to describe it.
UPDATE...ALREADY!!!
It seems that Rush has apologized. Notice that he didn't say "if I offended anyone". He acknowledges the offense of his words and just straightforwardly apologizes. Libs take note how it's done.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Citing AT
It is not news to say that one of my favorite stops is AmericanThinker.com. I find it to be a wonderful source of conservative thought. My purpose in linking to an AT article, when I do, is generally two-fold.
First, the article articulates a point I wish to make, and why, I ask myself, should I go through the trouble of finding the words to say what is already well said by someone else? Then, all I have to do is add a bit more to further focus the point of offering it at all. After all, time is limited. The downside of doing this is that some of my liberal visitors seem to think it means that I have no thoughts of my own but rather allow AT to tell me what to think. This is the same as when such idiots say "Ditto heads" wait for marching orders from Rush Limbaugh. Pretty stupid.
Secondly, and more often than not, when I do choose to offer a link to an AT article, it is because the author cites other sources, usually gov't sources, to support the point he is trying to make. Unfortunately, most of the lib visitors don't understand how to use reality to form an opinion, so the value of doing this is lost on them.
I recently visited Geoff's blog and one of his extremely intelligent *cough* visitors made a typical condescending remark about AT (and World Net Daily) and AT readers. He and Geoffie had a big laugh because they just crack each other up like crazy. Oh! how silly we conservatives are!
AT isn't the only right-wing trove of treasures I follow. There is Townhall.com, HumanEvents.com, IntellectualConservative.com and many others, not to mention my subscription to National Review. Some of the writers appear in several of these mags and sites. In addition, I also listen to conservative talk radio on occasion, though not as much as I used to due to my job. Great minds think alike.
I don't have any regular lib sites or stations that I visit. As my time is limited, it is far too precious to waste on nonsense, though I read almost all of the links my liberal blog visitors and hosts provide, and I get my laughs that way. I guess the lefties think the way their lefty pundits tell them to think, right? More likely, weak minds think alike as well.
But the point of all this is that condescension I mentioned. I don't quite get it. I mean, I get that they don't like what they hear from the right wing, where truth and facts and logic reside, but to pretend as if it doesn't exist there is so incredibly common place. And that itself wouldn't be so bad if it could be argued in some manner.
Instead, all we get is the derision presented in a manner that suggests the reason for it should be plain to see. In other words, the right-wing pundit is wrong simply because a lefty blogger or blog visitor assumes it. No reason is given. If we on the right are the buffoons they wish we were, one would think such elevated personages would like to prove it somehow. But they don't.
One of the strangest bits is the mere mocking of AT as if it is simply the site of one or two dudes. I don't think any of the lefties realize just how many people contribute to that site. A look at the list of authors in the archive area reveals literally hundreds of contributors. Sure, not all of the contribute with great regularity. Some have their stuff presented quite often. But the hosts draw on the thoughts of many people.
But still, such things don't matter. The lefties will cite pundits of their own and expect that we be swayed as if their pundits have won the day merely by printing their opinions. "See? Glenn Greenwald says...!" and that's all we need to know. So I'll read what they've offered of Greenwald and then check further to see if Greenwald knows what the hell he's talking about.
But it seems the lefties don't have it in them to really discuss the other side like they say they do. One or more might say they once were conservative. Others will say they never were. But none of them will give a conservative opinion piece the time of day. Open-mindedness is only something about which they give lip service. True open-mindedness can't help but offer a counter opinion if an opinion in agreement isn't possible. It's no secret these lefties don't much care for conservative/right-wing opinion. It's a waste to say nothing more than how little they think about it. It's a given. How about some of that deep thinking and nuance we hear so much about instead?
First, the article articulates a point I wish to make, and why, I ask myself, should I go through the trouble of finding the words to say what is already well said by someone else? Then, all I have to do is add a bit more to further focus the point of offering it at all. After all, time is limited. The downside of doing this is that some of my liberal visitors seem to think it means that I have no thoughts of my own but rather allow AT to tell me what to think. This is the same as when such idiots say "Ditto heads" wait for marching orders from Rush Limbaugh. Pretty stupid.
Secondly, and more often than not, when I do choose to offer a link to an AT article, it is because the author cites other sources, usually gov't sources, to support the point he is trying to make. Unfortunately, most of the lib visitors don't understand how to use reality to form an opinion, so the value of doing this is lost on them.
I recently visited Geoff's blog and one of his extremely intelligent *cough* visitors made a typical condescending remark about AT (and World Net Daily) and AT readers. He and Geoffie had a big laugh because they just crack each other up like crazy. Oh! how silly we conservatives are!
AT isn't the only right-wing trove of treasures I follow. There is Townhall.com, HumanEvents.com, IntellectualConservative.com and many others, not to mention my subscription to National Review. Some of the writers appear in several of these mags and sites. In addition, I also listen to conservative talk radio on occasion, though not as much as I used to due to my job. Great minds think alike.
I don't have any regular lib sites or stations that I visit. As my time is limited, it is far too precious to waste on nonsense, though I read almost all of the links my liberal blog visitors and hosts provide, and I get my laughs that way. I guess the lefties think the way their lefty pundits tell them to think, right? More likely, weak minds think alike as well.
But the point of all this is that condescension I mentioned. I don't quite get it. I mean, I get that they don't like what they hear from the right wing, where truth and facts and logic reside, but to pretend as if it doesn't exist there is so incredibly common place. And that itself wouldn't be so bad if it could be argued in some manner.
Instead, all we get is the derision presented in a manner that suggests the reason for it should be plain to see. In other words, the right-wing pundit is wrong simply because a lefty blogger or blog visitor assumes it. No reason is given. If we on the right are the buffoons they wish we were, one would think such elevated personages would like to prove it somehow. But they don't.
One of the strangest bits is the mere mocking of AT as if it is simply the site of one or two dudes. I don't think any of the lefties realize just how many people contribute to that site. A look at the list of authors in the archive area reveals literally hundreds of contributors. Sure, not all of the contribute with great regularity. Some have their stuff presented quite often. But the hosts draw on the thoughts of many people.
But still, such things don't matter. The lefties will cite pundits of their own and expect that we be swayed as if their pundits have won the day merely by printing their opinions. "See? Glenn Greenwald says...!" and that's all we need to know. So I'll read what they've offered of Greenwald and then check further to see if Greenwald knows what the hell he's talking about.
But it seems the lefties don't have it in them to really discuss the other side like they say they do. One or more might say they once were conservative. Others will say they never were. But none of them will give a conservative opinion piece the time of day. Open-mindedness is only something about which they give lip service. True open-mindedness can't help but offer a counter opinion if an opinion in agreement isn't possible. It's no secret these lefties don't much care for conservative/right-wing opinion. It's a waste to say nothing more than how little they think about it. It's a given. How about some of that deep thinking and nuance we hear so much about instead?
Sunday, February 12, 2012
It's So Hard To Be Humble...
...when I'm perfect in every way.
I like to show off. I like to take the risk of failing to complete the tricky play, to make the instantaneous grab of hot shot screaming between 2nd and 3rd, to carry a difficult split when the money's on the table. I like to sing lead and be the guy in the middle of the stage. I like to wear the nice threads while walking with my beautiful wife. And you know why? Because it's damn funny.
Yeah. Funny. It cracks me up to pretend that I am that pro-athlete doing what so many pro-athletes do routinely as if so many others aren't equally capable, if not more so. It's funny to think that I have just made someone look stupid by doing what he obviously thought I was not able to do, and what even I wasn't sure I could do. Loads of fun. Showing off is a gas.
Does this imply incredible pride and conceit to you? Does this smack of some vile lack of humility? Who cares? All those grand stages of pick-up sports and bar bands are so incredibly insignificant diversions. Part of the fun is the IN YOUR FACE/DIG ME aspect of doing it.
But guess what. I have fun when I fail to impress. Just participating is what it's all about for me. I've sung where it seemed absolutely no one in the crowd gave a flyin' rat's ass that there was a live band even present. But I still got to sing. I've played a variety of sports where I've not made the big play, not logged that turkey in the final frame to win the game, and even taken shots from a fighter who was clearly superior and making ME look stupid. I've enjoyed every minute. It's just a gas.
That's been the bottom line. Just having a good time regardless of the outcome and being prepared to be shown up.
I was on a bowling team one year that was amongst my most enjoyable years bowling. Everyone on the team was capable of doing damage and we competed more against each other than we did as a team against others. We didn't even think of the other team as our money was wagered against each other and it was the most fun taking each others' money over taking the money in the league pots (though that was indeed a serious goal). And when you took the other dude's money, you mocked him mercilessly. We had a blast and if we didn't win it all that year (I don't think we did), we were definitely in contention.
Humble wasn't a factor. Didn't need to be. Our averages were posted and it was clear who the best was.
Humble. Humility.
The subject of humility comes up a lot around here and was the subject of a blog post not too long ago. It is apparently considered by some to be lacking in humility to be confident in what one knows about Scripture. The line is that we are fallible and capable of being wrong on anything. While this is true, we being imperfect beings and all, it simply does not mean that we can't be totally right on specific things, especially if those things are directly revealed.
"Thou shalt not commit adultery."
Pretty clear that. Can I not be confident and convicted in the knowledge that adultery is always sinful and not to be practiced? Is there any way in which I might be understanding this commandment improperly? I can't think of any, can you? So, knowing what the term "adultery" means, and knowing that it is clearly prohibited, am I acting in a manner lacking in humility to insist the behavior is sinful? Am I speaking for God?
Well, as a bit of a sidebar, any expression of what Scripture teaches us to another is to be speaking for God. So what? It is suggested by some (or one in particular) that to insist that one is confident in what Scripture teaches is to somehow speak as if one IS God, or equal to Him to the extent that one's "understanding" is equal to His Will. Again. So what? Are we not supposed to reflect His Teachings and His Will in the manner in which we live our lives?
The pitch is that what one person believes to be the Will of God might be different than the understanding of another person. Still once more, so what? This only means that one of the two is wrong or at least that one of the two is further from the truth than the other. But if both believe and are convicted in his belief, is it prideful to state the case as such? Does one lack humility in preaching what one believes to be the truth?
No. Not that I don't think so, but that my answer is "NO" in no uncertain terms. Stating that 2+2=4 and refusing to accept any alternative possibility is NOT a sign that one lacks humility. To state at the same time that the other guy who believes it isn't always the case is more than just wrong is also not a sign that one lacks humility. What it does show is two possibilities:
1. The one stating the fact cares enough about the wrong person to encourage a change of opinion.
2. The one stating the fact cares enough about anyone in the sphere of the wrong person's influence to continue to speak out against the fallacy the wrong person insists on preaching.
(There's also a third, that the one stating the fact thinks the other guy is a complete idiot or liar or both.)
Neither (and even the third) indicate a lack of humility on the part of the person defending the fact. Not in the least.
Indeed, to submit to God's authority and His mandates as clearly revealed in Scripture is a sign of humility of the type Jesus modeled for us. He was totally subservient to His Will. He was not acting pridefully when He cast out the money changers. He was not acting pridefully when he accused the Pharisees of being hypocrites and vipers. He was not being false or prideful when He taught that we be humble, like He is. In that sense, defending God's Will is not lacking in humility at all, but being humble in the manner that Jesus modeled in that we are exposing ourselves to heat from those who disagree with us for His sake. Our "suffering" at taking that heat is to put God before our own comfort.
"Agree to disagree" is not humility. It is milquetoast. I do not dismiss the possibility that I might have some notions of Biblical understanding wrong. Of course I can be wrong. But only when I am so proven to be. To "agree to disagree" gives tacit permission for the other person to carry on as if that person was not wrong. Why would any sane person agree to that? "Oh yeah. Let's agree to disagree. You go ahead and believe setting yourself on fire won't hurt." Am I serving that person to agree to allow such a destructive belief to go unchallenged? Is that humility, or cowardice?
Another person in the same discussion brought up this weird crap about learning new things that open him up to a better understanding of God. This after a post that mentions 1 Cor 13:12, as if a perfect understanding of God Himself is the point. I am already quite humble before the Lord. I could not be more unworthy of His Love. How much more need I know to make this more true? How much would it make a difference to know exactly how unworthy I am? He is Everything. I am nothing. There's not a whole lot more one needs to know.
Yet though His exact nature is unknowable to a living person, though His exact ways and thoughts are beyond us, He did not leave us with no clear understanding of how we are to live on this earth. He did not leave us without any "clues" as to what constitutes righteous behavior and what is sinful. What we need to know is crystal.
In that discussion, to get to a more clear explanation of a convoluted point being made, I offered this: "I saw a chair today and realized how little I understand God." It was an attempt to get this dude to explain his earlier comments that were no clearer than this. He went on to talk about how just seeing the chair from one angle doesn't tell us all we can know about the chair. Seeing it from the other side tells us something different, but then we cannot see the first view anymore, and, we cannot tell how comfortable it might be or if it can support our weight. He is humbled by such lack of knowledge apparently. I would simply sit in the damned chair. Even without doing so, I still know that it is indeed a chair and it is made for sitting.
In any case, that part of the discussion did not provide anything useful except to allow him to wax poetic (he hates when I say this) about that which did not enlighten in the least. I sought the connection between his "examples" and how they humble him more than merely acknowledging the vast chasm between who we are and who He is. But it has something very much in common with the poster and his thoughts on "humility". Both serve to dismiss what is clearly revealed for whatever reasons they wish to preserve and before which they insist on humbling themselves.
I like to show off. I like to take the risk of failing to complete the tricky play, to make the instantaneous grab of hot shot screaming between 2nd and 3rd, to carry a difficult split when the money's on the table. I like to sing lead and be the guy in the middle of the stage. I like to wear the nice threads while walking with my beautiful wife. And you know why? Because it's damn funny.
Yeah. Funny. It cracks me up to pretend that I am that pro-athlete doing what so many pro-athletes do routinely as if so many others aren't equally capable, if not more so. It's funny to think that I have just made someone look stupid by doing what he obviously thought I was not able to do, and what even I wasn't sure I could do. Loads of fun. Showing off is a gas.
Does this imply incredible pride and conceit to you? Does this smack of some vile lack of humility? Who cares? All those grand stages of pick-up sports and bar bands are so incredibly insignificant diversions. Part of the fun is the IN YOUR FACE/DIG ME aspect of doing it.
But guess what. I have fun when I fail to impress. Just participating is what it's all about for me. I've sung where it seemed absolutely no one in the crowd gave a flyin' rat's ass that there was a live band even present. But I still got to sing. I've played a variety of sports where I've not made the big play, not logged that turkey in the final frame to win the game, and even taken shots from a fighter who was clearly superior and making ME look stupid. I've enjoyed every minute. It's just a gas.
That's been the bottom line. Just having a good time regardless of the outcome and being prepared to be shown up.
I was on a bowling team one year that was amongst my most enjoyable years bowling. Everyone on the team was capable of doing damage and we competed more against each other than we did as a team against others. We didn't even think of the other team as our money was wagered against each other and it was the most fun taking each others' money over taking the money in the league pots (though that was indeed a serious goal). And when you took the other dude's money, you mocked him mercilessly. We had a blast and if we didn't win it all that year (I don't think we did), we were definitely in contention.
Humble wasn't a factor. Didn't need to be. Our averages were posted and it was clear who the best was.
Humble. Humility.
The subject of humility comes up a lot around here and was the subject of a blog post not too long ago. It is apparently considered by some to be lacking in humility to be confident in what one knows about Scripture. The line is that we are fallible and capable of being wrong on anything. While this is true, we being imperfect beings and all, it simply does not mean that we can't be totally right on specific things, especially if those things are directly revealed.
"Thou shalt not commit adultery."
Pretty clear that. Can I not be confident and convicted in the knowledge that adultery is always sinful and not to be practiced? Is there any way in which I might be understanding this commandment improperly? I can't think of any, can you? So, knowing what the term "adultery" means, and knowing that it is clearly prohibited, am I acting in a manner lacking in humility to insist the behavior is sinful? Am I speaking for God?
Well, as a bit of a sidebar, any expression of what Scripture teaches us to another is to be speaking for God. So what? It is suggested by some (or one in particular) that to insist that one is confident in what Scripture teaches is to somehow speak as if one IS God, or equal to Him to the extent that one's "understanding" is equal to His Will. Again. So what? Are we not supposed to reflect His Teachings and His Will in the manner in which we live our lives?
The pitch is that what one person believes to be the Will of God might be different than the understanding of another person. Still once more, so what? This only means that one of the two is wrong or at least that one of the two is further from the truth than the other. But if both believe and are convicted in his belief, is it prideful to state the case as such? Does one lack humility in preaching what one believes to be the truth?
No. Not that I don't think so, but that my answer is "NO" in no uncertain terms. Stating that 2+2=4 and refusing to accept any alternative possibility is NOT a sign that one lacks humility. To state at the same time that the other guy who believes it isn't always the case is more than just wrong is also not a sign that one lacks humility. What it does show is two possibilities:
1. The one stating the fact cares enough about the wrong person to encourage a change of opinion.
2. The one stating the fact cares enough about anyone in the sphere of the wrong person's influence to continue to speak out against the fallacy the wrong person insists on preaching.
(There's also a third, that the one stating the fact thinks the other guy is a complete idiot or liar or both.)
Neither (and even the third) indicate a lack of humility on the part of the person defending the fact. Not in the least.
Indeed, to submit to God's authority and His mandates as clearly revealed in Scripture is a sign of humility of the type Jesus modeled for us. He was totally subservient to His Will. He was not acting pridefully when He cast out the money changers. He was not acting pridefully when he accused the Pharisees of being hypocrites and vipers. He was not being false or prideful when He taught that we be humble, like He is. In that sense, defending God's Will is not lacking in humility at all, but being humble in the manner that Jesus modeled in that we are exposing ourselves to heat from those who disagree with us for His sake. Our "suffering" at taking that heat is to put God before our own comfort.
"Agree to disagree" is not humility. It is milquetoast. I do not dismiss the possibility that I might have some notions of Biblical understanding wrong. Of course I can be wrong. But only when I am so proven to be. To "agree to disagree" gives tacit permission for the other person to carry on as if that person was not wrong. Why would any sane person agree to that? "Oh yeah. Let's agree to disagree. You go ahead and believe setting yourself on fire won't hurt." Am I serving that person to agree to allow such a destructive belief to go unchallenged? Is that humility, or cowardice?
Another person in the same discussion brought up this weird crap about learning new things that open him up to a better understanding of God. This after a post that mentions 1 Cor 13:12, as if a perfect understanding of God Himself is the point. I am already quite humble before the Lord. I could not be more unworthy of His Love. How much more need I know to make this more true? How much would it make a difference to know exactly how unworthy I am? He is Everything. I am nothing. There's not a whole lot more one needs to know.
Yet though His exact nature is unknowable to a living person, though His exact ways and thoughts are beyond us, He did not leave us with no clear understanding of how we are to live on this earth. He did not leave us without any "clues" as to what constitutes righteous behavior and what is sinful. What we need to know is crystal.
In that discussion, to get to a more clear explanation of a convoluted point being made, I offered this: "I saw a chair today and realized how little I understand God." It was an attempt to get this dude to explain his earlier comments that were no clearer than this. He went on to talk about how just seeing the chair from one angle doesn't tell us all we can know about the chair. Seeing it from the other side tells us something different, but then we cannot see the first view anymore, and, we cannot tell how comfortable it might be or if it can support our weight. He is humbled by such lack of knowledge apparently. I would simply sit in the damned chair. Even without doing so, I still know that it is indeed a chair and it is made for sitting.
In any case, that part of the discussion did not provide anything useful except to allow him to wax poetic (he hates when I say this) about that which did not enlighten in the least. I sought the connection between his "examples" and how they humble him more than merely acknowledging the vast chasm between who we are and who He is. But it has something very much in common with the poster and his thoughts on "humility". Both serve to dismiss what is clearly revealed for whatever reasons they wish to preserve and before which they insist on humbling themselves.
Friday, January 27, 2012
FYI
Just a note about the comments not viewable. I don't know why that is exactly, but if you click on the post title, it will enable you to select "newer/newest" comments, though once in the comments section, the same problem happens. I was in the back office and probably clicked on something when going back to comment moderation. OR, Blogger is just lame.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Agenda Lies Update
The title of this post refer to the original, introductory Agenda Lies post, wherein I discussed the lie that there is no homosexual agenda. It seems that when I decide to leave the topic of homosexuality alone for awhile, something comes up that trumps that decision.
In this case, an email newsletter from Illinois Family Institute led to this site, and I just had to post on it. I'd like you, gentle reader, to note two things: first, look at the sub-title of the site. It appears that the homos that run this site are not aware that there is no homosexual agenda. They didn't get the memo from HomoCentral that no homosexual is to mention an agenda of any kind.
But it gets worse! The second thing of note is the text of the linked piece itself. Apparently these guys don't realize they are not supposed to actually say that they want to indoctrinate kids! What could they have possibly been doing to miss the edict against expressing this publicly? And check this out:
"Remember, Prop 8 passed along age lines with the very old voting largely in favor of it. The younger generation doesn’t fear homosexuality as much because they’re exposed to fags on TV, online, and at school."
This quote is important because I've often been told by enablers who visit here that our (that is, those of us who support REAL marriage and Scriptural notions of human sexuality) days are numbered and soon all the world will embrace the notion of homosexuality as normal and healthy as normal and healthy heterosexuality. They say the the world is changing and seeing things their way. But the quote demonstrates what my response has always been to such a claim, that any trend in favor of their depravity is the natural result of good men doing nothing. Each generation becomes more and more immoral because of the actions of the immoral among us now, and the lack of virtuous people standing against the agenda for immorality.
Is this site indicative of the general homosexual population? I have no idea. But I would wager it is so. One thing is certain: an agenda exists and always has existed. The site to which I've linked is only one piece of evidence, but it does show that which is not the least bit surprising.
I had been working on a different Agenda Lies piece, but I'm going to let it lie for now. I don't really want my blog to be totally focused on homosexual lies, but sometimes they just crop up and need to be addressed by someone. However, this blog will always tell the truth to counter those lies and stands ready to do so at the drop of a hat.
In this case, an email newsletter from Illinois Family Institute led to this site, and I just had to post on it. I'd like you, gentle reader, to note two things: first, look at the sub-title of the site. It appears that the homos that run this site are not aware that there is no homosexual agenda. They didn't get the memo from HomoCentral that no homosexual is to mention an agenda of any kind.
But it gets worse! The second thing of note is the text of the linked piece itself. Apparently these guys don't realize they are not supposed to actually say that they want to indoctrinate kids! What could they have possibly been doing to miss the edict against expressing this publicly? And check this out:
"Remember, Prop 8 passed along age lines with the very old voting largely in favor of it. The younger generation doesn’t fear homosexuality as much because they’re exposed to fags on TV, online, and at school."
This quote is important because I've often been told by enablers who visit here that our (that is, those of us who support REAL marriage and Scriptural notions of human sexuality) days are numbered and soon all the world will embrace the notion of homosexuality as normal and healthy as normal and healthy heterosexuality. They say the the world is changing and seeing things their way. But the quote demonstrates what my response has always been to such a claim, that any trend in favor of their depravity is the natural result of good men doing nothing. Each generation becomes more and more immoral because of the actions of the immoral among us now, and the lack of virtuous people standing against the agenda for immorality.
Is this site indicative of the general homosexual population? I have no idea. But I would wager it is so. One thing is certain: an agenda exists and always has existed. The site to which I've linked is only one piece of evidence, but it does show that which is not the least bit surprising.
I had been working on a different Agenda Lies piece, but I'm going to let it lie for now. I don't really want my blog to be totally focused on homosexual lies, but sometimes they just crop up and need to be addressed by someone. However, this blog will always tell the truth to counter those lies and stands ready to do so at the drop of a hat.
Sunday, January 08, 2012
Agenda Lies 4: "Uglyass"
The title refers to a comment made at another blog when a parallel was suggested by a commenter between homosexuals and the incestuous. Note that I used the term "parallel" rather than "comparison". This is very important considering the sensitive nature of the homosexual activists and their enablers. You see, any "comparison" between homosexuals and anything not sweetness and light is derided as hateful and bigoted. Laurie Higgins, with Illinois Family Institute, notes this in a recent piece speaking on the heat Cardinal Francis George received by daring to suggest similarities between the "gay liberation" movement and the KKK. Oh, the horror. At the end of her column, she concludes in this manner:
"The reality is any comparison of homosexuality to any behavior of which society still has permission to disapprove will generate bilious howls of outrage and nastiness from homosexual activists. The closest analogue to homosexuality is not race or skin color. The closest analogue is polyamory or adult consensual incest. Try using those, especially the latter, and witness the torrent of non-rational, ad hominem-infused, fire-breathing that ensues from homosexual activists."
And we who visited Dan's blog recently had another taste of this very tactic. It is from there the "uglyass" comment came.
I say all this to set up this installment of Agenda Lies. The lie is that there is something vastly different between the argument for same-sex unions and the argument for adult consentual incestuous unions. The lie is that one is perfectly fine and the other a manifestation of some mental disorder. One healthy, the other not.
Of course, all Dan does is to assume the best of his favored class and compares it to the worst of that which he does not favor. He assumes that because he claims most incestuous affairs are oppressive, usually rapes I guess, that to imagine a person having a committed, loving and monogamous relationship with a sibling or parent is not possible. Or that it is mentally disordered. Funny. There's far more "disordered" about sexual attraction between two of the same gender than a male and female of the same family as far as I'm concerned.
And as far as I'm concerned, incest is just wrong. Sure, most people would be turned off by the thought of hooking up with a parent or sibling. But that's a cultural thing, and one that is from the same source as the cultural revulsion toward homosexual behavior: Scripture.
Yes, I know. Biologically bad things can happen should a dude hook up with his mother, daughter or sister. But that's only a risk if both carry similar defective traits, like hereditary things. If all parties are perfectly healthy, the child that might result from their union won't automatically suffer from defects.
However, as I recall, having children isn't necessarily the point of marriage, if the new age secular bozos are to be believed. So assume children aren't in the cards. One or both parties has strategic snips made by medical professionals and that issue is now in the "non" category.
The attraction itself can't be "weird". What is more weird than one dude pining after another dude? But one dude hot for his hot sister is weird? Imagine a 16 yr old Angelina Voight giving up her baby boy for adoption, never to again have contact with him. Then, in 2012, a 20 yr old young man has a nasty crush on Angelina Jolie. The fact that he is her son (without knowing it) would not likely play any part in his attraction, nor would it hinder his crush. And considering just how hot she is, had she not given up the kid at all, but raised him herself, what makes anyone think he would not appreciate her hotness just because he's her son? Enough to "want" her? Who knows? But what if he did and she reciprocated? They are both adults. Who's to say that they should be denied simply because of their biological relationship? On what basis?
Sure, people don't generally think of their family members as good looking (not counting parental bias), and generally come to agree, if that is the case, begrudgingly at first. But if it is plain to one person that his/her sibling or parent is a stud/babe, are they "disordered" for admitting it? Of course not. (Only uncomfortable) Hot is hot.
But we're to take the position that such unions are wrong (and they would be), but homosexual unions are not. And we're to take the position that such unions are SO wrong, that to dare draw any parallels or comparisons to homosexual unions is itself heinous, evil, "uglyass". On what basis?
Such unions cannot be less healthy than homosexual unions. (Keep in mind that unlike Dan, I am comparing in as much a one-to-one manner as I can. All subjects are physically healthy before entering their respective unions and none are capable of producing children. This is just about "people in love".) We can pretend that all unions of either group are platonic, but then, who would we be kidding? In this day and age? No one. So we must consider how they would express their "love" for each other and that, of course, is through sexual contact. And if acting in the least risky manner possible while still engaging in sexual contact, the incestuous would not risk at all, considering their sexual equipment would be used according to the owner's manual. They would not have to use any body part in a manner against its purpose or intent in order to engage in sexual contact. The homosexual cannot say the same thing without limiting themselves severely to handshakes and tongue wrestling.
But then, it's not really a question of healthy sexual practices at all, or whether one group's desires (homosexuals) more obviously constitutes some mental disorder. It's about the definition of marriage and who qualifies. Clearly the homosexuals do not as the definition requires one man and one woman. Clearly the incestuous do not, because the definition requires one man and one woman who are not close relations. And of course, the polygamous do not because of the numbers involved. But in each of these groups are those who feel as if their desires are true, natural and deserving of the same rights and privileges the state and culture bestows upon one man and one woman. In that manner, each of the three groups are exactly identical and the distaste Dan and those like him have for the incestuous is as irrelevant as what Dan and those like him find irrelevant about the opinions of honest people who find homosexual relationships distasteful, sinful, abnormal.
And for Dan and others like him to regard the incestuous as disordered is as hateful and bigoted as he accuses honest people of being for their understanding of the abnormal attractions and sinful desires of homosexuals who insist on pursuing their agenda (that doesn't exist). There is simply no difference between the homosexual and the incestuous except for the specifics of what floats their boats. Support the demands of one, and you must support the demands of the other. And then you must support the demands of any other who insists their "love" is equally worthy. And then "marriage" will be totally meaningless.
"The reality is any comparison of homosexuality to any behavior of which society still has permission to disapprove will generate bilious howls of outrage and nastiness from homosexual activists. The closest analogue to homosexuality is not race or skin color. The closest analogue is polyamory or adult consensual incest. Try using those, especially the latter, and witness the torrent of non-rational, ad hominem-infused, fire-breathing that ensues from homosexual activists."
And we who visited Dan's blog recently had another taste of this very tactic. It is from there the "uglyass" comment came.
I say all this to set up this installment of Agenda Lies. The lie is that there is something vastly different between the argument for same-sex unions and the argument for adult consentual incestuous unions. The lie is that one is perfectly fine and the other a manifestation of some mental disorder. One healthy, the other not.
Of course, all Dan does is to assume the best of his favored class and compares it to the worst of that which he does not favor. He assumes that because he claims most incestuous affairs are oppressive, usually rapes I guess, that to imagine a person having a committed, loving and monogamous relationship with a sibling or parent is not possible. Or that it is mentally disordered. Funny. There's far more "disordered" about sexual attraction between two of the same gender than a male and female of the same family as far as I'm concerned.
And as far as I'm concerned, incest is just wrong. Sure, most people would be turned off by the thought of hooking up with a parent or sibling. But that's a cultural thing, and one that is from the same source as the cultural revulsion toward homosexual behavior: Scripture.
Yes, I know. Biologically bad things can happen should a dude hook up with his mother, daughter or sister. But that's only a risk if both carry similar defective traits, like hereditary things. If all parties are perfectly healthy, the child that might result from their union won't automatically suffer from defects.
However, as I recall, having children isn't necessarily the point of marriage, if the new age secular bozos are to be believed. So assume children aren't in the cards. One or both parties has strategic snips made by medical professionals and that issue is now in the "non" category.
The attraction itself can't be "weird". What is more weird than one dude pining after another dude? But one dude hot for his hot sister is weird? Imagine a 16 yr old Angelina Voight giving up her baby boy for adoption, never to again have contact with him. Then, in 2012, a 20 yr old young man has a nasty crush on Angelina Jolie. The fact that he is her son (without knowing it) would not likely play any part in his attraction, nor would it hinder his crush. And considering just how hot she is, had she not given up the kid at all, but raised him herself, what makes anyone think he would not appreciate her hotness just because he's her son? Enough to "want" her? Who knows? But what if he did and she reciprocated? They are both adults. Who's to say that they should be denied simply because of their biological relationship? On what basis?
Sure, people don't generally think of their family members as good looking (not counting parental bias), and generally come to agree, if that is the case, begrudgingly at first. But if it is plain to one person that his/her sibling or parent is a stud/babe, are they "disordered" for admitting it? Of course not. (Only uncomfortable) Hot is hot.
But we're to take the position that such unions are wrong (and they would be), but homosexual unions are not. And we're to take the position that such unions are SO wrong, that to dare draw any parallels or comparisons to homosexual unions is itself heinous, evil, "uglyass". On what basis?
Such unions cannot be less healthy than homosexual unions. (Keep in mind that unlike Dan, I am comparing in as much a one-to-one manner as I can. All subjects are physically healthy before entering their respective unions and none are capable of producing children. This is just about "people in love".) We can pretend that all unions of either group are platonic, but then, who would we be kidding? In this day and age? No one. So we must consider how they would express their "love" for each other and that, of course, is through sexual contact. And if acting in the least risky manner possible while still engaging in sexual contact, the incestuous would not risk at all, considering their sexual equipment would be used according to the owner's manual. They would not have to use any body part in a manner against its purpose or intent in order to engage in sexual contact. The homosexual cannot say the same thing without limiting themselves severely to handshakes and tongue wrestling.
But then, it's not really a question of healthy sexual practices at all, or whether one group's desires (homosexuals) more obviously constitutes some mental disorder. It's about the definition of marriage and who qualifies. Clearly the homosexuals do not as the definition requires one man and one woman. Clearly the incestuous do not, because the definition requires one man and one woman who are not close relations. And of course, the polygamous do not because of the numbers involved. But in each of these groups are those who feel as if their desires are true, natural and deserving of the same rights and privileges the state and culture bestows upon one man and one woman. In that manner, each of the three groups are exactly identical and the distaste Dan and those like him have for the incestuous is as irrelevant as what Dan and those like him find irrelevant about the opinions of honest people who find homosexual relationships distasteful, sinful, abnormal.
And for Dan and others like him to regard the incestuous as disordered is as hateful and bigoted as he accuses honest people of being for their understanding of the abnormal attractions and sinful desires of homosexuals who insist on pursuing their agenda (that doesn't exist). There is simply no difference between the homosexual and the incestuous except for the specifics of what floats their boats. Support the demands of one, and you must support the demands of the other. And then you must support the demands of any other who insists their "love" is equally worthy. And then "marriage" will be totally meaningless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)