Tuesday, September 25, 2018

Question everything...but do Nothing

Image result for question everything do nothing cartoonI am flabbergasted with the current trend of not only our political system but in the overall systems of everyday life.  What was understood is now in question and up to interpretation.  What was considered abhorrent is now considered normal.  The shift to our sensibilities is undergoing a wrecking ball of changes that not only change what we think but transform our ability to even consider, leaving us with no foundation of right or wrong, no footing to firmly stand upon while we attempt to process the negative renovations to our existence.

Where we once understood the differences between male and female, we are confronted with a myriad of gender choices.  Being a man or a woman is no longer sufficient, we must identify ourselves as an individual, over and above our pre-assigned gender. 

Bicurious- People who are open to experiment with genders that are not only their own, but do not know if they are open to forming any sort of relationship with multiple genders.  Polysexual- When you are attracted to many genders.  Monosexual- Being attracted to only one gender.  Allosexual- When you are not asexual (attracted to at least one gender).  Androsexual- Being attracted to masculine gender presentation.  Gynosexual- Being attracted to feminine gender presentation.  Questioning- People who are debating their own sexuality/gender.  Asexual- Not experiencing sexual attraction (note that you can also be aromantic and you do not necessarily have to be asexual and aromantic at the same time).  Sometimes the term, ace, is used to describe asexuals.  Demisexual- When you only experience sexual attraction after forming a strong emotional bond first or a romantic bond.  Grey Asexual- When you only experience attraction rarely, on a very low scale, or only under certain circumstances.  - Perioriented When your sexual and romantic orientation targets the same gender (for example being heteromantic and heterosexual or being biromantic and bisexual).  Varioriented- When your sexual and romantic orientations do not target the same set of genders (for example being heteromantic and bisexual or being homoromantic and pansexual).   The belief that hetersexuality is the norm and that sex, gender, sexuality, and gender roles all align.  Erasure- Ignoring the existance of genders and sexualities in the middle of the spectrum.  Cishet- Someone who is both cisgendered and heterosexual.  This is sometimes used as a slur.  Polyamorous- An umbrella term referring to people who have or are open to have consensually have relationships with multiple people at the same time.  Monoamorous- People who have or or open to have relationships with only one other person at a time.  The term, monogamous, is also sometimes used.  Queer- A reclaimed slur for anybody in the LGBT+ community or who do not identify as cisgender and/or hetersexual/heteromantic.  Ally- A supporter of the LGBT+ community that does not identify as LGBT+

Sorry for the small type but I couldn’t get them all in using standard practices.  Also, I don’t wish to offend anyone so, If I didn’t mention a label that you associate with please feel free to make up your own, but please include the definition so that others may understand more fully who you really are.
The Gender roles are only one of many changes that are being thrust upon us, recreating what was already defined and understood. 

Another foundational principle that is being changed is the role of Morality.  Morality is usually defined as a set of societal principles that are adopted and followed by that society in order to sustain that order and provide the basis for laws and punishments. 

The new definition (my own) is that morality is a measure that defines an individual based on his or her own life experiences, creating a sense of being while establishing the fluid parameters of actions based on present needs and desires.

One example is the softening toward the sexual assaults of boys by the repugnant MBLA (the man-boy love association).  In a recent Ted Talk, we were encouraged to understand these individuals, while giving more deference to “who they are”.

You may not agree with this new definition but I think it’s pretty easy to see that we’re moving in that direction.  The same goes with the truth that used to mean an unchanging constant that was the same Yesterday, Today and Forever.  Truths were rare and hard to find but now they can be achieved by anyone at any time and for any reason. 

The last of many changes that are occurring is within the area of personal freedom.  Personal freedom has always had some controversy surrounding it but it was generally understood that in order to gain freedom one had to abide by the laws of the land.  This may sound a bit counterintuitive but when taken from the context of natural laws the truth is very evident.  Stand by a cliff and you will notice the severity of not living the law of gravity.  Obey that law and you are allowed to be free.  Obey the traffic laws and you can drive, disobey and your license the privilege to drive is revoked. 

The new paradigm is laws are only obeyed when it’s convenient and if it serves the means to an end of the motivation of the individual.  More often than before we forgive the punishments and reduce the consequences of creating a pattern of behavior that promotes the willful and deliberate excusal of lawful conduct. 

Depending on who you are those laws are often a non-issue.  Politicians routinely pass laws for the public but distance themselves from the consequences.  Or as is being viewed by millions in the Kavanagh hearings, his confirmation is being stalled due to an unsubstantiated accusation with no evidence, no witnesses and no corroboration.  Our laws are becoming fluid and changeable to fit the needs of those in power. 

The short-term effects of these changes might allow those most interested in gaining some political ground but the long-term consequences will result in lawlessness, increases in graft and corruption, more increases in public disobedience and when taken to its logical conclusion, the result will destroy our society, our Constitution and destroy the United States of America.

It is your choice to follow suit down the rabbit hole but my prediction is that once you are in that hole, backing out is extremely difficult.

Thursday, September 20, 2018

Perfecting Perfection

Image result for the political lie cartoonGood and bad deeds play a part in who we are.  It has been established that, mostly through the process of understanding ourselves and viewing what others do and don’t do,  that no one is perfect and no one is absent from the mistakes that plague us all.

Perfection, the goal of many who claim to be on that road to salvation requires a serious self-reflection and a continuous desire to improve each day or at least stay on track toward improving.  The goal of being perfect must include the idea that no one is perfect and only by growing and improving can we find any solace in the act of working toward perfection. 

Logically, at least from my perspective, the attempt toward being perfect must start from the realization of being flawed, broken, inadequate and unworthy, knowing that we cannot obtain that lofty goal while in mortality or ever depending on your view of your existence.  

Striving to do better each day, acting the part, going through the motions or even convincing ourselves that we are doing what we can to improve who we were is, in a sense, a desire toward being perfect, even if we never know what “perfect” is. 

Perfection may be unknown and in our ever-changing world seeking flawlessness may have negative consequences, especially when the desire toward perfection takes precedence over the need to live within this troubled and defective world.  Perfectionism demands acceptance of only that which is perfect, meaning that if you’re a perfectionist you’re demands will always be below your standards and even below your own level of functionality. 

It is not wrong to want to strive for perfection, but it is unrealistic to demand what cannot be obtained or delivered.  Even if I want to be perfect I must understand that my journey toward that lofty goal is mine and mine alone.  My perception of perfection is different and unique to me as yours is to you.  But should that stop us from trying?

The example of Judge Kavanagh is apropos and regardless of what you think of the judge, his policies, his politics or his past, is he or is he not striving to improve his life?  Does he have a meaningful life, has he endeavored to act better today than he did yesterday?  All politics aside, and I understand that sentiment is perhaps unthinkable to some and impossible for others, but if it could be set aside, is this man, Judge Kavanagh, the same man he was when he was 17 and is what he is accused of doing, I stress ACCUSED, equal to the man, the father, and husband he has become?  

Many will claim the accusation sufficient to excuse the nomination leaning toward guilty until proven innocent.  This should trouble all Americans, especially the criminals, Politicians included and those who fail in their attempts to work toward perfection, those that lust after the seedy underbelly of the natural man.  For in that sentiment comes the division and abandonment of individual rights and protections under the law exchanged for an ever-changing dictatorial philosophy of power over the people.   

We are all different than we were.  The issue of perfection and the idea of striving to be better, to be more, to be more healthy, to be more considerate, or even more educated has to be a consideration in relation to who we are now as opposed to who we were.

Are we willing to forgive a person’s past? Are we willing to forget or excuse, or are we adamant regarding the actions of the past, to the point of never allowing the deeds of yesterday to be mitigated by the actions of today or over an entire life?  For those who throw the stones of accusations, I say "watch out for flying rocks".

Of course there are conditions of severity and punishments but in context to the overall measure of a man, what constitutes an unforgivable deed, an unpardonable sin or an intolerable act, and by that same measure of a man (and women) do we stop their progress toward perfection based on our desire to judge them in context to what they used to be, rather than what they are now?

There are many who have done deplorable acts against others and have not changed from who they were and have not been so judged as Judge Kavanagh.  Bill Clinton, Bill Ayers, Reverend Sharpton, to name but a few.  Are they on that road to perfection, have they made vast improvements to their lives over the last 30 years?  If your answer is purely political and your goal is to ruin or destroy than you're not considering the individual and you have discounted your existence and your relationship toward improving your life.

I am not supporting or denying the claims leveled against Judge Kavanagh but only providing context to the motivations of those that accuse and their support toward the efforts to discount an entire life over the spurious claims of one that seems to be purely political pontification for the purpose of prevaricating the nomination process.

As you attempt to seek your own perfection, please take to heart the logical and philosophical desire we all have toward being better…Look to the future and the future will look kindly on you.  

Tuesday, September 18, 2018

Moralistic machinations

Image result for kavanaugh cartoons
The following is written by Dennis Prager, I wish I could write like this....

It is almost impossible to overstate the damage done to America’s moral compass by taking the charges leveled against Judge Brett Kavanaugh seriously.

It undermines the foundational moral principles of any decent society.
Those who claim the charges against Judge Kavanaugh by Christine Blasey Ford are important and worth investigating, and that they ultimately, if believed, invalidate his candidacy for the U.S. Supreme Court are stating that:

a) What a middle-aged adult did in high school is all we need to know to evaluate an individual’s character — even when his entire adult life has been impeccable.

b) No matter how good and moral a life one has led for 10, 20, 30, 40 or even 50 years, it is nullified by a sin committed as a teenager.

No decent — or rational — society has ever believed such nihilistic nonsense.

This is another example of the moral chaos sown by secularism and the left. In any society rooted in Judeo-Christian values, it is understood that people should be morally assessed based on how they behave over the course of their lifetime — early behavior being the least important period in making such an assessment.

These religious values taught us that all of us are sinners and, therefore, with the exception of those who have engaged in true evil, we need to be very careful in making moral evaluations of human beings.

And, of course, we were taught to extend forgiveness when people demonstrate through their actions that they have changed. As a well-known ancient Jewish adage put it: “Where the penitent stands, the most righteous cannot stand.”

In other words, the highest moral achievement is moral improvement.

Perhaps the most important principle violated by taking this 36-year-old high school-era charge seriously is the principle of the moral bank account.

Every one of us has a moral bank account. Our good deeds are deposits, and our bad deeds are withdrawals. We, therefore, assess a person the same way we assess our bank account. If our good actions outweigh our bad actions, we are morally in the black; if our bad actions greatly outweigh our good actions, we are morally in the red.

By all accounts — literally all — Brett Kavanaugh’s moral bank account is way in the black. He has led a life of decency, integrity, commitment to family and commitment to community few Americans can match. On these grounds alone, the charges against him as a teenager should be ignored.
So, why is this charge taken seriously?

One reason is, as I recently wrote, the greatest fear in America is fear of the left — the fear of what the left will do to you if you cross it. Not fear of God. Not fear of doing wrong. Fear of the left. Offend the left and you will lose your reputation and, quite often, your job or your business.

Another reason is pure, amoral, demagogic politics. No honest American of any political persuasion believes that if a woman were to charge a Democrat-appointed judge such as Merrick Garland with doing to her 36 years ago in high school what Brett Kavanaugh is charged with having done 36 years ago in high school, the Democratic Party and the media would be demanding the confirmation vote be delayed or the candidate withdraw.

A third reason is feminism’s weakening of the American female (and male, but that is another story). A generation ago, a drunk teenager at a party trying groping a teenage girl over her clothing while trying to remove as much of her clothing as possible would not have been defended or countenanced. But it would not have been deemed as inducing post-traumatic stress disorder either.

This weakening of the female is perfectly illustrated by the statement released by Susanna Jones, head of Holton-Arms School, the private preparatory school for girls in Bethesda, Maryland, that the accuser attended. “As a school that empowers women to use their voices, we are proud of this alumna for using hers,” Jones said.

“Empowers women”? Please.

Nearly every woman over puberty has experienced a man trying to grope her (the groping of a pre-pubescent is sexual molestation of a child and an act of evil). My mother was groped by a physician. She told my father about it. My father told the physician that if he were to do it again, he would break his hands. And it remained a family folk tale. If you had told my mother she was a “survivor,” she would have wondered what you were talking about. The term was reserved for people who survived Nazi concentration camps, Japanese prisoner of war camps and cancer survivors, not women groped by a man.

When my wife was a waitress in her mid-teens, the manager of her restaurant grabbed her breasts and squeezed them on numerous occasions. She told him to buzz off, figured out how to avoid being in places where they were alone and continued going about her job. That’s empowerment.

In sum, I am not interested in whether Mrs. Ford, an anti-Trump activist, is telling the truth. Because even if true, what happened to her was clearly wrong, but it tells us nothing about Brett Kavanaugh since the age of 17. But for the record, I don’t believe her story. Aside from too many missing details — most women remember virtually everything about the circumstances of a sexual assault no matter how long ago — few men do what she charges Kavanaugh with having done only one time. And no other woman has ever charged him with any sexual misconduct.

Do not be surprised if a future Republican candidate for office or judicial nominee — no matter how exemplary a life he has led — is accused of sexual misconduct … from when he was in elementary school.

Thursday, September 6, 2018

Responsible Parenting?

Image result for dysfunctional family cartoonAs a responsible parent and I use the word responsible to designate those individuals who parent using love, respect, patients and have some experience, as opposed to those who do not, in relation to the determining factor in how a child grows and matures.  Responsible parenting is not easy, it is not convenient and it is often a failure in relation to those being parented.

The randomness of parenting is evident across the world.  There is no set principle that governs the process nor guarantees a specific outcome.  Responsible parents may act in accordance with the most correct methodology and strive every day to do what is “right” and still fail miserably in relation to their perception of what is expected for their lives and the lives of their children.

I will be the first to admit that the process of parenting is a learned process and one that is constantly changing, fluctuating and severely mutable to the ever altering criteria’s of life and personal experience.  How you parent one child will almost assuredly not work for another.  How we teach one child or share with another depends on the altering perceptions of both the parent and the child.  The outcome, therefore, is uncertain, helping us all to realize that being responsible is a term that can only be applied to the individuals involved.

Being responsible is also a fairly fluid term depending on your individual morality, or perspective, your ideology and a score of other factors that determine what it means to be “responsible”.  My definition above is fairly generic and predisposes an understanding of what love is, what respect and patients mean and has a willingness to learn in order to gain experience.  Very few of us have the experience needed to parent when we become parents, similar to the challenges that children face when growing up, they don’t have a clue and are now relying on the “experience” of mothers and fathers who also don’t really have a clue. 

That defeatist perspective is not altogether correct.  It may be true to some extent but in all men and women is the innate and inborn desire to love, especially for those that we raise and nurture.  From that foundation, love motivates us to want to learn, how to parent, how to have patience and how to respect, because of Love.  Our hope as parents is that our children will essentially learn to love themselves and others so that they can intern help their children. 

There has developed a disconnect in that learning process.  That loss of respect, even in a society in general, is a direct result of our altered sense of what love is.  Loving in mortality is not unconditional, there are multiple conditions on how we love, who we love and in what measure we exhibit that love.  Unconditional love can only be achieved when one has an omnipotent perspective of an individual or in another term, true love requires a complete measure of the past, present, and future of the person in question. 

In mortality we love physically, we love emotionally and we love, often times without regard to the realities of how true love requires a balanced and sustainable partnership.  Love undirected and love unreturned is unhealthy and is subject to fickle and erratic gyrations that literally destroy the very fabric of Love. 

Why we have these altered states of emotionless connection, a drowning desire to seek out meaningful relationships and an increase in hatred is a direct result of the loss of love and an increase in our level of selfishness.  Selfishness and love cannot coexist, a person cannot be selfish and love another.  There are obviously variables within the development of both but as one grows the other has to diminish, eventually leaving the person with one over the other.    Many of us live with a split personality, clinging to both, trying to balance the unbalanced but never realizing the stress created as we attempt to walk that razor's edge.

This balance is similar in many ways to the political arena.  From the perspective of order vs chaos, many try to walk the tightrope between the two, swaying one way and then the other.  Chaos is the disengagement of order, the deterioration or degradation of systems that are ordered and logical. 
The Left wants to intercede in all things to the point of chaos.  Very much like a family without order or rules or standards, that family degrades and the individuals spin away leaving nothing but the faint memory of what used to be family.  The Right may not be much better but they do come from an ideology that professes order through morality, standards, and rules as their foundation. 

At present, the Left has tried to dismantle immigration and have promoted open borders.  They have been instrumental in diminishing any moral standards but at the same time, they judge those who stray from their morality in the harshest of terms.  The left continues to create chaos in relation to religious freedoms and free speech and well as promoting hate speech the and supporting the causes championed by the black-shirted Anti-fa movement, that by the way is the quintessential precursor to a real fascist state.

The right is like the Father of a family who is tired of trying, too tired to intervene, too tired to care.  The left has an agenda but they don’t have a plan, all they want is POWER. The right has a moral standard but is too shell-shocked to push forward, leaving the field wide open and vulnerable to whatever form of power has the will to take over.

Like a family, are we responsible parents?  Do we know it all?  Of course not, but do we know enough to push forward and make a positive difference? I believe we do.  Like the example at the beginning, the Left is like a teenager, vying for power, competing with Dad, disagreeing with everything he does or says.  And like most teenagers, they simply don’t have a clue.  What does the responsible parent do?  We push forward with what we know to be right. We insist on certain behaviors or we step in to regulate the abhorrent actions. 

Maybe we need to do some more enforcing and be less understanding, because if we don’t those teenagers will grow to be mean, selfish and be without the basic love that is needed for society to flourish, oh wait, It’s already happened.  The Democrats (the Left) are mean, unforgiving, driven by power and control, willing to do anything and everything to further their chaotic cause of Socialism.

We might want to learn a thing or two, like more love, more adherence to standards, more forgiving and more strict in our own lives... if we are to have any say in the future…but then, like most families the kids always know so much more than the parents, so what's the point?