Siblinginbox sent the following:

The Constitution has experienced somewhat of a resurgence in the last several years, perhaps because of the polarization of political opinions in the United States as well as attempts by presidents from both parties attempts consume more power for the executive branch. The revelations about National Security Agency, efforts to censor speech, expand gun control laws are just the tip of the iceberg of attempts to trample the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

In his presidential proclamation marking Constitution Day, President Barack Obama offered some insight into how he views the Bill of Rights. “Our Constitution reflects the values we cherish as a people and the ideals we strive for as a  society,” Obama said in the release. “It secures the privileges we enjoy as citizens, but also demands participation, responsibility, and service to our country and to one another.”


Notice that zero removed the proper name of this that was even ensconced in the title.  Take a moment to consider the attack he just perpetrated.  By using that word, zero is trying to remove the position of God in our country.

What is a right?  It is that given by God enjoyed by the individual and not under subjection by the state.  That’s why our founders used the big ideas of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  Note that these are each characteristics for the individual and not subject to the labors of another.  (On that note, realize that health care cannot be a right as it is totally dependent upon the labor of another.)  That which is truly a right is what gets defended, even when we disagree totally with the response the other individual has in a situation.  From this comes the statement: “I don’t agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.”  That is application of a right.  A privilege is the key presented to me as an employee of the business.  I now have the privilege to enter the building at will as I have access.  The authorities may remove that privilege and I lose my key and the abilities given thereby.  This is the level at which zero presents our Constitution.  Not as a recognition of God given rights which are to be defended against all enemies foreign or domestic, but rather a privilege which can be doled out by those in authority to underlings.  Hear the socialism in this voice: “demands participation, responsibility, and service to our country and to one another.”  Only Marxism demands that – from each according to his ability to each according to his need.  The needy are in the best position in this scenario, therefore, every country under this mindset suffers.

This past weekend, spouseinbox and I worked on getting the pantry in better order.  It is a small closet with shelves on two sides and a door at a 45 degree angle to the back wall.  There was some wall space on either side of the door extending towards the shelves, so we installed pieces of 1×4 matching the height of the existing shelves and allowing a row of cans to be placed.  Spouseinbox further looked at the door and said that a shoe sorter would work perfectly there.  We spent a few bucks at the local big box retailer and now have a shoe sorter on the back of the door holding the small boxes of cake mix, tempura batter, etc.  That has freed up shelf space in the rest of the pantry and makes the items really easy for a visual check.

On the way home, I flipped through channels and noted a piece of a song something along the lines of “It’s a quarter past one and I’m all undone, and I need you now.”  That had me thinking about forming relationships.  I am married because I want to be.  I lived well alone and even managed life with a teenager and myself.  There was also a period of time where I sought company of individuals and groups at church – because I needed them.  When one is in need, there is a void required to be filled before that individual is able to pour out on others.  During that time, it is entirely accurate to say, “I need you now,” but that is need, not a basis for relationship.  Once one’s needs are fulfilled, it is then possible to consider relationship where one considers the other’s ideas and needs.  With that in mind, I have little patience for songs purporting that “I can’t live without you.”  That is need which leads to dependence and destroys a relationship.  Science Fiction does have that idea right.  Anyplace where I have seen shared spirits, the result is always destruction.  The more accurate approach, in my opinion, is that I can live quite well by myself, but choose to spend time with you as life is even better.

There was another thought from my previous post on sex.  A long time ago, we had a squiggle channel.  That was the adult channel with the picture wavy, but the sound clear.  I noted an interaction there where some female was asked about going in to the video shoot and to show off her wares.  This is all expected on such a channel.  I was cogitating about that sort of interaction and a thought struck.  Here are individuals, total strangers, engaging in intimate acts in front of cameras with individuals operating them and director instructing what to do (I presume).  What are the odds of them actually forming a good relationship?

Here is one title I will let her keep.  There is no hint of challenge from this neck of the woods.

(With a title like that, I’m sure to have hits)

This is an idea which has been percolating in the back of my dendrites for a couple of weeks now.  I guess it had a little to do with the fact we were involved in a wedding  for a relative a short time ago.  What has been bubbling there is the idea of how abused this topic is in our present culture.  I can remember being a kid and hearing in hushed tones the shame of the girl and poor kid who didn’t have a father.  I remember hearing jokes about shotgun weddings and realize that presently, such a concept does not even exist.

I may have stated it here before, so please excuse the repeat, but there was a Sunday School class I was asked to teach may moons ago.  I was asked to teach it as the kids were sitting in the room.  “So-in-so didn’t show up, here’s the book.  Thanks.”  I look at the book and see the lesson is about sex during dating.  How’s that for a subject to teach without preparation?  I closed the book.  The lesson I brought was from the mindset of marriage and dating as originally intended – for better or worse.  I began with the idea that dating was for a single purpose – to find a mate.  I then segued into the idea of marriage and asked a question with an individual in mind.  This person was a lady in a former church who was very pleasant.  She was pretty and quite personable.  She had a car wreck.  For the rest of her life, her husband will have to kiss the scarred face.  I didn’t tell them that story, but altered it slightly to – if your companion has a car wreck and is in a wheel-chair, are you ready to take care of them the rest of your life?  If not, you have no business playing like you are choosing a mate and therefore have no business dating.  I had a herd of deer in those philosophical headlights.  Notice I avoided the entire subject of sex, and instead provided them with the background to be wiser in their initial behaviors.  If one avoids at the the initial concepts, the final act is not an issue.

Contraception has been in existence for a short number of decades.  Prior to that time, it was incumbent upon the female to choose wisely what man she had for copulation as this would be the individual to support her, or she risked a life of poverty and a population referring to her with hushed tones and labeling the child with a properly applied moniker.  The proper result of sex kept the act in appropriate bounds.  Once contraception was available, it was possible for this act with a low chance of child – pleasure without consequence.  Has the removal of consequence helped or hurt our society?  How many children grow up without the authority provided by the father figure?  I have a slight memory of a Catholic stating their philosophical opposition to contraception is born out in the fact that this society went from contraception to euthanasia in 40 years.  Once life is cheapened, and behavior is done for only pleasure, the actions toward others tend toward the low end of the scale.

Let me go back to an incident at a hospital where I worked many, many moons – well, never mind.  I worked there during the last millennium.  There was a homosexual there who was rather blatant about his orientation and fulfilled many, let’s say rather, all the concepts I learned from psychology class excepting the number of interactions per year.  He did announce one Monday morning, “you heterosexuals, eat your heart out.  Six times!”  Now, I am married.  We have sex.  You know that because of the fact I note we are married.  Any other details will not be learned because I don’t talk about it.  That is a subject exclusively between my spouse and myself.  There is the small possibility I might divulge something to a doctor if it has relevance to treatment.  Otherwise, it is something private.  Completely.

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

There is an exclusive club where sex is free and whatever is done is fine.  That is marriage.  All else is under the judgment of God.  I say it that way with this reference so that it is known that God has more than homosexuals that He is against.  It is not a free ride to do anything you want, unless you are married.  Then the subject comes back to the philosophy more relative to the base concept of dating – is what you are doing for your own pleasure, or the pleasure of your partner?  This homosexual worker I referenced made a statement one time along this line – he said that only a man could provide him pleasure, as only a man knew what felt good.  I mulled on that statement and realized that one interpretation was that he wanted someone who could give him pleasure.  Stated another way, “I want someone who understands better how to make me feel good.”  Note the subject of the sentence.  Note the object of the sentence.  It is a self-seeking statement, not a giving one.  It is a self-focused concept, not an other focused one.

Before marriage, this time, I went through a book used by spouseinbox in Sunday School.  It described the former style of courting where the man would come to the woman’s house and seek time with her after going through her father, etc.  It then contrasted dating where the individual would spend time with different individuals looking for their “match”.  The step back observation of these is that in the courting, the man had to come to the family and provide for her.  He was to show what he was bringing to the future family.  In the dating format, there is a self-centered approach which says, “how do you make me feel?”  Where each is trying to validate themselves from the other.  The book further went on to describe how dating was training the individual towards divorce in that time was spent getting close to an individual before breaking up and beginning the process again.

The book was called Choosing God’s Best.  I would recommend this to anyone considering looking for a mate.  To give you a small photograph of how it worked for us, I had kidinbox at the time.  I also was living in meager circumstance.  We never really made a move to “date,” but rather started spending time together where spouseinbox would come over for supper that I would cook and spend the evening with myself and kidinbox.  I had made up my mind that kidinbox was not an option and that whoever would come into my life would have to deal with this child.  I also had limited resources, and home cooked was all I could afford as well, so it worked in two ways.  I got to see how spouseinbox interacted with kidinbox and liked what I saw.  Spouseinbox could give kidinbox a “look” and the meaning was transmitted and accepted.  Further, spouseinbox backed up my decisions concerning kidinbox and we became a pair in those interactions.  As for the parents, I decided to go and meet the parents and discover what family interactions were there.  Remember that all of the behavior you see in your mate was started in a family.  They may have altered here and there, but the base set of interactions were learned in a family and it is wise to seek that family to find out what potential life is lurking should you decide to take this individual.

In our case, I found a loving couple who liked high school football and working in their local church.  Granted, I got a sideways glance (as I found out later that spouseinbox had not said anything about me as we really were not officially “dating”) as I walked into the business to say “hi”.  They were polite and really curious why a stranger walked into the store.  Thinking back, I would be too, especially without a hint of warning.  Well, we are now married, and very happily so for several years.  I am going to stop writing for the moment and get back to practicing music.

In the e-mail I received the following:

This is describing abortion, but it could be stated about any other activity on the Left’s agenda.

“It’s another example of the escalation that is part of the leftist activist agenda. At first, it is claimed to be enough that something become legal. Next, it is demanded that it never be met with disapproval or criticism. The next step is the requirement that everyone celebrate it.”

[From the comments]
Which is why I keep asserting that, in any socialistic system, eventually all thought, speech and behavior must be categorized as either forbidden or mandatory. Isn’t that at base, what political correctness amounts to? It must be so because socialism’s very survival is dependent upon it. All forms of rejection of reality, must eventually be imposed.

I have been slowly reading through “Breakthrough” by James O’Keefe.  On page 272 he has the following statement: “I began to understand that almost nothing scares the government-media complex more than the threat of an honest election.”  This is the same media wanting to have us believe that a picture of a cross in urine is acceptable art to be supported by tax money, but the name of a football team is offensive.  This is the crew telling us that the last years of Bush were the worst economy in the last 30 years and now that everything is circling the drain, we have been in how many summers of recovery?  When the biggest threat to the media, government, or school is truth, it’s time to get your information elsewhere.  To be honest, I wanted to stop with that last sentence, but to circle back to the e-mail, do you remember in Orwell’s book “1984” the name of the torture center established to brainwash those who didn’t follow the party line?  I feel it safe to assume the opposite, or apply to the speaker the characteristics that the left throws around as well as consider the opposite of the names they apply to certain agencies.  As example, how secure has the National Security Agency made us?  What is the skin color of the real racists in a Sharpton rally?  One can easily dogpile on these.

I was looking for the musical term to describe a song where one line was started by the lead singer and repeated by the backup or congregation.  The initial term coming to mind was counterpoint, but once I found this glossary of terms, discovered that was incorrect as the counterpoint was where two different melodies played over each other.  So, I didn’t find the term desired, but did find a good glossary. Some of the terms were well known, some I had tickle my ears at some point, and a few were in the category of, “well, that’s interesting.”


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 103 other followers