culture


I read this article and had to note how well the author analyzed the subject at hand.  I had a moment discussion with an individual at church on Sunday.  This individual works on political campaigns and was in one himself and spoke at the service.  One subject mentioned was freedom.  I told him afterwards that to me, there has to be responsibility.  The two are linked, and once one reduces responsibility, freedom is lost as well.  Freedom without responsibility is license.

There is the concept of political correctness against which I have written on several occasions.  At the base of this is the desire by the elites to remove language from the lexicon in such a way that concepts are unable to be spoken.  Once the words have been removed, the concept is effectively removed as well as there is no decent way to describe it any more.  For any who doubt such an idea in real life, I present the following:

What We Should Learn from the Lack of Maintenance in Africa & the Rest of the Perennial Third World

Look about half way down the article to see this in application.

Happy Father’s Day to those practitioners of this much maligned and devalued profession.  There was a joke a couple of decades ago.  It went something like this: On Mother’s Day, the kids call the mom, give flowers cards, take her out to eat and express appreciation.  Father’s Day is a Graham Rudman Mother’s day.  Does anyone remember Graham Rudman?  We can see how well that one turned out.  Back to the subject.  There are two points which need to be made especially for today.  1.) men are required as the backbone of civilization, 2.) it takes a man to make a boy into a man.  I can hear some screams of disgust at my choice of the two topics, but for anyone who wishes to continue, I do have some relevant thoughts.  There is only one maternally oriented society of which I have knowledge – Iroquois.  (I looked up the subject and found that link listing some others)  The foundation of the society is the family and the backbone of the family is the dad.  That’s not to say that mothers have a lesser role, or no authority.  I’m just acknowledging the natural flow of authority and note that Biblically speaking, that is correct.  God will ask the man about his family.  The man was given authority, therefore the man is responsible.  Let me demonstrate this using this country’s inverse of the situation.  Welfare was promoted with Lyin’ B Johnson saying that he would have those N*&^& voting for the democrats for the next 200 years.  What has happened to the black families when it was profitable for the females to remove the fathers from the house?  Next, how has the black population fared behavior-wise and prison population-wise when the man is not available to turn the boy into a man?  Look at the prison population and ask the question – how many of you had an active father?  You know the answer.  I have stated previously and will enter it again at this point – the removal of the father from the family is placing government as the dad.  One lady to whom I made that pronouncement scoffed at the idea and I followed with the question – who do you call when the child is unmanageable?

As for the second point, I was suggested a book a few years ago – Iron John – which was an interesting read.  The subject was turning boys into men as a sociological study where the author observed rituals and passages through various cultures to find a common theme among them.  After all, if something occurs in different contexts and a multitude of cultures, it must be fundamental.  Once you remove the window dressing, there were two salient points.  One, the boy became a man with the direction and tutelage of men.  Two, it was a painful process.  From the book there are a couple of illustrations.  In one tribe, the boys were sent off on their own for three days to forage and be alone – to become hungry and desirous of companionship.  At the end of three days, all the men would be gathered around a fire and would cut themselves and bleed into a cup which was given to the boy to drink.  From that point on, the boy was under training from the men.  As a baby, the boy was receiving milk from the female.  Once grown, the boy would then become a man and would receive blood from the men.  There were other variations of that same theme.  As for pain, some would inflict it as part of the ceremony – as in knocking out a tooth which was done in another tribe.  But no matter what population group, those two points were noted.

Going back to the first illustration, you can see where I’m going with this.  The government, by removing men from the home, has created the situation where boys aren’t provided the training they need to become real men.  The population is skewed accordingly by that deficit.  Therefore, for those men who have stuck with your families and taken the cultural and media darts to provide your leadership and proper training, my hat’s off to you.  Those children coming behind us need your role model and care.  Kids are benefited by your presence, love, and touch.  I benefited from a father who had a rough childhood, survived war, and still offered his loving touch and direction to the family.  Thanks dad.  All you did was appreciated – and even more so now that I’m older.

I have seen the article and discussed at work a trial which has begun.  The charge is manslaughter.  I think, along the lines Rush used with killing a baby, she just participated in medical care in the wrong state.  After all, there is no issue with assisted suicide in Oregon.  One may protest that there was no physical issue, but note the comments about pain.  There was a real issue there, and it was demonstrated by the actions of the individual.  Let’s look just a little deeper at this.

What is the value of an individual?  If you are a person who hasn’t breathed yet, you have less than value.  The government will subsidize your death and removal.  If you are a newborn, and your teenage mother kills you in a toilet, there is a 2 year sentence for that death.  The numbers change and flux from that point until the end.  Sometimes according to the age, sometimes according to the person’s actions, sometimes according o the associations the person has.  There is no consistency with the actions.  Look a bit historically and there was Hitler.  He decided the Jews were the pox of earth and needed to be removed.  How was that done?  I know you immediately think of the logistics of the trains, ovens, and death camps.  Stalin made Hitler look like a boy scout with his murder of tens of millions.  How was that done? Think back a little and realize that these individuals had to be labeled something, or designated something to philosophically allow those actions to continue.

The Origin Of Species was an interesting book.  Darwin took time examining various species through a trip and posited the notion that one changed into another through a long period of time.  I will note that through my observations and training, he was partially correct, so let me address this at the onset.  Evolution is the adaptation of a species to a changing environment.  Without such change, very few species would exist on this ever changing planet.  That’s all there is.  It’s simple and effective.  Those with better adaptation can have offspring and continue.  Those with characteristics which could not adapt, die.  What did the evolution of species say about people?  It permitted the movement of value from the church to the classroom.  Prior to Darwin, a person was considered in the image of God, blessed by His Creator, and acknowledged by the One who formed him in his mother’s womb.  Compare that to the designation after Darwin – a well developed ape.  Philosophically speaking, this was the background of removing the Jews.  They were no longer people formed in the image of God.  They were just well developed apes which could be herded and slaughtered like cattle.

Once one is removed from the spiritual, arguments vary according to how one’s value is applied.  In a philosophy class, the basis for laws was the population and what was best for interaction.  Note that there was no relative value, just ascribed value by one’s station in the society.  I guess arguments could go on ad infinitum, because once one removes God’s designation, the result is less than ideal.

Now we enter the trial.  At issue is someone who encouraged another to remove themselves from the population.  At the base, behind the trial, is the show of the philosophy.  What is a person’s value?  Is a person designated by God as one of value, or just a well advanced ape who can be treated like cattle according to the whim of the current culture?

Philosophically speaking is described with names and locations.  It’s so sad to have to agree with what is presented.  The names and descriptions tell quite well the destruction of this society some of which I have observed through my life-time.  It seems to me that there needs to be another approach – return to the original constitution and culture.  That piece seems to be missing, however.

Building a house the old fashioned way.

I wish I could argue that this guy is wrong.

This is one for the strong stomachs and a bit of fuel to spur anger towards the congress critters who keep removing our money and giving to this monster.

I wish the bulk of the judiciary behaved in this fashion.  We should have more advocates for criminals silenced when they behave stupidly.  For those who want to argue that he was a defense attorney and the criminal needed defense, let me ask the following – wasn’t the trial the location where the truth was to be presented and justice administered accordingly?  It never was to be a location for the most practiced lawyers to have felons escape justice.  That desire for truth is now missing.

There are lies, d*!^ lies, and statistics.  That stated, looking at numbers can be enlightening.  I found the link interesting though, but because of the first statement, don’t try to put too much into that hat.  Just saying.

This evening, spouseinbox had a great presentation.  A marinade was noted into which some pork chops were placed.  They stayed there for a couple of hours.  Next, some carrots were treated with oil, salt, pepper, and garlic and placed in the oven for about 20 minutes.  The end result can be repeated again.  We put the pork chops on the grill for 10 minutes each side while the carrots were in the oven.  I’m thinking maybe try 8 minutes next time and the carrots were a bit crunchy, so could have baked a bit longer.  Since I don’t mind raw carrots, the crunch was fine.  The flavors were well utilized and the supper appreciated.

Next Page »