Everyone that voted to revolutionize America ought to be proud of the change Obama is already promising to Americans. Read here, here, here, here and here to see how excited the left actually is. Next on his list is changing the constitution.
You heard right, the former Constitutional Law professor is set to either outright defy or finagle a loop hole so he can appoint Billary as the Secretary of State. Article 1, section 6 of the Constitution reads:
"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."
In other words, if a Senator (Billary) voted to increase the pay for Secretary of State (future Billary) during her time as a Senator, then she can't be appointed to that same office.
I guess he was right by saying he was going to change America.
11/30/08
11/9/08
Way to Go Prop 8 Protesters
To all Prop 8 Protesters,
Grow a pair.
Why are the gay rights activists directly protesting the mormon church? That's fine if they want to, what with being so tolerant and understanding of alternative paradigms, it makes sense they would. Mormons make up about 2% of California's total population, which seems like a small number. But 2% of the population of california amounts to roughly 770,000 which is more than the difference of the Prop 8 voting results. So assuming all the mormons in California voted yes on Prop 8, then that's the difference. So I understand why the Prop 8 antagonists would single out that group to project their frustrations.
I'm not saying they aren't protesting elsewhere. Safe havens like San Fran, Laguna Beach, and Palm Springs have all been hit up by protesters. But much focus has been placed in protesting against the mormon church because, "it is a travesty that the Mormon Church bought this election and used a campaign of lies and deception to manipulate voters in the great state of California." Yep, "bought the election" with all of $4943.18 that the church actually donated to ProtectMarriage.com. That's an astounding .000156% of the total contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign.
Now I'm sure you've all heard that African Americans overwhelmingly supported Prop 8 to the tune of 70%. As many as 500,000 new African American voters cast ballots in California over the issue. With that in mind, I repeat my call to all gay rights activists to grow a pair.
Why aren't we reading about protest marches in Compton, Inglewood, San Bernardino and Watts? Why isn't the NAACP being bombarded with postcards? Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton should be blamed moreso than Thomas Monson. Although I don't have the research, I'm certain that more African Americans voted for Prop 8 than did mormons, so where is that backlash? All we hear are a few "tsk tsks" and, "you should know betters". Nothing compared to the mass marches at mormon temples.
The only explanation I can come up with is that protests are planned in those areas as soon as the ACLU and its ilk can repeal the 2nd amendment.
Seriously, Prop 8 protesters, way to go!
P.S. everyone who voted for Prop 8, really, seriously, way to go.
Grow a pair.
Why are the gay rights activists directly protesting the mormon church? That's fine if they want to, what with being so tolerant and understanding of alternative paradigms, it makes sense they would. Mormons make up about 2% of California's total population, which seems like a small number. But 2% of the population of california amounts to roughly 770,000 which is more than the difference of the Prop 8 voting results. So assuming all the mormons in California voted yes on Prop 8, then that's the difference. So I understand why the Prop 8 antagonists would single out that group to project their frustrations.
I'm not saying they aren't protesting elsewhere. Safe havens like San Fran, Laguna Beach, and Palm Springs have all been hit up by protesters. But much focus has been placed in protesting against the mormon church because, "it is a travesty that the Mormon Church bought this election and used a campaign of lies and deception to manipulate voters in the great state of California." Yep, "bought the election" with all of $4943.18 that the church actually donated to ProtectMarriage.com. That's an astounding .000156% of the total contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign.
Now I'm sure you've all heard that African Americans overwhelmingly supported Prop 8 to the tune of 70%. As many as 500,000 new African American voters cast ballots in California over the issue. With that in mind, I repeat my call to all gay rights activists to grow a pair.
Why aren't we reading about protest marches in Compton, Inglewood, San Bernardino and Watts? Why isn't the NAACP being bombarded with postcards? Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton should be blamed moreso than Thomas Monson. Although I don't have the research, I'm certain that more African Americans voted for Prop 8 than did mormons, so where is that backlash? All we hear are a few "tsk tsks" and, "you should know betters". Nothing compared to the mass marches at mormon temples.
The only explanation I can come up with is that protests are planned in those areas as soon as the ACLU and its ilk can repeal the 2nd amendment.
Seriously, Prop 8 protesters, way to go!
P.S. everyone who voted for Prop 8, really, seriously, way to go.
10/31/08
Amend the 26th Amendment
I'm all for sufrage of those 18 years or older...with a few stipulations.
The Amendment should read thus:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2. Each citizen shall satisfactorily complete a college-level Political Science and Economics course, or possess a Bachelor's degree from an accredited institution of higher education, or be currently serving or have served in the United States Military in order to achieve voting status.
Section 3. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Why such regulations on who can vote? Good question. When this Republic was founded, voting was restricted to those citizens who owned land and/or paid a certain amount in taxes. The reason being that only citizens who had a legitimate stake in society had the right to decide who would lead.
My current rationale is analogous. Only people that understand the basic US political structure, as well as the foundations of our economic system should be allowed to decide who should lead.
I mean really, if you don't understand that both McCain's and Obama's platforms spell certain economic doom for the next 4 years, you shouldn't vote (see here for non-partisan analysis). Unless of course you understand that, and still think their platforms are beneficial, then you can still vote. Either way, you ought to have some grasp on what the implications of their platforms are before you vote.
Since there is no way to ensure that every voting American actually understands what they are voting for, an arbitrary yet beneficial requirement like a couple college courses, a degree, or military service seems like a great way to enforce said ideal.
"What nerve," you might exclaim. We already do this in our country with driver's licenses. Yep, some arbitrary written and practical requirements, while seemingly useless for some, are arguably very beneficial for the whole of society. I think you'd see the same results out of a similar voter's license.
My proposed amendment wouldn't discriminate, and there'd have to be a provision for all pre-18 year olds to take the required courses. We'd all be smarter, more informed voters voting for the same stupid people.
The Amendment should read thus:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2. Each citizen shall satisfactorily complete a college-level Political Science and Economics course, or possess a Bachelor's degree from an accredited institution of higher education, or be currently serving or have served in the United States Military in order to achieve voting status.
Section 3. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Why such regulations on who can vote? Good question. When this Republic was founded, voting was restricted to those citizens who owned land and/or paid a certain amount in taxes. The reason being that only citizens who had a legitimate stake in society had the right to decide who would lead.
My current rationale is analogous. Only people that understand the basic US political structure, as well as the foundations of our economic system should be allowed to decide who should lead.
I mean really, if you don't understand that both McCain's and Obama's platforms spell certain economic doom for the next 4 years, you shouldn't vote (see here for non-partisan analysis). Unless of course you understand that, and still think their platforms are beneficial, then you can still vote. Either way, you ought to have some grasp on what the implications of their platforms are before you vote.
Since there is no way to ensure that every voting American actually understands what they are voting for, an arbitrary yet beneficial requirement like a couple college courses, a degree, or military service seems like a great way to enforce said ideal.
"What nerve," you might exclaim. We already do this in our country with driver's licenses. Yep, some arbitrary written and practical requirements, while seemingly useless for some, are arguably very beneficial for the whole of society. I think you'd see the same results out of a similar voter's license.
My proposed amendment wouldn't discriminate, and there'd have to be a provision for all pre-18 year olds to take the required courses. We'd all be smarter, more informed voters voting for the same stupid people.
10/22/08
Prop 8
My hiatus is due to the denial I've been in after realizing the whole bigfoot thing was a hoax.
On a different note, here is my latest explanation of my support for Proposition 8. It was written in response to this post and the comments. Read them all if you have an hour or so, as they provide some context to the response.
"Shannon Davis summed up what I feel is the strongest argument defining "fundamental rights" and explicating court decisions outlawing polygamy. I will try and add to those to the best of my ability. Her arguments lead us to more philosophical assumptions. We delve into the realm of moral relativity.
You are agnostic, but you have morals. Therefore morals are not inherently religious. So I have a question. Do Prop 8 opponents support NAMBLA (http://www.nambla.org/)? Do a consenting adult and a consenting minor have the fundamental right to have intercourse? Can a 45 year old man have intercourse with your 9 year old son? Assume both parties consent. I would hopefully assume that most people, including you, don't condone that. So is it a "fundamental right" to do that? NAMBLA thinks so.
You see, just about everyone has some commonality in their morals. We have another example in child pornography. So long as little children consent, why can't they monetarily benefit by posing in sexually explicit, or implicit for that matter, ways? The answers to this question will cover the field, but all arguments ultimately boil down to the fact that something is inherently wrong. And there we have it. That word that moral relativists can't stand. Wrong.
Polygamy is wrong.
Child pornography is wrong.
Sexual relationships between boys and men is wrong.
Things that are wrong...are wrong.
Who ultimately decides what is wrong? Well, that's a completely different argument. But when it comes to moral boundaries and the law, someone has to draw the line. Society would quickly spiral into absolute chaos were moral relativism to reign.
In the current debate, a seeming majority of the people, be it due to religion or some other motive force, feel that gay marriage is wrong. Californians have been given the opportunity to draw a moral line in the dirt. People of all backgrounds are voting to do just that. The fortunate or unfortunate result is that the majority will decide what "fundamental rights" people actually have. Californians will place a moral absolute (albeit most likely temporary) on the definition of marriage based on what the majority feels is right or wrong.
But let us not confuse moral rights with "fundamental rights." Fortunately for the GLBT community, society will not deprive them of any fundamental right. Every one of them can still be legally married to someone of the opposite sex. For others who want to enjoy a Registered Domestic Partnership with some of the same sex, they according to the California Family Code section 295.5, "Shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses." So the FACT is Kevin, domestic partnerships ARE the same thing legally. The reality is, they are different because they are not marriages. They never will be. So let's not call a spade a club.
I perchance say the vast majority of the world population views marriage as an institution that transcends government. But marriage inherently implicates governmental recognition. However, government doesn't ultimately possess the right to define marriage. The people, the society, the culture of California do.
Marriage between a man and a woman is culturally deemed a moral right and a civic fundamental right. Domestic partnerships between any two consenting adults, enjoying everything that spouses enjoy, is a civic fundamental right.
And finally, the Civil Rights Movement and the Gay Rights Movement are hardly comparable. Regardless of how hard I try, I can not, in no way, be African American. In fact, I would have loved to have been African American when I was applying to dental school. But it just can't happen. It's impossible. I can't choose my race. I can choose to marry someone of the opposite sex, or to enter a domestic partnership with some of the same sex. Humans' ability to choose differentiates these two movements. If you want, we can take this argument down the same moral relativity path to drill in the point. But our choices have consequences that individuals can't ultimately choose. So, after a bunch of logical connections...blah, blah, blah...homosexuals can't be married because homosexual couples can't marry. Society at large has already determined that consequence. Homosexual couples are only deprived of something their choices have already excluded them from.
In my mind, one of the few powers still possessed by the people is the ability to vote on ballot propositions. I am confident that the people of California will, as a majority, uphold the worldwide time-honored, evolutionarily sound, liberally unpopular definition of marriage."
On a different note, here is my latest explanation of my support for Proposition 8. It was written in response to this post and the comments. Read them all if you have an hour or so, as they provide some context to the response.
"Shannon Davis summed up what I feel is the strongest argument defining "fundamental rights" and explicating court decisions outlawing polygamy. I will try and add to those to the best of my ability. Her arguments lead us to more philosophical assumptions. We delve into the realm of moral relativity.
You are agnostic, but you have morals. Therefore morals are not inherently religious. So I have a question. Do Prop 8 opponents support NAMBLA (http://www.nambla.org/)? Do a consenting adult and a consenting minor have the fundamental right to have intercourse? Can a 45 year old man have intercourse with your 9 year old son? Assume both parties consent. I would hopefully assume that most people, including you, don't condone that. So is it a "fundamental right" to do that? NAMBLA thinks so.
You see, just about everyone has some commonality in their morals. We have another example in child pornography. So long as little children consent, why can't they monetarily benefit by posing in sexually explicit, or implicit for that matter, ways? The answers to this question will cover the field, but all arguments ultimately boil down to the fact that something is inherently wrong. And there we have it. That word that moral relativists can't stand. Wrong.
Polygamy is wrong.
Child pornography is wrong.
Sexual relationships between boys and men is wrong.
Things that are wrong...are wrong.
Who ultimately decides what is wrong? Well, that's a completely different argument. But when it comes to moral boundaries and the law, someone has to draw the line. Society would quickly spiral into absolute chaos were moral relativism to reign.
In the current debate, a seeming majority of the people, be it due to religion or some other motive force, feel that gay marriage is wrong. Californians have been given the opportunity to draw a moral line in the dirt. People of all backgrounds are voting to do just that. The fortunate or unfortunate result is that the majority will decide what "fundamental rights" people actually have. Californians will place a moral absolute (albeit most likely temporary) on the definition of marriage based on what the majority feels is right or wrong.
But let us not confuse moral rights with "fundamental rights." Fortunately for the GLBT community, society will not deprive them of any fundamental right. Every one of them can still be legally married to someone of the opposite sex. For others who want to enjoy a Registered Domestic Partnership with some of the same sex, they according to the California Family Code section 295.5, "Shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses." So the FACT is Kevin, domestic partnerships ARE the same thing legally. The reality is, they are different because they are not marriages. They never will be. So let's not call a spade a club.
I perchance say the vast majority of the world population views marriage as an institution that transcends government. But marriage inherently implicates governmental recognition. However, government doesn't ultimately possess the right to define marriage. The people, the society, the culture of California do.
Marriage between a man and a woman is culturally deemed a moral right and a civic fundamental right. Domestic partnerships between any two consenting adults, enjoying everything that spouses enjoy, is a civic fundamental right.
And finally, the Civil Rights Movement and the Gay Rights Movement are hardly comparable. Regardless of how hard I try, I can not, in no way, be African American. In fact, I would have loved to have been African American when I was applying to dental school. But it just can't happen. It's impossible. I can't choose my race. I can choose to marry someone of the opposite sex, or to enter a domestic partnership with some of the same sex. Humans' ability to choose differentiates these two movements. If you want, we can take this argument down the same moral relativity path to drill in the point. But our choices have consequences that individuals can't ultimately choose. So, after a bunch of logical connections...blah, blah, blah...homosexuals can't be married because homosexual couples can't marry. Society at large has already determined that consequence. Homosexual couples are only deprived of something their choices have already excluded them from.
In my mind, one of the few powers still possessed by the people is the ability to vote on ballot propositions. I am confident that the people of California will, as a majority, uphold the worldwide time-honored, evolutionarily sound, liberally unpopular definition of marriage."
8/14/08
7/25/08
Clarification
This is in response to a recent blog post and letter I read. This post isn't designed to endorse LDS doctrine, but rather to affirm society's duty to set hard and fast moral assumptions upon which its laws are based.
I love "open minded" mormons. Especially the mormons who buy into moral relativism. This relativism is Satan's greatest tool to chain people up and, "Lead them carefully down to hell" (see 2 Nephi 28:18-21 and note the words "rage" and "anger against that which is good"). I agree with the separation of church and state insomuch as Jesus Christ himself is not the head of a government body on earth. I don't think it is wise for any one church to integrate their hierarchy or beliefs into a nation's political system. One church's commandments should never become secular law for everybody. That is a recipe for disaster.
Jeffrey Nielsen's letter states, "So now is the time to take a stand and keep separate civil and religious authority." Great. Keep religious authority out of America's political system. That's fine with me. But he is synonymizing religious authority with societal religiosity. The Founding Fathers were far more adamant about religious undertones and assumptions then they were about democratic ones. Why is every man equal? Because a Wise and Just Creator made them that way. Why did the pilgrims come to America in the first place? Anyway, behind every good law in America is an assumption, usually based on some religious moral, that something is inherently good or evil. Why do we discriminate against people that murder by forcibly preventing them from committing murder again and placing them in jail? Because a vast majority of Americans believe that murder is wrong. Taking something from someone is wrong. But WHY is it wrong? If you keep asking the why, it becomes a philosophical argument which ends with the comment, "It depends on your moral assumptions." Read up on the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). They are a group who legitimately feel it is right for consenting men and underage boys to engage in sexual intercourse. But that is prohibited in most states. Why? Because most people have a moral conviction (be it based on some canonized belief, some other reference to a higher power, or some philosophical rationale) that adult men should not be allowed to have sex with minors. Period. You then get into the argument about consent, and legal ages. All of which are philosophically, morally defined parameters. You have to be 18 to make informed consent in most matters. Why? Most people agree or believe that is the age when people understand choice and consequence. But it is nonetheless an arbitrary parameter.
Coming back to the issue of gay marriage, I think it is entirely appropriate for any church to urge its members to become politically active when eternal matters such as the societal integrity of the family unit are involved. It should be on the democratic ballot. If a majority of people feel homosexual marriage is "wrong" then that is what our laws should be based on. Democracy is based on what 50.1% of the people feel is good for them. Where America was on the gay issue 50 years ago is probably where we are today on the NAMBLA issue. If you keep eroding fundamental institutions such as the family through moral relativism disguised by "equality" or "anti-discrimination," it is only a matter of time before all law is meaningless and nullified.
So should California vote on such a matter? Yes. Does everyone understand the prophecy as laid out in the Proclamation on the Family? No. So does everyone understand the magnitude of the matter on which they are voting? No. But at least if the vote turns out to affirm a gay's right to marry, society as a whole will have chosen that path for themselves, and not a few marginalized individuals. In the Book of Mormon, when Moroni was off fighting and he became very frustrated that Pahoran hadn't sent him the aid he had promised, an interesting scenario resulted. After working through some misunderstandings, Moroni realized that a substantial portion of people (although not a majority) wanted to overthrow the government and replace it with a monarchy. The majority, including Moroni and Pahoran felt that was wrong. They forcibly put an end to the threat (read Alma chapters 59-62). Their society was based on assumed religious fundamentals which theoretically could not be altered. Those assumed morals permeated the entire societal and political structure. Note that at this time it certainly wasn't illegal to be a non-believer. But it was illegal to do anything against what the majority had assumed was morally right. So when people grouped together because they felt marginalized and discriminated against and confronted the government, there really were only a couple of possible outcomes.
Earlier I said assumed religious fundamentals were theoretically unalterable. But you see that later on in 3 Nephi, all organized government had ceased to exist. People banded together to live in local tribes. Why? Because of secret organizations and the erosion of moral assumptions upon which was based the law. The majority of the people ceased to affirm such morals were necessary. In short, they became morally relative. At the very end of the Book of Mormon, people were taking that which was most sacred from women and girls, while feeding to them the flesh of their husbands and fathers; it was also morally acceptable at the time. I am convinced that is the final destination to which the path of moral relativism leads.
"I do not believe that people choose their sexual orientation any more than they choose their skin color or gender." In a temporal sense, I agree with this. In an eternal sense, I don't know that the agency we exercised before this mortal life didn't determine those. But to help out Nielsen's argument, I'll agree with it. I believe there are a substantial number of people who have biologic tendencies to being homosexual. But I believe they are in the minority. I feel that argument is used so that a much larger portion of misguided and disenfranchised youth and young adults can feel justified in their decisions. I don't believe that EVERY homosexual was born that way. There are societal and familial influences that play into the decision to be homosexual. And I feel the Perfect Judge will take all that into consideration.
If you buy the purely genetic homosexual argument, you probably tend to think more left-winged liberally. That is an assumption. Usually those people lean more toward believing the doctrines of evolution (which an entirely different argument). I can't believe that evolution would repeatedly evolve genes that promote a lifestyle that CAN NOT PROPAGATE LIFE. That goes against the ultimately fundamental belief of evolutionism. Humans once had tails, and gills, and smaller brains, etc...Why is that we don't see healthy, adult humans with these traits? Because they die off early in embryogenesis or in their infancy. These traits are not conducive to propagating life and therefore are selected against. You don't see homosexuality running rampant in earth's most successful species. Take ants for example. Don't see too many ants having sex on the sidewalk, do you? Nope, they have a specific genetically programmed societal structure which evolutionarily has worked extremely well for them. Take even an unsuccessful species, the Panda. Worthless species that can't adapt to changing conditions worth a dime! What if homosexuality ran rampant, and was socially acceptable? Loveable Chan Chan and Ling Ming might be the last Pandas we ever see. With only 1600 living bears, they don't have room to play evolutionary roulette. If homosexuality truly were an evolutionary, genetic trait, it would have been weeded out long ago. It wouldn't keep "reappearing" every time society's morals accept that behavior (and reappearing at an evolutionarily phenomenal rate, might I add).
Furthermore, we are all born with natural man tendencies which tempt us all. I am a man. It is the guttural instinct, for many men, to have sex with as many beautiful women as they can. I have had to suppress that instinct throughout my post-pubescent life. It isn't very hard, because I feel I know how to effectively cope with those feelings and thoughts. I feel the day-to-day way in which I care for my marriage squelches those temptations, so as to deny them consideration in even the remotest recesses of my conscious mind. But I would be insane to think, "I'll never be attracted to another woman." I personally buy into the argument that each of us is born with different trials and weaknesses and temptations. It is God's expectation that we overcome those. Some people are more prone to being homosexual than others, and they need to deal with that while striving to live the gospel which God has lovingly, wisely and prophetically laid out for us.
"If anyone could give me a single reasonable argument against marriage equality in our civil society, which doesn’t make fallacious appeals to tradition, misplaced appeals to religious authority, or make some ridiculous claim about nonhuman animals, then I would like to hear it. So far, no one has been able to present me with even a single justifiable reason." I think I have provided several justifiable reasons. Finally, Nielsen mentions marriage equality. That is exactly why California is voting, to define the word marriage. If the majority feels marriage should only be between a man and a woman, than that is just it. Marriage won't be a platform of discrimination, because any man will have the right to marry any woman and enjoy the same rights as any other married couple. That fits the classic description of equality. If society says two men can't enjoy marriage, then there is no discrimination. I can't choose to be black if I'm white. I can't choose to be a woman if I am a man. And I can't choose to be married if I am a homosexual wanting to marry homosexually. It falls under the same moral assumption as to why I can't choose to legally murder someone else, or to legally have sex with a consenting minor.
In the end, this vote is utlimately deciding where California and America draws the moral line in the sand and says, "we will not cross this line." And I applaud that democratically fundamental principle of our government, and any church's desire to affirm that.
I love "open minded" mormons. Especially the mormons who buy into moral relativism. This relativism is Satan's greatest tool to chain people up and, "Lead them carefully down to hell" (see 2 Nephi 28:18-21 and note the words "rage" and "anger against that which is good"). I agree with the separation of church and state insomuch as Jesus Christ himself is not the head of a government body on earth. I don't think it is wise for any one church to integrate their hierarchy or beliefs into a nation's political system. One church's commandments should never become secular law for everybody. That is a recipe for disaster.
Jeffrey Nielsen's letter states, "So now is the time to take a stand and keep separate civil and religious authority." Great. Keep religious authority out of America's political system. That's fine with me. But he is synonymizing religious authority with societal religiosity. The Founding Fathers were far more adamant about religious undertones and assumptions then they were about democratic ones. Why is every man equal? Because a Wise and Just Creator made them that way. Why did the pilgrims come to America in the first place? Anyway, behind every good law in America is an assumption, usually based on some religious moral, that something is inherently good or evil. Why do we discriminate against people that murder by forcibly preventing them from committing murder again and placing them in jail? Because a vast majority of Americans believe that murder is wrong. Taking something from someone is wrong. But WHY is it wrong? If you keep asking the why, it becomes a philosophical argument which ends with the comment, "It depends on your moral assumptions." Read up on the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). They are a group who legitimately feel it is right for consenting men and underage boys to engage in sexual intercourse. But that is prohibited in most states. Why? Because most people have a moral conviction (be it based on some canonized belief, some other reference to a higher power, or some philosophical rationale) that adult men should not be allowed to have sex with minors. Period. You then get into the argument about consent, and legal ages. All of which are philosophically, morally defined parameters. You have to be 18 to make informed consent in most matters. Why? Most people agree or believe that is the age when people understand choice and consequence. But it is nonetheless an arbitrary parameter.
Coming back to the issue of gay marriage, I think it is entirely appropriate for any church to urge its members to become politically active when eternal matters such as the societal integrity of the family unit are involved. It should be on the democratic ballot. If a majority of people feel homosexual marriage is "wrong" then that is what our laws should be based on. Democracy is based on what 50.1% of the people feel is good for them. Where America was on the gay issue 50 years ago is probably where we are today on the NAMBLA issue. If you keep eroding fundamental institutions such as the family through moral relativism disguised by "equality" or "anti-discrimination," it is only a matter of time before all law is meaningless and nullified.
So should California vote on such a matter? Yes. Does everyone understand the prophecy as laid out in the Proclamation on the Family? No. So does everyone understand the magnitude of the matter on which they are voting? No. But at least if the vote turns out to affirm a gay's right to marry, society as a whole will have chosen that path for themselves, and not a few marginalized individuals. In the Book of Mormon, when Moroni was off fighting and he became very frustrated that Pahoran hadn't sent him the aid he had promised, an interesting scenario resulted. After working through some misunderstandings, Moroni realized that a substantial portion of people (although not a majority) wanted to overthrow the government and replace it with a monarchy. The majority, including Moroni and Pahoran felt that was wrong. They forcibly put an end to the threat (read Alma chapters 59-62). Their society was based on assumed religious fundamentals which theoretically could not be altered. Those assumed morals permeated the entire societal and political structure. Note that at this time it certainly wasn't illegal to be a non-believer. But it was illegal to do anything against what the majority had assumed was morally right. So when people grouped together because they felt marginalized and discriminated against and confronted the government, there really were only a couple of possible outcomes.
Earlier I said assumed religious fundamentals were theoretically unalterable. But you see that later on in 3 Nephi, all organized government had ceased to exist. People banded together to live in local tribes. Why? Because of secret organizations and the erosion of moral assumptions upon which was based the law. The majority of the people ceased to affirm such morals were necessary. In short, they became morally relative. At the very end of the Book of Mormon, people were taking that which was most sacred from women and girls, while feeding to them the flesh of their husbands and fathers; it was also morally acceptable at the time. I am convinced that is the final destination to which the path of moral relativism leads.
"I do not believe that people choose their sexual orientation any more than they choose their skin color or gender." In a temporal sense, I agree with this. In an eternal sense, I don't know that the agency we exercised before this mortal life didn't determine those. But to help out Nielsen's argument, I'll agree with it. I believe there are a substantial number of people who have biologic tendencies to being homosexual. But I believe they are in the minority. I feel that argument is used so that a much larger portion of misguided and disenfranchised youth and young adults can feel justified in their decisions. I don't believe that EVERY homosexual was born that way. There are societal and familial influences that play into the decision to be homosexual. And I feel the Perfect Judge will take all that into consideration.
If you buy the purely genetic homosexual argument, you probably tend to think more left-winged liberally. That is an assumption. Usually those people lean more toward believing the doctrines of evolution (which an entirely different argument). I can't believe that evolution would repeatedly evolve genes that promote a lifestyle that CAN NOT PROPAGATE LIFE. That goes against the ultimately fundamental belief of evolutionism. Humans once had tails, and gills, and smaller brains, etc...Why is that we don't see healthy, adult humans with these traits? Because they die off early in embryogenesis or in their infancy. These traits are not conducive to propagating life and therefore are selected against. You don't see homosexuality running rampant in earth's most successful species. Take ants for example. Don't see too many ants having sex on the sidewalk, do you? Nope, they have a specific genetically programmed societal structure which evolutionarily has worked extremely well for them. Take even an unsuccessful species, the Panda. Worthless species that can't adapt to changing conditions worth a dime! What if homosexuality ran rampant, and was socially acceptable? Loveable Chan Chan and Ling Ming might be the last Pandas we ever see. With only 1600 living bears, they don't have room to play evolutionary roulette. If homosexuality truly were an evolutionary, genetic trait, it would have been weeded out long ago. It wouldn't keep "reappearing" every time society's morals accept that behavior (and reappearing at an evolutionarily phenomenal rate, might I add).
Furthermore, we are all born with natural man tendencies which tempt us all. I am a man. It is the guttural instinct, for many men, to have sex with as many beautiful women as they can. I have had to suppress that instinct throughout my post-pubescent life. It isn't very hard, because I feel I know how to effectively cope with those feelings and thoughts. I feel the day-to-day way in which I care for my marriage squelches those temptations, so as to deny them consideration in even the remotest recesses of my conscious mind. But I would be insane to think, "I'll never be attracted to another woman." I personally buy into the argument that each of us is born with different trials and weaknesses and temptations. It is God's expectation that we overcome those. Some people are more prone to being homosexual than others, and they need to deal with that while striving to live the gospel which God has lovingly, wisely and prophetically laid out for us.
"If anyone could give me a single reasonable argument against marriage equality in our civil society, which doesn’t make fallacious appeals to tradition, misplaced appeals to religious authority, or make some ridiculous claim about nonhuman animals, then I would like to hear it. So far, no one has been able to present me with even a single justifiable reason." I think I have provided several justifiable reasons. Finally, Nielsen mentions marriage equality. That is exactly why California is voting, to define the word marriage. If the majority feels marriage should only be between a man and a woman, than that is just it. Marriage won't be a platform of discrimination, because any man will have the right to marry any woman and enjoy the same rights as any other married couple. That fits the classic description of equality. If society says two men can't enjoy marriage, then there is no discrimination. I can't choose to be black if I'm white. I can't choose to be a woman if I am a man. And I can't choose to be married if I am a homosexual wanting to marry homosexually. It falls under the same moral assumption as to why I can't choose to legally murder someone else, or to legally have sex with a consenting minor.
In the end, this vote is utlimately deciding where California and America draws the moral line in the sand and says, "we will not cross this line." And I applaud that democratically fundamental principle of our government, and any church's desire to affirm that.
7/19/08
Apologies
I apologize to everyone who isn't quite ready for the apocalypse and the subsequent Second Coming. It seems California is set on expediting such prophetic events. Please read here for a scriptural reference (referring to the Americas as the promised land), and here for a more modern prophecy. In the latter, pay special attention to the penultimate line which reads, "We warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."
So why am I apologizing. California as a state has decided to place a proposition on the November ballot defining marriage. And as per some recent polls of likely voters, the proposition is seemingly likely to be rejected. This being the case, the California Constition would define marriage as (I'm paraphrasing...I think), "The union between a person, and whatever the he%* else that person wants to call his/her/its spouse. Person, people, global warming, Rosie O'Donnell, an elephant's butt, etc...it's all fair game." I'm serious, that's what the constitution will say.
To further along the destruction of the family as the fundamental societal unit, the city of San Francisco is also going to vote on an interesting measure this November. Apparently Mayor Gavin Anti-Chr..., er, I mean Newsom feels it necessary to make it harder to prosecute prostitution. Yep, you heard me. They want to make it harder to investigate and punish prostitution crimes. I really hope the next Jihad attack on US soil is in San Francisco and Berkely. These people have fallen so far off the moral map that no amount of legal mish mash can ultimately solve any of these issues.
I don't know. I just want to apologize to all of you. Please don't judge me, even though I am a legal resident of California.
So why am I apologizing. California as a state has decided to place a proposition on the November ballot defining marriage. And as per some recent polls of likely voters, the proposition is seemingly likely to be rejected. This being the case, the California Constition would define marriage as (I'm paraphrasing...I think), "The union between a person, and whatever the he%* else that person wants to call his/her/its spouse. Person, people, global warming, Rosie O'Donnell, an elephant's butt, etc...it's all fair game." I'm serious, that's what the constitution will say.
To further along the destruction of the family as the fundamental societal unit, the city of San Francisco is also going to vote on an interesting measure this November. Apparently Mayor Gavin Anti-Chr..., er, I mean Newsom feels it necessary to make it harder to prosecute prostitution. Yep, you heard me. They want to make it harder to investigate and punish prostitution crimes. I really hope the next Jihad attack on US soil is in San Francisco and Berkely. These people have fallen so far off the moral map that no amount of legal mish mash can ultimately solve any of these issues.
I don't know. I just want to apologize to all of you. Please don't judge me, even though I am a legal resident of California.
7/10/08
Jesse Jackson Finally Has it Right
If you haven't heard the latest on the Good Reverend, Jesse Jackson, go watch this real quick...great.
Now, the Reverend is getting some bad press, mostly because he degraded the press's poster child. But I think the Rev is on to something. The real controversial comment was when he said he wanted to "cut [Obama's] nuts off." This comment just goes to show that deep down, no matter how liberal you are, everyone condones what is termed "cruel and unusual punishment." I don't think Obama should have his nuts cut off, but a lot of other people should have theirs cut off for sure.
First and foremost, every person featured on Dateline's "To Catch a Predator" series should have their nuts cut off. That should be the first thing the police do, even before they are read their rights. Every single child predator should have 'em removed. It would actually be therapuetic for them, because something isn't working right.
Next, men who cheat on their wives. Chop, chop! And women who cheat on their husbands, well, the guy who they cheated with should be fixed too. Men would think twice before engaging in such destructive behaviors.
Teenage boys who father illegitimate children. If the boys aren't willing to marry the girl they impregnated, their right to sire should lost forever. It doesn't take a geneticist to figure out that the last people we want filling the gene pool are the teenage delinquents who can't keep it in their pants.
Men who own and operate any form of an adult entertainment enterprise. People who are willing and eager to demean other humans' most intimate relationships should be kept in check. Castration is the best way I can think of to do that.
Prisoners sentenced to life, for any crime. We just can't risk having them reproduce.
Random prisoners, with any sentence. Think how many more people would think twice before committing a crime if they new that every day in jail they had a nutcut lottery. Crime rates would plummet.
Finally, Jesse Jackson. He needs his nuts cut off. Anyone who is as hypocritical, bigoted, and racist as he is should have a testiclotomy.
So let's not be so critical of Jesse Jackson. He's finally saying what we all want to hear.
Now, the Reverend is getting some bad press, mostly because he degraded the press's poster child. But I think the Rev is on to something. The real controversial comment was when he said he wanted to "cut [Obama's] nuts off." This comment just goes to show that deep down, no matter how liberal you are, everyone condones what is termed "cruel and unusual punishment." I don't think Obama should have his nuts cut off, but a lot of other people should have theirs cut off for sure.
First and foremost, every person featured on Dateline's "To Catch a Predator" series should have their nuts cut off. That should be the first thing the police do, even before they are read their rights. Every single child predator should have 'em removed. It would actually be therapuetic for them, because something isn't working right.
Next, men who cheat on their wives. Chop, chop! And women who cheat on their husbands, well, the guy who they cheated with should be fixed too. Men would think twice before engaging in such destructive behaviors.
Teenage boys who father illegitimate children. If the boys aren't willing to marry the girl they impregnated, their right to sire should lost forever. It doesn't take a geneticist to figure out that the last people we want filling the gene pool are the teenage delinquents who can't keep it in their pants.
Men who own and operate any form of an adult entertainment enterprise. People who are willing and eager to demean other humans' most intimate relationships should be kept in check. Castration is the best way I can think of to do that.
Prisoners sentenced to life, for any crime. We just can't risk having them reproduce.
Random prisoners, with any sentence. Think how many more people would think twice before committing a crime if they new that every day in jail they had a nutcut lottery. Crime rates would plummet.
Finally, Jesse Jackson. He needs his nuts cut off. Anyone who is as hypocritical, bigoted, and racist as he is should have a testiclotomy.
So let's not be so critical of Jesse Jackson. He's finally saying what we all want to hear.
6/1/08
ANGRY AMERICANS VOTING!!
Loma Linda, CA is a quiet town, centered around a religious health professions university. The average age is 95, give or take, and the average lifespan is 125, give or take, and most everyone is vegetarian, give or take. Just think of the "Little Town" song on Beauty and the Beast. That's Loma Linda. Except it's not French. You'd naturally assume all was peaceful in Loma Linda, until you scratched the surface...
In the recent months, Loma Linda has become a hotbed of fiery politics, fierce lobby groups, and fiendish campaign tactics. Since pretty much every one in Loma Linda is too old to own a computer, people feel the best way to campaign is through yard signs. Every house has at least 15 of them. And what's at stake? Good question. What is ever at stake when the average voter is 95 years old. The price of Ovaltine and the number of handicap spots at the bingo hall? No way. What's at stake is that every "other" candidate is an elementary school, green space, library, university, clean air, controlled growth hater, while the "I" candidate is the type you'd let your 16 year old daughter stay out with past midnight.
So I, and just about every other resident in Loma Linda with an email address, received an unsolicited campaign message. I mean this guy was good. He represents every thing I want. And he promises that everything the others have said about him is false. So he's got to be great. But that's beside the point. In response to his email, Mr. ANGRY LOMA LINDA RESIDENT!! wrote the following, and I quote:
"I am deeply offended by your unsolicated campaigne methods to my personal email. As a resident of Loma Linda I find your SATURATION of campaigning offensive!
Regrettably, I will now make my decision NOT to vote for [candidate], not on his plateform but on his campaigne tactics!!
ANGRY LOMA LINDA RESIDENT!!"
Let's point out what's amiss with this response.
1. We don't live in the UK. We don't put Es on the end of words to sound more traditional.
2. English isn't a language necessitating ALL CAPS AND EXCLAMATION POINTS ENDING EVERY SENTENCE!!
3. Voting based on plateform is so prejudiced. Seriously, just because someone is a vegetarian doesn't mean you can't vote for them. Could you imagine an America where people voted based on race, or even gender? Come now Mr. ANGRY LOMA LINDA RESIDENT!! please don't vote based on plateform.
4. Mr. ANGRY LOMA LINDA RESIDENT!!, you epitomize the typical Amercian voter. Does, "I'm not voting for McCain because I hate Bush" sound familiar? Please read this enlightening article for more on this. You really aren't going to vote based on platform? You are going to vote based on campaign tactics you dislike least? That philosophy makes a complete mockery of democracy as we know it. I mean, Americans are dying in Iraq right now so you can vote. And this is what you do with it. So let me get this straight, Mr. ANGRY LOMA LINDA RESIDENT!!. You'd would vote for say, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or Josef Stalin, if they were the candidate that didn't send you an unsolicited email.
My pointe is that unless you are willing to carefully study out each candidate's platform (or plateform), and make a decision based on logic and analysis, then DON'T VOTE!! You heard me. Don't vote. I would rather give up my right to vote to a few Americans who intimately and pristinely understood each candidate's platform, and how each policy would affect America, than to have 300 million Americans voting in a manner similar to Mr. ANGRY LOMA LINDA RESIDENT!!.
In the recent months, Loma Linda has become a hotbed of fiery politics, fierce lobby groups, and fiendish campaign tactics. Since pretty much every one in Loma Linda is too old to own a computer, people feel the best way to campaign is through yard signs. Every house has at least 15 of them. And what's at stake? Good question. What is ever at stake when the average voter is 95 years old. The price of Ovaltine and the number of handicap spots at the bingo hall? No way. What's at stake is that every "other" candidate is an elementary school, green space, library, university, clean air, controlled growth hater, while the "I" candidate is the type you'd let your 16 year old daughter stay out with past midnight.
So I, and just about every other resident in Loma Linda with an email address, received an unsolicited campaign message. I mean this guy was good. He represents every thing I want. And he promises that everything the others have said about him is false. So he's got to be great. But that's beside the point. In response to his email, Mr. ANGRY LOMA LINDA RESIDENT!! wrote the following, and I quote:
"I am deeply offended by your unsolicated campaigne methods to my personal email. As a resident of Loma Linda I find your SATURATION of campaigning offensive!
Regrettably, I will now make my decision NOT to vote for [candidate], not on his plateform but on his campaigne tactics!!
ANGRY LOMA LINDA RESIDENT!!"
Let's point out what's amiss with this response.
1. We don't live in the UK. We don't put Es on the end of words to sound more traditional.
2. English isn't a language necessitating ALL CAPS AND EXCLAMATION POINTS ENDING EVERY SENTENCE!!
3. Voting based on plateform is so prejudiced. Seriously, just because someone is a vegetarian doesn't mean you can't vote for them. Could you imagine an America where people voted based on race, or even gender? Come now Mr. ANGRY LOMA LINDA RESIDENT!! please don't vote based on plateform.
4. Mr. ANGRY LOMA LINDA RESIDENT!!, you epitomize the typical Amercian voter. Does, "I'm not voting for McCain because I hate Bush" sound familiar? Please read this enlightening article for more on this. You really aren't going to vote based on platform? You are going to vote based on campaign tactics you dislike least? That philosophy makes a complete mockery of democracy as we know it. I mean, Americans are dying in Iraq right now so you can vote. And this is what you do with it. So let me get this straight, Mr. ANGRY LOMA LINDA RESIDENT!!. You'd would vote for say, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or Josef Stalin, if they were the candidate that didn't send you an unsolicited email.
My pointe is that unless you are willing to carefully study out each candidate's platform (or plateform), and make a decision based on logic and analysis, then DON'T VOTE!! You heard me. Don't vote. I would rather give up my right to vote to a few Americans who intimately and pristinely understood each candidate's platform, and how each policy would affect America, than to have 300 million Americans voting in a manner similar to Mr. ANGRY LOMA LINDA RESIDENT!!.
5/27/08
Sportscasters: Did you really just ask that?
I am mostly a fair weather sports fan, except when it comes to NCAA Football. And I have recently been very opposed to female sportscasters in the industry of male sports. I would say, "What do they know, they've never played the sport!" "They shouldn't be doing this as much as a guy shouldn't be an OB/GYN." Neither has any business doing either. I still stand by that. But I am now more opposed to stupid sportscasters, especially the ones courtside, or down on the field. Honestly, I think they have their jobs because the broadcasting company owed the mob a favor. I mean, these people are D U M!
"Kobe, the youth of your team, their speed and agility, and their hustle, and the Spurs not being able to take the lead really stood out. How did you guys pull it off?" Seriously? No, seriously?!? Did you just ask that? Let's at least make it entertaining. "Kobe, what color are your blue and yellow jerseys?" Or "Kobe, you are the most valuable player in the league, so does that make you the MVP?"
No wonder adolescents in the US are dropping out of high school in droves. Look to whom they aspire. They see these professional athletes answering questions like "Tony Parker only scored 10 points tonight, when he's normally been averaging 35. Did that affect the outcome of the game?" And, "You couldn't pull it off in the end. Are you frustrated that you lost, and now have to go to LA, where they Lakers are undefeated in the post season, and you're down 3-1 in the series?" What if the SAT were written by these morons. "The perimeter of a square is 64 inches. How many inches are there around the square?" Or, "The sad, depressed, downtrodden, self-conscious, acne-ridden, voice cracking, uncomfortably pubescent boy didn't get asked to the dance. How did he feel?"
Seriously, folks. These courtside sportscasters are a waste of a press-pass and sporting event food. I want to see some real questions being asked. Just picture the face of Tracy McGrady's (arguably one of the dumbest looking athletes) when the sportscaster asks, "T-Mac, the angular acceleration of the projected orb was slightly altered by the vector pseudoforces created by the coriolis affect acting thereon, which in turn detoured the intended trajectory. Which specific forearm muscle could you have stimulated to most likely counter such an affect?"
...
...
Der, uh
...
...
"My bicep is pretty big, probably that one."
Right.
So my point is that sportscasters are dumb. Really dumb. That's all.
P.S. How incredibly hilarious is this really histerically funny post?
"Kobe, the youth of your team, their speed and agility, and their hustle, and the Spurs not being able to take the lead really stood out. How did you guys pull it off?" Seriously? No, seriously?!? Did you just ask that? Let's at least make it entertaining. "Kobe, what color are your blue and yellow jerseys?" Or "Kobe, you are the most valuable player in the league, so does that make you the MVP?"
No wonder adolescents in the US are dropping out of high school in droves. Look to whom they aspire. They see these professional athletes answering questions like "Tony Parker only scored 10 points tonight, when he's normally been averaging 35. Did that affect the outcome of the game?" And, "You couldn't pull it off in the end. Are you frustrated that you lost, and now have to go to LA, where they Lakers are undefeated in the post season, and you're down 3-1 in the series?" What if the SAT were written by these morons. "The perimeter of a square is 64 inches. How many inches are there around the square?" Or, "The sad, depressed, downtrodden, self-conscious, acne-ridden, voice cracking, uncomfortably pubescent boy didn't get asked to the dance. How did he feel?"
Seriously, folks. These courtside sportscasters are a waste of a press-pass and sporting event food. I want to see some real questions being asked. Just picture the face of Tracy McGrady's (arguably one of the dumbest looking athletes) when the sportscaster asks, "T-Mac, the angular acceleration of the projected orb was slightly altered by the vector pseudoforces created by the coriolis affect acting thereon, which in turn detoured the intended trajectory. Which specific forearm muscle could you have stimulated to most likely counter such an affect?"
...
...
Der, uh
...
...
"My bicep is pretty big, probably that one."
Right.
So my point is that sportscasters are dumb. Really dumb. That's all.
P.S. How incredibly hilarious is this really histerically funny post?
5/9/08
Please Explain
Will someone please help me understand why Hillary Clinton has been dubbed the "Working Class Heroine?" What about her life makes her a champion for the working class? Nothing about her campaign is about the working class!
For starters, she and her husband have claimed $109.2 MILLION in income over the past 6 years or so. I'll never ask an obese person for advice on how to diet, I'll never ask a socialist to teach me about free market capitalism, and I'll never ask someone who has made $109.2 million in their life to explicate the plight of the American working class. Does Hillary really know how hard it is to pay $40 a week for gas? Does she really now how hard it is to pay for health insurance? Does she know how ridiculously impossible it is to sign up for government welfare programs? Does she really know how sucky it is to have a college education, yet only make 24k a year?
Let me explain why I am wary of Hillary Clinton. One of her strongest base of voters is uneducated, white, unionized middle class workers. Wow! Let me tell you, if I could choose a substantial block of voters I don't want choosing the leader of our country, it would be the uneducated, union workers who think the gas tax holiday will really save them money. There isn't a group in America who does more disservice to the country than those who could have, but chose not to go to college, instead shortchanging the economy by forming and joining unions, and expecting "corporate America" to fund their bad decisions through increased taxes. She isn't the champion of the working class. She is the champion of the vulnerable, gullible, entitled-to-the-free-American-dream class.
And finally, how can someone who inserted 281 pork barrel projects, totaling nearly $300 million funded by federal tax dollars, honestly claim they care about the working class of America at large. Give me a break!
So if anyone out there can please show me where I'm wrong, I'll be happy to reconsider my opinions.
For starters, she and her husband have claimed $109.2 MILLION in income over the past 6 years or so. I'll never ask an obese person for advice on how to diet, I'll never ask a socialist to teach me about free market capitalism, and I'll never ask someone who has made $109.2 million in their life to explicate the plight of the American working class. Does Hillary really know how hard it is to pay $40 a week for gas? Does she really now how hard it is to pay for health insurance? Does she know how ridiculously impossible it is to sign up for government welfare programs? Does she really know how sucky it is to have a college education, yet only make 24k a year?
Let me explain why I am wary of Hillary Clinton. One of her strongest base of voters is uneducated, white, unionized middle class workers. Wow! Let me tell you, if I could choose a substantial block of voters I don't want choosing the leader of our country, it would be the uneducated, union workers who think the gas tax holiday will really save them money. There isn't a group in America who does more disservice to the country than those who could have, but chose not to go to college, instead shortchanging the economy by forming and joining unions, and expecting "corporate America" to fund their bad decisions through increased taxes. She isn't the champion of the working class. She is the champion of the vulnerable, gullible, entitled-to-the-free-American-dream class.
And finally, how can someone who inserted 281 pork barrel projects, totaling nearly $300 million funded by federal tax dollars, honestly claim they care about the working class of America at large. Give me a break!
So if anyone out there can please show me where I'm wrong, I'll be happy to reconsider my opinions.
3/3/08
Don't give up on the US just yet
The US and President Bush have received a lot of criticism over the past several years for their hawkish attitude toward Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of the US's most boisterous critics have been Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Ecuador's Rafael Correa, and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmnotgoingtoeventry. The US has been blasted for its unlawful invasion of sovereign territory. My how soon these hypocrites forget their words.
Recently a Columbian military strike attacked FARC rebels just across the Ecuadorian-Columbian border. Their strike was a success, killing one of FARC's senior leaders. Yes, they did strike in Ecuadorian territory without permission or collaboration. That is where the problem lies. Or so it seems.
Columbia's strike uncovered the previous clandestine ties that both Venezuela and Ecuador have with FARC, FARC's mission to overthrow the Columbian government, its international drug smuggling operations, and intentions to acquire enriched uranium. See here.
Now Venezuela is threatening Columbia by deploying its armed forces along the Columbian-Venezuelan border, threatening war with Columbia. It seems that Chavez isn't as much concerned about a global socialist peaceful paradise as he is about using his bandwagon criticism of the US to hide his brand of world war via drugs and terrorism. I mean, Correa and Chavez have funded the FARC, within their own countries to carry out attacks in Columbia. Sounds a lot like the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. In my book, if you fund a group that conducts an attack in another country, it is just as if you were carrying out the attack. If a man orders a hitman to kill someone, they both get tried for the crime.
Come on people. Don't jump on the anti-America, anti-Bush, anti-war bandwagon just because these pillars of peace around the world condemn us. These leaders are far more trigger happy than the US ever has been, and they don't seem to hesitate for one second to threaten war the moment their "peaceful" sponsorship of terrorism is exposed.
Recently a Columbian military strike attacked FARC rebels just across the Ecuadorian-Columbian border. Their strike was a success, killing one of FARC's senior leaders. Yes, they did strike in Ecuadorian territory without permission or collaboration. That is where the problem lies. Or so it seems.
Columbia's strike uncovered the previous clandestine ties that both Venezuela and Ecuador have with FARC, FARC's mission to overthrow the Columbian government, its international drug smuggling operations, and intentions to acquire enriched uranium. See here.
Now Venezuela is threatening Columbia by deploying its armed forces along the Columbian-Venezuelan border, threatening war with Columbia. It seems that Chavez isn't as much concerned about a global socialist peaceful paradise as he is about using his bandwagon criticism of the US to hide his brand of world war via drugs and terrorism. I mean, Correa and Chavez have funded the FARC, within their own countries to carry out attacks in Columbia. Sounds a lot like the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. In my book, if you fund a group that conducts an attack in another country, it is just as if you were carrying out the attack. If a man orders a hitman to kill someone, they both get tried for the crime.
Come on people. Don't jump on the anti-America, anti-Bush, anti-war bandwagon just because these pillars of peace around the world condemn us. These leaders are far more trigger happy than the US ever has been, and they don't seem to hesitate for one second to threaten war the moment their "peaceful" sponsorship of terrorism is exposed.
2/29/08
Possible Solutions
OK left wing, you win. You have been successful at putting the country on the road to bankruptcy with your socialist "everyone deserves everything and nobody deserves nothing" policies. The topic of the day is the US prison system. Please refer here and here for more information on the topic.
So 1 in 100 US adults are in prison. That's fine for the most part. 1 in 100 US adults probably deserve to be in prison, and that ratio should be higher in my mind. So what is the problem? The cost for "corrections" (the liberal term for babysitting) in this country was $44 billion dollars last year. California alone spent $9 billion last year on babysitting prisoners, which amounts to roughly $50,000 a year per prisoner. Holy crap! Given that over 80% of prisoners are repeat offenders, you can't honestly tell me that money is being well spent. Unless the guards are getting gold embroidered silk toilet paper, I can't imagine why a prisoner who will most likely never, ever legally contribute $50,000 to society should have that much spent on them. Granted the amount spent for a prisoner per year on average is just under 20 grand, I state the extreme to make a case against the extremists.
In some states the government spends more on babysitting than on public education, including higher education. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that can only lead to a vicious cycle of a less educated populace with more criminals per capita, but it does take a liberal "human rights" activist to manipulate the world into thinking anything other than 5 star prison treatment is wrong.
Here is my solution (which I owe partly to my brother). The most vile criminals who are in for a life sentence or more should be given the death penalty. Let's do the math, assuming your state still has the budget to teach you math. A young 25 year old married man kills his wife and unborn child. He gets life in jail without parole. Sounds reasonable right? Assuming the average (not even accounting for inflation!) of $20,000 per year for 40 years. The government will spend $800,000 keeping him alive. That's a conservative calculation there, and the overall cost is astronomical. The US can not afford to keep these people alive.
So if that is too harsh, outsource our prison system to China and Russia. We'll pay for the flight over, and then we'll just match what they spend per prisoner and give that money to them. It's bound to be a lot cheaper. And it's certainly bound to get people to think twice about committing a crime when they know they are heading off to the sweatshops in China, or to the steppes of Siberia.
If that doesn't work, then build a snowfort prison in freakin' Antarctica, 1,000 miles away from anyone. Give them all a warm coat, and drop supplies off every week or so. This ought to please the liberals because the prisoners would get everything they want. They wouldn't be restricted to tiny inhumane cells. They wouldn't be chained up like dogs (which is illegal according to PETA). They can do whatever they want. There are no restrictions on visitors; they can come and go whenever they want. And if the repeat offender child molester wants out to continue destroying society along with his liberal activist judge who gave him a 30 day sentence, he's free to leave whenever he wants.
My final solution if those are all too cruel is to bring back forced labor. Force prisoners to "do the jobs Americans won't" and then pay to send all the illegal immigrants to technical trade schools. That would do more for the economy than any stimulus package ever would. Make these prisoners earn their room and board through free labor. Make them rebuild a part of the society they so readily destroyed.
Why does the American public education system fail? Because instead of investing in our success and future, we're too busy babysitting our past failures.
So 1 in 100 US adults are in prison. That's fine for the most part. 1 in 100 US adults probably deserve to be in prison, and that ratio should be higher in my mind. So what is the problem? The cost for "corrections" (the liberal term for babysitting) in this country was $44 billion dollars last year. California alone spent $9 billion last year on babysitting prisoners, which amounts to roughly $50,000 a year per prisoner. Holy crap! Given that over 80% of prisoners are repeat offenders, you can't honestly tell me that money is being well spent. Unless the guards are getting gold embroidered silk toilet paper, I can't imagine why a prisoner who will most likely never, ever legally contribute $50,000 to society should have that much spent on them. Granted the amount spent for a prisoner per year on average is just under 20 grand, I state the extreme to make a case against the extremists.
In some states the government spends more on babysitting than on public education, including higher education. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that can only lead to a vicious cycle of a less educated populace with more criminals per capita, but it does take a liberal "human rights" activist to manipulate the world into thinking anything other than 5 star prison treatment is wrong.
Here is my solution (which I owe partly to my brother). The most vile criminals who are in for a life sentence or more should be given the death penalty. Let's do the math, assuming your state still has the budget to teach you math. A young 25 year old married man kills his wife and unborn child. He gets life in jail without parole. Sounds reasonable right? Assuming the average (not even accounting for inflation!) of $20,000 per year for 40 years. The government will spend $800,000 keeping him alive. That's a conservative calculation there, and the overall cost is astronomical. The US can not afford to keep these people alive.
So if that is too harsh, outsource our prison system to China and Russia. We'll pay for the flight over, and then we'll just match what they spend per prisoner and give that money to them. It's bound to be a lot cheaper. And it's certainly bound to get people to think twice about committing a crime when they know they are heading off to the sweatshops in China, or to the steppes of Siberia.
If that doesn't work, then build a snowfort prison in freakin' Antarctica, 1,000 miles away from anyone. Give them all a warm coat, and drop supplies off every week or so. This ought to please the liberals because the prisoners would get everything they want. They wouldn't be restricted to tiny inhumane cells. They wouldn't be chained up like dogs (which is illegal according to PETA). They can do whatever they want. There are no restrictions on visitors; they can come and go whenever they want. And if the repeat offender child molester wants out to continue destroying society along with his liberal activist judge who gave him a 30 day sentence, he's free to leave whenever he wants.
My final solution if those are all too cruel is to bring back forced labor. Force prisoners to "do the jobs Americans won't" and then pay to send all the illegal immigrants to technical trade schools. That would do more for the economy than any stimulus package ever would. Make these prisoners earn their room and board through free labor. Make them rebuild a part of the society they so readily destroyed.
Why does the American public education system fail? Because instead of investing in our success and future, we're too busy babysitting our past failures.
2/13/08
Treason in America
Treason is defined by Merriam-Webster as 1: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance 2: Berkeley, CA. If you aren't familiar with the incident, please Google "Berkeley" and any of the following: "Anti-Marine," "Liberal," "Code Pink," "City Council," or "War Protest." If hearing whatever you have heard doesn't cause your blood to boil, then just consider yourself one of Satan's anti-American minions.
My solution to the problem is simple. In fact, I offer two fair-minded solutions. They both stem from the fact that the city of Berkeley, and anyone who supports the Council's decision to "uninvite" Armed Forces recruiters and to grant Code Pink a parking spot in front of the Marine's recruiting office so they can more easily protest, is guilty of treason as per the aforementioned definition. So the first solution is really pretty simple. Rather than take an entire horde of liberal psychos to court to try them, allow Berkeley and all who will follow to secede from the nation. Be sure to strip them of any form of American Armed Forces protection. Then immediately invade Berkeley with brutal military force, and send everyone to Guantanamo to be tried in the military courts. Since these people previously lived in California, they won't mind being crowded into an inadequately small space anyway.
The second solution is fair-minded, but a little less realistic. And this goes for anyone who takes anti-war protesting beyond sane and established methods (sane methods like voting for anti-war officials, and protesting while NOT wearing anything pink). I plead with anyone who is sincerely against the war to go and protest in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you really feel that strongly about it, go over there and do something about it. Go stand in front of the tanks, sniper bullets, and shrapnel, and win the support of the people. Choose a nice dictator to take over. And heck, stay over there in your new, fun paradise. That way the troops can come home, the war will end, and we'll owe it all to your efforts.
I would honestly rather live next to a current Guantanamo detainee than next to one of these pink Berkelified lunatics. At least I'd know how to defend myself.
My solution to the problem is simple. In fact, I offer two fair-minded solutions. They both stem from the fact that the city of Berkeley, and anyone who supports the Council's decision to "uninvite" Armed Forces recruiters and to grant Code Pink a parking spot in front of the Marine's recruiting office so they can more easily protest, is guilty of treason as per the aforementioned definition. So the first solution is really pretty simple. Rather than take an entire horde of liberal psychos to court to try them, allow Berkeley and all who will follow to secede from the nation. Be sure to strip them of any form of American Armed Forces protection. Then immediately invade Berkeley with brutal military force, and send everyone to Guantanamo to be tried in the military courts. Since these people previously lived in California, they won't mind being crowded into an inadequately small space anyway.
The second solution is fair-minded, but a little less realistic. And this goes for anyone who takes anti-war protesting beyond sane and established methods (sane methods like voting for anti-war officials, and protesting while NOT wearing anything pink). I plead with anyone who is sincerely against the war to go and protest in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you really feel that strongly about it, go over there and do something about it. Go stand in front of the tanks, sniper bullets, and shrapnel, and win the support of the people. Choose a nice dictator to take over. And heck, stay over there in your new, fun paradise. That way the troops can come home, the war will end, and we'll owe it all to your efforts.
I would honestly rather live next to a current Guantanamo detainee than next to one of these pink Berkelified lunatics. At least I'd know how to defend myself.
2/11/08
Confession
I need to tell everyone about my longstanding addiction to meth. That has led me to despise myself, my wife and my kid. I'm having multiple extramarital affairs resulting in an unknown number of illegitimate children. I was recently arrested for multiple infractions of domestic abuse. I have never attended one day of school. I leave every morning and try and find reasons to stay away until at least 5pm.
Some of you who know me might ask why I have turned to this lifestyle. The answer is simple. It's all a lie. It's the lie my wife is going to tell the Medi-Cal social worker so we can get our son on the Governmental-Disaster-of-the-Precursor-to-Universal-Health-Care plan. Now you're really asking yourself the question. "Why would you lie to get on Medi-Cal?"
Good Question.
Let me paint the scene. I am in dental school. My tuition for the next four years will total an amount roughly five times greater than every dollar I have made in my life up to this point. I am going to borrow just about every penny I will need to feed, clothe, insure and care for my family, as well as invest in a stable profession for our future. I haven't made a dime for over six months, and my wife makes a nominal amount of money as she works part time at home. She stays at home with our baby. We both feel that if she had a job that would necessitate day care for our son, the monetary benefits would never outweigh the benefit of raising a useful, mentally and physically healthy, productive member of society. Continuing on. I won't make another dime for three and a half years. The school offers a great insurance plan for me, which is covered with the cost of tuition. It would cost roughly $300 a month to insure my wife and son. That's fine, except the school WON'T approve that additional in my budget, so I can't take out a loan for it. That leaves me with three options.
The first is to take out a private loan to pay for that insurance. The second option would be to get on Medi-Cal, which is free to those who "qualify." The third would be to stay uninsured.
If you're like me, you would choose the free option. And here is where it gets interesting. I am all for our government lending a temporary helping hand to those whose circumstances merit such help. But my experiences in the past seven months have jaded me.
"Welfare" isn't for the well-being of anyone anymore. It has become a system whereby people who have made reckless decisions can get a freebie. Here, let me offer you a portrait of our local Transitional Assistance Department.
La gran mayoria no son ciudadanos de este pais. Porque entonces, califican para recibir Medi-Cal y Cash-Aid? Y porque tengo que esperar aun mas tiempo mientras se encuentra alguien para traducir? Exactly. A few guys sit in different corners, twitching uncontrollably while they wait for their number. A precariously portly almost post adolescent neonazi mom of three threatens to "BEEPIN' BEAT" her kids "BEEP!!!" A few other people become irrate that they missed their numbers being called because they were outside smoking.
What are these people transitioning to, or from? Will any of these people ever pay back into this system?
It became painstakingly clear why, after seven months of beaurocratic red-tape, my wife and son are not on Medi-Cal. It is only for people who are transitioning into a state of complete and indefinite dependence on the tax payers of California. We don't fit the bill. So instead they give us the unending run around as to why we haven't been accepted. The quintessence of the incompetence of the system is captured in the excuse "There is no way I can tell you if your son is accepted or not. The best thing to do would be to take him to a doctor and then wait and see if you get a bill." Case and point!
So now you understand why I would make up such a silly lie. If my wife could say that I was that person, we'd already have had our golden ticket to the Golden State's Transitional Treasures.
Some of you who know me might ask why I have turned to this lifestyle. The answer is simple. It's all a lie. It's the lie my wife is going to tell the Medi-Cal social worker so we can get our son on the Governmental-Disaster-of-the-Precursor-to-Universal-Health-Care plan. Now you're really asking yourself the question. "Why would you lie to get on Medi-Cal?"
Good Question.
Let me paint the scene. I am in dental school. My tuition for the next four years will total an amount roughly five times greater than every dollar I have made in my life up to this point. I am going to borrow just about every penny I will need to feed, clothe, insure and care for my family, as well as invest in a stable profession for our future. I haven't made a dime for over six months, and my wife makes a nominal amount of money as she works part time at home. She stays at home with our baby. We both feel that if she had a job that would necessitate day care for our son, the monetary benefits would never outweigh the benefit of raising a useful, mentally and physically healthy, productive member of society. Continuing on. I won't make another dime for three and a half years. The school offers a great insurance plan for me, which is covered with the cost of tuition. It would cost roughly $300 a month to insure my wife and son. That's fine, except the school WON'T approve that additional in my budget, so I can't take out a loan for it. That leaves me with three options.
The first is to take out a private loan to pay for that insurance. The second option would be to get on Medi-Cal, which is free to those who "qualify." The third would be to stay uninsured.
If you're like me, you would choose the free option. And here is where it gets interesting. I am all for our government lending a temporary helping hand to those whose circumstances merit such help. But my experiences in the past seven months have jaded me.
"Welfare" isn't for the well-being of anyone anymore. It has become a system whereby people who have made reckless decisions can get a freebie. Here, let me offer you a portrait of our local Transitional Assistance Department.
La gran mayoria no son ciudadanos de este pais. Porque entonces, califican para recibir Medi-Cal y Cash-Aid? Y porque tengo que esperar aun mas tiempo mientras se encuentra alguien para traducir? Exactly. A few guys sit in different corners, twitching uncontrollably while they wait for their number. A precariously portly almost post adolescent neonazi mom of three threatens to "BEEPIN' BEAT" her kids "BEEP!!!" A few other people become irrate that they missed their numbers being called because they were outside smoking.
What are these people transitioning to, or from? Will any of these people ever pay back into this system?
It became painstakingly clear why, after seven months of beaurocratic red-tape, my wife and son are not on Medi-Cal. It is only for people who are transitioning into a state of complete and indefinite dependence on the tax payers of California. We don't fit the bill. So instead they give us the unending run around as to why we haven't been accepted. The quintessence of the incompetence of the system is captured in the excuse "There is no way I can tell you if your son is accepted or not. The best thing to do would be to take him to a doctor and then wait and see if you get a bill." Case and point!
So now you understand why I would make up such a silly lie. If my wife could say that I was that person, we'd already have had our golden ticket to the Golden State's Transitional Treasures.
1/25/08
1/23/08
First Things First: How Children and Iran are Similar
We have all heard our parents and our grandparents talk about how easy kids have it today. Most kids take some form of motorized transportation to get to school. And for those that are still burdened with grueling uphill climbs (both ways I might add), global warming has all but taken care of the waist deep snow. They can thank the carbon emissions from their friends' mothers' Suburbans for that. When kids come home, it's off to the XBox, or Wii, or Playstation for a few hours. Since no child can be left behind in education, they don't really have to worry about homework. Good, that means more quality time can be spent with their parents, or their video games, which is the only parental guidance kids need these days. We have also hear about how our parents were s@#%*ed as children (the "S" word, for those who refuse to conform to censorship means spanked) and that is why they turned out so well. How does this affect me? I mean, I turned out alright. Keep reading. Maybe our parents are right.
Iran is the quintessential modern day American child. Let me explain. All of us who have kids, or who have been kids (and maybe still are) know that children are irrational and temperamental at times. Now back in the day, when a kid had an outburst any good parent would perform one of the following disciplinary actions. For uncooperativity, kids were locked in their rooms. Failure to do the weekly chores resulted in a loss of allowance (really good parents demanded 100% completion for any allowance). For inappropriate behavior around other people, including disrespect for any adult, they were grounded for at least a week. No questions asked. Now moving to the weightier infantile infractions. For verbal outbursts, soap was used to clean the foulness from the kids mouth. When they hit another kid, they were s#$%@ed. One s*&#$ if the kid was justified for hitting the other, multiple s@%$#s depending on how poor the given excuse was. The unspeakable sin was talking back to the parents, especially the mom. Oh no, no soap or spanks. That poor kid wasn't that fortunate. The only justifiable punishment for talking back was Mr. Belt. Yep, Mr. Belt. And for your information, I was introduced several times to Mr. Belt growing up. Contrast the good ol' days with today. Today, many kids don't receive any discipline at all because both parents work all day; when they get home they feel guilty and compensate by buying their kids a lot of crap. Other kids go undisciplined because, "Oh, Aiden has ADHD" or "Grace has a little case of Oppositional-Defiant Disorder." I've seen it a hundred times. Come on people! Every kid has a hard time paying attention at school, and you can bet that every kid has ODD when the only discipline they receive is a, "Now Jackson, we don't do that." Unbuckle the belt and show them you're serious!
I hope the new number one baby name for 2008 is Iran, because we treat them just like every other kid in America. Ever since the Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1978, Iran has acted like an Oppositional-Defiant, spoiled brat American kid. And what have we done to correct the behavior? Sanctions. Whoopdee doo! That's like grounding your kid for every mistake they make. Punishment must fit the crime. So if you're kid tells a dirty joke, what do you do? Read the above befitting consequence if you can't remember, but please don't ground them. Eventually the punishment, if used repeatedly and universally loses its sting. But I'll tell you all from experience, Mr. Belt never EVER lost his sting. I tried to learn my lesson each time he and I met.
So let me ask a question. If your kid steals something and you find out, what do you do? Not what America did when Iran stole 52 of our diplomats for 444 days from late 1979 to early 1981. More than a year of failed diplomacy and a failed military rescue mission? Is that all we really have? Really? When your kid steals something, first thing you do is make the kid confront the owner of the stolen object and apologize for the lack of judgment. Then the kid returns the object in the best condition possible, or the compensation for it (which comes from allowance, and at a very hefty interest rate if the funds aren't currently available). And then the kid gets disciplined at home. When 52 US citizens become hostages, we should raise all sorts of h@$# (heck, for the anti-censored). You show the new fledgling Mullocracy that we mean business. And if they harm the hostages, well then, it's Mr. Belt. No questions.
Lets move to more modern examples of my argument. Iran is widely considered the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. So what do you do when you find out your kid beats up another kid at school? Or worse yet, what do you do when you find out your kid is the bully at school? In case you forgot the punishment for physical aggression, it's the "S" word. You spank 'em. And if the become repeat offenders? You got it. Mr. Belt! So when we find evidence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard training fighter to enter Iraq, or transporting armor penetrating explosive devices into Iraq, or training Hezbollah fighters to kidnap Israeli soldiers, what do we do? Pass non-binding resolutions and unilateral sanctions (half-hearted big six sanctions at best). So you kill us, literally, on multiple fronts, and we'll ki...uh, ground you from your Nintendo for a week. I'm serious, we'll do it!
No wonder Iran is acting the way they are. They're just like every ADHD ODD child in America whose parents threaten with non-consequential disciplinary actions and never deliver. So when Iran continues to hide its nuclear program, what should we do? What do we do when our kids hide drugs? I hope every parent out there would go into their kid's room, without permission, and search every nook and corner for evidence of drugs. And if you don't find it, you watch every move they make, because you can ill afford to have your child become a drug addict. Nuclear weapons are like drugs, and should only be used as prescribed by a professional. The professional today is the IAEA. If you don't comply, you get searched and everything remotely related to the offensive material is seized. Asking for it doesn't cut it. "If you don't give me your drugs, then I'll ground you." Who has ever heard such nonsense! "If you don't give it to me now, I will take it from you. And if you ever, ever do drugs again, you will be sent to a military school." (Mr. Belt only works for kids up to about 10 or 11, FYI) That sounds like a much more reasonable punishment.
I could go on. I read a great article on our blunders with Iran in the Wall Street Journal. Read it if you want an informative opinion on why our "grounding" of Iran is a crappy disciplinary policy. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120103739264407641.html?mod=googlenews_wsj.
My point is that America's children and Iran are in the same position of perceived power only because we empower them through hollow and misdirected discipline. So let's go back to the good ol' days of our parents and grand parents and raise useful kids, and hey, we might learn a thing or two about how to deal with ODD 3rd world bullies.
Blogdor strikes again! (For the first time really)
P.S. I really don't think parents should spank or Mr. Belt their kids if they possess the intellectual capability to adequately and appropriately discipline their kids using other meanse. But since that is pretty rare, only spank when you yourself are not acting out of irrationality or anger. You also might want to try giving them a good hard flick.
Iran is the quintessential modern day American child. Let me explain. All of us who have kids, or who have been kids (and maybe still are) know that children are irrational and temperamental at times. Now back in the day, when a kid had an outburst any good parent would perform one of the following disciplinary actions. For uncooperativity, kids were locked in their rooms. Failure to do the weekly chores resulted in a loss of allowance (really good parents demanded 100% completion for any allowance). For inappropriate behavior around other people, including disrespect for any adult, they were grounded for at least a week. No questions asked. Now moving to the weightier infantile infractions. For verbal outbursts, soap was used to clean the foulness from the kids mouth. When they hit another kid, they were s#$%@ed. One s*&#$ if the kid was justified for hitting the other, multiple s@%$#s depending on how poor the given excuse was. The unspeakable sin was talking back to the parents, especially the mom. Oh no, no soap or spanks. That poor kid wasn't that fortunate. The only justifiable punishment for talking back was Mr. Belt. Yep, Mr. Belt. And for your information, I was introduced several times to Mr. Belt growing up. Contrast the good ol' days with today. Today, many kids don't receive any discipline at all because both parents work all day; when they get home they feel guilty and compensate by buying their kids a lot of crap. Other kids go undisciplined because, "Oh, Aiden has ADHD" or "Grace has a little case of Oppositional-Defiant Disorder." I've seen it a hundred times. Come on people! Every kid has a hard time paying attention at school, and you can bet that every kid has ODD when the only discipline they receive is a, "Now Jackson, we don't do that." Unbuckle the belt and show them you're serious!
I hope the new number one baby name for 2008 is Iran, because we treat them just like every other kid in America. Ever since the Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1978, Iran has acted like an Oppositional-Defiant, spoiled brat American kid. And what have we done to correct the behavior? Sanctions. Whoopdee doo! That's like grounding your kid for every mistake they make. Punishment must fit the crime. So if you're kid tells a dirty joke, what do you do? Read the above befitting consequence if you can't remember, but please don't ground them. Eventually the punishment, if used repeatedly and universally loses its sting. But I'll tell you all from experience, Mr. Belt never EVER lost his sting. I tried to learn my lesson each time he and I met.
So let me ask a question. If your kid steals something and you find out, what do you do? Not what America did when Iran stole 52 of our diplomats for 444 days from late 1979 to early 1981. More than a year of failed diplomacy and a failed military rescue mission? Is that all we really have? Really? When your kid steals something, first thing you do is make the kid confront the owner of the stolen object and apologize for the lack of judgment. Then the kid returns the object in the best condition possible, or the compensation for it (which comes from allowance, and at a very hefty interest rate if the funds aren't currently available). And then the kid gets disciplined at home. When 52 US citizens become hostages, we should raise all sorts of h@$# (heck, for the anti-censored). You show the new fledgling Mullocracy that we mean business. And if they harm the hostages, well then, it's Mr. Belt. No questions.
Lets move to more modern examples of my argument. Iran is widely considered the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. So what do you do when you find out your kid beats up another kid at school? Or worse yet, what do you do when you find out your kid is the bully at school? In case you forgot the punishment for physical aggression, it's the "S" word. You spank 'em. And if the become repeat offenders? You got it. Mr. Belt! So when we find evidence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard training fighter to enter Iraq, or transporting armor penetrating explosive devices into Iraq, or training Hezbollah fighters to kidnap Israeli soldiers, what do we do? Pass non-binding resolutions and unilateral sanctions (half-hearted big six sanctions at best). So you kill us, literally, on multiple fronts, and we'll ki...uh, ground you from your Nintendo for a week. I'm serious, we'll do it!
No wonder Iran is acting the way they are. They're just like every ADHD ODD child in America whose parents threaten with non-consequential disciplinary actions and never deliver. So when Iran continues to hide its nuclear program, what should we do? What do we do when our kids hide drugs? I hope every parent out there would go into their kid's room, without permission, and search every nook and corner for evidence of drugs. And if you don't find it, you watch every move they make, because you can ill afford to have your child become a drug addict. Nuclear weapons are like drugs, and should only be used as prescribed by a professional. The professional today is the IAEA. If you don't comply, you get searched and everything remotely related to the offensive material is seized. Asking for it doesn't cut it. "If you don't give me your drugs, then I'll ground you." Who has ever heard such nonsense! "If you don't give it to me now, I will take it from you. And if you ever, ever do drugs again, you will be sent to a military school." (Mr. Belt only works for kids up to about 10 or 11, FYI) That sounds like a much more reasonable punishment.
I could go on. I read a great article on our blunders with Iran in the Wall Street Journal. Read it if you want an informative opinion on why our "grounding" of Iran is a crappy disciplinary policy. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120103739264407641.html?mod=googlenews_wsj.
My point is that America's children and Iran are in the same position of perceived power only because we empower them through hollow and misdirected discipline. So let's go back to the good ol' days of our parents and grand parents and raise useful kids, and hey, we might learn a thing or two about how to deal with ODD 3rd world bullies.
Blogdor strikes again! (For the first time really)
P.S. I really don't think parents should spank or Mr. Belt their kids if they possess the intellectual capability to adequately and appropriately discipline their kids using other meanse. But since that is pretty rare, only spank when you yourself are not acting out of irrationality or anger. You also might want to try giving them a good hard flick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
