Salvete.
I volunteer at my local library from time to time, and today was one of those days. Near the end of my scheduled shift, a patron of the library called me over from working on her computer. She was an African American woman, likely in her 40s or 50s. As the respectful library volunteer I was, came over to her. Instead of asking me a question about the computer or the library, she asked me personal questions. These weren't investigative questions, mind you; I never gave her my name or any personal information. Rather, she talked to me about my volunteer work.
Naturally, of course, I was slightly uncomfortable, considering that she was a stranger asking me questions about things. Nonetheless, I answered her truthfully and considerately, and she seemed to have no false intentions. I walked away thoughtfully, thinking perhaps about posting this occurrence on my blog.
How often can two strangers have a decent conversation? In a worse scenario, strangers could kill each other just from a mere look. It's sad to see how society has deteriorated, but I guess that is life now. I pray that society changes for the better, and I hope others do as well.
Monday, March 24, 2014
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Lent Post: Movie Week?
Salvete.
Today I listened to two sermons and a movie. Yesterday, since I watched another movie, I will be commenting on those movies this week. I won't say the titles, since that will give away the movies and perhaps spoil the blogs. I will be talking about one sermon today, and another sermon tomorrow.
One of the sermons I listened to today was centered around a TED Talk about the psyches of the wealthy and the poor. The link is here: http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_piff_does_money_make_you_mean
I find the results of his experiment fascinating, but I do not find them surprising. There have been numerous studies on the rich and poor, Republicans and Democrats (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/republican-democrat-brain-politics-fmri-study_n_2717731.html), and I would say they all narrow down to one truth: rich people are good at making and keeping their money. Duh.
This is a straw man, but it does have backing. For example, when taking the pretzels and candy, the wealthier individual is finding the initiative and taking it. The rich assess wealth and risk, and they are hesitant to randomly give money away. Thus, they are able to increase their wealth over that of a poor person, who may take money less seriously. Whereas Paul Piff concludes that this is an effect of being rich, I would like to assert that it is a cause of being rich.
It is very difficult to become rich without your focus being on making money, at least for a good portion of time. If, as Paul Piff concludes, becoming wealthier means more greed, protectiveness, and self-interest, this explains perfectly the wide income gap in the various regions of the world today. Essentially, once one starts making money, there is no coming back.
However, I might see this as a natural, if not good, aspect of society (minus the greed and the sinful desires). The people who are most ambitious and who know how to make the most use of their money will get the most money. While I would advise the Christian rich to tithe, I am fine with this scenario, and I don't care about the income inequality in America because very little of it affects me. I do hope, however, that all Americans, instead of merely rich Americans, prosper- of their own accord.
Today I listened to two sermons and a movie. Yesterday, since I watched another movie, I will be commenting on those movies this week. I won't say the titles, since that will give away the movies and perhaps spoil the blogs. I will be talking about one sermon today, and another sermon tomorrow.
One of the sermons I listened to today was centered around a TED Talk about the psyches of the wealthy and the poor. The link is here: http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_piff_does_money_make_you_mean
I find the results of his experiment fascinating, but I do not find them surprising. There have been numerous studies on the rich and poor, Republicans and Democrats (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/republican-democrat-brain-politics-fmri-study_n_2717731.html), and I would say they all narrow down to one truth: rich people are good at making and keeping their money. Duh.
This is a straw man, but it does have backing. For example, when taking the pretzels and candy, the wealthier individual is finding the initiative and taking it. The rich assess wealth and risk, and they are hesitant to randomly give money away. Thus, they are able to increase their wealth over that of a poor person, who may take money less seriously. Whereas Paul Piff concludes that this is an effect of being rich, I would like to assert that it is a cause of being rich.
It is very difficult to become rich without your focus being on making money, at least for a good portion of time. If, as Paul Piff concludes, becoming wealthier means more greed, protectiveness, and self-interest, this explains perfectly the wide income gap in the various regions of the world today. Essentially, once one starts making money, there is no coming back.
However, I might see this as a natural, if not good, aspect of society (minus the greed and the sinful desires). The people who are most ambitious and who know how to make the most use of their money will get the most money. While I would advise the Christian rich to tithe, I am fine with this scenario, and I don't care about the income inequality in America because very little of it affects me. I do hope, however, that all Americans, instead of merely rich Americans, prosper- of their own accord.
Saturday, March 22, 2014
Lent Post: Vsauce and Obama
Salvete.
Minutes ago, I watched a Vsauce video. I understand that the Vsauce officials are most likely on the opposite side of the spectrum as me, but I like to watch their videos because they are educational, more applicable than courses taught by several academic institutions.
In the video, he talked about meeting President Obama along with several other YouTubers on healthcare reform. Unfortunately, this is a trend that I see all too often, particularly with the vlog brothers. Their attempt is to gain popularity among the masses by seizing control of the modern academic elite, having moved on from the ancient academic elite (professors).
Their plan is to mooch off of the popularity of the educational channels in order to boost their popularity. After all, who wouldn't accept an invitation to join the president at an exclusive White House meeting- for anything? I see the situation in the reverse way. Whereas I disagreed with their views but respected them as educational scholars and (on occasion) masterminds, I can't help but feel that their bias might distort the content of their channels. It certainly won't mollify the conservative theory that the White House is controlling every part of the media. However, until I believe that they are blatantly discarding facts for propaganda, I will continue to watch and enjoy their work.
Minutes ago, I watched a Vsauce video. I understand that the Vsauce officials are most likely on the opposite side of the spectrum as me, but I like to watch their videos because they are educational, more applicable than courses taught by several academic institutions.
In the video, he talked about meeting President Obama along with several other YouTubers on healthcare reform. Unfortunately, this is a trend that I see all too often, particularly with the vlog brothers. Their attempt is to gain popularity among the masses by seizing control of the modern academic elite, having moved on from the ancient academic elite (professors).
Their plan is to mooch off of the popularity of the educational channels in order to boost their popularity. After all, who wouldn't accept an invitation to join the president at an exclusive White House meeting- for anything? I see the situation in the reverse way. Whereas I disagreed with their views but respected them as educational scholars and (on occasion) masterminds, I can't help but feel that their bias might distort the content of their channels. It certainly won't mollify the conservative theory that the White House is controlling every part of the media. However, until I believe that they are blatantly discarding facts for propaganda, I will continue to watch and enjoy their work.
Friday, March 21, 2014
Lent Post: College
Salvete.
I was given the prompt to end the fragment "Because college tuition is so high" with an assertion. Whereas the stereotypical answer would have been raising (more correctly lowering) scholarships, government aid, and like arguments, I came up with the assertion, in a jumbled, improvised manner, that there should be a societal movement that does not fanatically promote college. As always, my liberal colleague was right there alongside me to tell me I was wrong. Once again, in response, I make my case here.
What is the purpose of college? To learn things? We practically have all of the most advanced knowledge ever discovered in the palm of our hand. We simply need to know where to look, which either we ourselves or our job will point us to. Anything that we don't have in the palm of our hand is too advanced to be applicable and thus impractical. So yes, if you are interested in wasting thousands of dollars on useless information that you may never apply, spend your own money, but don't ask for government aid. Speaking of money, college is insanely expensive. How many college alumni break free of their monetary bonds, even with a diploma? If you have plenty of money to spare, then spend that money. If not, you shouldn't have to bother. What about the college experience? You mean the part of college that is the least about education and more about gossip, the social scene, and fun times off of your dollar? I could spend a hundred dollars and have the same amount of fun as I would spending thousands of dollars to goof off in the "college experience." What about connections? If you're looking for connections, you could literally have thousands of them almost instantaneously. College is an incredibly expensive alternative to, say, Facebook. What about the innovation that comes from colleges? That can just as easily come from an educated business workforce, who could get the building blocks for their research from, you guessed it, the Internet.
What about the jobs? Businesses will be looking for the diplomas and the educations, you get from colleges, right?
Right.
We now spend thousands of dollars primarily for the prestige of being a college graduate. Employers currently desire diplomas as either requirements or recommendations for occupations. This is a reasonable tradition; after all, knowledge was not suddenly at the palm of one's hand until the third millennium AD. However, the times have changed; people can now expand their learning and their network without sitting directly next to each other. This is why I want there to be a social movement eliminating the necessity of college.
Granted, I have taken college courses and am glad for them, but I wouldn't have needed to go if my family couldn't afford them. No one needs college to become legend.
I was given the prompt to end the fragment "Because college tuition is so high" with an assertion. Whereas the stereotypical answer would have been raising (more correctly lowering) scholarships, government aid, and like arguments, I came up with the assertion, in a jumbled, improvised manner, that there should be a societal movement that does not fanatically promote college. As always, my liberal colleague was right there alongside me to tell me I was wrong. Once again, in response, I make my case here.
What is the purpose of college? To learn things? We practically have all of the most advanced knowledge ever discovered in the palm of our hand. We simply need to know where to look, which either we ourselves or our job will point us to. Anything that we don't have in the palm of our hand is too advanced to be applicable and thus impractical. So yes, if you are interested in wasting thousands of dollars on useless information that you may never apply, spend your own money, but don't ask for government aid. Speaking of money, college is insanely expensive. How many college alumni break free of their monetary bonds, even with a diploma? If you have plenty of money to spare, then spend that money. If not, you shouldn't have to bother. What about the college experience? You mean the part of college that is the least about education and more about gossip, the social scene, and fun times off of your dollar? I could spend a hundred dollars and have the same amount of fun as I would spending thousands of dollars to goof off in the "college experience." What about connections? If you're looking for connections, you could literally have thousands of them almost instantaneously. College is an incredibly expensive alternative to, say, Facebook. What about the innovation that comes from colleges? That can just as easily come from an educated business workforce, who could get the building blocks for their research from, you guessed it, the Internet.
What about the jobs? Businesses will be looking for the diplomas and the educations, you get from colleges, right?
Right.
We now spend thousands of dollars primarily for the prestige of being a college graduate. Employers currently desire diplomas as either requirements or recommendations for occupations. This is a reasonable tradition; after all, knowledge was not suddenly at the palm of one's hand until the third millennium AD. However, the times have changed; people can now expand their learning and their network without sitting directly next to each other. This is why I want there to be a social movement eliminating the necessity of college.
Granted, I have taken college courses and am glad for them, but I wouldn't have needed to go if my family couldn't afford them. No one needs college to become legend.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Lent Post: Three-in-a-Day: Per Request, My Take on the Malaysian Aircraft
Salvete.
Before the conversation goes away, I think I'm going to put in my two cents about the missing Malaysian aircraft.
For one, The Twilight Zone presents a "humorous" theory in "The Odyssey of Flight 33." Oddly enough, I heard The Twilight Zone mentioned on CNN via The Blaze. An interviewee on FOX suggests that the plane's computers were hacked into, and there is, of course, the potential of terrorism looming in most if not all theories.
Personally, as long as the jetliner is of no threat to the United States of America or most of the West, I don't care about the jetliner. It is the fate of a handful of passengers and (maybe) the pilots at stake; while inaction would make the nations involved look cowardly, more people have been put in danger and/or killed in individual instances, and more people may be put at risk by searching for the jetliner. If the plane has the fuel or is given fuel, it would likely be shot out of the sky before it endangers the citizens of the West. Israel has caught on, but I believe that the rest of the West should understand that they should secure their borders more effectively, at least temporarily.
Terrorists are patient. They wait for a time to strike. The Malaysian aircraft may reappear in a few hours or in a few decades. With all of the resources and attention spent on this single aircraft, we could prepare for when the aircraft suddenly appears near one of our greatest landmarks. Perhaps we will never know. For now, we should simply prepare.
Before the conversation goes away, I think I'm going to put in my two cents about the missing Malaysian aircraft.
For one, The Twilight Zone presents a "humorous" theory in "The Odyssey of Flight 33." Oddly enough, I heard The Twilight Zone mentioned on CNN via The Blaze. An interviewee on FOX suggests that the plane's computers were hacked into, and there is, of course, the potential of terrorism looming in most if not all theories.
Personally, as long as the jetliner is of no threat to the United States of America or most of the West, I don't care about the jetliner. It is the fate of a handful of passengers and (maybe) the pilots at stake; while inaction would make the nations involved look cowardly, more people have been put in danger and/or killed in individual instances, and more people may be put at risk by searching for the jetliner. If the plane has the fuel or is given fuel, it would likely be shot out of the sky before it endangers the citizens of the West. Israel has caught on, but I believe that the rest of the West should understand that they should secure their borders more effectively, at least temporarily.
Terrorists are patient. They wait for a time to strike. The Malaysian aircraft may reappear in a few hours or in a few decades. With all of the resources and attention spent on this single aircraft, we could prepare for when the aircraft suddenly appears near one of our greatest landmarks. Perhaps we will never know. For now, we should simply prepare.
Lent Post: Three-in-a-Day: Forcing Equality
Salvete.
So I was talking with my liberal friends last night, and we were discussing homosexuality for the tenth or so time. I brought up the Arizona businessman forced to work for the homosexual clientele by the government. I believe that his case would be justifiable to everyone, but apparently I was wrong. The reason, according to my colleague, is that equality must be enforced.
If you need the government to enforce equality in non-governmental institutions, you're trying too hard. You're forcing companies or individuals to do things against their wills and beliefs. That is tyranny, plain and simple. I don't care what cause it is; the government is never the best way to settle disputes, although it is quite an effective way.
What if people are violently assaulting minorities? We already have those laws in place; we simply need to enforce them. Schools are not integrated enough? The government is its own individual entity; it should treat all students equally, "equal under the law." Businesses do not have that same obligation, since they neither have control over nor are directed by the people. It's that simple. If you don't like the business, don't go there, or don't work there, if that applies. It is a free country. What about all the hatred? Hatred is not a crime, albeit hideous. Destroying hate would have greater repercussions than hate itself.
I dearly hope that my friends understand my point of view.
Update: I recently received a comment stating that it would be ridiculous for the reverse of this situation to happen. That is, to say, elitist groups such as Neo-Nazis would not bother choosing, say, Jewish businesses because it is, according to them, out of their league. It's funny how I don't recall mentioning this on my blog, but I will address it nonetheless. It's always good to encourage two-sided debate.
Perhaps that theory is correct, but the threat of said event is still both legal and plausible. Abstaining from a business because of beliefs is one thing; targeting businesses for their beliefs is completely another. If said Neo-Nazis boycotted the Jewish business, there would probably be no dire consequences, since the Neo-Nazi population is too small and too lunatic to make a difference. The Jewish business would probably be a lot better off without them. However, Neo-Nazis (and other bigoted organizations, mind you) would jump at the possibility of forcing said Jewish (or other minority) businesses to provide them with whatever services said businesses offer. The business would be helpless, and the government would side with the customer or risk inconsistency; the minority suddenly becomes a wide-open, perfect target. So, while the commenter was right in saying that "Nazi don't shop for Jewish wedding planners" before this ruling, the ruling now incentivizes Neo-Nazis to demand business from their target. That's what the homosexual couple did in Arizona. That's what anyone can do to anyone now, minority or majority, right or wrong.
So I was talking with my liberal friends last night, and we were discussing homosexuality for the tenth or so time. I brought up the Arizona businessman forced to work for the homosexual clientele by the government. I believe that his case would be justifiable to everyone, but apparently I was wrong. The reason, according to my colleague, is that equality must be enforced.
If you need the government to enforce equality in non-governmental institutions, you're trying too hard. You're forcing companies or individuals to do things against their wills and beliefs. That is tyranny, plain and simple. I don't care what cause it is; the government is never the best way to settle disputes, although it is quite an effective way.
What if people are violently assaulting minorities? We already have those laws in place; we simply need to enforce them. Schools are not integrated enough? The government is its own individual entity; it should treat all students equally, "equal under the law." Businesses do not have that same obligation, since they neither have control over nor are directed by the people. It's that simple. If you don't like the business, don't go there, or don't work there, if that applies. It is a free country. What about all the hatred? Hatred is not a crime, albeit hideous. Destroying hate would have greater repercussions than hate itself.
I dearly hope that my friends understand my point of view.
Update: I recently received a comment stating that it would be ridiculous for the reverse of this situation to happen. That is, to say, elitist groups such as Neo-Nazis would not bother choosing, say, Jewish businesses because it is, according to them, out of their league. It's funny how I don't recall mentioning this on my blog, but I will address it nonetheless. It's always good to encourage two-sided debate.
Perhaps that theory is correct, but the threat of said event is still both legal and plausible. Abstaining from a business because of beliefs is one thing; targeting businesses for their beliefs is completely another. If said Neo-Nazis boycotted the Jewish business, there would probably be no dire consequences, since the Neo-Nazi population is too small and too lunatic to make a difference. The Jewish business would probably be a lot better off without them. However, Neo-Nazis (and other bigoted organizations, mind you) would jump at the possibility of forcing said Jewish (or other minority) businesses to provide them with whatever services said businesses offer. The business would be helpless, and the government would side with the customer or risk inconsistency; the minority suddenly becomes a wide-open, perfect target. So, while the commenter was right in saying that "Nazi don't shop for Jewish wedding planners" before this ruling, the ruling now incentivizes Neo-Nazis to demand business from their target. That's what the homosexual couple did in Arizona. That's what anyone can do to anyone now, minority or majority, right or wrong.
Lent Post: Three-in-a-Day: White House Briefing
Salvete.
I was thinking to myself about the several topics that I could talk about. I finally settled on three of them. You're welcome.
I learned (or confirmed) today on The Blaze that White House press conferences are staged. I'm sad to say that I'm not surprised, but I now consider said conferences a propaganda wing. It's weird that a propaganda wing would contradict itself and stage its own debates, but, then again, the press never gives Carney astounding questions anyway. Perhaps the point of the press conferences are to make the press, playing the part of the mild conservative, look inferior to the administration. It seems like the best explanation, given what we know as fact. Nonetheless, I don't really care much about the mouth of the administration either. The actions of the administration tell more.
I was thinking to myself about the several topics that I could talk about. I finally settled on three of them. You're welcome.
I learned (or confirmed) today on The Blaze that White House press conferences are staged. I'm sad to say that I'm not surprised, but I now consider said conferences a propaganda wing. It's weird that a propaganda wing would contradict itself and stage its own debates, but, then again, the press never gives Carney astounding questions anyway. Perhaps the point of the press conferences are to make the press, playing the part of the mild conservative, look inferior to the administration. It seems like the best explanation, given what we know as fact. Nonetheless, I don't really care much about the mouth of the administration either. The actions of the administration tell more.
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Lent Post: You're Wrong, Robert Reich
Salvete.
I was going to blog about the waning mystery behind the missing Malaysian aircraft, but minutes ago I watched part of the liberal documentary Inequality for All with my conservative grandfather, and we were both equally disgusted. I went on the website to find Robert Reich's name, and the website itself made me feel unclean. Anyway, I'm going to do some of the dirty work and exert my opinion against that of the former Secretary of Labor.
The whole argument that Inequality for All makes is that government spending for the people is good; the bigger the corporation is, the worse; and the common man is under the boot heel of Big Business. I personally believe this is easily refutable, but, seeing as I've only seen a tidbit of the full movie, I will try to make this short and vague, and perhaps I'll continue this tomorrow or the day after.
Big Business is not the problem, like I've said several times before. Big Government is, but that's another story. My opponents have emphasized that there is never a way out for the middle and lower classes, and that they cannot afford the opportunity to leave their jobs or make a decent living. This is bogus on several levels. For one, people and society need to learn the meaning of frugality. It is sad to see that our society considers luxuries as necessities, such as cell phones, restaurants, and so many more extraneous things. For another, it is a bald-faced lie that there is no way to escape business. If people had any marketable talent, they could start their own business. It wouldn't be as easy, and the pay wouldn't be as good, but it is a safe way out of undesired employment. Especially in this day and age, a single man with code-writing skills could develop a software company worth hundreds of thousands of dollars at least. There is no cage in employment but the one that the liberals want you to imagine.
I was going to blog about the waning mystery behind the missing Malaysian aircraft, but minutes ago I watched part of the liberal documentary Inequality for All with my conservative grandfather, and we were both equally disgusted. I went on the website to find Robert Reich's name, and the website itself made me feel unclean. Anyway, I'm going to do some of the dirty work and exert my opinion against that of the former Secretary of Labor.
The whole argument that Inequality for All makes is that government spending for the people is good; the bigger the corporation is, the worse; and the common man is under the boot heel of Big Business. I personally believe this is easily refutable, but, seeing as I've only seen a tidbit of the full movie, I will try to make this short and vague, and perhaps I'll continue this tomorrow or the day after.
Big Business is not the problem, like I've said several times before. Big Government is, but that's another story. My opponents have emphasized that there is never a way out for the middle and lower classes, and that they cannot afford the opportunity to leave their jobs or make a decent living. This is bogus on several levels. For one, people and society need to learn the meaning of frugality. It is sad to see that our society considers luxuries as necessities, such as cell phones, restaurants, and so many more extraneous things. For another, it is a bald-faced lie that there is no way to escape business. If people had any marketable talent, they could start their own business. It wouldn't be as easy, and the pay wouldn't be as good, but it is a safe way out of undesired employment. Especially in this day and age, a single man with code-writing skills could develop a software company worth hundreds of thousands of dollars at least. There is no cage in employment but the one that the liberals want you to imagine.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
The Daydream: Part 2
Salvete.
Every clash of wits is a fierce battle. It may be refined or it may be savage; the debaters may be exercising their minds or trying desperately to crack their opponent. The result is a fierce battle regardless. It welds people together in alliances and breaks friendships in a fiery display.
Debate is not always necessary. Many ideas that work, like fiscal conservatism, speak for themselves, and now it has reign over the minds of the people. Christianity certainly does not need defense or even the future support of mankind to reign supreme in the end. Social conservatism needs defense, but social conservatives won't give up their beliefs at the drop of a hat. Opponents are advancing, but we have our ground that we will always be able to keep. Then why debate?
I enjoy debating. I enjoy being in the thick of battle. It keeps the mind open and exercises it on a constant basis. It may do me more harm than good, but it is addicting, to say the least. We are all eager soldiers on the battlefield, or we wouldn't be soldiers at all. The defenders would keep shut in the castle, afraid or perhaps wise enough to venture out and fight on the battlefield. Me? My battalion is stationed at the very front, beyond the barrier of protection. I advance my men to counter the advances of my opponent.
The key is to never lose your cool. I am notorious for not caring, for not heating up in stress. I guess one way to do this is to challenge yourself never to cede an inch without your will. Any part of my mind who wavers returns to the fray like the rest or is shot.
My opponents will push with all their strength and might. They desire more to win than to debate, and thus they attempt pathos and ethos to state their case in addition to logos. I either hold every assault or am broken in two. Either way, I am battered, shattered, but prouder than they.
It is in the thick of the battle that I believe that war is glorious, that I have nothing to fear, though I am outnumbered and outgunned. Frustrated, my opponent returns to harry my forces and strike fear and doubt into my heart. Sure, there is doubt aplenty, but it is always mollified by reason, perhaps the best remedy for doubt. I fight on, and will continue to fight until there be no more ground to fight for.
"And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."
-William Shakespeare, Henry V, Saint Crispin's Day speech
Every clash of wits is a fierce battle. It may be refined or it may be savage; the debaters may be exercising their minds or trying desperately to crack their opponent. The result is a fierce battle regardless. It welds people together in alliances and breaks friendships in a fiery display.
Debate is not always necessary. Many ideas that work, like fiscal conservatism, speak for themselves, and now it has reign over the minds of the people. Christianity certainly does not need defense or even the future support of mankind to reign supreme in the end. Social conservatism needs defense, but social conservatives won't give up their beliefs at the drop of a hat. Opponents are advancing, but we have our ground that we will always be able to keep. Then why debate?
I enjoy debating. I enjoy being in the thick of battle. It keeps the mind open and exercises it on a constant basis. It may do me more harm than good, but it is addicting, to say the least. We are all eager soldiers on the battlefield, or we wouldn't be soldiers at all. The defenders would keep shut in the castle, afraid or perhaps wise enough to venture out and fight on the battlefield. Me? My battalion is stationed at the very front, beyond the barrier of protection. I advance my men to counter the advances of my opponent.
The key is to never lose your cool. I am notorious for not caring, for not heating up in stress. I guess one way to do this is to challenge yourself never to cede an inch without your will. Any part of my mind who wavers returns to the fray like the rest or is shot.
My opponents will push with all their strength and might. They desire more to win than to debate, and thus they attempt pathos and ethos to state their case in addition to logos. I either hold every assault or am broken in two. Either way, I am battered, shattered, but prouder than they.
It is in the thick of the battle that I believe that war is glorious, that I have nothing to fear, though I am outnumbered and outgunned. Frustrated, my opponent returns to harry my forces and strike fear and doubt into my heart. Sure, there is doubt aplenty, but it is always mollified by reason, perhaps the best remedy for doubt. I fight on, and will continue to fight until there be no more ground to fight for.
"And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."
-William Shakespeare, Henry V, Saint Crispin's Day speech
Monday, March 17, 2014
Lent Post: The Daydream
Salvete.
I had a daydream in church yesterday. It's probably not a vision, since I don't believe it comes directly from God but rather from my own imagination. It was interesting to reflect on, and I'd like to share it with you.
I imagined myself on a battlefield. I commanded a battalion of men, and we were at the front lines of a massive battle. The entire battalion represented my mind, my beliefs, and thoughts. In my mind, I was shouting a warning to the soldiers of my battalion: "I shoot the man who wavers!"
As the church service when on, I elaborated a bit in my mind. I imagined a army of millions surrounding and protecting a castle. I imagined an army of billions surrounding the defense. For every defending army on the front, there were three armies assaulting. There was a dome surrounding the defense, and the castle was impenetrable. We would not die out. We may, however, be defeated on multiple fronts, as the enemy forces relentlessly pounded against our defenses.
I had a friend with me. We shook hands, we were brothers, we were allies. Together our forces held evil back. We trusted each other, no neither side relented. The brawl was bitter, the brawl was eternal, but the he held them back. Neither side made headway so long as we stood our ground.
Why do I bother telling this daydream to you? The answer comes tomorrow.
I had a daydream in church yesterday. It's probably not a vision, since I don't believe it comes directly from God but rather from my own imagination. It was interesting to reflect on, and I'd like to share it with you.
I imagined myself on a battlefield. I commanded a battalion of men, and we were at the front lines of a massive battle. The entire battalion represented my mind, my beliefs, and thoughts. In my mind, I was shouting a warning to the soldiers of my battalion: "I shoot the man who wavers!"
As the church service when on, I elaborated a bit in my mind. I imagined a army of millions surrounding and protecting a castle. I imagined an army of billions surrounding the defense. For every defending army on the front, there were three armies assaulting. There was a dome surrounding the defense, and the castle was impenetrable. We would not die out. We may, however, be defeated on multiple fronts, as the enemy forces relentlessly pounded against our defenses.
I had a friend with me. We shook hands, we were brothers, we were allies. Together our forces held evil back. We trusted each other, no neither side relented. The brawl was bitter, the brawl was eternal, but the he held them back. Neither side made headway so long as we stood our ground.
Why do I bother telling this daydream to you? The answer comes tomorrow.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Lent Post: Sunday
Salvete.
Like on most Sundays, I am pressed for time. It's a shame; Sundays should be a day of rest.
Anyway, big post coming up tomorrow. Passing the blog along for continuity purposes. Apologies for the lack of content.
Like on most Sundays, I am pressed for time. It's a shame; Sundays should be a day of rest.
Anyway, big post coming up tomorrow. Passing the blog along for continuity purposes. Apologies for the lack of content.
Saturday, March 15, 2014
Lent Post: Screw World Wars, Let's Talk about the Economy
Salvete.
Whereas I was going to talk about World Wars for the weekend, I've had a heavy concern as of late about Republican and Democrat policies in terms of the economy. So, I'll be talking about the economy.
As of late, I've been hearing from at least one of my liberal friends that Democrat policies boost the economy more than Republican ones. So today, I started to research the economy under Republican conservative and Democrat liberal policies. For the time being, we will set aside personal liberties and focus strictly on the economy. This was the first site I analyzed:
http://www.davemanuel.com/2010/08/03/us-gdp-growth-by-president-1948-2009/
It seems biased, but I'm taking its statistics for facts. Both Reagan and Eisenhower had some of the worst and some of the best years for economic growth. Under an analysis of this website alone, it seems like each of the presidents has had quite decent economic growth, and Obama simply sucks as a president.
Now let's go into national debt:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Now, this site is clearly biased, but it shows similar results: Republicans and Democrats have had their on and off days (for example, Roosevelt and Truman), and Obama sucks as a president. (This site is quite less biased: http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm)
Now, let's take a step back and look at other similar charts:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_gdp_history
http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-national-unemployment-by-political-party-president/
These charts both show a far more fluid movement than just "Republicans suck at the economy, Democrats are far better." Rather, they show that the economy has never truly went away and has been exponentially increasing at a steady pace, that is, until Obama showed up.
So what does this mean, and why would the anti-corporation policies of Democratic liberals be on par with the pro-business policies of Republican conservatives? The answer lies in the public and private sectors. While the economy will always be there (unless you're Obama), the ratio of public sector to private sector will vary immensely. People will always get the service they need, and there will always be a fairly stable economy.
So why would the Republican strategy be favorable? The answer lies in personal and corporate freedom. Sure, the government might be able to provide the services people need (though there will be tremendous inefficiency, corruption, and regulation), but the citizens who function outside of the government industry will never be able to earn a living from starting a business independently.
In addition, governmental interventionist policies are incredibly inflexible. If the public sector gains too much power and funding, it could potentially solidify a monopoly in its sphere of influence. This is quite risky; as we've seen in the Great Depression and the current recession, the whole system collapses under Democratic policies, even though they work about as well as Republican policies in stable economic climates. Republican conservative policies, on the other hand, ensure that businesses function relatively independently of each other. This is optimal for any turmoil in the economy, whether or not conservative policies have a slight disadvantage in economic "peacetime" (which they don't). Because it is almost impossible to determine when a large recession will strike, it is both safer and freer to have Republican conservative policies.
Oh, and also:
http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-national-unemployment-by-political-party-president/
Obama really sucks.
Whereas I was going to talk about World Wars for the weekend, I've had a heavy concern as of late about Republican and Democrat policies in terms of the economy. So, I'll be talking about the economy.
As of late, I've been hearing from at least one of my liberal friends that Democrat policies boost the economy more than Republican ones. So today, I started to research the economy under Republican conservative and Democrat liberal policies. For the time being, we will set aside personal liberties and focus strictly on the economy. This was the first site I analyzed:
http://www.davemanuel.com/2010/08/03/us-gdp-growth-by-president-1948-2009/
It seems biased, but I'm taking its statistics for facts. Both Reagan and Eisenhower had some of the worst and some of the best years for economic growth. Under an analysis of this website alone, it seems like each of the presidents has had quite decent economic growth, and Obama simply sucks as a president.
Now let's go into national debt:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Now, this site is clearly biased, but it shows similar results: Republicans and Democrats have had their on and off days (for example, Roosevelt and Truman), and Obama sucks as a president. (This site is quite less biased: http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm)
Now, let's take a step back and look at other similar charts:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_gdp_history
http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-national-unemployment-by-political-party-president/
These charts both show a far more fluid movement than just "Republicans suck at the economy, Democrats are far better." Rather, they show that the economy has never truly went away and has been exponentially increasing at a steady pace, that is, until Obama showed up.
So what does this mean, and why would the anti-corporation policies of Democratic liberals be on par with the pro-business policies of Republican conservatives? The answer lies in the public and private sectors. While the economy will always be there (unless you're Obama), the ratio of public sector to private sector will vary immensely. People will always get the service they need, and there will always be a fairly stable economy.
So why would the Republican strategy be favorable? The answer lies in personal and corporate freedom. Sure, the government might be able to provide the services people need (though there will be tremendous inefficiency, corruption, and regulation), but the citizens who function outside of the government industry will never be able to earn a living from starting a business independently.
In addition, governmental interventionist policies are incredibly inflexible. If the public sector gains too much power and funding, it could potentially solidify a monopoly in its sphere of influence. This is quite risky; as we've seen in the Great Depression and the current recession, the whole system collapses under Democratic policies, even though they work about as well as Republican policies in stable economic climates. Republican conservative policies, on the other hand, ensure that businesses function relatively independently of each other. This is optimal for any turmoil in the economy, whether or not conservative policies have a slight disadvantage in economic "peacetime" (which they don't). Because it is almost impossible to determine when a large recession will strike, it is both safer and freer to have Republican conservative policies.
Oh, and also:
http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-national-unemployment-by-political-party-president/
Obama really sucks.
Friday, March 14, 2014
Lent Post: More on World War
Salvete. I believe this weekend's posts will be devoted to World Wars future and past.
I was debating with some of my friends on whether or not we should have intervened in World War I. My argument was that nonintervention in World War I would balance the sides out and prevent World War II. Their argument was that America needed the technological advancement for future wars and that WWI would have become far more cataclysmic and continued for decades longer.
Since unfortunately I don't know their side of the argument as well as my side, here I present my argument. Feel free to argue against it as you will.
World War II was caused by the aggression of Germany and Japan, caused largely by the ambition of their nationalist socialist governments. Their aggressions, however, were caused for different reasons. Germany was driven by a nationalist socialist government with an unreasonable amount of hubris. Japan, on the other hand, was a century behind on the imperialist stage and desperately wanted territory of her own.
Were these effects the direct result of World War I and its aftermath? My argument for Germany is yes, while my argument for Japan is less clear. Germany's loss in World War I led to impossible debts, which led to hyperinflation, which led to chaos in the streets, which led to the rise of the Nazi regime over the Weimar Republic that caused the mess, which led to "hypernationalism" and the aggression of World War II. Japan's story is different. Japan had always wanted to be an imperial power ever since the shogunate was overthrown. Her imperial powers could not be quenched easily, but if World War I was continuing on, both Japan and America would have time to sit back and watch. Granted, Japan's peacetime military growth would be larger than that of America's peacetime military growth, but at least we would be wary of Japan, just as we are wary of China and Russia in the present. More on this tomorrow.
I was debating with some of my friends on whether or not we should have intervened in World War I. My argument was that nonintervention in World War I would balance the sides out and prevent World War II. Their argument was that America needed the technological advancement for future wars and that WWI would have become far more cataclysmic and continued for decades longer.
Since unfortunately I don't know their side of the argument as well as my side, here I present my argument. Feel free to argue against it as you will.
World War II was caused by the aggression of Germany and Japan, caused largely by the ambition of their nationalist socialist governments. Their aggressions, however, were caused for different reasons. Germany was driven by a nationalist socialist government with an unreasonable amount of hubris. Japan, on the other hand, was a century behind on the imperialist stage and desperately wanted territory of her own.
Were these effects the direct result of World War I and its aftermath? My argument for Germany is yes, while my argument for Japan is less clear. Germany's loss in World War I led to impossible debts, which led to hyperinflation, which led to chaos in the streets, which led to the rise of the Nazi regime over the Weimar Republic that caused the mess, which led to "hypernationalism" and the aggression of World War II. Japan's story is different. Japan had always wanted to be an imperial power ever since the shogunate was overthrown. Her imperial powers could not be quenched easily, but if World War I was continuing on, both Japan and America would have time to sit back and watch. Granted, Japan's peacetime military growth would be larger than that of America's peacetime military growth, but at least we would be wary of Japan, just as we are wary of China and Russia in the present. More on this tomorrow.
The Brakes Fall Off: The Death of the Social Conservative and the World's Grim Future
Salvete. My apologies for not posting on my political blog; I posted on my gaming blog instead. Consider this a makeup post. The World War post will come soon.
As you all know, I am a social conservative, and I can defend the case of the social conservative as much as the next guy. I'm sad to realize that the social conservative is a dying breed. We are the force of resistance, the brakes to the car of society. We have a crucial role for the safety and culture of society.
There has always been a balance between radical and conservative. They were the gas, and we were the brakes. We never sped too fast to lose our sanity and reason, and we never moved too slow to stagnate. In America, we had a firm grasp on both sides, so we had the greatest start of any faction in the world. We shrugged as the French mimicked us and fell into utter chaos, and we were glad to be free of the tyranny of the European monarchies. Our revolution was supported by all classes, all religions, all genders, and all ethnicities, and we sprang forth together and actually managed to pull it off.
During all this time, the brakes and the gas despised each other, and we wished that our opponent was out of the picture. They just never had enough influence or ruthless ambition to cross the line. Sometimes, there was more gas, while sometimes there were more brakes, and America kept moving at a steady pace.
Now, it's unfashionable to be the brakes. Why should we be the evil, racist, greedy rich guy when we could be the "underdog," the guy who bucks the system and demands change? Well, however you spin the deal, the Republicans and the conservatives are now the underdog, and the Democrats and the liberals are now "the machine." And yet the gas pushes harder, despite the steady brakes of the system.
We've passed our destination. We're at the point where the amount of liberty makes sense. Any further would lose more liberty than it gains. This is the part where the brakes should press hard, stopping the car of society before it falls further into chaos. And yet, it is unfashionable to do so. Christians are mocked, and there is no respect for God anymore. Coal and fracking are the two worst possible societal sins. If you don't want to force businesses to cater to people with whom the business disagrees, you are a homophobe, a racist, and the works.
For sure, there are plenty of conservatives, but they're all fiscal conservatives. They found the social side of conservatism too vulnerable and indefensible, so they abandoned that side. They want change as much as the next guy; they just want the economy as a free market. And don't get me wrong, I'm a fiscal conservative as well as a social conservative. I just find myself far more alone as a social conservative, when there is a sound, logical case for my opinion. Will the social conservative die? Will we become extinct, and will society senselessly speed into oblivion? I do not and cannot know. But I understand that, in terms of mortals, I am alone, that the people who side with me are backed into a corner. I will support the fiscal conservative until my dying day. But the social conservative needs my support.
As you all know, I am a social conservative, and I can defend the case of the social conservative as much as the next guy. I'm sad to realize that the social conservative is a dying breed. We are the force of resistance, the brakes to the car of society. We have a crucial role for the safety and culture of society.
There has always been a balance between radical and conservative. They were the gas, and we were the brakes. We never sped too fast to lose our sanity and reason, and we never moved too slow to stagnate. In America, we had a firm grasp on both sides, so we had the greatest start of any faction in the world. We shrugged as the French mimicked us and fell into utter chaos, and we were glad to be free of the tyranny of the European monarchies. Our revolution was supported by all classes, all religions, all genders, and all ethnicities, and we sprang forth together and actually managed to pull it off.
During all this time, the brakes and the gas despised each other, and we wished that our opponent was out of the picture. They just never had enough influence or ruthless ambition to cross the line. Sometimes, there was more gas, while sometimes there were more brakes, and America kept moving at a steady pace.
Now, it's unfashionable to be the brakes. Why should we be the evil, racist, greedy rich guy when we could be the "underdog," the guy who bucks the system and demands change? Well, however you spin the deal, the Republicans and the conservatives are now the underdog, and the Democrats and the liberals are now "the machine." And yet the gas pushes harder, despite the steady brakes of the system.
We've passed our destination. We're at the point where the amount of liberty makes sense. Any further would lose more liberty than it gains. This is the part where the brakes should press hard, stopping the car of society before it falls further into chaos. And yet, it is unfashionable to do so. Christians are mocked, and there is no respect for God anymore. Coal and fracking are the two worst possible societal sins. If you don't want to force businesses to cater to people with whom the business disagrees, you are a homophobe, a racist, and the works.
For sure, there are plenty of conservatives, but they're all fiscal conservatives. They found the social side of conservatism too vulnerable and indefensible, so they abandoned that side. They want change as much as the next guy; they just want the economy as a free market. And don't get me wrong, I'm a fiscal conservative as well as a social conservative. I just find myself far more alone as a social conservative, when there is a sound, logical case for my opinion. Will the social conservative die? Will we become extinct, and will society senselessly speed into oblivion? I do not and cannot know. But I understand that, in terms of mortals, I am alone, that the people who side with me are backed into a corner. I will support the fiscal conservative until my dying day. But the social conservative needs my support.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Lent Post: Russia, Germany, and the Chess Game of the Ages
Salvete.
Well, the chess tournament ended this morning; congratulations to Super Grandmaster Li Chao for winning the tournament. Now, back to work (as I listen to more chess).
I've had German friends and I've had Russian friends. I'm friends with an immigrant who was born in Moscow; I've had a friend going into the navy, about whom we've always joked about him defecting to the German navy. I know Germany and Russia well enough to give my honest opinion about one of Yahoo's most recent articles: "Cold War kids Merkel and Putin square off over Crimean crisis."
First off, in terms of diplomacy, Germany runs circles around America. Yahoo apparently knows this. How else would it manage to rise to the top of the European Union? Thus, Putin is far more likely to enter negotiations with Merkel. Yahoo knows this as well.
The problem that I see here is the tenseness and the historical significance of this. At no point in history since WWII could Russia and Germany look each other straight in the eyes and call each other equals. Even still, Russia could wax Europe like no tomorrow, like they attempted in Ukraine before diplomacy slowed them down. So now you have the head of Europe and the head of the former Soviet Union together in the same room. Either they will come to an agreement, which means that America will have less of an ally and more of an enemy, or things will take a turn for the worse, which means WWIII may happen the day after. This time, we would probably side with mainland Europe.
So now it seems like the only countries with sizable diplomatic sway are Great Britain, America (maybe), Germany, Russia, and China. (France doesn't count because France is France) Note that, besides India, I have listed the strongest nations of the world, and replace China with Japan, and you have the power players in World War II. We have an ambitious Axis and submissive Allies. How long do you think it is until WWIII? And how long do you think America will wait until we get into this one?
More on World Wars tomorrow.
Well, the chess tournament ended this morning; congratulations to Super Grandmaster Li Chao for winning the tournament. Now, back to work (as I listen to more chess).
I've had German friends and I've had Russian friends. I'm friends with an immigrant who was born in Moscow; I've had a friend going into the navy, about whom we've always joked about him defecting to the German navy. I know Germany and Russia well enough to give my honest opinion about one of Yahoo's most recent articles: "Cold War kids Merkel and Putin square off over Crimean crisis."
First off, in terms of diplomacy, Germany runs circles around America. Yahoo apparently knows this. How else would it manage to rise to the top of the European Union? Thus, Putin is far more likely to enter negotiations with Merkel. Yahoo knows this as well.
The problem that I see here is the tenseness and the historical significance of this. At no point in history since WWII could Russia and Germany look each other straight in the eyes and call each other equals. Even still, Russia could wax Europe like no tomorrow, like they attempted in Ukraine before diplomacy slowed them down. So now you have the head of Europe and the head of the former Soviet Union together in the same room. Either they will come to an agreement, which means that America will have less of an ally and more of an enemy, or things will take a turn for the worse, which means WWIII may happen the day after. This time, we would probably side with mainland Europe.
So now it seems like the only countries with sizable diplomatic sway are Great Britain, America (maybe), Germany, Russia, and China. (France doesn't count because France is France) Note that, besides India, I have listed the strongest nations of the world, and replace China with Japan, and you have the power players in World War II. We have an ambitious Axis and submissive Allies. How long do you think it is until WWIII? And how long do you think America will wait until we get into this one?
More on World Wars tomorrow.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Lent Post: More Chess
Salvete.
I understand that there are many things that I could be blogging about, and the Malaysia airplane fiasco has been requested. I believe I shall respond to this topic fairly soon, but for now, I'm satisfied to enjoy the peaceful yet challenging game of chess. It truly gives players a sensation of calm and deep thought unlike any other activity. I truly recommend it for anyone with stress issues.
Today, the commentators brought in some of the grandmasters playing in the tournament to interview and dissect recent victories. It was amazing to see how generally nice and relatively social they were, no matter their background. The world should start playing chess more often.
I understand that there are many things that I could be blogging about, and the Malaysia airplane fiasco has been requested. I believe I shall respond to this topic fairly soon, but for now, I'm satisfied to enjoy the peaceful yet challenging game of chess. It truly gives players a sensation of calm and deep thought unlike any other activity. I truly recommend it for anyone with stress issues.
Today, the commentators brought in some of the grandmasters playing in the tournament to interview and dissect recent victories. It was amazing to see how generally nice and relatively social they were, no matter their background. The world should start playing chess more often.
Monday, March 10, 2014
Lent Post: Chess
Salvete.
If you guys didn't know, I'm a chess guy. Today I found out that there was a huge chess tournament in Reykjavik. It's sad to see that hosting chess is the biggest thing that Iceland can boast. Sochi having finished, I figured I could spend the new amount of available time following the tournament. I always found it shocking the number of draws and relatively-early resignations the higher-ranking players executed. I guess it takes a skilled player to know when you've lost a mile away.
So yeah. Chess.
If you guys didn't know, I'm a chess guy. Today I found out that there was a huge chess tournament in Reykjavik. It's sad to see that hosting chess is the biggest thing that Iceland can boast. Sochi having finished, I figured I could spend the new amount of available time following the tournament. I always found it shocking the number of draws and relatively-early resignations the higher-ranking players executed. I guess it takes a skilled player to know when you've lost a mile away.
So yeah. Chess.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Lent Post: Convalescent Home
Salvete.
I used to sing for a convalescent home ministry when I was younger. Now that I'm older, I don't seem to have the time, but today I managed to clear enough time to go there. It was good to be back, and no one can match the gratefulness of these elderly folk. They were full of energy today, and many of them seemed young and vibrant. It gave me time to reflect.
This ministry came from my old church. Unfortunately, most of the folks from my old church didn't care so much, so only two or so people went besides me and my family. Not much as changed in particular, it's still our small band, only that my family has moved churches. Needless to say, there were awkward moments, but it's good to converse with old friends. Our group pastor, about the same age as many of the convalescent home residents, gave his sermon as usual.
I admit that I felt uncomfortable as he was giving the sermon, even though I had no need to. It felt like the stereotypical, traditionally Christian sermon, and among the topics covered were how tolerance and political correctness were bad. I just feel uncomfortable whenever I see politics being dragged outside its sphere of influence. Don't get me wrong; inside the political sphere of influence, I'm as bold and as ambitious as possible. I just don't like conversations without politics suddenly being force-fed politics, especially when I disagree with the political views presented. It's not like that's a bad thing, though; politics is the study of the fate of the world, and so it naturally applies to everything on this earth. Besides, the Bible supports a lot of conservative values, such as intolerance to other faiths and boldness in the face of political correctness. Regardless, I felt uncomfortable. Perhaps that's a weakness of mine when it comes to defending my beliefs and voicing my opinion. Perhaps it's a strength.
There was a surprisingly large number of folks at the convalescent home. At face value, this seemed like a great thing; more people were at the service. After reflection and conversation with family, though, it turned into a bad thing. Either families had so little respect for their elders or were pressured so much by the twists and turns in the economy (many of them caused by liberals) that they neither had the time nor money to care for their elderly. Either way, society has taken a turn for the worse. Nonetheless, I will continue to sing at the convalescent home.
I used to sing for a convalescent home ministry when I was younger. Now that I'm older, I don't seem to have the time, but today I managed to clear enough time to go there. It was good to be back, and no one can match the gratefulness of these elderly folk. They were full of energy today, and many of them seemed young and vibrant. It gave me time to reflect.
This ministry came from my old church. Unfortunately, most of the folks from my old church didn't care so much, so only two or so people went besides me and my family. Not much as changed in particular, it's still our small band, only that my family has moved churches. Needless to say, there were awkward moments, but it's good to converse with old friends. Our group pastor, about the same age as many of the convalescent home residents, gave his sermon as usual.
I admit that I felt uncomfortable as he was giving the sermon, even though I had no need to. It felt like the stereotypical, traditionally Christian sermon, and among the topics covered were how tolerance and political correctness were bad. I just feel uncomfortable whenever I see politics being dragged outside its sphere of influence. Don't get me wrong; inside the political sphere of influence, I'm as bold and as ambitious as possible. I just don't like conversations without politics suddenly being force-fed politics, especially when I disagree with the political views presented. It's not like that's a bad thing, though; politics is the study of the fate of the world, and so it naturally applies to everything on this earth. Besides, the Bible supports a lot of conservative values, such as intolerance to other faiths and boldness in the face of political correctness. Regardless, I felt uncomfortable. Perhaps that's a weakness of mine when it comes to defending my beliefs and voicing my opinion. Perhaps it's a strength.
There was a surprisingly large number of folks at the convalescent home. At face value, this seemed like a great thing; more people were at the service. After reflection and conversation with family, though, it turned into a bad thing. Either families had so little respect for their elders or were pressured so much by the twists and turns in the economy (many of them caused by liberals) that they neither had the time nor money to care for their elderly. Either way, society has taken a turn for the worse. Nonetheless, I will continue to sing at the convalescent home.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
Lent Post: "The Great Escape"
Salvete.
So I was watching The Great Escape with family and friends today, and it got me thinking about society and resisting authority. Granted, this isn't an isolated topic at all in film; we've seen people "resist authority" in Avatar, Dances with Wolves, In Time, Johnny Tremain, and the upcoming (and exciting) new Marvel movie Guardians of the Galaxy. There's an astute difference between these, though.
In most of the movies that I've just described, the character is a minion, an underling in a mighty empire. He imagines that the enemy is evil, and he does his best to destroy them. Just when they're about to be vanquished, he listens to their point of view. In a complete role reversal, he now sees the "enemy" as the good guys and the "heroes" as the bad guys. Eventually, the underdogs win, and the mighty get thrashed. The end.
It is literally impossible to get a good, holistic view of what the character is fighting for in just a few interactions. You can only understand the surface, the face value of your newfound friends, and surely you can't base your opinion solely on that. When the world watched Congressman Issa shut off the microphone of Congressman Cummings, the face value was horrid, even though the action was legitimate and perhaps even necessary. These characters are not fighting for a cause. They are resisting for the sake of resistance. This is, simply put, dangerous.
The Great Escape is different. You don't see people resisting for the heck of it. In one of the first scenes, a British prisoner says to the face of a higher-ranked German officer that it is the duty of the prisoners to do what they could to slow the Germans down. They have a cause. They know what they are doing, they know how and why they are doing it, and they will resist as civilly as possible. They are Martin Luther Kings. They resist because they must, not because they want to or get a buzz off of being an underdog.
When people do this, protest is more respectful, more loyal to the authorities than the most sincere groveling. You tell the leadership that you are not anti-establishment, not an illogical radical, but a sincere, honest patriot who's concerned about the future and has a few ideas for the nation. Oh, and one will fight for his beliefs even if it means death. That's what happened to the British prisoners in The Great Escape. That's what happed to the Alamo, Bunker Hill, Thermopylae. That's also the reason why the French Revolution failed and the American Revolution succeeded. For France, revolution meant giving the rich, the church, and the monarchy what they had coming. It was based on revenge and on pure resistance. Thus, society was thrown into chaos, with neither direction nor purpose. It took the mighty fist of an emperor to restore order to France. The Americans, though, had centuries of contemplation, even before America existed. They thought about it, both the rich and the poor, North and South, knew what they needed to do, and, hand in hand, they petitioned the king. They didn't start the rebellion because they hated Great Britain, they were thrown into it because they wouldn't let go of their beliefs. I believe the right has this sentiment in spades, but the left needs to work on its purpose before it continues its ungodly, spiteful protests.
My advice for revolutionaries: if you resist for power or to get high on being a radical, just stop. This is not telling you not to defend your beliefs; defend them to your death. Just don't attack our beliefs or way of life for kicks. If you are serious about revolution and have strong beliefs, consider your motives. Then reconsider them. Pray about them constantly. If you don't see anything that directly points to grounds for revolution, don't revolt. If you do, then put your soul into it. You will be giving the authorities more honor and respect than the peons ever could.
So I was watching The Great Escape with family and friends today, and it got me thinking about society and resisting authority. Granted, this isn't an isolated topic at all in film; we've seen people "resist authority" in Avatar, Dances with Wolves, In Time, Johnny Tremain, and the upcoming (and exciting) new Marvel movie Guardians of the Galaxy. There's an astute difference between these, though.
In most of the movies that I've just described, the character is a minion, an underling in a mighty empire. He imagines that the enemy is evil, and he does his best to destroy them. Just when they're about to be vanquished, he listens to their point of view. In a complete role reversal, he now sees the "enemy" as the good guys and the "heroes" as the bad guys. Eventually, the underdogs win, and the mighty get thrashed. The end.
It is literally impossible to get a good, holistic view of what the character is fighting for in just a few interactions. You can only understand the surface, the face value of your newfound friends, and surely you can't base your opinion solely on that. When the world watched Congressman Issa shut off the microphone of Congressman Cummings, the face value was horrid, even though the action was legitimate and perhaps even necessary. These characters are not fighting for a cause. They are resisting for the sake of resistance. This is, simply put, dangerous.
The Great Escape is different. You don't see people resisting for the heck of it. In one of the first scenes, a British prisoner says to the face of a higher-ranked German officer that it is the duty of the prisoners to do what they could to slow the Germans down. They have a cause. They know what they are doing, they know how and why they are doing it, and they will resist as civilly as possible. They are Martin Luther Kings. They resist because they must, not because they want to or get a buzz off of being an underdog.
When people do this, protest is more respectful, more loyal to the authorities than the most sincere groveling. You tell the leadership that you are not anti-establishment, not an illogical radical, but a sincere, honest patriot who's concerned about the future and has a few ideas for the nation. Oh, and one will fight for his beliefs even if it means death. That's what happened to the British prisoners in The Great Escape. That's what happed to the Alamo, Bunker Hill, Thermopylae. That's also the reason why the French Revolution failed and the American Revolution succeeded. For France, revolution meant giving the rich, the church, and the monarchy what they had coming. It was based on revenge and on pure resistance. Thus, society was thrown into chaos, with neither direction nor purpose. It took the mighty fist of an emperor to restore order to France. The Americans, though, had centuries of contemplation, even before America existed. They thought about it, both the rich and the poor, North and South, knew what they needed to do, and, hand in hand, they petitioned the king. They didn't start the rebellion because they hated Great Britain, they were thrown into it because they wouldn't let go of their beliefs. I believe the right has this sentiment in spades, but the left needs to work on its purpose before it continues its ungodly, spiteful protests.
My advice for revolutionaries: if you resist for power or to get high on being a radical, just stop. This is not telling you not to defend your beliefs; defend them to your death. Just don't attack our beliefs or way of life for kicks. If you are serious about revolution and have strong beliefs, consider your motives. Then reconsider them. Pray about them constantly. If you don't see anything that directly points to grounds for revolution, don't revolt. If you do, then put your soul into it. You will be giving the authorities more honor and respect than the peons ever could.
Friday, March 7, 2014
Lent Post: Slippery Slope or Logically Sound?
Salvete.
Today I was debating with a friend about the concern that the loss of one freedom would inevitably lead to the loss of another. My friend considers this notion preposterous; freedoms come and go as they fit with society. Today, I will explain my case.
If freedoms were lost naturally, my colleague would be right. Freedoms would be lost and gained at random, and we would be at the mercy of fate.
However, freedoms are not lost or gained naturally. They are instigated by organizations or by people. For example, the women's rights movement gave women suffrage, while the prohibition movement banned the use of alcohol. Each of these movements have a certain amount of momentum. Most of these movements have reached the peak of optimal freedom before flying off the edge. The women's suffrage movement turned into feminism. The African American civil rights movement turned into the Black Panther Party. The pro-gay movement will lead (and, in a sense, has already led) to homophiliac militarism. This will destroy, and has destroyed, everything for which the founders of the movement stood. Susan B. Anthony would shun this new form of feminism, while Doctor Martin Luther King, Junior must surely weep at what the African Americans have been subjected to. No longer is there religious freedom; the church has become corrupted and is being mocked by the atheistic movement. No longer is there equal rights for Americans of all skin color; employers and universities are now actively seeking out people of color over Caucasians. Affirmative action on all fronts, not just the civil rights movement, is overwhelming and corrupting the desired balance.
Granted, this is not that much of a blanket statement; not all women's rights suffragists became feminists, and not all civil rights protesters became members of the Black Panther Party. There just merely comes a time in each organization's movement where they've succeeded and met their goal, at which point they ask themselves, "What now? We have the resources and momentum, but we need another mountain to climb, another cause." Some members, perhaps most members, will leave the organization before it finds its new purpose and continues its "progress." The result is a smaller but more dangerous movement, aimed at darker goals.
I believe this discussion will be continued in later posts.
Today I was debating with a friend about the concern that the loss of one freedom would inevitably lead to the loss of another. My friend considers this notion preposterous; freedoms come and go as they fit with society. Today, I will explain my case.
If freedoms were lost naturally, my colleague would be right. Freedoms would be lost and gained at random, and we would be at the mercy of fate.
However, freedoms are not lost or gained naturally. They are instigated by organizations or by people. For example, the women's rights movement gave women suffrage, while the prohibition movement banned the use of alcohol. Each of these movements have a certain amount of momentum. Most of these movements have reached the peak of optimal freedom before flying off the edge. The women's suffrage movement turned into feminism. The African American civil rights movement turned into the Black Panther Party. The pro-gay movement will lead (and, in a sense, has already led) to homophiliac militarism. This will destroy, and has destroyed, everything for which the founders of the movement stood. Susan B. Anthony would shun this new form of feminism, while Doctor Martin Luther King, Junior must surely weep at what the African Americans have been subjected to. No longer is there religious freedom; the church has become corrupted and is being mocked by the atheistic movement. No longer is there equal rights for Americans of all skin color; employers and universities are now actively seeking out people of color over Caucasians. Affirmative action on all fronts, not just the civil rights movement, is overwhelming and corrupting the desired balance.
Granted, this is not that much of a blanket statement; not all women's rights suffragists became feminists, and not all civil rights protesters became members of the Black Panther Party. There just merely comes a time in each organization's movement where they've succeeded and met their goal, at which point they ask themselves, "What now? We have the resources and momentum, but we need another mountain to climb, another cause." Some members, perhaps most members, will leave the organization before it finds its new purpose and continues its "progress." The result is a smaller but more dangerous movement, aimed at darker goals.
I believe this discussion will be continued in later posts.
Thursday, March 6, 2014
3-in-a-Day: Representative Cummings, Representative Issa, and Vigilantism
Salvete.
Yes, I've heard about Representative Cummings and how his microphone was purposely turned off. I believe that Representative Issa had the right idea, despite what it looks like face-value. Cummings took a legal opportunity to infuse unnecessary, inappropriate, and entirely subjective liberal propaganda. It was, flatly, an abuse of legal power. It was wrong for Cummings to interrupt the procedure like so, and it was even worse to slander the Republican Party without grounds.
My question is whether or not it was right for Representative Issa to cut off the mic. Surely it could have been okay to let Cummings talk and not give heed or pay attention to his words. However, his words could stir up controversy and division within the interrogation when there need not be. I could call this a sort of vigilantism, where the colleague in charge takes action against the aggressive colleague dissident. However, I do not believe that Issa should in any way have his reputation marred by this action. If anything, it should highlight his decisiveness.
Yes, I've heard about Representative Cummings and how his microphone was purposely turned off. I believe that Representative Issa had the right idea, despite what it looks like face-value. Cummings took a legal opportunity to infuse unnecessary, inappropriate, and entirely subjective liberal propaganda. It was, flatly, an abuse of legal power. It was wrong for Cummings to interrupt the procedure like so, and it was even worse to slander the Republican Party without grounds.
My question is whether or not it was right for Representative Issa to cut off the mic. Surely it could have been okay to let Cummings talk and not give heed or pay attention to his words. However, his words could stir up controversy and division within the interrogation when there need not be. I could call this a sort of vigilantism, where the colleague in charge takes action against the aggressive colleague dissident. However, I do not believe that Issa should in any way have his reputation marred by this action. If anything, it should highlight his decisiveness.
3-in-a-Day: Menlo Park Church
Salvete.
Whereas I wanted to do one post a day, there is far, far too much to cover. So here I go with another 3-in-a-day.
This post will be about the Menlo Park Church. Today, I learned that it plans to secede from the PCUSA. A few years ago, my old church seceded from the PCUSA. Apparently it is an enormous movement now, one that is continuing to grow. I'm very happy to see the church being purified as it breaks its chains from denomination and liberalism. I'm also very concerned with the political charge and the political power of the PCUSA, as well as for the future of the seceding churches. Our church, like Menlo Park Church and undoubtedly many others, had to war for property with the PCUSA, since the denomination cannot let go from its power. This sapped our morale and energy.
It also left our church with little direction. While we were finally off the wrong direction, our leadership grew too powerful, and our congregation seemed to agree with our pastor on almost every point. There was no more discussion, and eventually our old church took a turn for the worse. In the end, we left our old church because we thought its direction was dangerous.
This is what I believe may happen to Menlo Park Church. Sure, it no longer follows anti-Christian principles, but it will determine its own future. I wait with eager anticipation at the future of Menlo Church. Please, pray for Menlo Park Church that it may not be corrupted like the PCUSA.
Whereas I wanted to do one post a day, there is far, far too much to cover. So here I go with another 3-in-a-day.
This post will be about the Menlo Park Church. Today, I learned that it plans to secede from the PCUSA. A few years ago, my old church seceded from the PCUSA. Apparently it is an enormous movement now, one that is continuing to grow. I'm very happy to see the church being purified as it breaks its chains from denomination and liberalism. I'm also very concerned with the political charge and the political power of the PCUSA, as well as for the future of the seceding churches. Our church, like Menlo Park Church and undoubtedly many others, had to war for property with the PCUSA, since the denomination cannot let go from its power. This sapped our morale and energy.
It also left our church with little direction. While we were finally off the wrong direction, our leadership grew too powerful, and our congregation seemed to agree with our pastor on almost every point. There was no more discussion, and eventually our old church took a turn for the worse. In the end, we left our old church because we thought its direction was dangerous.
This is what I believe may happen to Menlo Park Church. Sure, it no longer follows anti-Christian principles, but it will determine its own future. I wait with eager anticipation at the future of Menlo Church. Please, pray for Menlo Park Church that it may not be corrupted like the PCUSA.
Lent Post: People Get It One Day Later
Salvete.
As I scroll through the Yahoo news, I found that there were one too many stories mentioned on The Blaze just the day before. It seems like the left is just now realizing that the right has been almost unfalteringly correct on almost every international policy, such as Russia, Syria, Ukraine, and whatnot. Sadly, it won't change much, if anything.
The thing is, The Blaze can predict things with a relatively high accuracy rate, but they're the laughingstock of the media and the left. When the left finally comes to realize that what the right said was right, it will have been far too late, be it one day or one year. And none of this will be to the credit of the right. The left's leadership will come out saying that "they knew it all along" and that the right was in fact organizing the chaos. And so the left would plunge America further into this chaos, while the right would come under fire, and perhaps die out.
As I scroll through the Yahoo news, I found that there were one too many stories mentioned on The Blaze just the day before. It seems like the left is just now realizing that the right has been almost unfalteringly correct on almost every international policy, such as Russia, Syria, Ukraine, and whatnot. Sadly, it won't change much, if anything.
The thing is, The Blaze can predict things with a relatively high accuracy rate, but they're the laughingstock of the media and the left. When the left finally comes to realize that what the right said was right, it will have been far too late, be it one day or one year. And none of this will be to the credit of the right. The left's leadership will come out saying that "they knew it all along" and that the right was in fact organizing the chaos. And so the left would plunge America further into this chaos, while the right would come under fire, and perhaps die out.
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Lent Post: Russia
Salvete.
So today, I decided to write a blog post for every day of lent. I've given up things that take up time, so I should be able to write a short blog post per day.
How about I start with Russia and her interests. The Soviet Union has dissolved into several large and powerful nations, the largest and most powerful of which is Russia. The only nations keeping Russia in check from conquering these nations and reclaiming the former empire that was the Soviet Union are America and China. China is Communist, and both China and Russia have a common rival in America. America, especially during the terms of the current president, has had a record of intervening when it doesn't count and staying put when it does. Russia has 1-uped America in almost every field of international politics for the past year. As a result, Russia sees that there are absolutely no barriers whatsoever to recreating the former Soviet Union boundaries. Now, this is more symbolic than practical. Should Russia dominate Georgia, Ukraine, and the Baltics, there would be very little that Russia would gain aside from freshwater ports that are close to home. However, it could now gloat that America did absolutely nothing to stop Russia. It's like the stereotypical superhero cartoon: you didn't kill the villain; you only allowed him to reincarnate into another form as a giant monster. There is a practical solution in letting Russia have their day; there is little in it for the United States. Or we could send a psychological message back to Russia that we were dominant, we are dominant, and we always will be dominant, so long as the both of us exist.
So today, I decided to write a blog post for every day of lent. I've given up things that take up time, so I should be able to write a short blog post per day.
How about I start with Russia and her interests. The Soviet Union has dissolved into several large and powerful nations, the largest and most powerful of which is Russia. The only nations keeping Russia in check from conquering these nations and reclaiming the former empire that was the Soviet Union are America and China. China is Communist, and both China and Russia have a common rival in America. America, especially during the terms of the current president, has had a record of intervening when it doesn't count and staying put when it does. Russia has 1-uped America in almost every field of international politics for the past year. As a result, Russia sees that there are absolutely no barriers whatsoever to recreating the former Soviet Union boundaries. Now, this is more symbolic than practical. Should Russia dominate Georgia, Ukraine, and the Baltics, there would be very little that Russia would gain aside from freshwater ports that are close to home. However, it could now gloat that America did absolutely nothing to stop Russia. It's like the stereotypical superhero cartoon: you didn't kill the villain; you only allowed him to reincarnate into another form as a giant monster. There is a practical solution in letting Russia have their day; there is little in it for the United States. Or we could send a psychological message back to Russia that we were dominant, we are dominant, and we always will be dominant, so long as the both of us exist.
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Russia: the Powerhouse of the World
Salvete.
Imagine that you are the leader of a third-world country. In this scenario, your country is anywhere outside of Europe in the Eastern Hemisphere. You get two conflicting demands by the Russian Federation and the United States. Let's consider your options.
You could choose the American contract. However, Russia is more economically important; it can and will destroy your economy, with force if it has to. Sure, you can pride yourself that you're out from under Russia's thumb, but you get no incentive from the United States of America, unless you consider sporadic financial aid "incentive." America will not help you when enemy tanks roll in, nor will it stop meddling with your affairs and your people, perhaps even against the will of your government.
You could also choose the Russian contract. America will do nothing, because no one messes with Russia. You can be assured that strengthened ties with Russia may not mean more freedom but lots of economic gain (including oil), military aid, and general prestige and influence. Your neighbors are also under Russia's thumb, so you would have a large array of friends instead of a large array of enemies.
Most nations would choose and have chosen the Russian side. The few nations accepting America's side (Israel, Georgia, South Korea) are isolated, abandoned, and in a horrid diplomatic position. We've turned on our allies in exchange for good feelings in diplomacy. We've met that No Man's Zone between isolationism and imperialism. We don't shoot to kill; we give false threats and dignified boundaries for other nations to laugh at and cross. We turn our backs on Israel while flipping over Syria (at least in thought), Egypt, Iraq, and Libya. We make things worse for people in the hopes of making things better.
Meanwhile, Russia shoots to kill. Russia has strong ties with most if not all of the Middle East, reasonable relations with China and the European Union, and a surprisingly strong grip on the territories that previously made up the Soviet Union. We see this clearly in Ukraine and Georgia, but we also see hints in the Baltics (I heard from the ERR that the Baltics will come next after the prior two countries).
What is the result? Sure, Russia still has both a pathetic military and a pathetic economy in the eyes of the United States, but it has been able to use its might (second in the world) to do things. Russia has advanced her interests to the demise of American interests, and Russia is now the diplomatic beacon of the world. It pays to be on Russia's side, while it hurts to be on America's side. The Russian government has done more than the Soviet Union ever could: it has humbled the United States while securing its boundaries and sphere of influence. Of course, this has terrible, long-term effects for the United State's international interests.
Now let's in turn weigh our options as the United States. Honestly, we can take all the mockery of our enemies with a grain of salt and move on. We can choose isolationism, batten down the hatches, and let Russia do whatever it wants. We have the resources to do this, so we can execute this lockdown at any point we please. We could also be interventionist; we could look Russia square in the face and say, "Listen, punk, we're the United States. We defeated you once, we'll do it again." Of course, this would demand a follow-up action, like moving troops to Ukraine, and leaders with spines, but this too is possible. Finally, we need the support of all United States citizens. We can't have this war be another Vietnam or Iraq because we will lose in that case. We could be imperialist; we could strike a deal with the Russians and promise to let them invade Ukraine if the Russians let the United States invade, I don't know, some Russian minion that we want. Recently, our administration wants Syria, but we probably should settle for something more advantageous to us.
Whatever we choose to do, what we do currently does not work. We need better foreign policy badly, before we lose our prestige and our chance to rise.
Imagine that you are the leader of a third-world country. In this scenario, your country is anywhere outside of Europe in the Eastern Hemisphere. You get two conflicting demands by the Russian Federation and the United States. Let's consider your options.
You could choose the American contract. However, Russia is more economically important; it can and will destroy your economy, with force if it has to. Sure, you can pride yourself that you're out from under Russia's thumb, but you get no incentive from the United States of America, unless you consider sporadic financial aid "incentive." America will not help you when enemy tanks roll in, nor will it stop meddling with your affairs and your people, perhaps even against the will of your government.
You could also choose the Russian contract. America will do nothing, because no one messes with Russia. You can be assured that strengthened ties with Russia may not mean more freedom but lots of economic gain (including oil), military aid, and general prestige and influence. Your neighbors are also under Russia's thumb, so you would have a large array of friends instead of a large array of enemies.
Most nations would choose and have chosen the Russian side. The few nations accepting America's side (Israel, Georgia, South Korea) are isolated, abandoned, and in a horrid diplomatic position. We've turned on our allies in exchange for good feelings in diplomacy. We've met that No Man's Zone between isolationism and imperialism. We don't shoot to kill; we give false threats and dignified boundaries for other nations to laugh at and cross. We turn our backs on Israel while flipping over Syria (at least in thought), Egypt, Iraq, and Libya. We make things worse for people in the hopes of making things better.
Meanwhile, Russia shoots to kill. Russia has strong ties with most if not all of the Middle East, reasonable relations with China and the European Union, and a surprisingly strong grip on the territories that previously made up the Soviet Union. We see this clearly in Ukraine and Georgia, but we also see hints in the Baltics (I heard from the ERR that the Baltics will come next after the prior two countries).
What is the result? Sure, Russia still has both a pathetic military and a pathetic economy in the eyes of the United States, but it has been able to use its might (second in the world) to do things. Russia has advanced her interests to the demise of American interests, and Russia is now the diplomatic beacon of the world. It pays to be on Russia's side, while it hurts to be on America's side. The Russian government has done more than the Soviet Union ever could: it has humbled the United States while securing its boundaries and sphere of influence. Of course, this has terrible, long-term effects for the United State's international interests.
Now let's in turn weigh our options as the United States. Honestly, we can take all the mockery of our enemies with a grain of salt and move on. We can choose isolationism, batten down the hatches, and let Russia do whatever it wants. We have the resources to do this, so we can execute this lockdown at any point we please. We could also be interventionist; we could look Russia square in the face and say, "Listen, punk, we're the United States. We defeated you once, we'll do it again." Of course, this would demand a follow-up action, like moving troops to Ukraine, and leaders with spines, but this too is possible. Finally, we need the support of all United States citizens. We can't have this war be another Vietnam or Iraq because we will lose in that case. We could be imperialist; we could strike a deal with the Russians and promise to let them invade Ukraine if the Russians let the United States invade, I don't know, some Russian minion that we want. Recently, our administration wants Syria, but we probably should settle for something more advantageous to us.
Whatever we choose to do, what we do currently does not work. We need better foreign policy badly, before we lose our prestige and our chance to rise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)