For the first time in years, I actually watched some of the Motion Picture Academy Award program the other night. My wife was watching it, so I obliged to sit with her for a little while before retreating to the rest of the Sunday newspaper.
That didn’t take very long, unfortunately.
As soon as actress Melissa Leo dropped the f-bomb on live broadcast television, I decided that I had had enough. Ms. Leo reminded me just exactly why I stopped watching and caring about the Oscar Awards so many years ago.
Foremost, I don’t like the cultural elitism or the stench of hypocrisy that are so much a part of Hollywood, America’s cesspool of degenerate counterculture. Why Americans tend to put gold rings in the snouts of swine and place them up on pedestals to be worshipped is beyond me. But we do this routinely with movie stars and entertainment celebrities.
No doubt Ms. Leo has a loyal fan base. Her every word, her every action is watched, listened to and scrutinized. She can and does have a profound impact on impressionable youths and young people who perhaps idolize her or will put her up on a pedestal now that she has an Oscar.
What sort of lesson is she providing a youth or a young person when she blurts out offensive language on national television for millions of viewers to hear?
Perhaps the lesson is, don’t give a s--- about what may offend someone else. Just say or do whatever you feel like saying or doing; regardless of how it affects others around you.
Great lesson, Ms. Leo.
You ought to be profoundly thankful that ABC TV caught your guffaw before it could be clearly and unmistakably heard; although I imagine that viewers who read lips had little doubt about what you said.
It is nice that Ms. Leo apologized afterward for her foul-mouthed gaffe. However, what she said and how she said it is so indicative to me of the degeneracy that permeates the media and entertainment industries. She spoke the profanity so casually as if it was just natural for her to say.
Yet, she had this to say afterward: “There’s a great deal of the English language that is in my vernacular. I really don’t mean to offend, and probably a very inappropriate place to use that particular word.”
Ms. Leo has a shaky grasp of the obvious.
Prime-time, national broadcast television an inappropriate place? You think?
An event where the pinnacle of achievement in the motion picture industry is recognized an inappropriate place? Double think.
Oscar night is like the Super Bowl for Hollywood. It is the big stage, the big show, the big dance. Ms. Leo’s profanity slip is the equivalent of Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction several years ago during a Super Bowl halftime show.
Sure, it was a mistake, but the choreography with Justin Timberlake was not. He did not unintentionally grasp Jackson’s chest as he had awkwardly claimed afterward. Footage of the incident shows quite clearly that the grab was an intentional part of the act. The only thing that went wrong was that Jackson’s breast wasn’t actually supposed to be exposed.
Otherwise, the show was a highly sexual performance from the lyrics to the choreography, and completely inappropriate even without the wardrobe malfunction. The performance of both entertainers was rather indicative of the degenerate entertainment culture of which they are both products.
Likewise, Ms. Leo’s profane gaffe may have been a mistake, but it is also indicative of the degenerate counterculture from which she has risen to stardom and in which she is so deeply entrenched.
The fact that she has a much broader repertoire of vernacular than the f-bomb, but she let it slip out so casually tells me that there were few words that she would have rather used at that time and at that moment. She just didn’t care who would hear it or how it might offend others. She evidently lacks the self-control incumbent upon a professional to exhibit and exercise in public; if not for herself to save face, then for the sake of saving face for her colleagues and her profession. She has a duty to represent herself to her fans with a certain amount of dignity that is respectful of them. She has a duty to represent her profession with a certain amount of dignity that reflects well on her colleagues and on her trade.
I am just sick and tired of hearing celebrities step up on their soap boxes and preach about how we all ought to live, what we ought to say, or how we ought to be tolerant and embrace the differences among us when their lives are often contrary to those things for which they advocate. Whether it’s going green for the sake of saving the environment, or being tolerant and accepting, or not offending others, entertainment celebrities have an uncanny propensity for not practicing what they preach.
I wonder just how much “diversity” exists in Beverly Hills or Malibu, where so many of the pretty people live in sheltered affluence conveniently away from the harsh realities that the rest of us have to live in. Is there much income disparity between celebrity neighbors? How many of them have been foreclosed on? How many homeless or low income people do they come in contact with each and every day between leaving their beachfront houses or private estates for the club, health spa, studios and ritzy restaurants? How much social ambiguity are they exposed to in their daily lives? How the heck can they rightfully preach tolerance, acceptance and understanding when their very lives are so mundanely uniformed, structured and scheduled?
They don’t have to worry about paying bills or taxes. They hire people to manage their finances for them. They don’t have to worry about child-rearing. They hire people to do that for them, too. They don’t have to worry about running a household. They hire more people to do that for them. They take everyday expenses for granted, because they don’t generally have to worry about staying on a household budget.
The very least that Ms. Leo or any other star or starlet can do to be respectful of the rest of us who will never experience the kind of luxurious lifestyle they are privileged to live is to use a little decorum around us and our children. Appropriate speech is not that hard to master. It really is a matter of having presence of mind and cognizance of one’s surroundings.
As a father of three, the very last thing I should have to worry about is what somebody says on primetime broadcast television. With everything else that I must attend to in my daily life, it is an added burden to me that I must explain to my children that saying the “f” word isn’t appropriate even if celebrities use it so casually all of the time.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Hollywood cesspool no place for role models
For decades, the culture of Hollywood has always been of somewhat questionable quality and character, going back even as far as its “Golden Age” of motion picture making in the nineteen thirties and forties.
To preface my narrative, I use the term “Hollywood” loosely to represent the entertainment industry and its popular culture in general: From motion picture film to television to music.
This said, something that has bothered me for years is why the American public insists on idolizing Hollywood in spite of its insipid popular culture and degenerate subcultures.
No matter how many times a celebrity like actor Charlie Sheen unapologetically spits in the face of all that is decent and right with mainstream America and her establishment of traditional values, Hollywood remains fixed on a pedestal of glamour to which many Americans still aspire.
No matter how low the public’s perception of entertainers may reach with every incident of misconduct, Americans are forgiving to a fault just because these cultural degenerates are glamorous, glorious, rich and famous “pretty people.” They are awarded the special treatment simply by virtue of who they are; not what they are.
No matter how debased the personal lives of celebrities become and permeate through their professional and public lives, Americans still idolize and want to be like them.
Americans seem all too willing to tolerate what amounts to a hall pass or a slap on the wrist when a celebrity breaks the law or commits a crime. They are rarely sentenced to the maximum penalty, simply because they are “pretty people” and we don’t want to tarnish the convoluted, ideal image of them that we have somehow deluded ourselves into creating in our minds. As such, these people walk where the average Joe Six Pack or Jane Q. Public would, in all likelihood, get the book thrown at them.
Consider actress Lindsay Lohan for example. How many times has she violated her terms of probation? How many times has she spit on mandates of the justice system by routinely violating court orders?
A bench warrant was sworn out for her arrest in May 2010 after she failed to appear for a review hearing following multiple DUI arrests. However, Lohan’s personal representatives posted her bail, so the judge rescinded the warrant. Money talks, in other words.
Furthermore, she was sentenced in July 2010 to 90 days in jail for her offenses, but she only ended up serving just 14 days due to “overcrowding” issues with non-violent offenders. Uh-huh. Sure. More than likely, Lohan was the recipient of the same special treatment that Paris Hilton received in 2007 after her arrest for a reckless driving DUI. Hilton was sentenced to 45 days in jail, but she only served half of that before being released.
Last year, Hilton was arrested in Las Vegas for felony possession of cocaine. But, she accepted a plea deal from the district attorney’s office and avoided any jail time.
Back to Lohan, her latest misconduct involves a charge of felony grand theft. She is accused of stealing a $2,500 necklace from a jewelry store. She apparently has been offered a plea deal to avoid being sentenced to prison.
Despite her multiple probation violations, and the court’s revocation of her probation, Lohan has managed to avoid any serious consequences by posting bail.
What all of this tells me is that the money of a filthy rich celebrity routinely tips the scales of justice.
Sheen is no exception to this notion, either.
Despite being convicted of assault on his girlfriend in 1996, he walked with a probation sentence. He violated his probation for cocaine related charges in 1998.
On Christmas Day 2009 Sheen was arrested on another domestic violence charge; this time for assaulting his wife, holding a knife to her throat and threatening to kill her. He accepted a plea deal eight months later that dropped the more serious felony charges and he pled guilty to misdemeanor assault instead. His sentence: 30 days in rehab and 30 days probation.
In October 2010, Sheen was arrested for destruction of property to his room at New York’s Plaza Hotel following a drinking and drug binge.
And Charlie Sheen has the nerve to say to America that he is a “rock star from Mars” who deserves to be appreciated, and that he is worth a $3 million raise per television episode? I beg to differ.
Sheen, Hilton, Lohan et al all have one thing in common: They are spoiled, screwed up degenerates who have repeatedly violated the public trust. And yet, we continue to worship and admire them after they have all but spat in our faces. Our justice system remains tilted in their favor by virtue of their celebrity and their money.
When will Americans wake up from dreamland and realize that little good is produced in Hollywood except a cheap thrill? If we want people to look up to, perhaps we ought to start looking locally in our own communities for heroes and heroines who routinely give of themselves and not for themselves. Sure, many of these folks aren’t the “pretty people” we see on television or the big screen; but real beauty runs much deeper than the skin.
Real heroes and heroines aren’t glamorous. They aren’t materially wealthy. They don’t flash us million-dollar smiles and show off a million bucks worth of pearls. They don’t give us interviews, soundbites, or other kinds of titillating stimulation. Rather, they are real people with real lives doing real things that make a real, positive difference in the small part of the world that they live.
But average people aren’t the ones who get the deserved attention; the pretty people of Hollywood are.
And for what? Just for looking pretty?
If human beings were eggs, most of the Hollywood pretty people would look perfect on the outside, but be rotten to the core. Heroes ought to be determined by what is on the inside. If the American public looked more often at what lurks beneath the flawless skin and bodies of many celebrities, there might be a different and more accurate perception of entertainers rather than the false and flattering images that are usually conjured up.
We fought a revolution more than two centuries ago against royalty, nobility and a privileged birthright. But since then, America has been intent on establishing a new culture of royalty and nobility: That of the celebrity.
Celebrities receive special treatment and attention that the average American does not enjoy simply by virtue of who and what they are. They are pop stars—singers, entertainers, movie and television actors/actresses, media personalities, professional athletes and so on—and because of what they are, America awards them a certain amount of undue and unearned respect not for what they’ve done, but rather for their celebrity and for who they are.
I am sickened to think the American nation that the founding generation struggled so hard and sacrificed so much to establish—one based on individual merit, rather than birthright—is being replaced by a social and political oligarchy.
I fear society has resorted to placing greater value on the powerful and influential few, rather than on the hardworking majority that is sweating and bleeding to preserve communities and/or to make them better places in which to live.
If we as Americans are willing to tolerate the degeneracy of their celebrity social order—and continue giving them the royal treatment in spite of their disdain for us—then we don’t deserve a country that places greater value on deed than position.
The love affair with celebrity must end before America’s beau ditches her in the gutter.
To preface my narrative, I use the term “Hollywood” loosely to represent the entertainment industry and its popular culture in general: From motion picture film to television to music.
This said, something that has bothered me for years is why the American public insists on idolizing Hollywood in spite of its insipid popular culture and degenerate subcultures.
No matter how many times a celebrity like actor Charlie Sheen unapologetically spits in the face of all that is decent and right with mainstream America and her establishment of traditional values, Hollywood remains fixed on a pedestal of glamour to which many Americans still aspire.
No matter how low the public’s perception of entertainers may reach with every incident of misconduct, Americans are forgiving to a fault just because these cultural degenerates are glamorous, glorious, rich and famous “pretty people.” They are awarded the special treatment simply by virtue of who they are; not what they are.
No matter how debased the personal lives of celebrities become and permeate through their professional and public lives, Americans still idolize and want to be like them.
Americans seem all too willing to tolerate what amounts to a hall pass or a slap on the wrist when a celebrity breaks the law or commits a crime. They are rarely sentenced to the maximum penalty, simply because they are “pretty people” and we don’t want to tarnish the convoluted, ideal image of them that we have somehow deluded ourselves into creating in our minds. As such, these people walk where the average Joe Six Pack or Jane Q. Public would, in all likelihood, get the book thrown at them.
Consider actress Lindsay Lohan for example. How many times has she violated her terms of probation? How many times has she spit on mandates of the justice system by routinely violating court orders?
A bench warrant was sworn out for her arrest in May 2010 after she failed to appear for a review hearing following multiple DUI arrests. However, Lohan’s personal representatives posted her bail, so the judge rescinded the warrant. Money talks, in other words.
Furthermore, she was sentenced in July 2010 to 90 days in jail for her offenses, but she only ended up serving just 14 days due to “overcrowding” issues with non-violent offenders. Uh-huh. Sure. More than likely, Lohan was the recipient of the same special treatment that Paris Hilton received in 2007 after her arrest for a reckless driving DUI. Hilton was sentenced to 45 days in jail, but she only served half of that before being released.
Last year, Hilton was arrested in Las Vegas for felony possession of cocaine. But, she accepted a plea deal from the district attorney’s office and avoided any jail time.
Back to Lohan, her latest misconduct involves a charge of felony grand theft. She is accused of stealing a $2,500 necklace from a jewelry store. She apparently has been offered a plea deal to avoid being sentenced to prison.
Despite her multiple probation violations, and the court’s revocation of her probation, Lohan has managed to avoid any serious consequences by posting bail.
What all of this tells me is that the money of a filthy rich celebrity routinely tips the scales of justice.
Sheen is no exception to this notion, either.
Despite being convicted of assault on his girlfriend in 1996, he walked with a probation sentence. He violated his probation for cocaine related charges in 1998.
On Christmas Day 2009 Sheen was arrested on another domestic violence charge; this time for assaulting his wife, holding a knife to her throat and threatening to kill her. He accepted a plea deal eight months later that dropped the more serious felony charges and he pled guilty to misdemeanor assault instead. His sentence: 30 days in rehab and 30 days probation.
In October 2010, Sheen was arrested for destruction of property to his room at New York’s Plaza Hotel following a drinking and drug binge.
And Charlie Sheen has the nerve to say to America that he is a “rock star from Mars” who deserves to be appreciated, and that he is worth a $3 million raise per television episode? I beg to differ.
Sheen, Hilton, Lohan et al all have one thing in common: They are spoiled, screwed up degenerates who have repeatedly violated the public trust. And yet, we continue to worship and admire them after they have all but spat in our faces. Our justice system remains tilted in their favor by virtue of their celebrity and their money.
When will Americans wake up from dreamland and realize that little good is produced in Hollywood except a cheap thrill? If we want people to look up to, perhaps we ought to start looking locally in our own communities for heroes and heroines who routinely give of themselves and not for themselves. Sure, many of these folks aren’t the “pretty people” we see on television or the big screen; but real beauty runs much deeper than the skin.
Real heroes and heroines aren’t glamorous. They aren’t materially wealthy. They don’t flash us million-dollar smiles and show off a million bucks worth of pearls. They don’t give us interviews, soundbites, or other kinds of titillating stimulation. Rather, they are real people with real lives doing real things that make a real, positive difference in the small part of the world that they live.
But average people aren’t the ones who get the deserved attention; the pretty people of Hollywood are.
And for what? Just for looking pretty?
If human beings were eggs, most of the Hollywood pretty people would look perfect on the outside, but be rotten to the core. Heroes ought to be determined by what is on the inside. If the American public looked more often at what lurks beneath the flawless skin and bodies of many celebrities, there might be a different and more accurate perception of entertainers rather than the false and flattering images that are usually conjured up.
We fought a revolution more than two centuries ago against royalty, nobility and a privileged birthright. But since then, America has been intent on establishing a new culture of royalty and nobility: That of the celebrity.
Celebrities receive special treatment and attention that the average American does not enjoy simply by virtue of who and what they are. They are pop stars—singers, entertainers, movie and television actors/actresses, media personalities, professional athletes and so on—and because of what they are, America awards them a certain amount of undue and unearned respect not for what they’ve done, but rather for their celebrity and for who they are.
I am sickened to think the American nation that the founding generation struggled so hard and sacrificed so much to establish—one based on individual merit, rather than birthright—is being replaced by a social and political oligarchy.
I fear society has resorted to placing greater value on the powerful and influential few, rather than on the hardworking majority that is sweating and bleeding to preserve communities and/or to make them better places in which to live.
If we as Americans are willing to tolerate the degeneracy of their celebrity social order—and continue giving them the royal treatment in spite of their disdain for us—then we don’t deserve a country that places greater value on deed than position.
The love affair with celebrity must end before America’s beau ditches her in the gutter.
The slippery slope of degeneracy
Whenever a television or film producer decides to push the envelope of public decency further, what I commonly hear from them is that there is market demand for racy material, and that they are only producing what the public wants. Pornography producers routinely say the same thing about the smut that they are pushing. They are only responding to what the market demands.
Bologne.
What these entertainment degenerates know is how debase and carnal human nature is. They know and understand how to appeal to that nature, so that when the average person sees it, he will naturally, impulsively want to see more. What this phenomenon creates, then, is a demand to see more out of initial exposure and its shock value.
So, degenerate producers are right that there is a demand. But what they don’t say is that they are influencing this demand by putting the material out there and waiting for the anticipated human response to it.
Make no mistake: Producers of visual and audio entertainment know well the profound effects of psychology on the average viewer or listener. The material they produce is deliberate, because they know that shock value works in their favor.
Twenty years ago, it was unheard of for television to utter most profane words on prime time broadcasts. There were “bedroom scenes,” but these showed the actors and actresses under the sheets afterward; not during. Today, showing a “sex scene” in prime time is not uncommon. Such scenes show copious amounts of skin, but they fall just short of pornography, because no genitals are exposed or shown. There are sound effects, movements, motions and positioning that are not merely racy or sexually suggestive anymore, but outright explicit.
Even sexual innuendos and humor, which have existed a lot longer than near-nudity has on television, have degenerated to a point where the script might as well belong in a porno movie than on primetime, broadcast TV.
Consider the hit television show “Two and a Half Men” as an example. The prevailing theme for this program is sex. It is centered not around the two brothers and their nephew, but rather the brothers’ adult escapades.
This is probably an exaggeration on my part, but it seems like every other scene in an episode of this show is either sexual, sexually suggestive or contains an explicit innuendo.
The program glorifies casual sex, including extramarital sex. Clearly, the show appeals to carnal nature. There is little to no intellectual value contained in the script. It has thrived on shock value, the very technique discussed earlier that has succeeded in pushing the envelope on decency a little further, and lowering the bar on moral standards. People like the show for its shock value, its racy material, and its edginess in relation to the envelope. Why? Because it appeals to their innate carnal natures, and they tend to want to feed that nature once it has been teased.
Other broadcast television shows similar with high sexual content include “How I Met Your Mother,” “Desperate Housewives,” and “Cougar Town.” All of them focus on sex, because of its power and the effectiveness of its shock value.
It is no wonder that these shows are highly rated.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not blaming the entertainment industry entirely for cultural degeneracy. The public is equally to blame for consuming the material. However, the producers of debased programming are purposely, intentionally and willingly feeding the fire that they helped to start in the first place.
Moral degeneracy is invasive. It starts on the outside and infiltrates to the inside, where it then spreads, metastasizes and becomes pervasive until it permeates the very foundation of a culture, a value and, especially a person’s character.
In order for there to be a plant, there must first be a seed. The debased culture of Hollywood—used loosely to represent the entertainment industry as a whole—has been a seed for planting degeneracy in the popular culture, which, in turn, dictates and drives market demand.
The entertainment industry is thus producing what it ultimately wants to produce, because it has created that demand through the psychological seed of degeneracy.
Don’t let the Hollywood degenerates fool you into thinking that they are merely responding innocently to popular demand.
Balderdash.
They are eager, more than willing to produce debased material, and what they will never tell you is that it has been their desire to do so all along.
Bologne.
What these entertainment degenerates know is how debase and carnal human nature is. They know and understand how to appeal to that nature, so that when the average person sees it, he will naturally, impulsively want to see more. What this phenomenon creates, then, is a demand to see more out of initial exposure and its shock value.
So, degenerate producers are right that there is a demand. But what they don’t say is that they are influencing this demand by putting the material out there and waiting for the anticipated human response to it.
Make no mistake: Producers of visual and audio entertainment know well the profound effects of psychology on the average viewer or listener. The material they produce is deliberate, because they know that shock value works in their favor.
Twenty years ago, it was unheard of for television to utter most profane words on prime time broadcasts. There were “bedroom scenes,” but these showed the actors and actresses under the sheets afterward; not during. Today, showing a “sex scene” in prime time is not uncommon. Such scenes show copious amounts of skin, but they fall just short of pornography, because no genitals are exposed or shown. There are sound effects, movements, motions and positioning that are not merely racy or sexually suggestive anymore, but outright explicit.
Even sexual innuendos and humor, which have existed a lot longer than near-nudity has on television, have degenerated to a point where the script might as well belong in a porno movie than on primetime, broadcast TV.
Consider the hit television show “Two and a Half Men” as an example. The prevailing theme for this program is sex. It is centered not around the two brothers and their nephew, but rather the brothers’ adult escapades.
This is probably an exaggeration on my part, but it seems like every other scene in an episode of this show is either sexual, sexually suggestive or contains an explicit innuendo.
The program glorifies casual sex, including extramarital sex. Clearly, the show appeals to carnal nature. There is little to no intellectual value contained in the script. It has thrived on shock value, the very technique discussed earlier that has succeeded in pushing the envelope on decency a little further, and lowering the bar on moral standards. People like the show for its shock value, its racy material, and its edginess in relation to the envelope. Why? Because it appeals to their innate carnal natures, and they tend to want to feed that nature once it has been teased.
Other broadcast television shows similar with high sexual content include “How I Met Your Mother,” “Desperate Housewives,” and “Cougar Town.” All of them focus on sex, because of its power and the effectiveness of its shock value.
It is no wonder that these shows are highly rated.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not blaming the entertainment industry entirely for cultural degeneracy. The public is equally to blame for consuming the material. However, the producers of debased programming are purposely, intentionally and willingly feeding the fire that they helped to start in the first place.
Moral degeneracy is invasive. It starts on the outside and infiltrates to the inside, where it then spreads, metastasizes and becomes pervasive until it permeates the very foundation of a culture, a value and, especially a person’s character.
In order for there to be a plant, there must first be a seed. The debased culture of Hollywood—used loosely to represent the entertainment industry as a whole—has been a seed for planting degeneracy in the popular culture, which, in turn, dictates and drives market demand.
The entertainment industry is thus producing what it ultimately wants to produce, because it has created that demand through the psychological seed of degeneracy.
Don’t let the Hollywood degenerates fool you into thinking that they are merely responding innocently to popular demand.
Balderdash.
They are eager, more than willing to produce debased material, and what they will never tell you is that it has been their desire to do so all along.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Too much estrogen
Once upon a time, women’s rights groups cried foul about cultural and institutional sexism. In other words, society had too much testosterone and not enough estrogen for balance. True enough.
However, one truth I’ve learned about politics is that it tends to swing on a perpetual pendulum. Instead of simply trying to stop the pendulum from swinging, we just change its direction so that it swings the other way.
This has been as true in gender politics as it has with any other form of inequality. We just don’t seem to be able to find that balance. Our solution to inequality repeatedly seems to be reverse inequality.
Consequently, we no longer live in a man’s world. Popular culture, along with the current sociopolitical climate, increasingly awards the power to women.
One of the alphabet networks recently aired a nightly news story about the growing trend of single women choosing motherhood. The underlying message being sent to all of us men, of course, is that we aren’t necessary anymore. Women don’t need or even want us to be part of a family unit. They can do it all themselves without our help or our influence.
While the story did stress the importance of “male influences”—neighbors, teachers, coaches and relatives—the role of a full-time father figure was notably absent.
One message I received from the story is that a man is needed only as a sperm donor, a checkbook (child support and/or alimony) and an occasional “influence,” but not as a parent. Fatherhood is reduced to a specimen in a Petrie dish.
Needless to say, as a man, I found the story disturbing.
My gender is also the butt of jokes around a female-dominant office in which I work. A few of my co-workers take jabs at the male gender by disparagingly referring to us as the “Y Chromosome.”
Fundamentally, this could be considered sexual harassment; but I could never get away with alleging it because I’m a man. Besides, I try to consider the sources of these comments. Every woman in the office who jokes about the “Y Chromosome” has a history of failed relationships; so I figure that the disparaging gender comments are born out of resentment and their own poor choices in life. It isn’t worth making a big stink over, especially since I would have to continue working with these ladies and deal with the interpersonal repercussions of filing a formal complaint.
But that’s really neither here nor there. It isn’t germaine to the issue, so I digress.
The negative messages against men are everywhere these days: At work, around the community, and diffusely in the media, the last of which permeates the very sanctity of a man’s home.
There are no more destructive messages against masculinity than that which exists in the media—be it news, entertainment, popular culture, or advertising.
The next time you guys sit down to watch a football game on television, take note of the number of ads that show men in a disparaging way or in a negative light. Whenever an advertisement includes competing gender roles, the man is overwhelmingly shown as either the weaker of the two, the least intelligent, the most impulsive, and the least civilized. Beer, soda and car commercials are among the worst offenders when it comes to making men look bad, especially in the presence of women.
What these messages do is reinforce some modern idea that women aren’t merely on equal footing with men these days, but are, in fact, superior to them.
Worse yet, a lot of men seem to have bought into the notion that women are superior to them, because that’s what the media tells them on a daily basis; or it’s the message they hear at the office or even at home each and every day.
The idea of female superiority is evident in the language used by some of society’s notable female leaders.
Nancy Lieberman, current coach of a men’s NBA D-League professional developmental basketball team, the Texas Legends, and a former player who broke a gender barrier by playing on a men’s basketball team herself, has been quoted as saying that men are used to having women tell them what to do.
“We’ve told men what to do since the beginning of time,” she has said. “They’re used to getting information from us.”
Lieberman has also been paraphrased as saying that every man in a locker room has taken instruction from a woman since they were a baby: whether it’s from a mom, a wife or a girlfriend. “They need women in every aspect—why not as coach?” she said.
I don’t mean to knock Lieberman specifically for her comments, but what she said is indicative of the notion of gender superiority that exists among a lot of American women today. Political and cultural feminism has done much to push propaganda that men need women, but women don’t need men.
Well, I take exception to this notion. I don’t need my wife; I want her. I don’t need my mother anymore, either, but I want her to remain a part of my life.
I certainly don’t need anybody to tell me what to do or show me how to do things, either. I may want or seek advice from women, but that doesn’t mean I need them to tell or show me what or how to do something. I don’t need direction from either gender, thank you very much. I’m perfectly capable of being directed on my own. I am my own motivator.
Having said that, I concede that women are superior to men in some ways: They are generally better at multi-tasking and parenting than men are. They tend to have a higher pain tolerance than men. They seem better coordinated, which is probably linked to multi-tasking. They tend to possess a natural, innate ability to bond with children, and they are better at nurturing than men are.
Other than that, I fail to see where they are generally superior to men. In fact, I don’t see where either gender has an advantage over the other when it comes to using the gray matter between the ears.
But this isn’t the message that men are hearing these days. They hear the exact opposite. Comments from women like Nancy Lieberman aren’t helping to change this climate, but rather to perpetuate and exacerbate it. Would it not be more constructive and beneficial to tell men that they don’t need women, but they do need to “man up” and take responsibility for themselves and those who depend upon them—their families, most notably? To say that men need women to direct them is akin to saying that women need men to lead them and make decisions for them. We all know how much feminists appreciate male chauvinism, don’t we?
Well, most men don’t appreciate reverse female chauvinism, either.
The whole "battle of the sexes" mantra is old and cliched.
Sure, there are differences between the two. Always have been, and always will be.
But let's stop the antagonism, shall we?
The one-upmanship (or, in this case, one-upwomanship) of the so-called "battle of the sexes" is really a farce that helps no one get over or beyond discrimination and inequality.
Today's culture is overly feminized, overcharged with an overdose of estrogen. The messages being sent to men today rubs their noses in discrimination and inequality. Nothing constructive is said or done to overcome these pitfalls of a free society.
As such, I am growing more skeptical and have become more suspicious that, to militant feminists who control the national women's rights agenda, the cause isn't really about equality at all, but rather revenge.
Retribution is perhaps the strongest, most pungent motivator for people who feel slighted, cheated, used and patronized. Unfortunately, the pendulum of equality suffers most, because it can never achieve true balance in the center when those forces changing its course are intent on using it as a weapon instead of a tool for justice.
Consequently, I can only expect our society and our culture to navigate in a circle of perpetual inequality that masquerades, ironically, as equality.
The burning question remaining in my mind: Will men just lay down and let all of the estrogen suffocate them? Or, will we put our feet down and start demanding some balance? Can there be room left for comparative levels of testosterone?
I'm afraid only you ladies can answer that question.
However, one truth I’ve learned about politics is that it tends to swing on a perpetual pendulum. Instead of simply trying to stop the pendulum from swinging, we just change its direction so that it swings the other way.
This has been as true in gender politics as it has with any other form of inequality. We just don’t seem to be able to find that balance. Our solution to inequality repeatedly seems to be reverse inequality.
Consequently, we no longer live in a man’s world. Popular culture, along with the current sociopolitical climate, increasingly awards the power to women.
One of the alphabet networks recently aired a nightly news story about the growing trend of single women choosing motherhood. The underlying message being sent to all of us men, of course, is that we aren’t necessary anymore. Women don’t need or even want us to be part of a family unit. They can do it all themselves without our help or our influence.
While the story did stress the importance of “male influences”—neighbors, teachers, coaches and relatives—the role of a full-time father figure was notably absent.
One message I received from the story is that a man is needed only as a sperm donor, a checkbook (child support and/or alimony) and an occasional “influence,” but not as a parent. Fatherhood is reduced to a specimen in a Petrie dish.
Needless to say, as a man, I found the story disturbing.
My gender is also the butt of jokes around a female-dominant office in which I work. A few of my co-workers take jabs at the male gender by disparagingly referring to us as the “Y Chromosome.”
Fundamentally, this could be considered sexual harassment; but I could never get away with alleging it because I’m a man. Besides, I try to consider the sources of these comments. Every woman in the office who jokes about the “Y Chromosome” has a history of failed relationships; so I figure that the disparaging gender comments are born out of resentment and their own poor choices in life. It isn’t worth making a big stink over, especially since I would have to continue working with these ladies and deal with the interpersonal repercussions of filing a formal complaint.
But that’s really neither here nor there. It isn’t germaine to the issue, so I digress.
The negative messages against men are everywhere these days: At work, around the community, and diffusely in the media, the last of which permeates the very sanctity of a man’s home.
There are no more destructive messages against masculinity than that which exists in the media—be it news, entertainment, popular culture, or advertising.
The next time you guys sit down to watch a football game on television, take note of the number of ads that show men in a disparaging way or in a negative light. Whenever an advertisement includes competing gender roles, the man is overwhelmingly shown as either the weaker of the two, the least intelligent, the most impulsive, and the least civilized. Beer, soda and car commercials are among the worst offenders when it comes to making men look bad, especially in the presence of women.
What these messages do is reinforce some modern idea that women aren’t merely on equal footing with men these days, but are, in fact, superior to them.
Worse yet, a lot of men seem to have bought into the notion that women are superior to them, because that’s what the media tells them on a daily basis; or it’s the message they hear at the office or even at home each and every day.
The idea of female superiority is evident in the language used by some of society’s notable female leaders.
Nancy Lieberman, current coach of a men’s NBA D-League professional developmental basketball team, the Texas Legends, and a former player who broke a gender barrier by playing on a men’s basketball team herself, has been quoted as saying that men are used to having women tell them what to do.
“We’ve told men what to do since the beginning of time,” she has said. “They’re used to getting information from us.”
Lieberman has also been paraphrased as saying that every man in a locker room has taken instruction from a woman since they were a baby: whether it’s from a mom, a wife or a girlfriend. “They need women in every aspect—why not as coach?” she said.
I don’t mean to knock Lieberman specifically for her comments, but what she said is indicative of the notion of gender superiority that exists among a lot of American women today. Political and cultural feminism has done much to push propaganda that men need women, but women don’t need men.
Well, I take exception to this notion. I don’t need my wife; I want her. I don’t need my mother anymore, either, but I want her to remain a part of my life.
I certainly don’t need anybody to tell me what to do or show me how to do things, either. I may want or seek advice from women, but that doesn’t mean I need them to tell or show me what or how to do something. I don’t need direction from either gender, thank you very much. I’m perfectly capable of being directed on my own. I am my own motivator.
Having said that, I concede that women are superior to men in some ways: They are generally better at multi-tasking and parenting than men are. They tend to have a higher pain tolerance than men. They seem better coordinated, which is probably linked to multi-tasking. They tend to possess a natural, innate ability to bond with children, and they are better at nurturing than men are.
Other than that, I fail to see where they are generally superior to men. In fact, I don’t see where either gender has an advantage over the other when it comes to using the gray matter between the ears.
But this isn’t the message that men are hearing these days. They hear the exact opposite. Comments from women like Nancy Lieberman aren’t helping to change this climate, but rather to perpetuate and exacerbate it. Would it not be more constructive and beneficial to tell men that they don’t need women, but they do need to “man up” and take responsibility for themselves and those who depend upon them—their families, most notably? To say that men need women to direct them is akin to saying that women need men to lead them and make decisions for them. We all know how much feminists appreciate male chauvinism, don’t we?
Well, most men don’t appreciate reverse female chauvinism, either.
The whole "battle of the sexes" mantra is old and cliched.
Sure, there are differences between the two. Always have been, and always will be.
But let's stop the antagonism, shall we?
The one-upmanship (or, in this case, one-upwomanship) of the so-called "battle of the sexes" is really a farce that helps no one get over or beyond discrimination and inequality.
Today's culture is overly feminized, overcharged with an overdose of estrogen. The messages being sent to men today rubs their noses in discrimination and inequality. Nothing constructive is said or done to overcome these pitfalls of a free society.
As such, I am growing more skeptical and have become more suspicious that, to militant feminists who control the national women's rights agenda, the cause isn't really about equality at all, but rather revenge.
Retribution is perhaps the strongest, most pungent motivator for people who feel slighted, cheated, used and patronized. Unfortunately, the pendulum of equality suffers most, because it can never achieve true balance in the center when those forces changing its course are intent on using it as a weapon instead of a tool for justice.
Consequently, I can only expect our society and our culture to navigate in a circle of perpetual inequality that masquerades, ironically, as equality.
The burning question remaining in my mind: Will men just lay down and let all of the estrogen suffocate them? Or, will we put our feet down and start demanding some balance? Can there be room left for comparative levels of testosterone?
I'm afraid only you ladies can answer that question.
Analysis: Cheese versus Steel
Steel is naturally stronger than cheese...except, perhaps, on the gridiron.
Super Bowl XLV will put this theory to the test on February 5, 2011 when the AFC Champion Pittsburgh Steelers square off against the NFC Champion Green Bay Packers.
The Steelers may have their hands full with the Packers, who are poised to give the current "Steel Curtain" D all it can handle.
The Steelers, don't forget, blew a 24-0 lead to the NY Jets last weekend, having given up 19 unanswered points. Poor play calling in the Red Zone at the end of the game doomed the Jets; not the Steelers' D.
Pittsburgh was also in the hole 21-7 at halftime to the Baltimore Ravens two weeks ago before coming back and then holding on to win. The Steelers made some costly, glaring mistakes against the Ravens' defense early in the game. Had it not been for a complete 180 by the team in the second half, it could have turned into a blow-out in favor of Baltimore. Pittsburgh is inconsistent so far in the playoffs. It plays well at times, and at other times it doesn't.
Sure, the same could be said about Green Bay or any other team for that matter. But the Packers right now are gelling together. There's a hunger with this young team that I saw in the 1997 Broncos, 1999 Ravens, the 2000 Rams, 2001 Patriots, the 2002 Buccaneers, the 2005 Steelers, the 2007 Giants, and the 2009 Saints.
I don't get the same sense of hunger from the Steelers, many of whom have been to the Big Show before, and this is just another day at the office for them. Remember the 2007 Patriots, the team that was undefeated going into the SB against the Giants? The game was supposed to be just another day at the office for New England, just another notch in the win column. But that team completely underestimated the NYG-men, dismissing them as the last speed bump in the road to perfection.
Granted, Pittsburgh doesn't appear to be as arrogant as the 2007 Patriots were; but it can easily overlook Green Bay as just another lucky 10-6 No. 6 seed...which Pittsburgh was in 2005 when it won it all. The teams that get hot at the end of the regular season and/or win when it matters most are the most dangerous teams entering the playoffs. Ergo, The Pack.
Having said all of that, Green Bay will certainly have its hands full with the Steelers. On offense, Pitt offers a dual RB threat, as well as lethal weapons on the flank and under center. Pitt has a well-balanced offense quite comparable, if not superior, to Green Bay's O. If the Steelers start eating up chunks of yardage running the football, then they can dominate time of possession and field position, even if the game turns out to be highly defensive with little scoring. Green Bay Linebackers Coach Kevin Greene and his D, led by Matthews and Raji et al, had better bring their A game against Pitt's RBs and Roethlisberger.
On defense, the Steelers are just plain frightening the way they aggressively attack the pocket. Rodgers' one "Achilles Heel" is that he is a much less effective pocket passer than he is an out-of-pocket passer. The Bears flustered him a little in the second half by attacking the pocket and forcing throws from Rodgers. The key for GB will be its O line. It has done a pretty good job so far giving Rodgers time to throw or time to move out of the pocket to find an open receiver. But it has made its share of mistakes, and Rodgers has taken his share of beatings this season, too. The Pack may be well advised to utilize Driver, Kuhn and even Starks as extra blockers on longer routes, which require more time for Rodgers to set up and throw. If anything, blockers should do everything they can to give Rodgers an opening so that he can escape the pocket, because I think the Packers' O line may have a difficult time keeping the Steelers' pass rush at bay for too long. If Pitt ends up flushing Rodgers out of the pocket more often than not, rather than containing him in there and collapsing it, then it risks getting picked apart by a guy who throws better and makes better passing decisions on the run.
My greatest concern about Green Bay's offense is the inconsistency of its receiving corps. I've seen these guys complete some difficult pass plays, but then drop some gimmies. Against Pittsburgh, the Packers will need to be sure to earn their money by catching the gimmie passes.
With an aggressive D line like Pitt's, I wonder if the Packers might do well to draw in a lot of short 5-10 yard pass plays to guys like Kuhn and Driver? As quickly as Pitt gets off the line, the shorter and quicker the passes, probably the better. Screens should work well against a D that zeroes in on the pocket. That's not to say that McCarthy shouldn't keep a few "aces" up his sleeve in the event that the run game finds some success early on. A couple of play action fakes on second and short; maybe a naked boot leg toward the sideline on third and two; and some quick slant routes over the middle to Jordy Nelson when Pitt is looking for a screen pass to Kuhn or a short out to Driver.
And, of course, always keep them guessing on special teams. You never know when GB will try an on-side kick at kick-off.
Most important of all...HOLD ON TO THE FOOTBALL. At all costs. In a defensive ball game, as I suspect this one to be, turnovers are killers. It has long been said that defenses win championships. I don't see this game being any different. Coach Greene's D Machine should attack the football as often as it does the ball carriers. Go after the strip whenever practical. Be aggressive, but not so much so that you show your hand before it’s called.
A level head will go a long way toward defeating the Pittsburgh Steelers. Too much adrenaline, too much emotion could spell trouble for the youthful and largely inexperienced Pack.
I have a gut feeling about Green Bay...not just because I'm a Packer Backer, either. History is often on the side of the hungriest team...And the Packers are starving for a championship right now.
Super Bowl XLV will put this theory to the test on February 5, 2011 when the AFC Champion Pittsburgh Steelers square off against the NFC Champion Green Bay Packers.
The Steelers may have their hands full with the Packers, who are poised to give the current "Steel Curtain" D all it can handle.
The Steelers, don't forget, blew a 24-0 lead to the NY Jets last weekend, having given up 19 unanswered points. Poor play calling in the Red Zone at the end of the game doomed the Jets; not the Steelers' D.
Pittsburgh was also in the hole 21-7 at halftime to the Baltimore Ravens two weeks ago before coming back and then holding on to win. The Steelers made some costly, glaring mistakes against the Ravens' defense early in the game. Had it not been for a complete 180 by the team in the second half, it could have turned into a blow-out in favor of Baltimore. Pittsburgh is inconsistent so far in the playoffs. It plays well at times, and at other times it doesn't.
Sure, the same could be said about Green Bay or any other team for that matter. But the Packers right now are gelling together. There's a hunger with this young team that I saw in the 1997 Broncos, 1999 Ravens, the 2000 Rams, 2001 Patriots, the 2002 Buccaneers, the 2005 Steelers, the 2007 Giants, and the 2009 Saints.
I don't get the same sense of hunger from the Steelers, many of whom have been to the Big Show before, and this is just another day at the office for them. Remember the 2007 Patriots, the team that was undefeated going into the SB against the Giants? The game was supposed to be just another day at the office for New England, just another notch in the win column. But that team completely underestimated the NYG-men, dismissing them as the last speed bump in the road to perfection.
Granted, Pittsburgh doesn't appear to be as arrogant as the 2007 Patriots were; but it can easily overlook Green Bay as just another lucky 10-6 No. 6 seed...which Pittsburgh was in 2005 when it won it all. The teams that get hot at the end of the regular season and/or win when it matters most are the most dangerous teams entering the playoffs. Ergo, The Pack.
Having said all of that, Green Bay will certainly have its hands full with the Steelers. On offense, Pitt offers a dual RB threat, as well as lethal weapons on the flank and under center. Pitt has a well-balanced offense quite comparable, if not superior, to Green Bay's O. If the Steelers start eating up chunks of yardage running the football, then they can dominate time of possession and field position, even if the game turns out to be highly defensive with little scoring. Green Bay Linebackers Coach Kevin Greene and his D, led by Matthews and Raji et al, had better bring their A game against Pitt's RBs and Roethlisberger.
On defense, the Steelers are just plain frightening the way they aggressively attack the pocket. Rodgers' one "Achilles Heel" is that he is a much less effective pocket passer than he is an out-of-pocket passer. The Bears flustered him a little in the second half by attacking the pocket and forcing throws from Rodgers. The key for GB will be its O line. It has done a pretty good job so far giving Rodgers time to throw or time to move out of the pocket to find an open receiver. But it has made its share of mistakes, and Rodgers has taken his share of beatings this season, too. The Pack may be well advised to utilize Driver, Kuhn and even Starks as extra blockers on longer routes, which require more time for Rodgers to set up and throw. If anything, blockers should do everything they can to give Rodgers an opening so that he can escape the pocket, because I think the Packers' O line may have a difficult time keeping the Steelers' pass rush at bay for too long. If Pitt ends up flushing Rodgers out of the pocket more often than not, rather than containing him in there and collapsing it, then it risks getting picked apart by a guy who throws better and makes better passing decisions on the run.
My greatest concern about Green Bay's offense is the inconsistency of its receiving corps. I've seen these guys complete some difficult pass plays, but then drop some gimmies. Against Pittsburgh, the Packers will need to be sure to earn their money by catching the gimmie passes.
With an aggressive D line like Pitt's, I wonder if the Packers might do well to draw in a lot of short 5-10 yard pass plays to guys like Kuhn and Driver? As quickly as Pitt gets off the line, the shorter and quicker the passes, probably the better. Screens should work well against a D that zeroes in on the pocket. That's not to say that McCarthy shouldn't keep a few "aces" up his sleeve in the event that the run game finds some success early on. A couple of play action fakes on second and short; maybe a naked boot leg toward the sideline on third and two; and some quick slant routes over the middle to Jordy Nelson when Pitt is looking for a screen pass to Kuhn or a short out to Driver.
And, of course, always keep them guessing on special teams. You never know when GB will try an on-side kick at kick-off.
Most important of all...HOLD ON TO THE FOOTBALL. At all costs. In a defensive ball game, as I suspect this one to be, turnovers are killers. It has long been said that defenses win championships. I don't see this game being any different. Coach Greene's D Machine should attack the football as often as it does the ball carriers. Go after the strip whenever practical. Be aggressive, but not so much so that you show your hand before it’s called.
A level head will go a long way toward defeating the Pittsburgh Steelers. Too much adrenaline, too much emotion could spell trouble for the youthful and largely inexperienced Pack.
I have a gut feeling about Green Bay...not just because I'm a Packer Backer, either. History is often on the side of the hungriest team...And the Packers are starving for a championship right now.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
This Christmas
This Christmas is different from others in my life.
The music thus far has been the same as Christmases past; so has the food.
The atmosphere is still festive, full of joy and cheer over the birth of our Savior, and the gathering of family and close friends in celebration.
But I am regarding at it all very differently this year, because this Christmas is my first as a father.
Granted, I’m just a foster dad, but a dad nonetheless to children who need one in their lives right now. And, while every moment of every day is special in the life of a child, there is something extra special about this time of year. There is a special something that happens in a child at Christmas time.
Yes, they do try extra hard to be extra good, don’t they? Nonetheless, their eyes fill with the wonder of the holiday season. The sights and the sounds tickle their senses. They become all giddy inside the way Ebenezer Scrooge felt upon his Christmas awakening.
Their excitement builds over the wait for Christmas morning when they know Santa Claus has left them something special for them under the Christmas tree.
Even my two foster sons, each only 11 months old, seem to have become giddier over the past month. Their baby senses must tell them that something good is going to happen. I look forward to the day that these boys will understand that something good happened a long, long time ago halfway around the world. The feeling of joy and excitement they get each Christmas season is the same that the shepherds and the wise men felt inside when they heard the news of the birth of baby Jesus and went to worship him at the manger.
I’ve known since I was a little boy myself the true meaning of Christmas, and what it means for my life. But this is the first Christmas in which I shall actually experience the true meaning of Christmas as it happens before my very eyes.
As I watch the two little boys in my care open their presents from Santa Claus, I just know that I will get a warm feeling inside; the realization that I have now just witnessed the true meaning of Christmas in action.
This Christmas I am gaining a completely new appreciation for the spirit of giving. Not that I haven’t given in Christmases past; but this year, I’m giving something else besides a present or a gift. I’m giving my heart and my love the way our heavenly Father gave to us when He sent His Son to earth as man-flesh in the form of a newborn babe.
For the first time in my life, I understand where God is coming from. I can now truly appreciate firsthand the joy He must have felt when He gave His multitude of children something very special; something from and of Himself.
This Christmas I am experiencing the kind unconditional love that only a parent can give to his or her child(ren). I cannot wait to see the joy, the smiles and the happiness on the faces of my two foster boys as they receive and open the gifts given to them out of unconditional love. That will be the most precious and important gift I shall receive this Christmas, and hopefully many more Christmases to come.
My eyes have been mercifully opened by the grace and blessings of the Lord. I once was blind, but now I see the truth of what I’ve been missing all these years.
Christmas isn’t just a holiday or a month-long season that comes once a year. Rather, it is a living example—a reminder, really—of how we should be treating one another and living all year long.
I’ve been blessed to have given so much of myself unconditionally to these boys over the past several months, because I’ve been practicing Christmas in my heart toward them each and every day; oftentimes without even noticing that I am. I just give to my foster sons because I want to, and because I love them. Until now, I haven’t really stopped to think that Christmas this year has lasted almost the whole year.
This Christmas the holy day of Christ’s birth is a culmination of all that giving to my foster babies; a manifestation of the way I’ve been living my life these past several months.
This Christmas is a reminder to me that the spirit of giving shouldn’t be limited to a single holiday or a brief season. God gave his Son, the Christ child and Savior, to all mankind, all people everywhere and for all time. His gift wasn’t just for the shepherds, the wise men or the Israelites living two thousand years ago. It was for all of us, too.
Thus, the lesson that Christmas isn’t just a holiday, or a holiday season. Rather, it’s an example for how each of us ought to live our lives and treat others each and every day: Like it is a gift…because it is.
My sincerest prayer for those still searching for and hoping to find the true meaning of Christmas is that you will come to actually experience it as I have. To know the true meaning of Christmas is one thing; but quite another to actually experience it for yourself.
For those who have already experienced Christmas truth, then my hope is that each holiday hereafter is a reminder of what you have been blessed to witness: The manifestation of God’s love for us.
May each Christmas also remind us that the holiday and its season don’t have to end or be limited to only this time of year. If we choose to let it, then Christmas can exist and be manifest in our hearts every day throughout the year.
Here’s wishing you and yours daily joy and Christmas cheer.
The music thus far has been the same as Christmases past; so has the food.
The atmosphere is still festive, full of joy and cheer over the birth of our Savior, and the gathering of family and close friends in celebration.
But I am regarding at it all very differently this year, because this Christmas is my first as a father.
Granted, I’m just a foster dad, but a dad nonetheless to children who need one in their lives right now. And, while every moment of every day is special in the life of a child, there is something extra special about this time of year. There is a special something that happens in a child at Christmas time.
Yes, they do try extra hard to be extra good, don’t they? Nonetheless, their eyes fill with the wonder of the holiday season. The sights and the sounds tickle their senses. They become all giddy inside the way Ebenezer Scrooge felt upon his Christmas awakening.
Their excitement builds over the wait for Christmas morning when they know Santa Claus has left them something special for them under the Christmas tree.
Even my two foster sons, each only 11 months old, seem to have become giddier over the past month. Their baby senses must tell them that something good is going to happen. I look forward to the day that these boys will understand that something good happened a long, long time ago halfway around the world. The feeling of joy and excitement they get each Christmas season is the same that the shepherds and the wise men felt inside when they heard the news of the birth of baby Jesus and went to worship him at the manger.
I’ve known since I was a little boy myself the true meaning of Christmas, and what it means for my life. But this is the first Christmas in which I shall actually experience the true meaning of Christmas as it happens before my very eyes.
As I watch the two little boys in my care open their presents from Santa Claus, I just know that I will get a warm feeling inside; the realization that I have now just witnessed the true meaning of Christmas in action.
This Christmas I am gaining a completely new appreciation for the spirit of giving. Not that I haven’t given in Christmases past; but this year, I’m giving something else besides a present or a gift. I’m giving my heart and my love the way our heavenly Father gave to us when He sent His Son to earth as man-flesh in the form of a newborn babe.
For the first time in my life, I understand where God is coming from. I can now truly appreciate firsthand the joy He must have felt when He gave His multitude of children something very special; something from and of Himself.
This Christmas I am experiencing the kind unconditional love that only a parent can give to his or her child(ren). I cannot wait to see the joy, the smiles and the happiness on the faces of my two foster boys as they receive and open the gifts given to them out of unconditional love. That will be the most precious and important gift I shall receive this Christmas, and hopefully many more Christmases to come.
My eyes have been mercifully opened by the grace and blessings of the Lord. I once was blind, but now I see the truth of what I’ve been missing all these years.
Christmas isn’t just a holiday or a month-long season that comes once a year. Rather, it is a living example—a reminder, really—of how we should be treating one another and living all year long.
I’ve been blessed to have given so much of myself unconditionally to these boys over the past several months, because I’ve been practicing Christmas in my heart toward them each and every day; oftentimes without even noticing that I am. I just give to my foster sons because I want to, and because I love them. Until now, I haven’t really stopped to think that Christmas this year has lasted almost the whole year.
This Christmas the holy day of Christ’s birth is a culmination of all that giving to my foster babies; a manifestation of the way I’ve been living my life these past several months.
This Christmas is a reminder to me that the spirit of giving shouldn’t be limited to a single holiday or a brief season. God gave his Son, the Christ child and Savior, to all mankind, all people everywhere and for all time. His gift wasn’t just for the shepherds, the wise men or the Israelites living two thousand years ago. It was for all of us, too.
Thus, the lesson that Christmas isn’t just a holiday, or a holiday season. Rather, it’s an example for how each of us ought to live our lives and treat others each and every day: Like it is a gift…because it is.
My sincerest prayer for those still searching for and hoping to find the true meaning of Christmas is that you will come to actually experience it as I have. To know the true meaning of Christmas is one thing; but quite another to actually experience it for yourself.
For those who have already experienced Christmas truth, then my hope is that each holiday hereafter is a reminder of what you have been blessed to witness: The manifestation of God’s love for us.
May each Christmas also remind us that the holiday and its season don’t have to end or be limited to only this time of year. If we choose to let it, then Christmas can exist and be manifest in our hearts every day throughout the year.
Here’s wishing you and yours daily joy and Christmas cheer.
Monday, December 13, 2010
A case against Roe v. Wade
In 1973 the United States Supreme Court ruled that a woman has a constitutional right to choose an abortion. What is known today as Roe v. Wade became case law 410 U.S. 113 (1973), a legal precedent that extends the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to a woman’s decision to abort her unborn child. Specifically, the ruling invoked the Fourteenth Amendment’s privacy clause, which states, in effect, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
While a woman’s decision to end her pregnancy is now protected under the law of the land, the Supreme Court held in the same ruling that the “right” to abort must be balanced against the state’s interests in protecting prenatal life and protecting the mother’s health. It was determined that these interests of the state become stronger over the course of a pregnancy, and that the balancing test should be related to the current trimester of pregnancy.
The legal findings further determined that the state’s interests in regulating abortions are at their weakest in the first trimester when a fetus is less like a fully developed human being than at any other time; but those interests gain strength with each successive trimester of prenatal development. In the second and third trimester, abortion regulation must be related primarily to, and giving weight to the life and health of the mother over that of the fetus.
For the past 38 years the abortion debate has raged, at times more intensely than others. Abortion opponents maintain that life begins at conception, while abortion supporters say the issue isn’t about life, but rather the right to choose.
Abortion proponents, those who call themselves “pro-choice,” have even gone so far as to argue that an unborn child is not the same as a birthed child, and, therefore, is not entitled to the same rights.
Those identifying themselves as “pro-life,” or abortion opponents, have vehemently disagreed with this argument, defending the unborn as human beings without a voice of their own.
Personally, I am anti-abortion, too. Although I am usually a staunch advocate of essential liberty—i.e., the ability to choose without compulsion—I have determined in this case to error on the side of life instead of choice. The reason why is because abortion, while preserving choice for one party—the biological mother—simultaneously denies that same choice to another other party; that being the unborn child, who has no say, no voice and no choice in the decision of whether or not it will die.
Besides essential liberty, and the fundamental right to choose without compulsion, abortion consequently denies another of man’s fundamental rights: Life.
Founding father Thomas Jefferson summarized very succinctly the fundamental rights of man in the July 1776 Declaration of Independence for the American colonies: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Jefferson’s use of the term “unalienable rights” refers to the fundamental rights of man as articulated by the avant-garde of the European Age of Enlightenment. These are natural rights, God created and God given. They are universal and self-evident.
Jefferson references this, too, in the same document, as well as many other letters he wrote in his lifetime on a host of political and philosophical positions.
Other fundamental rights of the Age of Enlightenment and natural law theory include the right to property, security and resistance to oppression. Each of these is addressed in the Bill of Rights, or the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.
I find it compelling, though, that the very first fundamental or natural right that Jefferson articulates is the right to life: the right to be and to exist. It came before even the right to liberty and happiness.
The right to life is also protected by the United States Constitution in Amendment V, which states, in part, that “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”
And, yet, despite the obvious importance of the right to life in the minds of America’s founders and her constitution’s framers, it is the one right that is routinely ignored and sorely neglected among the unborn.
An important feature of the Fifth Amendment is the use of the term “person” instead of “citizen” or “the people,” the last two of which refer to those who are either naturally born or legalized Americans. To be a “person” protected by the U.S. Constitution does not require citizenship, residency or any other legal nomenclature, but rather just “being” a human individual.
The root of the debate, then, over abortion should not just be when human life begins, but also when “personhood” begins.
Medical facts establish that “life” begins at conception. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines life, in part, as “an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.” Since very basic cellular development includes all of these traits, establishing life at conception is not only reasonable, but also rational.
But when does conceived human life become a “person” who is protected by the law? Pro-abortion advocates insist that personhood begins at the moment of birth, while anti-abortion activists argue that “personhood” begins while the unborn child is still developing in the womb.
Merriam-Webster further defines “person,” in part, as “the body of a human being.” The dictionary also defines “being,” in part, as “conscious existence,” and it defines “individual,” in part, as “existing as an indivisible whole” and “as a [separate] distinct entity.”
To be individual requires a level of autonomy that permits one to exist independently. Or, as Merriam-Webster defines, “existing or capable of existing independently of the whole.”
Millions children are born prematurely, and many of them are capable of living outside of the womb despite their prematurity. As such, they are capable of existing independently before they reach full term, and their autonomy can be established prior to birth. What, then, is the difference between a child physically born a month premature and an unborn child a month away from full-term birth?
They are the exact gestational age.
Scientifically and philosophically speaking, there is no distinction. One child is born while the other is unborn; but their functions are essentially the same and so is their physical development.
In addition to autonomy, an individual or person must also be sentient in their actions. That is, “responsive to or conscious of sense impressions” and “finely sensitive in perception or feeling,” as Merriam-Webster defines sentient beings.
Medical facts show that the development of a nervous system starts in the first trimester, as early as the fifth week of pregnancy, beginning with the brain and spinal cord. By week six of the pregnancy, the brain normally has developed into five distinct areas and some cranial nerves are visible.
At the end of 14 weeks, the “fetus” is very well distinguishable as human, with many recognizable physical traits, including head, limbs, beating heart and genitalia. And the baby is even able to make a fist with its fingers.
At week 15, the fetus can make active movements, including sucking motions with the mouth to demonstrate its awareness of hunger and efforts to communicate its needs.
By the end of week 21, the baby should be able to hear. There is hand and startle reflex present during week 26; the eyelids open and close, and the nervous system is developed enough to control some body functions between weeks 27 and 30.
Considering that a full-term pregnancy is about 42 weeks, the evidence is pretty clear that by the end of the first trimester, or after the first 14 weeks, an unborn human child not only looks physically human, but is also able to act human, too, by making a fist with the fingers to demonstrate functional independence.
The unborn child further demonstrates human being qualities within the first trimester by moving about (kicking and swimming) independently of the whole, on its own and self-aware that it can do so. The fetus is conscious at this point that it can move, and how it can move.
Early in the second trimester, the child can arrange its mouth muscles well enough to form sucking motions, indicating that it is aware of its need to satisfy the feeling of hunger and is trying to communicate hunger to its host (the mother). This is evidence of sensitive perception, as well as responsiveness to and consciousness of sense impressions.
The unborn child learns quickly that kicking becomes a form of communicating with its host (the mother) about its needs; specifically hunger. Prenatal babies, though, have also been shown to kick and move around playfully because they may feel good and are happy. They are communicating pleasure and comfort to the mother at these times. At other times, their moving about and kicking may be due to discomfort.
The point is that the moving about isn’t just a physical reflex. There becomes a purpose behind it long before the unborn child is ever delivered.
There is even evidence showing that unborn babies are able to recognize their mother’s voice by the second trimester of pregnancy, and they can grasp the umbilical cord when they feel it with their hands and fingers.
In the third and final trimester, evidence shows that the eyelids open and close; four of the five sense are used, including vision, hearing, taste and touch; the child can distinguish for itself the difference between being asleep and awake; and they are able to relate and respond to the moods of the mother.
The medical findings of prenatal development offer compelling evidence that autonomy to some degree is demonstrated by the unborn child, which can also show at least basic sentience by the end of the very first trimester of pregnancy.
Considering that “personhood” is dependent upon autonomy and sentience to establish that a human is “being,” I can see no valid reason why unborn humans should not be granted “person” status as early as the 14th week of pregnancy. Not only can the child make a fist with its fingers, kick its legs and swim independently of the whole, or host, but it does so freely and consciously without influence of outside forces.
I am convinced that medical facts establish the viability of a human fetus as more than just a “ball of flesh” with physical human likenesses. With sensory perceptions, consciousness and independent movements or actions, an unborn human is sentient and autonomous enough to meet the definition of “being,” and therefore, a person.
As such, I submit that “personhood” can and should exist before birth, and that full protection under the law ought to be given to all “persons” and all “human beings,” born or unborn.
These individuals can and should be given equal protection under the law, as dictated by the Fourteenth Amendment, and their lives as "persons" guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
This would be consistent with the interests of preserving what our Founding Fathers and constitutional framers believed to be the first and most important fundamental right of man: Life.
An unborn child, having been established to possess degrees of autonomy and sentience, should not be considered as part of the mother’s “person,” or that which makes up her human “being.” Unborn humans are also not property, because they do not belong to the body. If they did, then they would function like an organ of the body: an essential part of what makes the whole thing work.
But we know that pregnancies are only temporary conditions that resolve by birth and when the womb is empty again. Pregnancies do not interrupt the normal, essential functioning of the mother’s body, although chemical and hormonal imbalances often occur.
As such, an unborn human cannot and should not be considered part of the body, or its effects, either.
The conflict that arises with the Fourteenth Amendment would then be, when and where do the rights of the mother end and those of the unborn child begin?
When a conflict like this surfaces between the rights of one and those of another, I believe that it is government’s responsibility to error on the side of life, simply because without that one right, all other rights are non-existent. There can be no right to liberty, property, happiness or resistance to tyranny without first being a right to life, and the protection of that right.
I don’t believe pregnancy should be forced on a woman, and that part certainly falls within the Fourteenth Amendment. In cases where the life of the mother is in imminent and immediate danger, then, again, it behooves society to error on the side of life and save the mother. To willingly put that life in jeopardy is to violate the natural right to life.
The conflict that results—the unborn life sacrificed to preserve the life of the mother—is not one easily remedied or dealt with. However, to trade the mother’s life for the baby could put the lives of the baby and any siblings in danger, and then the rights of those other individuals are impacted. The choice then comes down to which loss of life will cause the most damage, and clearly, losing the mother to save the baby would do just that.
In cases of rape or incest, I maintain that the Fourteenth Amendment applies. However, I think every reasonable effort should be made to counsel victims on their choices and the alternatives to abortion, because while the conception may have been a crime, the child that results from it is as innocent a victim as the woman.
Error on the side of life. And, whenever or wherever possible, both lives.
While a woman’s decision to end her pregnancy is now protected under the law of the land, the Supreme Court held in the same ruling that the “right” to abort must be balanced against the state’s interests in protecting prenatal life and protecting the mother’s health. It was determined that these interests of the state become stronger over the course of a pregnancy, and that the balancing test should be related to the current trimester of pregnancy.
The legal findings further determined that the state’s interests in regulating abortions are at their weakest in the first trimester when a fetus is less like a fully developed human being than at any other time; but those interests gain strength with each successive trimester of prenatal development. In the second and third trimester, abortion regulation must be related primarily to, and giving weight to the life and health of the mother over that of the fetus.
For the past 38 years the abortion debate has raged, at times more intensely than others. Abortion opponents maintain that life begins at conception, while abortion supporters say the issue isn’t about life, but rather the right to choose.
Abortion proponents, those who call themselves “pro-choice,” have even gone so far as to argue that an unborn child is not the same as a birthed child, and, therefore, is not entitled to the same rights.
Those identifying themselves as “pro-life,” or abortion opponents, have vehemently disagreed with this argument, defending the unborn as human beings without a voice of their own.
Personally, I am anti-abortion, too. Although I am usually a staunch advocate of essential liberty—i.e., the ability to choose without compulsion—I have determined in this case to error on the side of life instead of choice. The reason why is because abortion, while preserving choice for one party—the biological mother—simultaneously denies that same choice to another other party; that being the unborn child, who has no say, no voice and no choice in the decision of whether or not it will die.
Besides essential liberty, and the fundamental right to choose without compulsion, abortion consequently denies another of man’s fundamental rights: Life.
Founding father Thomas Jefferson summarized very succinctly the fundamental rights of man in the July 1776 Declaration of Independence for the American colonies: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Jefferson’s use of the term “unalienable rights” refers to the fundamental rights of man as articulated by the avant-garde of the European Age of Enlightenment. These are natural rights, God created and God given. They are universal and self-evident.
Jefferson references this, too, in the same document, as well as many other letters he wrote in his lifetime on a host of political and philosophical positions.
Other fundamental rights of the Age of Enlightenment and natural law theory include the right to property, security and resistance to oppression. Each of these is addressed in the Bill of Rights, or the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.
I find it compelling, though, that the very first fundamental or natural right that Jefferson articulates is the right to life: the right to be and to exist. It came before even the right to liberty and happiness.
The right to life is also protected by the United States Constitution in Amendment V, which states, in part, that “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”
And, yet, despite the obvious importance of the right to life in the minds of America’s founders and her constitution’s framers, it is the one right that is routinely ignored and sorely neglected among the unborn.
An important feature of the Fifth Amendment is the use of the term “person” instead of “citizen” or “the people,” the last two of which refer to those who are either naturally born or legalized Americans. To be a “person” protected by the U.S. Constitution does not require citizenship, residency or any other legal nomenclature, but rather just “being” a human individual.
The root of the debate, then, over abortion should not just be when human life begins, but also when “personhood” begins.
Medical facts establish that “life” begins at conception. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines life, in part, as “an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.” Since very basic cellular development includes all of these traits, establishing life at conception is not only reasonable, but also rational.
But when does conceived human life become a “person” who is protected by the law? Pro-abortion advocates insist that personhood begins at the moment of birth, while anti-abortion activists argue that “personhood” begins while the unborn child is still developing in the womb.
Merriam-Webster further defines “person,” in part, as “the body of a human being.” The dictionary also defines “being,” in part, as “conscious existence,” and it defines “individual,” in part, as “existing as an indivisible whole” and “as a [separate] distinct entity.”
To be individual requires a level of autonomy that permits one to exist independently. Or, as Merriam-Webster defines, “existing or capable of existing independently of the whole.”
Millions children are born prematurely, and many of them are capable of living outside of the womb despite their prematurity. As such, they are capable of existing independently before they reach full term, and their autonomy can be established prior to birth. What, then, is the difference between a child physically born a month premature and an unborn child a month away from full-term birth?
They are the exact gestational age.
Scientifically and philosophically speaking, there is no distinction. One child is born while the other is unborn; but their functions are essentially the same and so is their physical development.
In addition to autonomy, an individual or person must also be sentient in their actions. That is, “responsive to or conscious of sense impressions” and “finely sensitive in perception or feeling,” as Merriam-Webster defines sentient beings.
Medical facts show that the development of a nervous system starts in the first trimester, as early as the fifth week of pregnancy, beginning with the brain and spinal cord. By week six of the pregnancy, the brain normally has developed into five distinct areas and some cranial nerves are visible.
At the end of 14 weeks, the “fetus” is very well distinguishable as human, with many recognizable physical traits, including head, limbs, beating heart and genitalia. And the baby is even able to make a fist with its fingers.
At week 15, the fetus can make active movements, including sucking motions with the mouth to demonstrate its awareness of hunger and efforts to communicate its needs.
By the end of week 21, the baby should be able to hear. There is hand and startle reflex present during week 26; the eyelids open and close, and the nervous system is developed enough to control some body functions between weeks 27 and 30.
Considering that a full-term pregnancy is about 42 weeks, the evidence is pretty clear that by the end of the first trimester, or after the first 14 weeks, an unborn human child not only looks physically human, but is also able to act human, too, by making a fist with the fingers to demonstrate functional independence.
The unborn child further demonstrates human being qualities within the first trimester by moving about (kicking and swimming) independently of the whole, on its own and self-aware that it can do so. The fetus is conscious at this point that it can move, and how it can move.
Early in the second trimester, the child can arrange its mouth muscles well enough to form sucking motions, indicating that it is aware of its need to satisfy the feeling of hunger and is trying to communicate hunger to its host (the mother). This is evidence of sensitive perception, as well as responsiveness to and consciousness of sense impressions.
The unborn child learns quickly that kicking becomes a form of communicating with its host (the mother) about its needs; specifically hunger. Prenatal babies, though, have also been shown to kick and move around playfully because they may feel good and are happy. They are communicating pleasure and comfort to the mother at these times. At other times, their moving about and kicking may be due to discomfort.
The point is that the moving about isn’t just a physical reflex. There becomes a purpose behind it long before the unborn child is ever delivered.
There is even evidence showing that unborn babies are able to recognize their mother’s voice by the second trimester of pregnancy, and they can grasp the umbilical cord when they feel it with their hands and fingers.
In the third and final trimester, evidence shows that the eyelids open and close; four of the five sense are used, including vision, hearing, taste and touch; the child can distinguish for itself the difference between being asleep and awake; and they are able to relate and respond to the moods of the mother.
The medical findings of prenatal development offer compelling evidence that autonomy to some degree is demonstrated by the unborn child, which can also show at least basic sentience by the end of the very first trimester of pregnancy.
Considering that “personhood” is dependent upon autonomy and sentience to establish that a human is “being,” I can see no valid reason why unborn humans should not be granted “person” status as early as the 14th week of pregnancy. Not only can the child make a fist with its fingers, kick its legs and swim independently of the whole, or host, but it does so freely and consciously without influence of outside forces.
I am convinced that medical facts establish the viability of a human fetus as more than just a “ball of flesh” with physical human likenesses. With sensory perceptions, consciousness and independent movements or actions, an unborn human is sentient and autonomous enough to meet the definition of “being,” and therefore, a person.
As such, I submit that “personhood” can and should exist before birth, and that full protection under the law ought to be given to all “persons” and all “human beings,” born or unborn.
These individuals can and should be given equal protection under the law, as dictated by the Fourteenth Amendment, and their lives as "persons" guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
This would be consistent with the interests of preserving what our Founding Fathers and constitutional framers believed to be the first and most important fundamental right of man: Life.
An unborn child, having been established to possess degrees of autonomy and sentience, should not be considered as part of the mother’s “person,” or that which makes up her human “being.” Unborn humans are also not property, because they do not belong to the body. If they did, then they would function like an organ of the body: an essential part of what makes the whole thing work.
But we know that pregnancies are only temporary conditions that resolve by birth and when the womb is empty again. Pregnancies do not interrupt the normal, essential functioning of the mother’s body, although chemical and hormonal imbalances often occur.
As such, an unborn human cannot and should not be considered part of the body, or its effects, either.
The conflict that arises with the Fourteenth Amendment would then be, when and where do the rights of the mother end and those of the unborn child begin?
When a conflict like this surfaces between the rights of one and those of another, I believe that it is government’s responsibility to error on the side of life, simply because without that one right, all other rights are non-existent. There can be no right to liberty, property, happiness or resistance to tyranny without first being a right to life, and the protection of that right.
I don’t believe pregnancy should be forced on a woman, and that part certainly falls within the Fourteenth Amendment. In cases where the life of the mother is in imminent and immediate danger, then, again, it behooves society to error on the side of life and save the mother. To willingly put that life in jeopardy is to violate the natural right to life.
The conflict that results—the unborn life sacrificed to preserve the life of the mother—is not one easily remedied or dealt with. However, to trade the mother’s life for the baby could put the lives of the baby and any siblings in danger, and then the rights of those other individuals are impacted. The choice then comes down to which loss of life will cause the most damage, and clearly, losing the mother to save the baby would do just that.
In cases of rape or incest, I maintain that the Fourteenth Amendment applies. However, I think every reasonable effort should be made to counsel victims on their choices and the alternatives to abortion, because while the conception may have been a crime, the child that results from it is as innocent a victim as the woman.
Error on the side of life. And, whenever or wherever possible, both lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
