...Now what?
I don't know about you, but I am so gripped with anxiety over the federal government shutdown that I just don't know what to do with myself. (read: sarcasm.)
The news makes it seem as though all life as we know it is endangered by the fed closing its doors to business until further notice.
Stories of personal suffering, of fear, of helplessness, and of hopelessness. This may happen, or that will.
Germs will run rampant because the FDA is not on the job.
Criminals will be turned loose or not caught.
Children will starve.
The elderly will be neglected.
People will suffer and die, because Uncle Sam is unable to agree with himself and reopen his wallet.
As I recall, America got through the government shutdown we had in the nineties just fine. She will get through this one just fine, too.
Why?
Because the heartbeat of this country is not the federal government, but the people who support it and make it up.
Despite all of the doom and gloom being talked about all over the media, life continues to go on. People are still working. They are still buying and spending. They are still raising their families, keeping and supporting their homes, and conducting business as usual; whether or not the government is.
But, having been a member of the news media for several years, I know that these doom-and-gloom reports are just that; stories meant to dramatize the impact, and sensationalize the severity. They are useful in boosting ratings, selling subscriptions, and otherwise filling the coffers of the news industry.
The whole truth isn't often reported in the media; but rather the "facts" that sell its product.
There are greater concerns in this world than whether or not Congress and the POTUS can agree; like the moral health of our country; like the destruction of the nuclear family; like the financial viability of the government; like the degenerative culture that drives and influences peoples' lives; and like the absence of an internal compass that used to guide people and their decisions through the practice of self-control.
Our society today places such a premium on what is empirical and extrinsic that it is no wonder we suffer a hissy-fit whenever our "things" and "materiel" get threatened. We have become so co-dependent on government to provide for our needs that it is no wonder people panic when Uncle Sam reaches into his pants pockets and turns them inside out.
If anything can be gleaned from this shut down, I hope that people can recognize that their lives can and do go on when the government does not; and that the government is not the end-all, be-all of American existence. It is not the defining element of our culture.
We are.
And the end-all, be-all of the American experience is the individual resolve of the average citizen to continue pursuing.
Perhaps the longer the feds are shut down, the more obvious this truth will appear to more people. ...Or not.
We shall see.
Friday, October 4, 2013
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Manhood endangered
A while back, I was vegging in front of the television, letting the minutes tick away toward bed time.
Then a commercial aired that caught my attention like a stray campfire ember settling on my clothes.
Now, I had probably seen this advertisement dozens of times, along with other commercials similar to it, but thought little of them until this moment. The ad depicted a husband and a wife; one a wise sage and the other a village idiot. If you guessed that the husband was portrayed as the idiot, then you've probably seen the ad or others like it before.
It suddenly struck me that the traditional concept of manhood was being redefined by forces in human society that seek to destroy what it means to be a man. Conventional wisdom about manhood is that men are leaders in their homes and in their communities. They are supposed to be strong, courageous, and self-sacrificing. They are supposed to be moral. They are supposed to have integrity and character. But that isn't the message I get when I watch the average television commercial these days.
Has anyone else noticed how stupid men are made to look in advertisements, especially when paired with a woman? Ten times out of ten, the man assumes the role of the buffoon, deferring intelligence to the woman.
The powerful feminist movement obviously has influence over the way women are portrayed in commercials; and in particular when paired with men. God forbid that the woman appear to be the simpleton of the two. That just would be sending the wrong message; one we cannot have delivered to the impressionable minds of society's young women.
I don't disagree. But I do resent that men are expected to thus assume the role of "Tweedle Dum" just to curb the ire of a vitriolic political lobby. What's more, there doesn't seem to be much of any defiance among the male population toward this trend. It's as though the concept of manhood has been deluded to the point where men don't even seem to know what it means to be a man.
Multiple generations of males have grown up in fatherless households. They've been surrounded by estrogen most, if not all, of their lives. Making matters worse, popular culture has been delivering messages to males that they are, more or less, irrelevant to the health of society. Fatherhood has been denigrated to little more than a monthly child support payment or alimony. It is a signature on a check.
Institutions that once promoted and supported the advancement of manhood in society have been infiltrated by an aggressive feminist movement insisting upon "equal access," only to tear down or make irrelevant those institutions that men could call their own.
The American male, in particular, has permitted himself to be led into the castration chamber. He appears content with being a sperm donor rather than an active part of children's lives. He'd rather just sleep with women than develop meaningful, intimate relationships with them and serve as a leader in the home.
The overriding message I glean from popular advertising is that manhood is no longer an important human value. Feminism is now behind its contemporary definition, and it serves at the disposal of female empowerment. Manhood is overrated, and largely unnecessary to an educated and enlightened society that sees greater value in feminism or gender neutrality.
God forbid that men actually reclaim their manhood, and it's Biblical definition, which American culture once proudly embraced. Now, whenever I see a commercial depicting an inferior male and a superior female, I point it out rather verbosely. I don't think it should be a hidden truth, but rather a revealed one that needs to be exposed for what it really is: An obvious attempt to redefine who wears the pants.
Men are turning into cultural eunuchs, becoming passive spectators with an inferiority complex growing from the inside out. The goal, I believe, is to make the American male submissive to cultural changes meant ultimately to turn society against God and the truth of His Word. I feel it's time to take a stand, and take back what is the rightful place of men in American society.
Despite what popular culture is trying to sell us, men aren't prehistoric thugs, Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon knuckle-draggers whose extent of communication is "ugh" and "ugh."
We aren't impulsive morons or Gomer Pyle simpletons who need to be led around with rings in our snouts. We are men, men of God, who submit to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to make us the pillars of masculinity that appeals to the inner depths of our female counterparts, whether they care to admit it or not.
It's time we stop buying into the "men are pansies" message being delivered to our brains with the hope of rewiring us into useless subjects of society. It's time we stand up against the cultural trend of single women choosing to be single moms with no inclination to involve a man as a father. It's time we defy the gay agenda seeking to relegate "men" to effeminate status. It's time we tell the feminist lobby where to stick it.
.
..Oops. Did I just say that? LOL
Then a commercial aired that caught my attention like a stray campfire ember settling on my clothes.
Now, I had probably seen this advertisement dozens of times, along with other commercials similar to it, but thought little of them until this moment. The ad depicted a husband and a wife; one a wise sage and the other a village idiot. If you guessed that the husband was portrayed as the idiot, then you've probably seen the ad or others like it before.
It suddenly struck me that the traditional concept of manhood was being redefined by forces in human society that seek to destroy what it means to be a man. Conventional wisdom about manhood is that men are leaders in their homes and in their communities. They are supposed to be strong, courageous, and self-sacrificing. They are supposed to be moral. They are supposed to have integrity and character. But that isn't the message I get when I watch the average television commercial these days.
Has anyone else noticed how stupid men are made to look in advertisements, especially when paired with a woman? Ten times out of ten, the man assumes the role of the buffoon, deferring intelligence to the woman.
The powerful feminist movement obviously has influence over the way women are portrayed in commercials; and in particular when paired with men. God forbid that the woman appear to be the simpleton of the two. That just would be sending the wrong message; one we cannot have delivered to the impressionable minds of society's young women.
I don't disagree. But I do resent that men are expected to thus assume the role of "Tweedle Dum" just to curb the ire of a vitriolic political lobby. What's more, there doesn't seem to be much of any defiance among the male population toward this trend. It's as though the concept of manhood has been deluded to the point where men don't even seem to know what it means to be a man.
Multiple generations of males have grown up in fatherless households. They've been surrounded by estrogen most, if not all, of their lives. Making matters worse, popular culture has been delivering messages to males that they are, more or less, irrelevant to the health of society. Fatherhood has been denigrated to little more than a monthly child support payment or alimony. It is a signature on a check.
Institutions that once promoted and supported the advancement of manhood in society have been infiltrated by an aggressive feminist movement insisting upon "equal access," only to tear down or make irrelevant those institutions that men could call their own.
The American male, in particular, has permitted himself to be led into the castration chamber. He appears content with being a sperm donor rather than an active part of children's lives. He'd rather just sleep with women than develop meaningful, intimate relationships with them and serve as a leader in the home.
The overriding message I glean from popular advertising is that manhood is no longer an important human value. Feminism is now behind its contemporary definition, and it serves at the disposal of female empowerment. Manhood is overrated, and largely unnecessary to an educated and enlightened society that sees greater value in feminism or gender neutrality.
God forbid that men actually reclaim their manhood, and it's Biblical definition, which American culture once proudly embraced. Now, whenever I see a commercial depicting an inferior male and a superior female, I point it out rather verbosely. I don't think it should be a hidden truth, but rather a revealed one that needs to be exposed for what it really is: An obvious attempt to redefine who wears the pants.
Men are turning into cultural eunuchs, becoming passive spectators with an inferiority complex growing from the inside out. The goal, I believe, is to make the American male submissive to cultural changes meant ultimately to turn society against God and the truth of His Word. I feel it's time to take a stand, and take back what is the rightful place of men in American society.
Despite what popular culture is trying to sell us, men aren't prehistoric thugs, Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon knuckle-draggers whose extent of communication is "ugh" and "ugh."
We aren't impulsive morons or Gomer Pyle simpletons who need to be led around with rings in our snouts. We are men, men of God, who submit to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to make us the pillars of masculinity that appeals to the inner depths of our female counterparts, whether they care to admit it or not.
It's time we stop buying into the "men are pansies" message being delivered to our brains with the hope of rewiring us into useless subjects of society. It's time we stand up against the cultural trend of single women choosing to be single moms with no inclination to involve a man as a father. It's time we defy the gay agenda seeking to relegate "men" to effeminate status. It's time we tell the feminist lobby where to stick it.
.
..Oops. Did I just say that? LOL
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Can you afford Obamacare?
This is a question everybody ought to be asking themselves.
The Affordable Care Act of 2010 (also known as “Obamacare”) is already three years old, and we still know very little about its real impact on the health care industry, the marketplace, or on individuals and families.
What we do know is that, over the past three years, one complication after another has been surfacing. Details that were overlooked then are now beginning to come to light, and the policymakers are wrangling to head the problems off at the pass.
Unfortunately, there is very little that can be done to fix things until the law takes full effect and we actually see its impact. Until then, all we can do is sit back and wait…with bated breath.
Therein lay the real travesty about the “Obamacare” law: There was little foresight to begin with in crafting the legislation. Problems were likely not identified, because the policymakers didn’t want to see them. That would have set the legislation back a lot farther than 2010, and with a mid-term election looming that year and a general election in two more years, it was just a lot easier to slap a bill together like a “hero” sandwich and worry about the heartburn it causes later.
So, now we are stuck with a law that raises more questions than it provides answers. Isn’t that usually the way? Our esteemed lawmakers, always vigilantly looking out for our best interests, are so hyper-focused on their re-election that they fail to address the pitfalls. Getting legislation passed is the bottom line, after all; not doing right by the American people. They worry about the details later, when the eight-hundred-pound gorilla in the room has become somebody else’s problem.
For instance, there’s the problem of supply and demand on this new law. For the sake of argument, let’s say everyone who is mandated to complies with the law and buys health care coverage. Is that really going to keep premiums from rising?
What it does is cause a run on the market, an increase in demand for a product or service. And what, dear Mr. Adam Smith, is the consequence of higher demand? Yup. Higher prices.
In spite of the health insurance reform that Obamacare addresses, there is also the looming problem of a shortage of health care providers and an unprecedented increase in demand for care. How does the law address this?
The “baby boom” generation (born between 1946-64) has already started to reach retirement age. In the next decade, millions more will. As the “boomers” age, their need for care will increase, and the more of them there are that are demanding care, the greater the strain on services there will be.
Further complicating matters is the reality that fewer young people are choosing medicine as a profession. Medical schools are hurting for enrollment. When facing a half-million dollars in student loan debt, and the prospect of very expensive malpractice and liability insurance premiums to carry once licensed to practice, who can blame students for shying away from the medical profession?
This begs the question: Who is going to provide the professional care that the next generation of senior and geriatric patients will demand?
We can talk all we want about how increasing the pool of policyholders will keep individual premiums in check; but this theory says nothing about how the costs of rising demand and the wavering supply of services and care will be dealt with. I think we can realistically count on health care to continue to become more expensive in the near future because of supply and demand demographics.
You would be hard-pressed to find someone who didn’t think there were problems with our current health care system, and who didn’t have an opinion about how to fix it. I agree that there has been a lot of hot air spewed forth about the problems with health care, and little or nothing of substance addressing the issues. However, passing a law simply because that would be a better alternative to passing nothing at all is equally irresponsible. It is a dangerous game to be playing, but one a lot of people have found acceptable. Let’s just pass a law, any law, to fix the problems. And if the problems aren’t fixed with that law, then we will pass another to amend it until the problem gets solved.
Such was the mentality of a lot of Obamacare’s supporters during its transition from bill to law. How about we pass the right law the first time, so we don’t have to keep revisiting, revising and amending the law ad nauseum? How about we do our homework and get it right, no matter how long it takes, before we slap a brand on it and start selling it on the shelves?
My dad used to tell me, “Work smarter; do it right the first time.” Because then I wouldn’t have to do things over again. Sage advice, and no doubt, many people adhere to this principle in their daily lives. Why the heck can’t politicians?
Because Obamacare was written in haste, we now face the likelihood of having to do things over again. Because the politicians refused to address the problems already foreseen with the legislation when they had the chance, and before the bill became law, now we will have to do this over again.
Redundancy isn’t just a waste of resources; it also fits in with Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity: Doing the same things over and over again, and expecting different results.
Yup. That’s the American politician to a tee. I’m further convinced now that Obamacare was an exercise in insanity. Thanks for reminding me, Albert.
The Affordable Care Act of 2010 (also known as “Obamacare”) is already three years old, and we still know very little about its real impact on the health care industry, the marketplace, or on individuals and families.
What we do know is that, over the past three years, one complication after another has been surfacing. Details that were overlooked then are now beginning to come to light, and the policymakers are wrangling to head the problems off at the pass.
Unfortunately, there is very little that can be done to fix things until the law takes full effect and we actually see its impact. Until then, all we can do is sit back and wait…with bated breath.
Therein lay the real travesty about the “Obamacare” law: There was little foresight to begin with in crafting the legislation. Problems were likely not identified, because the policymakers didn’t want to see them. That would have set the legislation back a lot farther than 2010, and with a mid-term election looming that year and a general election in two more years, it was just a lot easier to slap a bill together like a “hero” sandwich and worry about the heartburn it causes later.
So, now we are stuck with a law that raises more questions than it provides answers. Isn’t that usually the way? Our esteemed lawmakers, always vigilantly looking out for our best interests, are so hyper-focused on their re-election that they fail to address the pitfalls. Getting legislation passed is the bottom line, after all; not doing right by the American people. They worry about the details later, when the eight-hundred-pound gorilla in the room has become somebody else’s problem.
For instance, there’s the problem of supply and demand on this new law. For the sake of argument, let’s say everyone who is mandated to complies with the law and buys health care coverage. Is that really going to keep premiums from rising?
What it does is cause a run on the market, an increase in demand for a product or service. And what, dear Mr. Adam Smith, is the consequence of higher demand? Yup. Higher prices.
In spite of the health insurance reform that Obamacare addresses, there is also the looming problem of a shortage of health care providers and an unprecedented increase in demand for care. How does the law address this?
The “baby boom” generation (born between 1946-64) has already started to reach retirement age. In the next decade, millions more will. As the “boomers” age, their need for care will increase, and the more of them there are that are demanding care, the greater the strain on services there will be.
Further complicating matters is the reality that fewer young people are choosing medicine as a profession. Medical schools are hurting for enrollment. When facing a half-million dollars in student loan debt, and the prospect of very expensive malpractice and liability insurance premiums to carry once licensed to practice, who can blame students for shying away from the medical profession?
This begs the question: Who is going to provide the professional care that the next generation of senior and geriatric patients will demand?
We can talk all we want about how increasing the pool of policyholders will keep individual premiums in check; but this theory says nothing about how the costs of rising demand and the wavering supply of services and care will be dealt with. I think we can realistically count on health care to continue to become more expensive in the near future because of supply and demand demographics.
You would be hard-pressed to find someone who didn’t think there were problems with our current health care system, and who didn’t have an opinion about how to fix it. I agree that there has been a lot of hot air spewed forth about the problems with health care, and little or nothing of substance addressing the issues. However, passing a law simply because that would be a better alternative to passing nothing at all is equally irresponsible. It is a dangerous game to be playing, but one a lot of people have found acceptable. Let’s just pass a law, any law, to fix the problems. And if the problems aren’t fixed with that law, then we will pass another to amend it until the problem gets solved.
Such was the mentality of a lot of Obamacare’s supporters during its transition from bill to law. How about we pass the right law the first time, so we don’t have to keep revisiting, revising and amending the law ad nauseum? How about we do our homework and get it right, no matter how long it takes, before we slap a brand on it and start selling it on the shelves?
My dad used to tell me, “Work smarter; do it right the first time.” Because then I wouldn’t have to do things over again. Sage advice, and no doubt, many people adhere to this principle in their daily lives. Why the heck can’t politicians?
Because Obamacare was written in haste, we now face the likelihood of having to do things over again. Because the politicians refused to address the problems already foreseen with the legislation when they had the chance, and before the bill became law, now we will have to do this over again.
Redundancy isn’t just a waste of resources; it also fits in with Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity: Doing the same things over and over again, and expecting different results.
Yup. That’s the American politician to a tee. I’m further convinced now that Obamacare was an exercise in insanity. Thanks for reminding me, Albert.
Monday, July 1, 2013
Safe sex doesn't work, either
Critics of the sexual abstinence message and its "just say no" mantra say that this strategy for preventing unwanted pregnancies or the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and viruses doesn't work because people are going to have sex anyway.
They have no self-control. Granted.
Few people in the modern age appear willing to exercise much in the way of self-control. I concede that this cultural attitude of do whatever you want and whatever pleases you has shattered the protective barriers established by ancestors who believed in the liberating power of self-control.
But changing from a prohibitive to a permissive society isn't the answer.
Yet that's exactly what our culture has done. Forty some-odd years ago, counterculturists pushed and promoted an agenda of doing what feels good. A sexual revolution was claimed on behalf of the American woman. And soon popular culture embraced this movement for its racy controversy and juicy illicitness.
Popular culture has been behind the "safe sex" campaign for more than thirty years. But the sad reality for safe-sex proponents is that this strategy hasn't worked too well, either.
It replaced what counterculturists deemed an antiquated abstinence message. Because people cannot be trusted to exercise self-control, as the reasoning has gone, the solution to sexual epidemics has been to make sex "safe" through measures of protection.
The hard truth is that safe sex hasn't had a very good track record of preventing pregnancies or the spread of STDs and viruses. The big lie that no permissive "safe sex" proponent will admit to is that "safe sex" as it has been coined isn't really safe at all. It is "safer" than no protection at all. But it isn't as safe as abstinence, and an element of significiant risk still exists to the individuals involved.
Condoms, spermicides and birth control pills have been promoted and pushed as the tools that make the safe sex strategy work. And yet, in spite of an aggressive publicity campaign throughout the nineteen eighties and nineties, teenaged pregnancy continued to increase in many areas of the country. So, too, did the incidents of STDs and viruses.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) condoms are, at best, 87 percent effective at preventing pregnancies and only slightly better at preventing the spread of diseases or viruses. Essentially, then, about one in nine condoms can be expected to fail according to the data.
Female birth control measures aren't any more certain, either. Birth control pills vary in their effectiveness depending upon the brand. And they do not protect against the transmission of diseases or viruses. Even the female condom isn't fool-proof.
That's really the point. There is no fool-proof method to preventing pregnancies or STDs and viruses.
Except abstinence. It has a 100 percent success rate when used.
That is the key right there: When used.
Permissivists do not want to acknowledge that abstinence is the healthiest and safest strategy. They dismiss it as ineffective because "nobody" will follow it.
Well, now, I wouldn't be so cynical or pessimistic as to agree with that.
When and if popular culture's messages ever change from permissiveness to dignity and self-respect, only then will generations of young people begin to listen to the wisdom of waiting and exercising self-control.
But because mainstream social institutions refuse to practice self-control, we cannot expect most of our young people to do so, either.
Prevention begins and ends with popular culture. So does permissiveness. Until or unless the values and messages from this institution change, we can expect more of the same destructive sexual behavior to continue and possibly worsen.
We can expect teen pregnancies to continue being endemic as long as television programs like MTV's "Teen Mom" airs, and glorifies and sensationalizes the lives of troubled young teenaged mothers.
We can expect our young men and women to associate self-confidence, self-respect and dignity with the sexual liberties as long as we give celebrities like Kim Kardashian or "Teen Mom" star Farrah Abraham ink and a forum to promote their highly dysfunctional, delinquent behavior.
Abraham, 22, hired an adult production company and an adult co-star to film her in a pornographic video. She has defended this action saying that she did it for herself so she could admire her new, improved body status post breast augmentation. She also said she wants to be able to view the images of herself when she is older so as to remind her of when she was at her sexiest, most youthful, and beautiful.
Even worse, she evidently did this shoot sans condoms and only on birth control. She did report paying for STD exams for herself and her co-star. Talk about your poster child for safe sex: "Oops! I forgot the condoms. Oh, well. Who needs them anyway? I'm on birth control and everyone takes this for granted as being 100 percent safe...right? What the heck..."
It turns out that Abraham also has a substance abuse problem as well as obvious psychological issues; depression most notable. Besides making the porn film as a cheap ego boost for her self-esteem, she has also undergone multiple cosmetic surgeries. How sad it is that a young woman like Abraham would degrade and defile herself with pornography in an effort to boost her self-esteem. How unfortunate that she feels she needs to alter her body in order to feel better about herself.
What Abraham doesn't seem to realize is that porn doesn't make a woman look sexy. Rather, it objectifies her and turns her from a human being into a slab of meat. Incidentally, so does cosmetic surgery. Blemishes and imperfections get in the way of our egocentric pursuit of sex appeal. We apparently want to be on display, because we think this is the way to gain admiration.
Abraham is so convinced that she needs these cheap ego boosts to feel good about herself. What a destructive message to send to other impressionable young women; some of whom are also single moms and/or may have personal issues similar to Abraham's. This makes her an enabler, and certainly not a positive role model.
But Abraham is microcosmic of the obstacles our society faces in its effort to get control of the unwanted pregnancy and STD/virus epidemics that plague the public. If our culture is going to continue pushing condom and pill use as a means of getting the sexual epidemics under control, then we are well advised to not refer to the message as "safe sex," because that is disingenuous and misleading.
A more appropriate term for this permissive sex movement is "augmented sex." It is sex with physical tools that sometimes don't work and get us into trouble anyway.
They have no self-control. Granted.
Few people in the modern age appear willing to exercise much in the way of self-control. I concede that this cultural attitude of do whatever you want and whatever pleases you has shattered the protective barriers established by ancestors who believed in the liberating power of self-control.
But changing from a prohibitive to a permissive society isn't the answer.
Yet that's exactly what our culture has done. Forty some-odd years ago, counterculturists pushed and promoted an agenda of doing what feels good. A sexual revolution was claimed on behalf of the American woman. And soon popular culture embraced this movement for its racy controversy and juicy illicitness.
Popular culture has been behind the "safe sex" campaign for more than thirty years. But the sad reality for safe-sex proponents is that this strategy hasn't worked too well, either.
It replaced what counterculturists deemed an antiquated abstinence message. Because people cannot be trusted to exercise self-control, as the reasoning has gone, the solution to sexual epidemics has been to make sex "safe" through measures of protection.
The hard truth is that safe sex hasn't had a very good track record of preventing pregnancies or the spread of STDs and viruses. The big lie that no permissive "safe sex" proponent will admit to is that "safe sex" as it has been coined isn't really safe at all. It is "safer" than no protection at all. But it isn't as safe as abstinence, and an element of significiant risk still exists to the individuals involved.
Condoms, spermicides and birth control pills have been promoted and pushed as the tools that make the safe sex strategy work. And yet, in spite of an aggressive publicity campaign throughout the nineteen eighties and nineties, teenaged pregnancy continued to increase in many areas of the country. So, too, did the incidents of STDs and viruses.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) condoms are, at best, 87 percent effective at preventing pregnancies and only slightly better at preventing the spread of diseases or viruses. Essentially, then, about one in nine condoms can be expected to fail according to the data.
Female birth control measures aren't any more certain, either. Birth control pills vary in their effectiveness depending upon the brand. And they do not protect against the transmission of diseases or viruses. Even the female condom isn't fool-proof.
That's really the point. There is no fool-proof method to preventing pregnancies or STDs and viruses.
Except abstinence. It has a 100 percent success rate when used.
That is the key right there: When used.
Permissivists do not want to acknowledge that abstinence is the healthiest and safest strategy. They dismiss it as ineffective because "nobody" will follow it.
Well, now, I wouldn't be so cynical or pessimistic as to agree with that.
When and if popular culture's messages ever change from permissiveness to dignity and self-respect, only then will generations of young people begin to listen to the wisdom of waiting and exercising self-control.
But because mainstream social institutions refuse to practice self-control, we cannot expect most of our young people to do so, either.
Prevention begins and ends with popular culture. So does permissiveness. Until or unless the values and messages from this institution change, we can expect more of the same destructive sexual behavior to continue and possibly worsen.
We can expect teen pregnancies to continue being endemic as long as television programs like MTV's "Teen Mom" airs, and glorifies and sensationalizes the lives of troubled young teenaged mothers.
We can expect our young men and women to associate self-confidence, self-respect and dignity with the sexual liberties as long as we give celebrities like Kim Kardashian or "Teen Mom" star Farrah Abraham ink and a forum to promote their highly dysfunctional, delinquent behavior.
Abraham, 22, hired an adult production company and an adult co-star to film her in a pornographic video. She has defended this action saying that she did it for herself so she could admire her new, improved body status post breast augmentation. She also said she wants to be able to view the images of herself when she is older so as to remind her of when she was at her sexiest, most youthful, and beautiful.
Even worse, she evidently did this shoot sans condoms and only on birth control. She did report paying for STD exams for herself and her co-star. Talk about your poster child for safe sex: "Oops! I forgot the condoms. Oh, well. Who needs them anyway? I'm on birth control and everyone takes this for granted as being 100 percent safe...right? What the heck..."
It turns out that Abraham also has a substance abuse problem as well as obvious psychological issues; depression most notable. Besides making the porn film as a cheap ego boost for her self-esteem, she has also undergone multiple cosmetic surgeries. How sad it is that a young woman like Abraham would degrade and defile herself with pornography in an effort to boost her self-esteem. How unfortunate that she feels she needs to alter her body in order to feel better about herself.
What Abraham doesn't seem to realize is that porn doesn't make a woman look sexy. Rather, it objectifies her and turns her from a human being into a slab of meat. Incidentally, so does cosmetic surgery. Blemishes and imperfections get in the way of our egocentric pursuit of sex appeal. We apparently want to be on display, because we think this is the way to gain admiration.
Abraham is so convinced that she needs these cheap ego boosts to feel good about herself. What a destructive message to send to other impressionable young women; some of whom are also single moms and/or may have personal issues similar to Abraham's. This makes her an enabler, and certainly not a positive role model.
But Abraham is microcosmic of the obstacles our society faces in its effort to get control of the unwanted pregnancy and STD/virus epidemics that plague the public. If our culture is going to continue pushing condom and pill use as a means of getting the sexual epidemics under control, then we are well advised to not refer to the message as "safe sex," because that is disingenuous and misleading.
A more appropriate term for this permissive sex movement is "augmented sex." It is sex with physical tools that sometimes don't work and get us into trouble anyway.
Either J-Lo is an idiot...
...or her support staff is.
Regardless, there's a village missing somebody on the Jennifer Lopez team.
The mega-star actress and singer gave a birthday performance to the president of Turkmenistan, a well-known human rights violator. When news of this leaked out, J-Lo's collateral damage crew hit the information waves in high gear, by issuing a statement that had the entertainer known of the human rights abuses, she never would have agreed to perform for the Turkmenistan president in the first place. This is code for, "Oh, crap. We are so stupid!"
J-Lo, I have three words for you and your public relations staff: Do your homework.
As a mega-celebrity you have access to more information than us common Joe and Betty Sixpacks do. Yet even John and Jane Q. Public could have performed a conscientious information search to see whether or not this political leader was worth celebrating. The information is out there; plentiful and documented by legitimate and reliable human rights sources. But the J-Lo team failed to do a reference check on the Turkmenistan president.
In a world with a history full of human rights abuses, violations, and outright crimes, one would think that checking up on the leader of a former Soviet block country would not only be common sense, but second nature, for anyone from the western free world looking to pay him a visit.
The bottom line here is that neither J-Lo nor her staff gave much thought to international political nuances; of which there are many, varied and complicated. Rather, what the J-Lo brand saw was a way to make some fast, easy money by entertaining a politician for a few minutes.
Hopefully this is a lesson learned for J-Lo and the people she employs to protect her corporation.
Without bagging too much on J-Lo personally, she isn't the first or only celebrity to perform for less than savory international figures. She isn't the first to draw this kind of scrutiny, ire or controversy. And she won't be the last, unfortunately.
The evidence has convicted me to believe that celebrities--entertainers, athletes, artists, media personalities and so forth--aren't typically the brightest stars in the sky; they are the wealthiest, for sure, but I've examined sharper butter knives than many of these people.
It is most unfortunate that so many celebrities have more money than brains. They have more wealth than they know what to do with, and not enough brains to figure out what to do with the fortunes they have.
Jennifer Lopez is a beautiful woman. But she is also a glamourized bimbo. She doesn't appear to have the brains to think for herself, much less hire people with more brains than she does to do the thinking for her. It is a classic case of the brainless leading the brainless. Or, idiots forming their own village. Whichever.
Regardless, there's a village missing somebody on the Jennifer Lopez team.
The mega-star actress and singer gave a birthday performance to the president of Turkmenistan, a well-known human rights violator. When news of this leaked out, J-Lo's collateral damage crew hit the information waves in high gear, by issuing a statement that had the entertainer known of the human rights abuses, she never would have agreed to perform for the Turkmenistan president in the first place. This is code for, "Oh, crap. We are so stupid!"
J-Lo, I have three words for you and your public relations staff: Do your homework.
As a mega-celebrity you have access to more information than us common Joe and Betty Sixpacks do. Yet even John and Jane Q. Public could have performed a conscientious information search to see whether or not this political leader was worth celebrating. The information is out there; plentiful and documented by legitimate and reliable human rights sources. But the J-Lo team failed to do a reference check on the Turkmenistan president.
In a world with a history full of human rights abuses, violations, and outright crimes, one would think that checking up on the leader of a former Soviet block country would not only be common sense, but second nature, for anyone from the western free world looking to pay him a visit.
The bottom line here is that neither J-Lo nor her staff gave much thought to international political nuances; of which there are many, varied and complicated. Rather, what the J-Lo brand saw was a way to make some fast, easy money by entertaining a politician for a few minutes.
Hopefully this is a lesson learned for J-Lo and the people she employs to protect her corporation.
Without bagging too much on J-Lo personally, she isn't the first or only celebrity to perform for less than savory international figures. She isn't the first to draw this kind of scrutiny, ire or controversy. And she won't be the last, unfortunately.
The evidence has convicted me to believe that celebrities--entertainers, athletes, artists, media personalities and so forth--aren't typically the brightest stars in the sky; they are the wealthiest, for sure, but I've examined sharper butter knives than many of these people.
It is most unfortunate that so many celebrities have more money than brains. They have more wealth than they know what to do with, and not enough brains to figure out what to do with the fortunes they have.
Jennifer Lopez is a beautiful woman. But she is also a glamourized bimbo. She doesn't appear to have the brains to think for herself, much less hire people with more brains than she does to do the thinking for her. It is a classic case of the brainless leading the brainless. Or, idiots forming their own village. Whichever.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Profiling Paula
What you see is what you get.
That’s according to Paula Deen, the television cooking star who built a fortune on her food and her down home, honest to goodness personality.
I’ve watched Paula Deen over the years, and frankly, I think she is as genuine as the real article she claims to be. Without personally knowing the lady off camera, I have neither seen nor heard of any evidence that she is not what she appears to be.
This is a woman who knows what it means to struggle, pull herself up by her boot straps, and keep trying to better herself.
After a failed marriage, Paula was living as a single mother of two boys, trying to make ends meet to provide for her children. That’s when she began making brown paper sack lunches that her boys would sell to business people on their lunch breaks. Pretty soon, her sack lunches were in high demand, being delivered to office buildings all over the city.
Business soon became not only brisk, but downright overwhelming. It wasn’t too much later that Paula would open a restaurant called “The Lady and Sons” in Savannah, Ga. Invoking the name of her original sack lunch business, this venture, too, became a local hit.
Then came television, the Food Network, and the big time. Endorsements and her own product labels soon followed.
For many years to come Paula Deen was the Food Network, for all intents and purposes. She was there in the network’s early years before it became the popular hit channel it is today. In fact, Paula was a main attraction on the cable network. One might go so far as to say that she was one of the reasons the Food Network took off like it did, appealing to generations of cooking fans who found her folksy appeal almost as endearing as her recipes.
But then, at the height of her success, word was leaked to the news media just a couple of weeks ago that Deen had uttered a racial slur.
Uh-oh.
Anyone who is media savvy knows exactly what this means: Your career is in jeopardy, and possibly over.
Several media personalities over the years have faded into obscurity following the controversies contrived over things they’ve said.
And just like that, the Food Network dropped Paula Deen quicker than a stick of deep-fried butter fresh out of the oil. The company that can bank much of its success on Paula Deen was the first to throw her under the bus. And all over something that someone accused her of saying.
Paula hasn’t denied using the racial slur. But she denies using it the way she has been alleged of doing.
According to Paula, she used the racial slur three decades ago while under pressure in the middle of a bank hold-up.
Now, there are those who believe this story like they believe Deen’s high calorie dishes are healthy for them. And then there are those who will take Paula Deen’s word just because she is Paula Deen.
I’m sure a lot of people have found themselves falling to one side or the other. Then there are those of us that look at the situation and are waiting for the evidence that establishes her guilt to surface.
I am not going to proclaim her guilty until I’ve seen the evidence. I’m uncertain if she’s innocent, either. But I do know that in America, an accused person is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. So Paula has admitted to uttering a racial slur at some time in her life. This was 30 years ago. If that is the extent of her “racism,” then no one, including Paula, should have anything to worry about.
As Paula noted, everyone makes mistakes and says things they may regret. She appeared quite contrite and genuine in her public apologies. Her appearance on NBC’s “Today” show brought her to tears…real tears.
So many media and marketing experts have analyzed and over-analyzed her television appearances since the controversial allegation came out. Many have said that Paula hasn’t said enough, she hasn’t done enough, to earn back the love she once enjoyed from the American public.
But, the way I see things, the only people panicking over what Paula Deen said three decades ago are her corporate partners who are in “cover your butt” mode to protect against financial fall-out. In other words, they are merely looking out for their monetary interests, because they know how knee-jerk the media is and how much the ignorant public can be.
Paula’s true fan-base is largely unchanged. She may have lost those who followed her as a passing fancy, because they think she has a funny accent and her food looks good. But those who truly admire what she has done throughout her life, how much she has accomplished, and the obstacles she has overcome, are likely to stick with her until there is hard, empirical, conclusive evidence that establishes Paula is not the person she claims to be.
I do have to question the motive of the individual who leveled this accusation; and the timing.
Paula is at the top of her game. Her name, her brand is worth millions of dollars. To someone who is down and out, and who perhaps was rubbed the wrong way by Savannah’s “Bag Lady,” making an accusation of racism would seem like an viable game plan to getting one’s hands on a piece of Deen’s fortune.
After all, Paula has all of the right ingredients to be labeled a white supremacist racist. She’s white and she’s a Southron. Quite frankly, I think that’s why the news media latched onto the accusation as quickly as it did.
Everyone in the media knows that every white Southerner is really a racist at heart. That’s the profile that is built by a supposedly unbiased news media.
If the accusation had been made of Ina Garten or Giada Di Laurentis, it wouldn’t have resonated through the media the way it did because the accused was Paula Deen, whose Southern accent is so strong, I swear I can’t understand some of the things she says; like “pah,” or “buhhhder.”
Now, I’ll concede that Paula didn’t come right out and say “I’m sorry,” or “I apologize” on NBC's “Today Show.” She did utter a pretty clear apology on YouTube, asking people for their forgiveness.
From the way the "Today" interview went, I think Paula was downright angry, frustrated and upset about the fall-out over something that is in the distant past. She felt railroaded, the target of a witch-hunt because of her success.
I’ll wager she is partly correct. She is also a target because she is a white Southron. Those traits plus financial success equal inevitable trouble over the hyper-sensitive issue of race.
Why? Because white Southrons are profiled as racists by virtue of the South’s history. They are guilty of racism without even having to open their mouths, because, dag-nabbit, we all know where a white Southerner’s heart and mind lay, don’t we? They are presumed guilty until proven innocent.
I particularly enjoyed Paula’s parting shot at her critics, who very clearly are ready to throw stones her way. Invoking the New Testament story of Jesus who stepped in to save the life of an adulterous woman about to be stoned to death, Paula looked into the camera and pleaded for anyone who has never said something they have regretted to pick up a stone and throw it so hard it kills her.
Anyone with an ounce of sophisticated thought could hear that Paula was admitting her guilt, but then challenging the rest of us to examine ourselves to see if we really ought to be condemning her.
Whether America turns its back on Paula Deen or she is able to rise above yet another obstacle remains to be seen. I’ll put my money on Paula. She is more resilient than the people and entities bailing on her right now.
That’s according to Paula Deen, the television cooking star who built a fortune on her food and her down home, honest to goodness personality.
I’ve watched Paula Deen over the years, and frankly, I think she is as genuine as the real article she claims to be. Without personally knowing the lady off camera, I have neither seen nor heard of any evidence that she is not what she appears to be.
This is a woman who knows what it means to struggle, pull herself up by her boot straps, and keep trying to better herself.
After a failed marriage, Paula was living as a single mother of two boys, trying to make ends meet to provide for her children. That’s when she began making brown paper sack lunches that her boys would sell to business people on their lunch breaks. Pretty soon, her sack lunches were in high demand, being delivered to office buildings all over the city.
Business soon became not only brisk, but downright overwhelming. It wasn’t too much later that Paula would open a restaurant called “The Lady and Sons” in Savannah, Ga. Invoking the name of her original sack lunch business, this venture, too, became a local hit.
Then came television, the Food Network, and the big time. Endorsements and her own product labels soon followed.
For many years to come Paula Deen was the Food Network, for all intents and purposes. She was there in the network’s early years before it became the popular hit channel it is today. In fact, Paula was a main attraction on the cable network. One might go so far as to say that she was one of the reasons the Food Network took off like it did, appealing to generations of cooking fans who found her folksy appeal almost as endearing as her recipes.
But then, at the height of her success, word was leaked to the news media just a couple of weeks ago that Deen had uttered a racial slur.
Uh-oh.
Anyone who is media savvy knows exactly what this means: Your career is in jeopardy, and possibly over.
Several media personalities over the years have faded into obscurity following the controversies contrived over things they’ve said.
And just like that, the Food Network dropped Paula Deen quicker than a stick of deep-fried butter fresh out of the oil. The company that can bank much of its success on Paula Deen was the first to throw her under the bus. And all over something that someone accused her of saying.
Paula hasn’t denied using the racial slur. But she denies using it the way she has been alleged of doing.
According to Paula, she used the racial slur three decades ago while under pressure in the middle of a bank hold-up.
Now, there are those who believe this story like they believe Deen’s high calorie dishes are healthy for them. And then there are those who will take Paula Deen’s word just because she is Paula Deen.
I’m sure a lot of people have found themselves falling to one side or the other. Then there are those of us that look at the situation and are waiting for the evidence that establishes her guilt to surface.
I am not going to proclaim her guilty until I’ve seen the evidence. I’m uncertain if she’s innocent, either. But I do know that in America, an accused person is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. So Paula has admitted to uttering a racial slur at some time in her life. This was 30 years ago. If that is the extent of her “racism,” then no one, including Paula, should have anything to worry about.
As Paula noted, everyone makes mistakes and says things they may regret. She appeared quite contrite and genuine in her public apologies. Her appearance on NBC’s “Today” show brought her to tears…real tears.
So many media and marketing experts have analyzed and over-analyzed her television appearances since the controversial allegation came out. Many have said that Paula hasn’t said enough, she hasn’t done enough, to earn back the love she once enjoyed from the American public.
But, the way I see things, the only people panicking over what Paula Deen said three decades ago are her corporate partners who are in “cover your butt” mode to protect against financial fall-out. In other words, they are merely looking out for their monetary interests, because they know how knee-jerk the media is and how much the ignorant public can be.
Paula’s true fan-base is largely unchanged. She may have lost those who followed her as a passing fancy, because they think she has a funny accent and her food looks good. But those who truly admire what she has done throughout her life, how much she has accomplished, and the obstacles she has overcome, are likely to stick with her until there is hard, empirical, conclusive evidence that establishes Paula is not the person she claims to be.
I do have to question the motive of the individual who leveled this accusation; and the timing.
Paula is at the top of her game. Her name, her brand is worth millions of dollars. To someone who is down and out, and who perhaps was rubbed the wrong way by Savannah’s “Bag Lady,” making an accusation of racism would seem like an viable game plan to getting one’s hands on a piece of Deen’s fortune.
After all, Paula has all of the right ingredients to be labeled a white supremacist racist. She’s white and she’s a Southron. Quite frankly, I think that’s why the news media latched onto the accusation as quickly as it did.
Everyone in the media knows that every white Southerner is really a racist at heart. That’s the profile that is built by a supposedly unbiased news media.
If the accusation had been made of Ina Garten or Giada Di Laurentis, it wouldn’t have resonated through the media the way it did because the accused was Paula Deen, whose Southern accent is so strong, I swear I can’t understand some of the things she says; like “pah,” or “buhhhder.”
Now, I’ll concede that Paula didn’t come right out and say “I’m sorry,” or “I apologize” on NBC's “Today Show.” She did utter a pretty clear apology on YouTube, asking people for their forgiveness.
From the way the "Today" interview went, I think Paula was downright angry, frustrated and upset about the fall-out over something that is in the distant past. She felt railroaded, the target of a witch-hunt because of her success.
I’ll wager she is partly correct. She is also a target because she is a white Southron. Those traits plus financial success equal inevitable trouble over the hyper-sensitive issue of race.
Why? Because white Southrons are profiled as racists by virtue of the South’s history. They are guilty of racism without even having to open their mouths, because, dag-nabbit, we all know where a white Southerner’s heart and mind lay, don’t we? They are presumed guilty until proven innocent.
I particularly enjoyed Paula’s parting shot at her critics, who very clearly are ready to throw stones her way. Invoking the New Testament story of Jesus who stepped in to save the life of an adulterous woman about to be stoned to death, Paula looked into the camera and pleaded for anyone who has never said something they have regretted to pick up a stone and throw it so hard it kills her.
Anyone with an ounce of sophisticated thought could hear that Paula was admitting her guilt, but then challenging the rest of us to examine ourselves to see if we really ought to be condemning her.
Whether America turns its back on Paula Deen or she is able to rise above yet another obstacle remains to be seen. I’ll put my money on Paula. She is more resilient than the people and entities bailing on her right now.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Gay doesn't mean joyful anymore
Back in the day, the term "gay" meant joyful.
Today, "gay" means to be part of an activist community and a protected minority group.
In my humble opinion, there is nothing joyful about today's gay movement.
Recentlhy, a same-sex marriage proposal has been passed in the Nevada Assembly. The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) voted to allow gay boys into their ranks; after years of standing their ground firmly opposed to the practice of homosexuality. And the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down both Proposition 8 in California and the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996.
Of course, permissive rationalists today don't call homosexuality a practice, but a biological preference, genetic orientation, and a natural lifestyle.
I find the Boy Scouts' reversal disturbing, because it means the leadership is caving on Biblically moral issues in order to save "face" with an increasingly more "tolerant" society and world view. ...And to avoid future discriminatory lawsuits.
I thought it was laughable to hear a Nevada legislator supporting the same-sex marriage bill say that it was about equality and civil rights.
Civil rights? Since when is marriage a right? Last time I checked, it is a freedom and privilege of liberty. I don't know about anyone else, but I am very tired of everything decent and Biblically moral being walked on as though nothing Judeo-Christian is sacred anymore.
As far as I'm concerned, the government declaring marriage to be open to homosexuals treads upon the religious practice of marriage, and may, in fact, violate the First Amendment forbidding government from abridging the right of the people to peacefully assemble and practice their religion.
Marriage loses its sacredness when secular government steps in and declares what it is and what it isn't.
I have nothing against homosexual people. I have a brother who is openly gay, and I would do whatever I could for him if he was in trouble and needed help. I love him. I neither fear gay people, nor do I want to deprive them of the same Constitutional rights that I enjoy.
But I draw the line with marriage. God ordained it, and He did so specifically between a man and a woman.
The homosexual lobby just cannot leave religion alone. Years ago, gays just wanted to be left alone. But now their activist lobby is pursuing to take down every sacred religious institution. It may not be long before a minister, priest or pastor is sued for refusing to marry a same-sex couple. Until then, they'll just be persecuted. But, I suppose this is all prophetic of things to come.
Recentlhy, a same-sex marriage proposal has been passed in the Nevada Assembly. The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) voted to allow gay boys into their ranks; after years of standing their ground firmly opposed to the practice of homosexuality. And the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down both Proposition 8 in California and the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996.
Of course, permissive rationalists today don't call homosexuality a practice, but a biological preference, genetic orientation, and a natural lifestyle.
I find the Boy Scouts' reversal disturbing, because it means the leadership is caving on Biblically moral issues in order to save "face" with an increasingly more "tolerant" society and world view. ...And to avoid future discriminatory lawsuits.
I thought it was laughable to hear a Nevada legislator supporting the same-sex marriage bill say that it was about equality and civil rights.
Civil rights? Since when is marriage a right? Last time I checked, it is a freedom and privilege of liberty. I don't know about anyone else, but I am very tired of everything decent and Biblically moral being walked on as though nothing Judeo-Christian is sacred anymore.
As far as I'm concerned, the government declaring marriage to be open to homosexuals treads upon the religious practice of marriage, and may, in fact, violate the First Amendment forbidding government from abridging the right of the people to peacefully assemble and practice their religion.
Marriage loses its sacredness when secular government steps in and declares what it is and what it isn't.
I have nothing against homosexual people. I have a brother who is openly gay, and I would do whatever I could for him if he was in trouble and needed help. I love him. I neither fear gay people, nor do I want to deprive them of the same Constitutional rights that I enjoy.
But I draw the line with marriage. God ordained it, and He did so specifically between a man and a woman.
The homosexual lobby just cannot leave religion alone. Years ago, gays just wanted to be left alone. But now their activist lobby is pursuing to take down every sacred religious institution. It may not be long before a minister, priest or pastor is sued for refusing to marry a same-sex couple. Until then, they'll just be persecuted. But, I suppose this is all prophetic of things to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
