The Supreme Court is my least favorite branch of government. Ever since John Marshall decided that the court has judicial review in Marbury v Madison, I felt that there was too much power concentrated into the hands of unelected, for-life officials. Perhaps if the court had stuck to a strict interpretation of the Constitution I would have thought differently, but court rulings like those involving the American Booksellers and Indianapolis, where they decided that pornography was 1st amendment protected, or Roe v Wade, etc., haven't made me a big fan of the Supreme Court.
That may change.
Since 2001, things have been happening in the government that are not good, to put it too plainly. We, the American people, are seeing our freedoms taken away. The Patriot Act in the former administration, with it's infamous "Sneak and Peak" warrant provision, took away some of our privacy.
But as long as it's being used against bad guys, it's ok, right? Not until the government's definition of "bad guy" changes to start including suspected "racists" and "hate crime advocates" like preachers who speak against homosexuality.
And, of course, the Obama administration is still using the Patriot Act's power with warrantless surviellance , but all the blame will go to the other guy.
The Supreme and Circuit Courts have limited the power of the Patriot Act (thankfully), acting in proper concordance with the entire system of Checks and Balances.
Now we'll see what they'll do about the forced buying of health care and the government's attempted takeover of the internet businesses.
Nothing scares me more than the last bit, by the way. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but if the government takes over the internet, our main source of news and communication, we're in a bit of trouble.
Which is exactly what will happen if the government is able to offer its own internet.
How can a private, tax-paying corporation operating under a sovereign government compete with that government, which makes the rules, doesn't need to make a profit and can cover all losses by simply printing more money?
This, by the way, is a foundation of conservative beliefs.
I'm thankful for the District of Columbia Court of appeals standing up to the FCC and the beginnings of an attempted takeover.
But I wonder how far our court systems will go to protect us further? Will it be able to stand up to the President over the issue of forcing private citizens to buy insurance from a private company? Can the government force us to buy things? I say no; Obama says yes.
So do all the liberals. Where will the court rule?
I cannot wait until one of the Houses go to the other party; I may not fully support the Repubs, but I'm a firm believer in Hobbes' metaphor of a government. It's a leviathan, a monster. And all the monster has been doing since 2001 (or since FDR, really) is getting stronger. The leviathan wants to consume more power, for no other reason than to grow. I'd rather have the monster eating itself than us.
But will the courts stand up to the beast?
Can the people? Because I firmly believe the federal government will never relinquish a power it has been allowed (by us) to give itself. All the federal government will do is add power, slowly or quickly, depending on the watchfullness of the people.
And what is the end result for the leviathan that can only grow and never diminish? I think that's an important question for us, as we are living on the same island as the beast.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Rich Envy
I deliver pizza to mini castles.
I deliver pizza in Brentwood, TN, the richest part of the 17th richest county in the nation. Every day is like a tour of the "rich and famous," although not usually the famous part. Yesterday, I delivered a pizza and an order of buffalo wings to the back of a brand new subdivision with homes "Starting in the 800's." That's about 7 times the amount of house I will likely purchase when I finally get around to my first mortgage.
I'm supposed to feel jealous. I don't.
I'm not even going to take the "I bet their lives are really miserable" argument. You know, the one that all the television shows and movies tell us is true. Rich girl escaping from her mini castle which is really a prison to run off with the poor happy free-spirited guy in a pick-up truck. Money doesn't make for happiness, but I don't think it makes for a horrible life, either.
So what's my reaction? Good for you, I say. To the guy about 10 years older than me playing in the backyard with his two sons and his two pedigree-looking boxers, I bear you no ill-will just because the 5 dollar tip you gave me was 1/3 of my hourly wage and probably 1/60th of yours.
The rhetoric is that these rich people who object to paying taxes are greedy. They've had unfair advantages from their parents. They've risen to the top by being an unethical capitalist, standing on the throats of those below them.
Maybe it's all true, although I doubt it. I find it hard to believe that most of these people don't work hard for their money, unless they're entertainers (no offense).
A little over 15% of American households earn over $100,000 annually. 56% make between $25-100k. 29% make less than that (and a majority of these households have no one working). The gap is growing between the rich and poor.
I wonder if this has anything to do with the loss of the "I can have this" attitude that has been replaced by the "You shouldn't have this because I don't" attitude.
Envy has replaced ambition.
Those who talk of "personal responsibility" are almost always the have's. I am a under 30K, under the poverty line "have not," and I say, take personal responsibility. Stop hating the rich. We have a system of taxation that takes a majority of money from the top.
Which, if you stop and think about it, means the rich have paid for our roads, our schools, our police officers, and so on.
As for me, I made around $28k last year. The federal government kicked me back, after not paying any income taxes, $9k, so, thanks to the rich taxpayers, I came home with $37k last year. I have $950/month (over $10k annually) to buy my family food. I have free health insurance.
Basically, because of taxes, my income of $28k stretches out to look something more like $50k.
Thank you, rich taxpayers, for doubling my salary.
But I have to wonder if the comfort level of life that even us living below the poverty line can achieve (provided we can manage our own money) has sapped our own ambition. Why would I want to spend so much energy trying to achieve comfort for my family when it's being handed to me?
Perhaps I've gotten lazy. Perhaps the rich of America owe it to the rest of us for them being so lucky while we're not. All I know is that I have no personal reason to resent the rich and no justification in piling more taxes upon them.
Because just maybe when the gap between the rich and the poor disappears in America, we will all be at the bottom instead of the top.
I deliver pizza in Brentwood, TN, the richest part of the 17th richest county in the nation. Every day is like a tour of the "rich and famous," although not usually the famous part. Yesterday, I delivered a pizza and an order of buffalo wings to the back of a brand new subdivision with homes "Starting in the 800's." That's about 7 times the amount of house I will likely purchase when I finally get around to my first mortgage.
I'm supposed to feel jealous. I don't.
I'm not even going to take the "I bet their lives are really miserable" argument. You know, the one that all the television shows and movies tell us is true. Rich girl escaping from her mini castle which is really a prison to run off with the poor happy free-spirited guy in a pick-up truck. Money doesn't make for happiness, but I don't think it makes for a horrible life, either.
So what's my reaction? Good for you, I say. To the guy about 10 years older than me playing in the backyard with his two sons and his two pedigree-looking boxers, I bear you no ill-will just because the 5 dollar tip you gave me was 1/3 of my hourly wage and probably 1/60th of yours.
The rhetoric is that these rich people who object to paying taxes are greedy. They've had unfair advantages from their parents. They've risen to the top by being an unethical capitalist, standing on the throats of those below them.
Maybe it's all true, although I doubt it. I find it hard to believe that most of these people don't work hard for their money, unless they're entertainers (no offense).
A little over 15% of American households earn over $100,000 annually. 56% make between $25-100k. 29% make less than that (and a majority of these households have no one working). The gap is growing between the rich and poor.
I wonder if this has anything to do with the loss of the "I can have this" attitude that has been replaced by the "You shouldn't have this because I don't" attitude.
Envy has replaced ambition.
Those who talk of "personal responsibility" are almost always the have's. I am a under 30K, under the poverty line "have not," and I say, take personal responsibility. Stop hating the rich. We have a system of taxation that takes a majority of money from the top.
Which, if you stop and think about it, means the rich have paid for our roads, our schools, our police officers, and so on.
As for me, I made around $28k last year. The federal government kicked me back, after not paying any income taxes, $9k, so, thanks to the rich taxpayers, I came home with $37k last year. I have $950/month (over $10k annually) to buy my family food. I have free health insurance.
Basically, because of taxes, my income of $28k stretches out to look something more like $50k.
Thank you, rich taxpayers, for doubling my salary.
But I have to wonder if the comfort level of life that even us living below the poverty line can achieve (provided we can manage our own money) has sapped our own ambition. Why would I want to spend so much energy trying to achieve comfort for my family when it's being handed to me?
Perhaps I've gotten lazy. Perhaps the rich of America owe it to the rest of us for them being so lucky while we're not. All I know is that I have no personal reason to resent the rich and no justification in piling more taxes upon them.
Because just maybe when the gap between the rich and the poor disappears in America, we will all be at the bottom instead of the top.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Polarized idiots and a biased news breakdown
Part I: Polarized idiots
I don't want to beat a dead horse to death (again), but the ridiculousness of the Republican/ultra conservative and the Democratic/ultra liberal is getting to me again.
Maybe it's my difficulty in having a real conversation with the happy-drunk Democrats I know; no, I don't want to have a "debate" with you where one of us wins or loses, there's no point in that. Do you really think that if you "beat" me in a debate that means you're right and I'm wrong? The truth isn't tied down to individual people. Please, let's have a civilized discussion where we aren't attacking each other and we'll see if we can challenge each other's ideas. But these liberal friends aren't interested in learning anything or in teaching anything; the caricatures see someone who disagrees with them and they attack.
If you can't say anything that hasn't been repeated 100 times by either fox news or cnn, please don't argue with me. When you have a new thought originating in your own head, then we can talk.
I won't even pretend Republicans don't do this, either, although in my biased personal experience as a paleo-conservative leaning independent, I've been attacked by more liberals than anything; so much for loving freedom of speech or being open minded (which, by the way, doesn't include being open minded to anyone who disagrees with you).
I'm sure left-leaning independents who don't go for the herd mentality and don't follow what the great donkey tells them to do have have had their share of senseless attacks from the die-hard Republicans worshiping the great elephant in the sky.
I shouldn't be surprised that this is how people react when it comes to politics. No one wants to think, it's a battleground to them (thank you, Mr. Rove), and the truth doesn't matter as much as the scoreboard. Of course these diehard reds and blues act this way: that's what the parties and the political talking heads they serve do.
My opinion? If you agree with everything one political party says, you can't think for yourself. This doesn't have to be a one way or the other choice on how to run America.
Gee, do we want to run our country to the ground by cutting taxes and increasing defense spending while policing the globe, or do we want to run the country into the ground by raising taxes on the wealthy and increasing everything spending?
Who should we let control the masses, big corporations or big corporate government?
I mean, if it's going to be an either-or situation, make it an easy one: cake or death, not death by quartering or crucifixion.
Part II: Biased news breakdown
I did have a mental breakdown after attempting to update myself on the current events; I'm spinning happily off into another apathetic stage, which is my normal response when things are just too stupid to bother with. It's like worrying if someone is cheating at Calvinball. What's the point?
Here is the breakdown of the idiocy of the biased news I suffered through:
99.7, the typical heartless conservative:
Phil Valentine was lambasting (correctly so, I say) NYC's incentive plan to pay poor people $100 to go to the dentist. He put forth, in all seriousness, his own idea: pay people with kids on welfare $500 to get their tubes tied or snipped. And if they don't become infertile? Kick them off welfare.
No talk about reducing benefits or lowering the wage standard for those on welfare, let's just nip the problem in the bud.
90.3, the liberal radio show (please don't tell me you think NPR is anything but)
There was a lady talking in a dramatic voice about the struggles low income children have in their school when they don't have access to proper food in the home. No, that wasn't it, let's see if I can remember...oh yes, the horrors a low-income child has competing with the rich kids when they don't have broadband internet access!!! And the talk on the fringe, if The Economist is any indication, is of the government "introducing more competition" to drive prices down for internet.
Let's see, the government introducing competition...let's bet on whether they'll give tax breaks to new internet providers, or if they'll just offer a government-run internet company.
Bleeding heart liberals at the finest, lamenting the tragedy of students having to wait hours in line for access to the internet on the library. Just think, the next time a 14 year old boy is downloading porn, it may be thanks to the tax payers of America.
By the way, I didn't have internet until I was 17 and never used it for school; graduated 2003 Salutatorian of my class, son of a blue-collar worker. Quit whining, please.
Left, Right and Center podcast:
By left, right and center, what they meant, apparently, was a left-wing nutcase from the Huffington Post, a left-wing foreigner, a supposedly "centrist" host who was center-left, and one right-wing nutcase from the Washington Times left out to dry. The topic: Obama working the deal with Russia to reduce the number of warheads by 30%.
Right wing nutcase's opinion: We can't be limiting the number of nuclear warheads we have when Iran and North Korea are becoming dangerous and building their nuclear power up!
Left wing's nutcase's opinion: Obama and Russia, by reducing their nuclear warheads, will lead Iran, North Korea and the rest of the world into an era of nuclear disarmament.
And my take? At the end of the day, with over 1,500 nuclear warheads between us and Russia, each, I'm pretty sure we are still far and away more nuclear able than North Korea, Iran and all of Africa put together, and I'm betting (although don't prove me on this) we could destroy the world if we detonated them all. It's like we could blow everything up five times over before, and now we can only blow the world up three times over.
With that in mind, how does either side's arguments stand up?
Oh, wait, we're talking politics, it's not about common sense.
Speaking of Common Sense...
I did happily stumbled upon Dan Carlin a while back who, besides doing a usually enjoyable Hardcore History podcast, does an independent political podcast entitled Common Sense. The only problem is, he touches on broad ideas taken from news stories, holistic, like a historian; this is great for the show, but doesn't fill me in on everything that's going on (meaning I will continue to suffer through all these other news sources). If only he could release them every day (check him out on iTunes for both shows, you'll be glad you did).
He did touch on the Christian Militia story out of Michigan, the one where the nutcases wanted to kill a bunch of cops and overthrow the government. They didn't get to do anything they planned but were arrested for seditious actions and having weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The WMDs were homemade explosives.
The ultra-liberals had a field day with this: according to comments on RAW Story, all white Christians are terrorists.
According to the right wing, these guys did nothing wrong, the government is arresting them for no reason; which, technically, they didn't do anything (kind of like when we stop international terrorists from actually committing the terrorism) but do we really want to stick our necks out and defend a group of supposed Christians who think we are supposed to fight the antichrist? And start by killing government authorities? I think they missed a few key points in the gospel message.
Food for thought: if homemade explosives are classified as WMDs, wasn't Bush right when he said Iraq had WMDs?
(note to any Democrats reading: that was a joke)
Side note: I'm still waiting for our liberal President to end the wars. Why isn't this in the news?
I don't want to beat a dead horse to death (again), but the ridiculousness of the Republican/ultra conservative and the Democratic/ultra liberal is getting to me again.
Maybe it's my difficulty in having a real conversation with the happy-drunk Democrats I know; no, I don't want to have a "debate" with you where one of us wins or loses, there's no point in that. Do you really think that if you "beat" me in a debate that means you're right and I'm wrong? The truth isn't tied down to individual people. Please, let's have a civilized discussion where we aren't attacking each other and we'll see if we can challenge each other's ideas. But these liberal friends aren't interested in learning anything or in teaching anything; the caricatures see someone who disagrees with them and they attack.
If you can't say anything that hasn't been repeated 100 times by either fox news or cnn, please don't argue with me. When you have a new thought originating in your own head, then we can talk.
I won't even pretend Republicans don't do this, either, although in my biased personal experience as a paleo-conservative leaning independent, I've been attacked by more liberals than anything; so much for loving freedom of speech or being open minded (which, by the way, doesn't include being open minded to anyone who disagrees with you).
I'm sure left-leaning independents who don't go for the herd mentality and don't follow what the great donkey tells them to do have have had their share of senseless attacks from the die-hard Republicans worshiping the great elephant in the sky.
I shouldn't be surprised that this is how people react when it comes to politics. No one wants to think, it's a battleground to them (thank you, Mr. Rove), and the truth doesn't matter as much as the scoreboard. Of course these diehard reds and blues act this way: that's what the parties and the political talking heads they serve do.
My opinion? If you agree with everything one political party says, you can't think for yourself. This doesn't have to be a one way or the other choice on how to run America.
Gee, do we want to run our country to the ground by cutting taxes and increasing defense spending while policing the globe, or do we want to run the country into the ground by raising taxes on the wealthy and increasing everything spending?
Who should we let control the masses, big corporations or big corporate government?
I mean, if it's going to be an either-or situation, make it an easy one: cake or death, not death by quartering or crucifixion.
Part II: Biased news breakdown
I did have a mental breakdown after attempting to update myself on the current events; I'm spinning happily off into another apathetic stage, which is my normal response when things are just too stupid to bother with. It's like worrying if someone is cheating at Calvinball. What's the point?
Here is the breakdown of the idiocy of the biased news I suffered through:
99.7, the typical heartless conservative:
Phil Valentine was lambasting (correctly so, I say) NYC's incentive plan to pay poor people $100 to go to the dentist. He put forth, in all seriousness, his own idea: pay people with kids on welfare $500 to get their tubes tied or snipped. And if they don't become infertile? Kick them off welfare.
No talk about reducing benefits or lowering the wage standard for those on welfare, let's just nip the problem in the bud.
90.3, the liberal radio show (please don't tell me you think NPR is anything but)
There was a lady talking in a dramatic voice about the struggles low income children have in their school when they don't have access to proper food in the home. No, that wasn't it, let's see if I can remember...oh yes, the horrors a low-income child has competing with the rich kids when they don't have broadband internet access!!! And the talk on the fringe, if The Economist is any indication, is of the government "introducing more competition" to drive prices down for internet.
Let's see, the government introducing competition...let's bet on whether they'll give tax breaks to new internet providers, or if they'll just offer a government-run internet company.
Bleeding heart liberals at the finest, lamenting the tragedy of students having to wait hours in line for access to the internet on the library. Just think, the next time a 14 year old boy is downloading porn, it may be thanks to the tax payers of America.
By the way, I didn't have internet until I was 17 and never used it for school; graduated 2003 Salutatorian of my class, son of a blue-collar worker. Quit whining, please.
Left, Right and Center podcast:
By left, right and center, what they meant, apparently, was a left-wing nutcase from the Huffington Post, a left-wing foreigner, a supposedly "centrist" host who was center-left, and one right-wing nutcase from the Washington Times left out to dry. The topic: Obama working the deal with Russia to reduce the number of warheads by 30%.
Right wing nutcase's opinion: We can't be limiting the number of nuclear warheads we have when Iran and North Korea are becoming dangerous and building their nuclear power up!
Left wing's nutcase's opinion: Obama and Russia, by reducing their nuclear warheads, will lead Iran, North Korea and the rest of the world into an era of nuclear disarmament.
And my take? At the end of the day, with over 1,500 nuclear warheads between us and Russia, each, I'm pretty sure we are still far and away more nuclear able than North Korea, Iran and all of Africa put together, and I'm betting (although don't prove me on this) we could destroy the world if we detonated them all. It's like we could blow everything up five times over before, and now we can only blow the world up three times over.
With that in mind, how does either side's arguments stand up?
Oh, wait, we're talking politics, it's not about common sense.
Speaking of Common Sense...
I did happily stumbled upon Dan Carlin a while back who, besides doing a usually enjoyable Hardcore History podcast, does an independent political podcast entitled Common Sense. The only problem is, he touches on broad ideas taken from news stories, holistic, like a historian; this is great for the show, but doesn't fill me in on everything that's going on (meaning I will continue to suffer through all these other news sources). If only he could release them every day (check him out on iTunes for both shows, you'll be glad you did).
He did touch on the Christian Militia story out of Michigan, the one where the nutcases wanted to kill a bunch of cops and overthrow the government. They didn't get to do anything they planned but were arrested for seditious actions and having weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The WMDs were homemade explosives.
The ultra-liberals had a field day with this: according to comments on RAW Story, all white Christians are terrorists.
According to the right wing, these guys did nothing wrong, the government is arresting them for no reason; which, technically, they didn't do anything (kind of like when we stop international terrorists from actually committing the terrorism) but do we really want to stick our necks out and defend a group of supposed Christians who think we are supposed to fight the antichrist? And start by killing government authorities? I think they missed a few key points in the gospel message.
Food for thought: if homemade explosives are classified as WMDs, wasn't Bush right when he said Iraq had WMDs?
(note to any Democrats reading: that was a joke)
Side note: I'm still waiting for our liberal President to end the wars. Why isn't this in the news?
Monday, March 22, 2010
Freedom
I'm obsessed with freedom. Maybe it's because of my upbringing. When I turned 18, my parents treated me like an adult, completely. I was asked (since I lived in their home) of extending the courtesy of letting them know if I was coming home for the night or not; other than that, I was treated exactly like an adult.
It bothered me that I knew other 18 year olds who felt the need to ask their parents permission to do things.
Why do you need to ask your parents? You're an adult! Legally!
The curious thing was, the most frequent response had to do with money. They needed money from their parents to do something. They drove their parents car. Their parents covered their auto insurance. Their parents paid for their college.
And if, apparently, your parents were paying for you to go to college, adult or not, your parents still owned you.
Maybe just a little bit. In some cases, quite a lot.
I seem to remember some people having to live at home and have a curfew after the age of 18, all because their parents were paying for them to go to college.
Here's some insight into my life: I paid for my first car when I was 16. My parents loaned me $1,000 for the car, $200 for gas and $200 for insurance and I paid them back while maintaining my insurance and gas. I bought another car from them for $4000 my senior year and paid it back within a year or a year and a half. There was no thousands of dollars waiting for me to go to college; I got a full ride, or I didn't go.
Which is why I was annoyed when FAFSA asked about my parents income. What did that matter? I'm 18, and I pay for everything myself. It was a bit of a comedy to myself and my dad when, on a trip with a quasi-Christian group in Chicago at the age of 19, the leader felt the need to call my Dad and ask him if it was ok if I went home early. We played along.
But I was a grown man, and if I wanted to leave Chicago, I was doing so, and I didn't need my father's permission. I had my own car, my own money, and, if I really needed to, I could move out on my own.
FREEDOM!
It really does not seem too much of a stretch to me today that my generation is so ready to do the same with the government. Let the government support us in every way, give us our food, our job, our housing, our health insurance. It all sounds good.
Until the other shoe falls, and they're telling us that it's a Wednesday night and we can't go out, we have to finish our term paper first.
But to obtain my freedom, I had to be responsible enough not to go begging my parents for money. And to maintain our freedom, we, as 20 something adults, need to be equally self-sufficient. Quite frankly, that's a discipline that too few of my generation learned from our parents, or care to learn for ourselves.
We would rather have a master then do all that extra work.
It bothered me that I knew other 18 year olds who felt the need to ask their parents permission to do things.
Why do you need to ask your parents? You're an adult! Legally!
The curious thing was, the most frequent response had to do with money. They needed money from their parents to do something. They drove their parents car. Their parents covered their auto insurance. Their parents paid for their college.
And if, apparently, your parents were paying for you to go to college, adult or not, your parents still owned you.
Maybe just a little bit. In some cases, quite a lot.
I seem to remember some people having to live at home and have a curfew after the age of 18, all because their parents were paying for them to go to college.
Here's some insight into my life: I paid for my first car when I was 16. My parents loaned me $1,000 for the car, $200 for gas and $200 for insurance and I paid them back while maintaining my insurance and gas. I bought another car from them for $4000 my senior year and paid it back within a year or a year and a half. There was no thousands of dollars waiting for me to go to college; I got a full ride, or I didn't go.
Which is why I was annoyed when FAFSA asked about my parents income. What did that matter? I'm 18, and I pay for everything myself. It was a bit of a comedy to myself and my dad when, on a trip with a quasi-Christian group in Chicago at the age of 19, the leader felt the need to call my Dad and ask him if it was ok if I went home early. We played along.
But I was a grown man, and if I wanted to leave Chicago, I was doing so, and I didn't need my father's permission. I had my own car, my own money, and, if I really needed to, I could move out on my own.
FREEDOM!
It really does not seem too much of a stretch to me today that my generation is so ready to do the same with the government. Let the government support us in every way, give us our food, our job, our housing, our health insurance. It all sounds good.
Until the other shoe falls, and they're telling us that it's a Wednesday night and we can't go out, we have to finish our term paper first.
But to obtain my freedom, I had to be responsible enough not to go begging my parents for money. And to maintain our freedom, we, as 20 something adults, need to be equally self-sufficient. Quite frankly, that's a discipline that too few of my generation learned from our parents, or care to learn for ourselves.
We would rather have a master then do all that extra work.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Power
In a really simplified way, there are two types of power. There's real power and perceived power. Real power is something like a police man with a gun telling you to stop running or he'll shoot you. A perceived power would be the credit card company threatening to garnish your wages or put a lien on your property if you don't pay, scaring you into paying them off when you weren't planning to anyway. They don't, for those of you who don't know, have the power to do this (the courts do, not them, obviously), but if they scared you into doing what they wanted, that's perceived power.
Keeping that in mind, I was a bit under the weather today and reading a variety of news articles and blogs to pass the time in bed. I even went the extra step and read all the comments under the articles, an interesting experience, to say the least. Two things that are dominating the news stuck out to me.
Health care and banking. No, check that, health care insurance, which is not health care. We can extend this to all major corporations and wall street investing, as well.
Main street and Wall street.
The comments "main street" Americans left time and time again were angry. They felt used. They resented the banks and their practices. They resented the large salaries of the CEOs at the top of the health insurance industries, and elsewhere. They acted like these companies hold a power over us.
This power that main street has given wall street is a perceived power. In the end, we allow these companies to control us. We choose where every dollar we spend goes, except for taxes, which, for the majority of us (bottom 50%), aren't that burdensome.
The wonderful thing about free market (using the term loosely) capitalism, is that every one of us has a small power to affect what companies stay in business and what ones don't. Everyone can choose who to allow to hold their money. No one is forced into mortgages or student loans.
So what exactly am I saying? Let's be radical.
If you don't like the banking industry, don't put your money in a bank or take out a mortgage. If you are upset about how Wall Street executives misuse your investments, don't contribute to your 401(k) or build up your portfolio. If you think health insurances are greedy industries, don't get health insurance.
Don't like the price of college? Don't go to college.
Don't like the interest rates and underhanded tactics of credit card companies? Don't get a credit card.
Your phone company keeps screwing up your bill? Drop your cell phone coverage.
And it goes on.
Can you survive without these entities? Let's start with the easy ones.
No mortgage? Save up while renting and buy your home in cash. Don't like that? Then understand that if you borrow $100k from a bank, you've just given them a little bit of control in your life.
Think it's too risky to keep your money in your house in a fire-proof safe? Then keep it in the bank. Understand, though, that you're contributing to the banking industry and, of course, if they screw up your banking statement, in my mind you chose to let someone else hold your money. Is it safer, though, then risking your money to fire or robbery? That's your choice to make.
No cell phone or satellite tv contracts? No credit cards? I won't even bother with that. Just, succinctly, you chose them, you gave them some power and control in your life.
How about health insurance? Surely that's needed! Everyone needs health care! First, health care isn't health insurance. Understand you have options. Look into a HSA and a high deductible plan, if that seems more financially reasonable.
Or, try this. Don't go to doctors if you think they are overpriced. Take really good care of your own body. Show up only at the ER in life-threatening situations, and then pay off that bill with the money you saved on not having health insurance. If it's really expensive, understand that you can choose how much to pay off of that bill every month, as long as you keep paying.
Oh, the power you didn't even know you had!
Or, if it makes financial sense to you, keep your health insurance. For some people, health insurance is a good idea. Others are just too nervous to go without it. Just understand nobody made you.
Ah, but how could i LIVE? No mortgage? NO BANK? What am I suppose to do, save up for my house? Keep my money with me? What happens if I have to go to the doctor? What am I suppose to do when I want to retire? I NEED my house, my pills, my credit rating, my checking account, my health insurance!
Then understand that you have chosen to give these people control of your pocket, which, invariably, means control of your life.
Sorry, can't send my kid to private school, I need to pay $1000/month in health insurance costs.
Can't go on that vacation for five years, I can't get money I invested in my 401(k) yet.
Every dollar you contribute to one of these industries whose practices upset you so much is a dollar validating its existence.
Every mindset you hold that says I MUST have this or that is giving these industries their perceived power in your life.
Understand what I am saying. I'm not telling you I think you should be doing all of this. What I'm saying is that you choose how much you want to contribute to each aspect of our capitalist system.
That's the beauty of it.
Keeping that in mind, I was a bit under the weather today and reading a variety of news articles and blogs to pass the time in bed. I even went the extra step and read all the comments under the articles, an interesting experience, to say the least. Two things that are dominating the news stuck out to me.
Health care and banking. No, check that, health care insurance, which is not health care. We can extend this to all major corporations and wall street investing, as well.
Main street and Wall street.
The comments "main street" Americans left time and time again were angry. They felt used. They resented the banks and their practices. They resented the large salaries of the CEOs at the top of the health insurance industries, and elsewhere. They acted like these companies hold a power over us.
This power that main street has given wall street is a perceived power. In the end, we allow these companies to control us. We choose where every dollar we spend goes, except for taxes, which, for the majority of us (bottom 50%), aren't that burdensome.
The wonderful thing about free market (using the term loosely) capitalism, is that every one of us has a small power to affect what companies stay in business and what ones don't. Everyone can choose who to allow to hold their money. No one is forced into mortgages or student loans.
So what exactly am I saying? Let's be radical.
If you don't like the banking industry, don't put your money in a bank or take out a mortgage. If you are upset about how Wall Street executives misuse your investments, don't contribute to your 401(k) or build up your portfolio. If you think health insurances are greedy industries, don't get health insurance.
Don't like the price of college? Don't go to college.
Don't like the interest rates and underhanded tactics of credit card companies? Don't get a credit card.
Your phone company keeps screwing up your bill? Drop your cell phone coverage.
And it goes on.
Can you survive without these entities? Let's start with the easy ones.
No mortgage? Save up while renting and buy your home in cash. Don't like that? Then understand that if you borrow $100k from a bank, you've just given them a little bit of control in your life.
Think it's too risky to keep your money in your house in a fire-proof safe? Then keep it in the bank. Understand, though, that you're contributing to the banking industry and, of course, if they screw up your banking statement, in my mind you chose to let someone else hold your money. Is it safer, though, then risking your money to fire or robbery? That's your choice to make.
No cell phone or satellite tv contracts? No credit cards? I won't even bother with that. Just, succinctly, you chose them, you gave them some power and control in your life.
How about health insurance? Surely that's needed! Everyone needs health care! First, health care isn't health insurance. Understand you have options. Look into a HSA and a high deductible plan, if that seems more financially reasonable.
Or, try this. Don't go to doctors if you think they are overpriced. Take really good care of your own body. Show up only at the ER in life-threatening situations, and then pay off that bill with the money you saved on not having health insurance. If it's really expensive, understand that you can choose how much to pay off of that bill every month, as long as you keep paying.
Oh, the power you didn't even know you had!
Or, if it makes financial sense to you, keep your health insurance. For some people, health insurance is a good idea. Others are just too nervous to go without it. Just understand nobody made you.
Ah, but how could i LIVE? No mortgage? NO BANK? What am I suppose to do, save up for my house? Keep my money with me? What happens if I have to go to the doctor? What am I suppose to do when I want to retire? I NEED my house, my pills, my credit rating, my checking account, my health insurance!
Then understand that you have chosen to give these people control of your pocket, which, invariably, means control of your life.
Sorry, can't send my kid to private school, I need to pay $1000/month in health insurance costs.
Can't go on that vacation for five years, I can't get money I invested in my 401(k) yet.
Every dollar you contribute to one of these industries whose practices upset you so much is a dollar validating its existence.
Every mindset you hold that says I MUST have this or that is giving these industries their perceived power in your life.
Understand what I am saying. I'm not telling you I think you should be doing all of this. What I'm saying is that you choose how much you want to contribute to each aspect of our capitalist system.
That's the beauty of it.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Walden's Pond
Why do I feel the need to blog? What's the real purpose behind this? I feel it when I look at the American culture of today and realize that I'm nowhere near the typical American way of thinking about anything.
I'm nuts. Certifiably, I'm sure. I ask why way too much. I think way too much. I analyze our culture, I like to think I transcend our culture, although, analytically, I know that I don't quite make it that far.
Still, I'm nuts. And I love it. But I just feel like I shouldn't open my mouth much about my ideas. Because I'd probably insult everyone.
So if you know me, or if you don't feel like getting insulted, don't read. Understand that I really do generally like everyone. I'm ok with you disagreeing with me. No, I don't think I'm better than you. In fact, the only one of these I'd argue anybody to model their life after is the religion aspect of my rant. Everything else is just the deeply held convictions of someone who is swimming as hard as they can upstream against the normal way of thinking about everything.
In the end, I don't really care if you join me in any of them but the one that leads to the pearly gates. That, no matter how passionate I seem about anything, is the endgame for me, and the only choice that really matters.
I add that disclaimer because I'm about to let loose on everything, and it's not normal for me to tell everyone that I think they're all crazy. Not that anyone has paused to tell me they think I'm nuts.
You got married how young? That's stupid.
You need to stop having kids. Why do you have so many kids?
You are going to homeschool? Your kids will be social retards. You can't teach them as well as a public school.
Why do you care about sugar? What's wrong with sugar? I've eaten sugar all my life and I'm ok. Are you trying to live forever?
You believe in the Christian God? You don't think times have changed? You believe in abstinence, heaven and hell and wife's obeying their husbands? Corporal punishment for your children? Old fashioned. Brain washed. Wife abuser. Child abuser. Close minded. Oh, how angry the let-everyone-have-their-own-religion people get when you have your own religion...
I forget sometimes, and its days like today that remind me of how odd I am. Sitting in the DMV, listening to people talk. Mid 30's man and woman, chatting to kill the time. She's getting divorced. Not what she wanted from the beginning, but she's happy that it's getting finalized. Good thing the kids are older, makes it easier for them. He's divorced and remarried. His first wife was scum. His daughter from that marriage is already pregnant with a kid, and he wonders why the state doesn't take the baby, since she's just too young to have one. He hadn't talked to her in a year, but it wasn't his fault. She shouldn't have told him through a text message, she should have had the decency to call him. He got married too young to his first wife, you really have to enjoy life for a while before you get married, figure out who you are.
They are poster children for modern American layman thought, and I am no where near that.
Because I'm nuts. I don't offer my opinion maybe as much as I should, because there's just way too much to say. It would take too long to explain all my reasonings.
Here's some reasons why, just off the top of my head, you will all think I'm insane:
1) Money.
I hate debt. I hate hate hate hate hate debt. I feel repressed by debt, consciously, every day I had student loans I thought about them, no lie. Every day I owed someone money or had a balance on the credit card I couldn't pay that day, I physically felt it. I love the freedom of not having any. I'm so tempted to save and pay cash for my first house, but I hate renting, too, so we shall see. I can't use a credit card to buy a CD at Wal Mart unless I have the cash to pay it off today, because I see it as going into debt for a thing. I hate things. If I could, I'd sleep in sleeping bags with the windows cracked and nothing but books, board games, and my electronics. We'd eat PB and J, rice, beans and produce because food is only there to keep you running, not to taste good. I truly do not care about money, just as long as I have enough to pay the bills and spend time with my family. I can't quite make this dream work because my wife would go bonkers, but we're moving in that direction. Still, I'm not for hoarding money, I just feel more justified in buying a trip to Disney World for my family than things to go around the house. Like tables. Kitchen tables are completely unnecessary.
2) Marriage and Adolescence
I believe in true love, but only if you work really, really hard about it. I hate prolonged adolescence. I know what "prolonged adolescence" is, and that's abnormal. I married when I was 19 and, 5 years later, am still in love, even more so, and I don't feel like I married young, everyone else just marries too old. I just like everything to be simple. If the body is biologically ready to have kids by 17, then the body is saying, hey, go settle down and get married. Play time is over. But not our society...I feel for us abstinence Christians, those that don't get married until late 20s, how do you contain that, seriously? You don't think God's giving humans these urges after 16, 17 years because He's saying, hey, had enough time being a kid, time to grow up? And that's what I mean, I truly believe that the reason 16 year olds don't act like adults is because our society expects them not to. I have four kids and not by accident, and, no, I don't wish I could have "lived a little" before I got "tied down." I don't buy that. Legally, I was an adult by 18. I was plenty old enough to be a man. And being a man, a real man not some shmuck who goes to "adult" parties and beats people up, is such a better feeling than years of partying. Go ahead with your debauchery and fornication, I taught my son how to pee through his fly today, I win, you just don't know it yet...
Are you still reading? Are you mad at me yet? I warned you. I'm not making you read this, and all you're doing, then, is getting irritated that I have these thoughts. I find many liberals hate the freedom of thought (see, Thomas Jefferson's Bio by Bailyn)
3)Politics
Yeah, I love politics. No, ok, I don't love our politics, but I'm passionate about fixing them. I view governmental systems as mostly amoral, and I don't think capitalism is sanctioned by Christianity, but I love small business and agricultural style capitalism and a working republic.
I get annoyed when people refer to our government as a democracy. It's not. I also get annoyed when prison is referred to as a "rehabilitation" center. No, it's a punishment.
I honesty am bothered every day by the national debt and by the fact that ethanol in gas is subsidized (ethanol sucks) and that incandescent light bulbs will be illegal soon so I'll have to buy the ones with mercury poisoning. I care about the federal government following the rules, and I hate big corporations who are big just for the sake of being big. I am annoyed that the drinking age is 21, and more so that it was federally forced down the throats of the states, who should be more powerful entity anyway. California wants to legalize marijuana? What's that to Tennessee? But, no, the federal government wants us all to be the same, and it takes more and more of our freedoms all the time, and I consciously feel it. I'm nowhere near "repressed" historically speaking, we still have it so well and enjoy so many freedoms that I am thankful for, but I see the very wide walls shrinking in every day and I'm getting claustrophibic (how to spell that? don't care). I'm screaming in my head the sky is falling everyday.
This is what I think about, even though I know I'm a drop in a huge bucket and, in the end, this isn't what's really important in life. But, still, it matters to me, because I'm nuts.
4)Theology
The joys of believing in the absolute truth of the Christian God based on an understanding of the Bible and not filtered through my culture or any denomination (I'm not non-denominational either, that's too contentious, I'm transdenominational). Yes, I believe in the absolute truth of the scriptures, and no, I don't think relative truth is even a logical outlook on the world. God exists if you want him to? Really, could I have done that for my parents when I was growing up? No, because they existed as a truth. If I could have made them go away and come back, then they wouldn't have really have been there. "Relative" truth means there is no truth but you're free to lie to yourself if you want.
No, I'm not brainwashed or uneducated, I've read Beyond Good and Evil and the True Believer, I've heard the purple giant octopus under the sea theory, and I understand the arguments against, I know there are millions of people with other religions, I understand you think science points away from God and no, I don't buy a word of it and that's after spending a year doubting my religion (but never losing it). I've thought more about the non-existence of God than most people I know and it's wrong, and that's not my opinion, that's fact, yell at me all you want about being close-minded. I am pure fundamentalist, unabashed by-the-book Christian.
But, again, I'm nuts, even around other Christians, because I don't care about the government sanctioning gay marriage (it's the government and the world is secular, what do I care?), I don't expect the culture to conform to Christian standards (the world's way will never be God's way), I love beer unashamedly because Jesus drank alcohol and no, it wasn't non-alcoholic, this was years after Noah got so trashed he passed out naked on the floor, I loathe Christians that can't hang out with non-Christians, I love my agnostic/atheist/apathetic friends, and I think making money off of Christianity is immoral. Remember, the first church was run like a communist government, everyone throw in your money and we'll spread it equally. Paul was a tent maker because he knew that although he deserved the money, taking the money would muddy his reputation and therefore muddy his message. You can't make way above the average salary on your preaching or your religious writing or your LifeWay position and tell anyone convincingly who isn't a Christian that you're doing it for God (I worked one day at LifeWay. They wanted me to up-sell Bibles. Selling expensive Bibles. That's not Christianity). Non-believers, and some believers, see your nice house and your nice car and say, hey, I'd work for any god or goddess who paid me this kind of money too, you hypocrite. I find the truest form of tithing would be to take your own family and the preacher's family out to Outback for steak and beer (see the longest description of tithing in the Bible for my reasoning why) and I never dress up for church because God doesn't care what I wear or about my hair or the tattoo on my leg or the earing in my ear and I don't go to church for anyone else, no apologies. But, don't get me wrong , I love going to church and I love all the true Christians I meet there, and I think praising God in church is great, I love my pastor's preaching regardless of if he's rich or poor (don't honestly know), I've read Max Lucado and enjoyed the book. I'm just, even in the Christian realm, a little bit nuts, because in the end, it's about God, no one else.
5)Raising my kids
No, I won't feed them sugar (or any of its substitutes) or high fructose corn syrup because that's bad for the body and I don't care what particular holiday it is. No, I'm not a "dirt person," but I'd like my chicken free-ranging and my cows without hormones. It's not about living longer, it's about keeping your body in the best possible shape for as long as you can so you're not miserably in pain from 50 on. Yes, I spank my kids and demand a high level of discipline because that's the right way to do things. I never call my children's misbehavior a "phase," and, not surprisingly, I have well-behaved kids. Of course, the T.V. sitcoms tell everyone that my kids will grow up resenting me for this and obviously they'll have sex and do drugs as teenagers behind my back, and it's only because I'm nuts that I don't follow everyone else and base my decisions on what happens to people in T.V. sitcoms. You know the philosophy, force them to eat vegetables and they'll hate vegetables for their life and if you discipline them every time they're bad they'll be just really bad behind your back, and give them condoms because they're going to have sex anyway and you don't want them to have a baby (by the way, getting pregnant out of wedlock isn't a sin and it certainly isn't a punishment for having sex. A life created is never a punishment. The fornication, that may be wrong, but the baby isn't wrong, and forcing a 15 year old to grow up isn't wrong, it's just wrong if they don't grow up and yes, sorry, if they're capable of having sex and having the baby then they're quite capable of being mothers and fathers, it's just society expects so little of them and they get off easy). I'm sorry, so if I want healthy, well-behaved kids I don't give them real consequences for their actions and let them eat all the junk they want and then someday they'll magically turn all that around? How's that working out for everyone so far?
By the way, I didn't do drugs ever, I didn't have sex before I was married even though I lived with my fiance, and I drank a total of one time underage, but at 19, when, constituionally, I should have been allowed to anyway. It was, however, wrong to drink that one time (I played Halo until 6 am buzzing off 3 wine coolers), so I didn't do it again until 21. So I'm proof that just because you're a teenager you don't have to be "bad" or "rebellious." But that's because I'm nuts, I know.
No, I won't send my kids to public school. Homeschooling isn't weird, it's normal. Historically. You're supposed to educate your own kids, whether its for working on a farm or being a lawyer. Hire an in-house tutor if you need, although these days you can find anything in a book or DVD. Putting a kid in a class of 30 other kids with one teacher who's forced to be a babysitter of 30 kids isn't an education. Forcing a 6 year old to follow a bell schedule and sit in a desk is breeding cattle (thank you, Bill Watterson comic strip for this insight). Letting the government decide what your kid should learn when and how is the opposite of freedom. Teaching 6th graders sex ed is stupid. I promise you two ultra-religious kids who have never been told about sex will put 1 and 1 together on their wedding night all by themselves. What you really want to teach them is how to have sex and not get pregnant. Making a 17 year old man (I know, I know, 17 year olds are supposed to be boys) ask if they can take a piss is an insult. When I turned 18, my parents let me do what I wanted. Why? Because they legally had to. They could have thrown me out, but I'm an 18 year old man, they didn't expect me to ask if I could stay out to 3 am walking the backstreets of Chapel Hill. I'd just be polite and tell them whether to expect me home or not.
Homeschooling? But I'm not smart enough! (To teach a 5th grader? Really? Can you try?) Ah, yes, but most people can't make it financially on one salary! Bet I make less with my family of 6 and, remember, I have no debt...But why should the woman have to stay home? How old-fashion, women should have the right to go out and make their own money! I love this idea of liberating women by letting them work. Here's your freedom to work 50 hours for a job you're going to complain about so you can have a little bit of money so you can spend more and help add to the debt. That's real freedom right there. I know when I saw women being general managers at Starbucks and working 50 hours for 30k who were up to their ears in debt (like the rest of sane America) I thought, that's a free woman right there. She can freely choose (with the right amount of socially applied pressure and ostracization of women who stay home...I swear to you working women expected my mother to watch their kids because she stayed at home and obviously had the free time to help them go to work...) to spend most of her energy for a major corporation so the other major corporations can brainwash her out of her money. Way to go. Then they can't figure out why they feel guilty for not being home. Note:If you're a woman with a great job making tons of money, I understand your liberation. I may not agree with your decision, but if you make over 100k and have no debt, that I sorta get. But, quite frankly, most women (and most of us period) just don't. Further note: If you're a single parent, obviously you can't homeschool. Someone needs to work. I get that to (although I'm all for having children only in marriage and never getting divorced).
I can't wait for the liberation of men, when they give us 100 acre furnished farms and free us from having to work for other people...I know. I know. I am absolutely raging nuts.
Are you still with me? Did you just agree with everything, or are you just getting pissed off? Remember. I just took my freedom of thought and ran with it. And I hate, hate, hate forcing things down people's throats. You chose to read. Don't argue with me in your head, just mull some of this over. Maybe you'll go a bit nuts too.
Because, yes, I'm insane. Culturally. I ask way too many questions and make way too many of my own decisions...
And am oh so happy with my happy marriage that keeps getting better, a sex life well making up for my earlier abstinence, well behaved kids, no debt, true faith in God (the rock of everything good in my life and the reason I don't worry about anything except doing what He says) and a healthy body. Enjoy your prolonged adolescence, middle-aged weight and a body that falls apart after 50, debt, the liberation to work your life away, letting the government raise your kids, not knowing what's coming after death, and kids who for some reason or another turn into rebellious teenagers...at least nobody will look at you like you're crazy.
Because you're just like them.
And I don't care if anyone but my wife reads this, I feel so much better for getting it all out.
I'm nuts. Certifiably, I'm sure. I ask why way too much. I think way too much. I analyze our culture, I like to think I transcend our culture, although, analytically, I know that I don't quite make it that far.
Still, I'm nuts. And I love it. But I just feel like I shouldn't open my mouth much about my ideas. Because I'd probably insult everyone.
So if you know me, or if you don't feel like getting insulted, don't read. Understand that I really do generally like everyone. I'm ok with you disagreeing with me. No, I don't think I'm better than you. In fact, the only one of these I'd argue anybody to model their life after is the religion aspect of my rant. Everything else is just the deeply held convictions of someone who is swimming as hard as they can upstream against the normal way of thinking about everything.
In the end, I don't really care if you join me in any of them but the one that leads to the pearly gates. That, no matter how passionate I seem about anything, is the endgame for me, and the only choice that really matters.
I add that disclaimer because I'm about to let loose on everything, and it's not normal for me to tell everyone that I think they're all crazy. Not that anyone has paused to tell me they think I'm nuts.
You got married how young? That's stupid.
You need to stop having kids. Why do you have so many kids?
You are going to homeschool? Your kids will be social retards. You can't teach them as well as a public school.
Why do you care about sugar? What's wrong with sugar? I've eaten sugar all my life and I'm ok. Are you trying to live forever?
You believe in the Christian God? You don't think times have changed? You believe in abstinence, heaven and hell and wife's obeying their husbands? Corporal punishment for your children? Old fashioned. Brain washed. Wife abuser. Child abuser. Close minded. Oh, how angry the let-everyone-have-their-own-religion people get when you have your own religion...
I forget sometimes, and its days like today that remind me of how odd I am. Sitting in the DMV, listening to people talk. Mid 30's man and woman, chatting to kill the time. She's getting divorced. Not what she wanted from the beginning, but she's happy that it's getting finalized. Good thing the kids are older, makes it easier for them. He's divorced and remarried. His first wife was scum. His daughter from that marriage is already pregnant with a kid, and he wonders why the state doesn't take the baby, since she's just too young to have one. He hadn't talked to her in a year, but it wasn't his fault. She shouldn't have told him through a text message, she should have had the decency to call him. He got married too young to his first wife, you really have to enjoy life for a while before you get married, figure out who you are.
They are poster children for modern American layman thought, and I am no where near that.
Because I'm nuts. I don't offer my opinion maybe as much as I should, because there's just way too much to say. It would take too long to explain all my reasonings.
Here's some reasons why, just off the top of my head, you will all think I'm insane:
1) Money.
I hate debt. I hate hate hate hate hate debt. I feel repressed by debt, consciously, every day I had student loans I thought about them, no lie. Every day I owed someone money or had a balance on the credit card I couldn't pay that day, I physically felt it. I love the freedom of not having any. I'm so tempted to save and pay cash for my first house, but I hate renting, too, so we shall see. I can't use a credit card to buy a CD at Wal Mart unless I have the cash to pay it off today, because I see it as going into debt for a thing. I hate things. If I could, I'd sleep in sleeping bags with the windows cracked and nothing but books, board games, and my electronics. We'd eat PB and J, rice, beans and produce because food is only there to keep you running, not to taste good. I truly do not care about money, just as long as I have enough to pay the bills and spend time with my family. I can't quite make this dream work because my wife would go bonkers, but we're moving in that direction. Still, I'm not for hoarding money, I just feel more justified in buying a trip to Disney World for my family than things to go around the house. Like tables. Kitchen tables are completely unnecessary.
2) Marriage and Adolescence
I believe in true love, but only if you work really, really hard about it. I hate prolonged adolescence. I know what "prolonged adolescence" is, and that's abnormal. I married when I was 19 and, 5 years later, am still in love, even more so, and I don't feel like I married young, everyone else just marries too old. I just like everything to be simple. If the body is biologically ready to have kids by 17, then the body is saying, hey, go settle down and get married. Play time is over. But not our society...I feel for us abstinence Christians, those that don't get married until late 20s, how do you contain that, seriously? You don't think God's giving humans these urges after 16, 17 years because He's saying, hey, had enough time being a kid, time to grow up? And that's what I mean, I truly believe that the reason 16 year olds don't act like adults is because our society expects them not to. I have four kids and not by accident, and, no, I don't wish I could have "lived a little" before I got "tied down." I don't buy that. Legally, I was an adult by 18. I was plenty old enough to be a man. And being a man, a real man not some shmuck who goes to "adult" parties and beats people up, is such a better feeling than years of partying. Go ahead with your debauchery and fornication, I taught my son how to pee through his fly today, I win, you just don't know it yet...
Are you still reading? Are you mad at me yet? I warned you. I'm not making you read this, and all you're doing, then, is getting irritated that I have these thoughts. I find many liberals hate the freedom of thought (see, Thomas Jefferson's Bio by Bailyn)
3)Politics
Yeah, I love politics. No, ok, I don't love our politics, but I'm passionate about fixing them. I view governmental systems as mostly amoral, and I don't think capitalism is sanctioned by Christianity, but I love small business and agricultural style capitalism and a working republic.
I get annoyed when people refer to our government as a democracy. It's not. I also get annoyed when prison is referred to as a "rehabilitation" center. No, it's a punishment.
I honesty am bothered every day by the national debt and by the fact that ethanol in gas is subsidized (ethanol sucks) and that incandescent light bulbs will be illegal soon so I'll have to buy the ones with mercury poisoning. I care about the federal government following the rules, and I hate big corporations who are big just for the sake of being big. I am annoyed that the drinking age is 21, and more so that it was federally forced down the throats of the states, who should be more powerful entity anyway. California wants to legalize marijuana? What's that to Tennessee? But, no, the federal government wants us all to be the same, and it takes more and more of our freedoms all the time, and I consciously feel it. I'm nowhere near "repressed" historically speaking, we still have it so well and enjoy so many freedoms that I am thankful for, but I see the very wide walls shrinking in every day and I'm getting claustrophibic (how to spell that? don't care). I'm screaming in my head the sky is falling everyday.
This is what I think about, even though I know I'm a drop in a huge bucket and, in the end, this isn't what's really important in life. But, still, it matters to me, because I'm nuts.
4)Theology
The joys of believing in the absolute truth of the Christian God based on an understanding of the Bible and not filtered through my culture or any denomination (I'm not non-denominational either, that's too contentious, I'm transdenominational). Yes, I believe in the absolute truth of the scriptures, and no, I don't think relative truth is even a logical outlook on the world. God exists if you want him to? Really, could I have done that for my parents when I was growing up? No, because they existed as a truth. If I could have made them go away and come back, then they wouldn't have really have been there. "Relative" truth means there is no truth but you're free to lie to yourself if you want.
No, I'm not brainwashed or uneducated, I've read Beyond Good and Evil and the True Believer, I've heard the purple giant octopus under the sea theory, and I understand the arguments against, I know there are millions of people with other religions, I understand you think science points away from God and no, I don't buy a word of it and that's after spending a year doubting my religion (but never losing it). I've thought more about the non-existence of God than most people I know and it's wrong, and that's not my opinion, that's fact, yell at me all you want about being close-minded. I am pure fundamentalist, unabashed by-the-book Christian.
But, again, I'm nuts, even around other Christians, because I don't care about the government sanctioning gay marriage (it's the government and the world is secular, what do I care?), I don't expect the culture to conform to Christian standards (the world's way will never be God's way), I love beer unashamedly because Jesus drank alcohol and no, it wasn't non-alcoholic, this was years after Noah got so trashed he passed out naked on the floor, I loathe Christians that can't hang out with non-Christians, I love my agnostic/atheist/apathetic friends, and I think making money off of Christianity is immoral. Remember, the first church was run like a communist government, everyone throw in your money and we'll spread it equally. Paul was a tent maker because he knew that although he deserved the money, taking the money would muddy his reputation and therefore muddy his message. You can't make way above the average salary on your preaching or your religious writing or your LifeWay position and tell anyone convincingly who isn't a Christian that you're doing it for God (I worked one day at LifeWay. They wanted me to up-sell Bibles. Selling expensive Bibles. That's not Christianity). Non-believers, and some believers, see your nice house and your nice car and say, hey, I'd work for any god or goddess who paid me this kind of money too, you hypocrite. I find the truest form of tithing would be to take your own family and the preacher's family out to Outback for steak and beer (see the longest description of tithing in the Bible for my reasoning why) and I never dress up for church because God doesn't care what I wear or about my hair or the tattoo on my leg or the earing in my ear and I don't go to church for anyone else, no apologies. But, don't get me wrong , I love going to church and I love all the true Christians I meet there, and I think praising God in church is great, I love my pastor's preaching regardless of if he's rich or poor (don't honestly know), I've read Max Lucado and enjoyed the book. I'm just, even in the Christian realm, a little bit nuts, because in the end, it's about God, no one else.
5)Raising my kids
No, I won't feed them sugar (or any of its substitutes) or high fructose corn syrup because that's bad for the body and I don't care what particular holiday it is. No, I'm not a "dirt person," but I'd like my chicken free-ranging and my cows without hormones. It's not about living longer, it's about keeping your body in the best possible shape for as long as you can so you're not miserably in pain from 50 on. Yes, I spank my kids and demand a high level of discipline because that's the right way to do things. I never call my children's misbehavior a "phase," and, not surprisingly, I have well-behaved kids. Of course, the T.V. sitcoms tell everyone that my kids will grow up resenting me for this and obviously they'll have sex and do drugs as teenagers behind my back, and it's only because I'm nuts that I don't follow everyone else and base my decisions on what happens to people in T.V. sitcoms. You know the philosophy, force them to eat vegetables and they'll hate vegetables for their life and if you discipline them every time they're bad they'll be just really bad behind your back, and give them condoms because they're going to have sex anyway and you don't want them to have a baby (by the way, getting pregnant out of wedlock isn't a sin and it certainly isn't a punishment for having sex. A life created is never a punishment. The fornication, that may be wrong, but the baby isn't wrong, and forcing a 15 year old to grow up isn't wrong, it's just wrong if they don't grow up and yes, sorry, if they're capable of having sex and having the baby then they're quite capable of being mothers and fathers, it's just society expects so little of them and they get off easy). I'm sorry, so if I want healthy, well-behaved kids I don't give them real consequences for their actions and let them eat all the junk they want and then someday they'll magically turn all that around? How's that working out for everyone so far?
By the way, I didn't do drugs ever, I didn't have sex before I was married even though I lived with my fiance, and I drank a total of one time underage, but at 19, when, constituionally, I should have been allowed to anyway. It was, however, wrong to drink that one time (I played Halo until 6 am buzzing off 3 wine coolers), so I didn't do it again until 21. So I'm proof that just because you're a teenager you don't have to be "bad" or "rebellious." But that's because I'm nuts, I know.
No, I won't send my kids to public school. Homeschooling isn't weird, it's normal. Historically. You're supposed to educate your own kids, whether its for working on a farm or being a lawyer. Hire an in-house tutor if you need, although these days you can find anything in a book or DVD. Putting a kid in a class of 30 other kids with one teacher who's forced to be a babysitter of 30 kids isn't an education. Forcing a 6 year old to follow a bell schedule and sit in a desk is breeding cattle (thank you, Bill Watterson comic strip for this insight). Letting the government decide what your kid should learn when and how is the opposite of freedom. Teaching 6th graders sex ed is stupid. I promise you two ultra-religious kids who have never been told about sex will put 1 and 1 together on their wedding night all by themselves. What you really want to teach them is how to have sex and not get pregnant. Making a 17 year old man (I know, I know, 17 year olds are supposed to be boys) ask if they can take a piss is an insult. When I turned 18, my parents let me do what I wanted. Why? Because they legally had to. They could have thrown me out, but I'm an 18 year old man, they didn't expect me to ask if I could stay out to 3 am walking the backstreets of Chapel Hill. I'd just be polite and tell them whether to expect me home or not.
Homeschooling? But I'm not smart enough! (To teach a 5th grader? Really? Can you try?) Ah, yes, but most people can't make it financially on one salary! Bet I make less with my family of 6 and, remember, I have no debt...But why should the woman have to stay home? How old-fashion, women should have the right to go out and make their own money! I love this idea of liberating women by letting them work. Here's your freedom to work 50 hours for a job you're going to complain about so you can have a little bit of money so you can spend more and help add to the debt. That's real freedom right there. I know when I saw women being general managers at Starbucks and working 50 hours for 30k who were up to their ears in debt (like the rest of sane America) I thought, that's a free woman right there. She can freely choose (with the right amount of socially applied pressure and ostracization of women who stay home...I swear to you working women expected my mother to watch their kids because she stayed at home and obviously had the free time to help them go to work...) to spend most of her energy for a major corporation so the other major corporations can brainwash her out of her money. Way to go. Then they can't figure out why they feel guilty for not being home. Note:If you're a woman with a great job making tons of money, I understand your liberation. I may not agree with your decision, but if you make over 100k and have no debt, that I sorta get. But, quite frankly, most women (and most of us period) just don't. Further note: If you're a single parent, obviously you can't homeschool. Someone needs to work. I get that to (although I'm all for having children only in marriage and never getting divorced).
I can't wait for the liberation of men, when they give us 100 acre furnished farms and free us from having to work for other people...I know. I know. I am absolutely raging nuts.
Are you still with me? Did you just agree with everything, or are you just getting pissed off? Remember. I just took my freedom of thought and ran with it. And I hate, hate, hate forcing things down people's throats. You chose to read. Don't argue with me in your head, just mull some of this over. Maybe you'll go a bit nuts too.
Because, yes, I'm insane. Culturally. I ask way too many questions and make way too many of my own decisions...
And am oh so happy with my happy marriage that keeps getting better, a sex life well making up for my earlier abstinence, well behaved kids, no debt, true faith in God (the rock of everything good in my life and the reason I don't worry about anything except doing what He says) and a healthy body. Enjoy your prolonged adolescence, middle-aged weight and a body that falls apart after 50, debt, the liberation to work your life away, letting the government raise your kids, not knowing what's coming after death, and kids who for some reason or another turn into rebellious teenagers...at least nobody will look at you like you're crazy.
Because you're just like them.
And I don't care if anyone but my wife reads this, I feel so much better for getting it all out.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Beer Wars
I really like beer. Michelob Amber Bock is the beer of my choice, poured into a pre-chilled glass.
Then I watched Beer Wars, and I realized that Budweiser is an example of all that is wrong with America, passed down from the older generation to us, the new generation.
Budweiser is a massive corporation that stays in business by strongarming the smaller competition, using mass advertisement, using laws meant to keep beer competitive to keep beer uncompetitive, and being a major lobbying force in Washington, D.C.
Where did we go so wrong?
When did we allow corporations to have any say in how our government was run?
When did we allow ourselves to let commercials think for us? How many of us drink a Bud brand (I, by the way, had no idea Michelob was Budweiser until today, foolish me) without bothering to even try what else is on the market? How many of us have sampled through all the different kinds of beers available to us to find what we really want? Or do we just buy what we see on television?
When did we stop looking at the money in our wallet and saying, "That's mine. If I'm going to give it away, I'm going to get something that I really like."
Instead, we settle for whatever the major corporations want to sell us. They own so many of us. They tell us what to buy, tell us what kind of television we like, tell us what to think.
When was it American to become a large corporation for the sake of being a large corporation? Why does Bud feel the need to own all aspects of the market? Why do they even bother to strong arm out all up and coming beers? Are they really so afraid? Do they really need to own all of the market?
With every dollar we spend at a major corporation, we seal our own fate. The fate of so many of us working for these behemoth. The reason why our government bows down to them is because they have our money. And we complain about this.
As we go on voting for the same parties and buying from the major corporations. Bud. Coke. Pepsi. Microsoft. Wal Mart. Starbucks. Democrat. Republican.
It's our vote. It's our dollar.
So why do they own us?
Because we let them.
What little hope I see in my generation is the independent trend. Independent music. Independent political parties.
Independent beer. Small breweries slugging it out with the big guys, resisting take overs, staying alive because they have a superior product. Staying alive because they love what they do.
Nothing is more American than a small business.
Especially if it brews beer.
Then I watched Beer Wars, and I realized that Budweiser is an example of all that is wrong with America, passed down from the older generation to us, the new generation.
Budweiser is a massive corporation that stays in business by strongarming the smaller competition, using mass advertisement, using laws meant to keep beer competitive to keep beer uncompetitive, and being a major lobbying force in Washington, D.C.
Where did we go so wrong?
When did we allow corporations to have any say in how our government was run?
When did we allow ourselves to let commercials think for us? How many of us drink a Bud brand (I, by the way, had no idea Michelob was Budweiser until today, foolish me) without bothering to even try what else is on the market? How many of us have sampled through all the different kinds of beers available to us to find what we really want? Or do we just buy what we see on television?
When did we stop looking at the money in our wallet and saying, "That's mine. If I'm going to give it away, I'm going to get something that I really like."
Instead, we settle for whatever the major corporations want to sell us. They own so many of us. They tell us what to buy, tell us what kind of television we like, tell us what to think.
When was it American to become a large corporation for the sake of being a large corporation? Why does Bud feel the need to own all aspects of the market? Why do they even bother to strong arm out all up and coming beers? Are they really so afraid? Do they really need to own all of the market?
With every dollar we spend at a major corporation, we seal our own fate. The fate of so many of us working for these behemoth. The reason why our government bows down to them is because they have our money. And we complain about this.
As we go on voting for the same parties and buying from the major corporations. Bud. Coke. Pepsi. Microsoft. Wal Mart. Starbucks. Democrat. Republican.
It's our vote. It's our dollar.
So why do they own us?
Because we let them.
What little hope I see in my generation is the independent trend. Independent music. Independent political parties.
Independent beer. Small breweries slugging it out with the big guys, resisting take overs, staying alive because they have a superior product. Staying alive because they love what they do.
Nothing is more American than a small business.
Especially if it brews beer.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Blog: "Leech in Walen's Pond" is doing a good job
LATE BREAKING NEWS" WHITE HOUSE ADMITS THAT WHITE HOUSE DID GOOD!
In an amazing reversal of partisanship, the White House has gone on record to admit that the President did good by signing in the $787 Billion stimulus plan. While some doubted the authenticity and reliability of the document, all Thomas-like thinking was laid to rest when VP Joe Biden officially went on record to say that Obama has helped the economy.
In other news, the Blogger of "Leech in Walden's Pond" just officially blogged that the "Leech in Walden's Pond" was the best new blog in the blogosphere.
Evan Bayh, a Democratic, is causing quite a stir on the journalist front.
CNN let us know that he's retiring and that he's sure it won't hurt his party. LINK: CNN tries to prove it's political slant
Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh says his decision to retire at the end of the year rather than run for re-election has not left his party in a bind.
FOX NEWS is unabashed in their excitement over Bay's departure LINK: It's way more fun to be the minority party
After Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh's surprise announcement Monday that he will not seek re-election to a third term in November, the Cook Political Report declared the Democrat's seat is now leaning Republican, and the Rothenberg Political Report moved the seat from narrow advantage for Democrats to a "tossup," adding that Bayh's decision "gives Republicans another excellent takeover opportunity."
In some more serious news not regarding clowns on Washington, a hiker died climbing Mt. St. Helens. Hiker's Death. I'm torn on my opinion of this. He apparently had climbed Mt. St. Helens 68 times, so he was an experienced climber. This reminds me of the heartbreaking story of the new father who died in the cave in Utah this past Thanksgiving. Both stories have the rescuers so close to saving the person in danger. Here's where I'm torn: somebody does something dangerous like caving or climbing a mountain, they know there are risks. My practical part says that nobody should be risking their life to do recreational things. Then again, the adventurer side of me says that it's better to die living life how you want then to die an old man who was too scared to do what he wanted to do. I don't have an answer; as for me, I won't risk my life (outside of doing "normal" dangerous things, like driving) until my kids are out of the house.
Lots of talk of Republican's ridiculous use of the filibuster. I like Henry Reid's misunderstanding of history. Reid thinks filibustering is designed to prevent tyranny of majority. I know Wiki isn't used as a reference, but I've heard this before, and I'll let you find better sources:
History of US fibibuster
Here's the important part, if you can handle all the mumbo-jumbo:
In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question," ending debate and proceeding to a vote. Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated.[29] In 1806, the Senate agreed, recodifying its rules, and thus the potential for a filibuster sprang into being.[29] Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.
The filibuster remained a solely theoretical option until the late 1830s. The first Senate filibuster occurred in 1837. In 1841, a defining moment came during debate on a bill to charter the Second Bank of the United States. Senator Henry Clay tried to end debate via majority vote. Senator William R. King threatened a filibuster, saying that Clay "may make his arrangements at his boarding house for the winter". Other Senators sided with King, and Clay backed down.[29]
Contemporary scholars point out that in practice, narrow Senate majorities were able to enact legislation.[30] Majorities were able to prevail because of an implicit threat that the filibuster could itself be changed by majority rule if the minority used it to prevent, instead of merely to delay, votes on measures supported by a bare majority.[30]
Filibustering is a stupid, basically accidental rule. I'm secretly partial to rules that inhibit the Congress from acting fast, but, in all honesty, requiring a 2/3 majority to pass a law is...stupid...although it helped the climax of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Then the Congress had to go and make it boring, by not forcing (simplified version) Senators to actually filibuster.
I'll just steal the words of someone who wrote it better than I could...
Source
Still, the use of the filibuster grew slowly until the 1990s, when Republicans used it up to 80 times per year against President Bill Clinton.
Democrats escalated this warfare against President George W. Bush, using it more than 100 times per year toward the end of his second term.
Kate O’Beirne of the conservative National Review was right when she called the abuse unprecedented.
“Majority leader Bill Frist should call the Democrats’ bluff and bring back the traditional filibuster,” O’Beirne wrote in 2003. “Let Kate Michelman, leader of the abortion lobby, man the cots and wipe the brows of weary Democrats forced to talk ¤’round the clock.”
Then-Democratic Sen. Joe Biden responded that the filibuster was essential for “the protections of a minority point of view.”
Since then, of course, it’s been musical chairs on Capitol Hill.
Republicans who blasted the filibuster during the Bush era used it a record 138 times in Obama’s first year, while Vice President Biden last month called it “a dangerous new roadblock in the way of American government.”
All of this would be comical if it were not so tragic.
Those who oppose the filibuster in both parties are correct. They also are gutless. Like bratty schoolchildren, they hide behind the rule when it helps them and whine about it when it hurts them.
Even by Washington standards, which are perilously low, this is hypocrisy at its worst.
The Founding Fathers did not intend a filibuster. They spelled out in the Constitution exactly where they wanted supermajorities, reserving them for unique matters such as treaties, impeachment and overriding a presidential veto.
Otherwise, they believed in majority rule.
I'm done with politics...
Just watched World's Greatest Dad with Robin Williams. I see why it wasn't a hit, but I liked it just the same. Raises an interesting question: what do you do when your son dies, and your son was really a nasty person? Of course, Robin Williams feels that the world needs to see him naked in this as well (did you catch that in "The Survivors?").
Until Next Time.
In an amazing reversal of partisanship, the White House has gone on record to admit that the President did good by signing in the $787 Billion stimulus plan. While some doubted the authenticity and reliability of the document, all Thomas-like thinking was laid to rest when VP Joe Biden officially went on record to say that Obama has helped the economy.
In other news, the Blogger of "Leech in Walden's Pond" just officially blogged that the "Leech in Walden's Pond" was the best new blog in the blogosphere.
Evan Bayh, a Democratic, is causing quite a stir on the journalist front.
CNN let us know that he's retiring and that he's sure it won't hurt his party. LINK: CNN tries to prove it's political slant
Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh says his decision to retire at the end of the year rather than run for re-election has not left his party in a bind.
FOX NEWS is unabashed in their excitement over Bay's departure LINK: It's way more fun to be the minority party
After Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh's surprise announcement Monday that he will not seek re-election to a third term in November, the Cook Political Report declared the Democrat's seat is now leaning Republican, and the Rothenberg Political Report moved the seat from narrow advantage for Democrats to a "tossup," adding that Bayh's decision "gives Republicans another excellent takeover opportunity."
In some more serious news not regarding clowns on Washington, a hiker died climbing Mt. St. Helens. Hiker's Death. I'm torn on my opinion of this. He apparently had climbed Mt. St. Helens 68 times, so he was an experienced climber. This reminds me of the heartbreaking story of the new father who died in the cave in Utah this past Thanksgiving. Both stories have the rescuers so close to saving the person in danger. Here's where I'm torn: somebody does something dangerous like caving or climbing a mountain, they know there are risks. My practical part says that nobody should be risking their life to do recreational things. Then again, the adventurer side of me says that it's better to die living life how you want then to die an old man who was too scared to do what he wanted to do. I don't have an answer; as for me, I won't risk my life (outside of doing "normal" dangerous things, like driving) until my kids are out of the house.
Lots of talk of Republican's ridiculous use of the filibuster. I like Henry Reid's misunderstanding of history. Reid thinks filibustering is designed to prevent tyranny of majority. I know Wiki isn't used as a reference, but I've heard this before, and I'll let you find better sources:
History of US fibibuster
Here's the important part, if you can handle all the mumbo-jumbo:
In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question," ending debate and proceeding to a vote. Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated.[29] In 1806, the Senate agreed, recodifying its rules, and thus the potential for a filibuster sprang into being.[29] Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.
The filibuster remained a solely theoretical option until the late 1830s. The first Senate filibuster occurred in 1837. In 1841, a defining moment came during debate on a bill to charter the Second Bank of the United States. Senator Henry Clay tried to end debate via majority vote. Senator William R. King threatened a filibuster, saying that Clay "may make his arrangements at his boarding house for the winter". Other Senators sided with King, and Clay backed down.[29]
Contemporary scholars point out that in practice, narrow Senate majorities were able to enact legislation.[30] Majorities were able to prevail because of an implicit threat that the filibuster could itself be changed by majority rule if the minority used it to prevent, instead of merely to delay, votes on measures supported by a bare majority.[30]
Filibustering is a stupid, basically accidental rule. I'm secretly partial to rules that inhibit the Congress from acting fast, but, in all honesty, requiring a 2/3 majority to pass a law is...stupid...although it helped the climax of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Then the Congress had to go and make it boring, by not forcing (simplified version) Senators to actually filibuster.
I'll just steal the words of someone who wrote it better than I could...
Source
Still, the use of the filibuster grew slowly until the 1990s, when Republicans used it up to 80 times per year against President Bill Clinton.
Democrats escalated this warfare against President George W. Bush, using it more than 100 times per year toward the end of his second term.
Kate O’Beirne of the conservative National Review was right when she called the abuse unprecedented.
“Majority leader Bill Frist should call the Democrats’ bluff and bring back the traditional filibuster,” O’Beirne wrote in 2003. “Let Kate Michelman, leader of the abortion lobby, man the cots and wipe the brows of weary Democrats forced to talk ¤’round the clock.”
Then-Democratic Sen. Joe Biden responded that the filibuster was essential for “the protections of a minority point of view.”
Since then, of course, it’s been musical chairs on Capitol Hill.
Republicans who blasted the filibuster during the Bush era used it a record 138 times in Obama’s first year, while Vice President Biden last month called it “a dangerous new roadblock in the way of American government.”
All of this would be comical if it were not so tragic.
Those who oppose the filibuster in both parties are correct. They also are gutless. Like bratty schoolchildren, they hide behind the rule when it helps them and whine about it when it hurts them.
Even by Washington standards, which are perilously low, this is hypocrisy at its worst.
The Founding Fathers did not intend a filibuster. They spelled out in the Constitution exactly where they wanted supermajorities, reserving them for unique matters such as treaties, impeachment and overriding a presidential veto.
Otherwise, they believed in majority rule.
I'm done with politics...
Just watched World's Greatest Dad with Robin Williams. I see why it wasn't a hit, but I liked it just the same. Raises an interesting question: what do you do when your son dies, and your son was really a nasty person? Of course, Robin Williams feels that the world needs to see him naked in this as well (did you catch that in "The Survivors?").
Until Next Time.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Valentine's Day fluff -- nothing too serious here
I happen to like Valentine's Day. We have an insistent culture of "I'm better than that," (see Ben Folds, "Battle of Who Could Care Less), and, of course, it wears off on this holiday, too. So many people with reasons why they are above V-Day. If they want to down me for loving the day, go for it, I'll still be up past midnight making cards and thinking of ways to surprise the Wife.
Here's some of the complaints I've heard:
It's commercial. Yes, it's commercialized, but what isn't? Seriously, what in our culture isn't about buying things? We have, after all, 3 candy holidays (Valentine's, Easter, and Halloween). Problem solved: don't go out and buy flowers, chocolates and a teddy bear holding a heart. Maybe don't spend any money at all. Hasn't deterred my Valentine's.
Why do we need a special day for being nice to our significant other, buying them gifts and telling them you love them? Shouldn't that be everyday?
Yes, everyday should be special, and then the "special" becomes simply the "everyday." Take this logic to the furthest point. You should celebrate someone's birth everyday, why have a birthday? You should celebrate the birth, crucifixion and resurrection of Christ everyday, why have Christmas, Good Friday and Easter? You should be thankful everyday, why have Thanksgiving? Hey, I'm not going to make you enjoy holidays, but don't try to put a damper on those who do.
And then there's all the people trying to make Valentine's Day into a depressing episode because they don't have a Valentine's. The type of people you don't invite to a wedding. Quite frankly, this culture puts way to much emphasis on relationships. If you mope around on Valentine's Day, you need both a priority change and a lesson in selflessness. Does other people's happiness really make you that unhappy?
And, yes, it might be based on a pagan holiday. 1600 years ago.Way beyond caring about that. We're not choosing couples out of a hat and this day has nothing to do with fertility (well, not specifically).
I'm getting mean here, I know, but I hate to see a holiday meant to be about your significant other lambasted like it has been. I love my wife everyday. But on Valentine's Day, I'm going to celebrate that I have a 5 year relationship that still gets us both excited. I'm sorry if you don't have that. Don't take it out on me ;-)
Much love, world.
Here's some of the complaints I've heard:
It's commercial. Yes, it's commercialized, but what isn't? Seriously, what in our culture isn't about buying things? We have, after all, 3 candy holidays (Valentine's, Easter, and Halloween). Problem solved: don't go out and buy flowers, chocolates and a teddy bear holding a heart. Maybe don't spend any money at all. Hasn't deterred my Valentine's.
Why do we need a special day for being nice to our significant other, buying them gifts and telling them you love them? Shouldn't that be everyday?
Yes, everyday should be special, and then the "special" becomes simply the "everyday." Take this logic to the furthest point. You should celebrate someone's birth everyday, why have a birthday? You should celebrate the birth, crucifixion and resurrection of Christ everyday, why have Christmas, Good Friday and Easter? You should be thankful everyday, why have Thanksgiving? Hey, I'm not going to make you enjoy holidays, but don't try to put a damper on those who do.
And then there's all the people trying to make Valentine's Day into a depressing episode because they don't have a Valentine's. The type of people you don't invite to a wedding. Quite frankly, this culture puts way to much emphasis on relationships. If you mope around on Valentine's Day, you need both a priority change and a lesson in selflessness. Does other people's happiness really make you that unhappy?
And, yes, it might be based on a pagan holiday. 1600 years ago.Way beyond caring about that. We're not choosing couples out of a hat and this day has nothing to do with fertility (well, not specifically).
I'm getting mean here, I know, but I hate to see a holiday meant to be about your significant other lambasted like it has been. I love my wife everyday. But on Valentine's Day, I'm going to celebrate that I have a 5 year relationship that still gets us both excited. I'm sorry if you don't have that. Don't take it out on me ;-)
Much love, world.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Wasting Time
Lindsay Lohan Looking Like Jesus
So Lindsay Lohan isn't reverent to Jesus. We might even venture the assumption that she doesn't exactly believe in the Divinity of Christ. On the eve of Lent, the photo, appearing in a fashion magazine that (no surprise) I've never heard of (perhaps it's popular, I don't know), has sparked some anger in the Catholic community.
Why?
Not knowing Lohan personally, I can't exactly say that I'm more (or less) concerned about her soul than I am every other person I've never met. With that said, why do we sit around and care that some famous actress is disrespecting Christ? Are His feelings more apt to be hurt by Lindsay Lohan than Judas? Than the thief on the cross next to him? I'm sure God, Christ and the Holy Ghost woke up this morning, logged into their Yahoo accounts, saw the magazine cover and gave up all hope for America.
Et tu, brute? If we don't have that Lohan girl on our side, we don't have anything. The world is lost. Call Luci, tell him he's won.
The problem here is that for quite too long, Christians have been fighting to keep the culture of America Christian. What from the Bible suggests that we can create a culturally Christian nation? Some sort of haven where Christians won't be made fun of for being different? Do we want to fit in so bad to this world that we need the culture to conform to our standards? The Bible seems to make it clear: world or God, Egypt or Israel.
A waste of time and effort, and all it does is heap more abuse on Christians from those who enjoy doing that. Do you think people may enjoy doing this because some Christians are too thin-skinned and react way too easily? I mean, how fun is it to dress up like Jesus and be irreverent if the Jesus followers don't pitch a fit?
Our culture hasn't been a reflection of Christ for decades, if ever (remember, don't even look at a women lustfully?).
Don't even try to tell me that Lohan is a role model to young women. If your daughter looks up to Lindsay Lohan as a role model, you may need to do something drastic.
Like get rid of the television.
Don't worry, no one will know you're standing up for God. They'll just think you're going green.
So Lindsay Lohan isn't reverent to Jesus. We might even venture the assumption that she doesn't exactly believe in the Divinity of Christ. On the eve of Lent, the photo, appearing in a fashion magazine that (no surprise) I've never heard of (perhaps it's popular, I don't know), has sparked some anger in the Catholic community.
Why?
Not knowing Lohan personally, I can't exactly say that I'm more (or less) concerned about her soul than I am every other person I've never met. With that said, why do we sit around and care that some famous actress is disrespecting Christ? Are His feelings more apt to be hurt by Lindsay Lohan than Judas? Than the thief on the cross next to him? I'm sure God, Christ and the Holy Ghost woke up this morning, logged into their Yahoo accounts, saw the magazine cover and gave up all hope for America.
Et tu, brute? If we don't have that Lohan girl on our side, we don't have anything. The world is lost. Call Luci, tell him he's won.
The problem here is that for quite too long, Christians have been fighting to keep the culture of America Christian. What from the Bible suggests that we can create a culturally Christian nation? Some sort of haven where Christians won't be made fun of for being different? Do we want to fit in so bad to this world that we need the culture to conform to our standards? The Bible seems to make it clear: world or God, Egypt or Israel.
A waste of time and effort, and all it does is heap more abuse on Christians from those who enjoy doing that. Do you think people may enjoy doing this because some Christians are too thin-skinned and react way too easily? I mean, how fun is it to dress up like Jesus and be irreverent if the Jesus followers don't pitch a fit?
Our culture hasn't been a reflection of Christ for decades, if ever (remember, don't even look at a women lustfully?).
Don't even try to tell me that Lohan is a role model to young women. If your daughter looks up to Lindsay Lohan as a role model, you may need to do something drastic.
Like get rid of the television.
Don't worry, no one will know you're standing up for God. They'll just think you're going green.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)