High Five for Friday

1. My friend and I finally saw the encore screenings of the National Theatre Live's Frankenstein. It was the most beautiful, intense, emotionally traumatic, and amazing things I have ever seen. I think we legitimately would have died had we seen the stage production in person. It was that good.
2. I helped steer the nation Tuesday. And if you did your well-informed civic duty, you did too. Go us!
3. I no longer have Gandalf eyebrows, I have bangs, and while my hair isn't ginger, it's a beautiful burnt red, and I love it. Yay for playing your own cosmetologist! Well, except for the eyebrows and bangs. I don't trust myself with hot wax and scissors.
4. My mom and I watched Cats Don't Dance yesterday, and let me just say that I am extremely relieved I've never seen anyone dress up as Darla Dimple for Halloween. I would rather meet up with someone with a chainsaw. That girl is legitimately that terrifying, but then again, this is coming from someone who would rather meet up with a hungry shark than a curious octopus, so maybe I'm not the best judge of what should instill fear.
5. I've decided to move my blog from Blogger to WordPress. It'll look different, but I think in a good way. This is going to be an absolutely ginormous task for a plethora of reasons, so if it doesn't show up one day, not to panic... I'll be doing plenty of that myself. (Prayers are appreciated.)

Liberalism

I feel like I have to give a preface for this.
Last year around this time I was in a government class: controversies in politics. I have to admit that I fully expected my classmates to be ultra liberal just because and ill informed about everything. I was glad to proven wrong; in fact, I was really impressed by them. Seriously. The professor on the other hand...
He gave me a B on a my first of three position papers. We all had to write on euthanasia. I went to his office and asked why I had received the grade I did, and he wouldn't tell me. Fine.
The next position paper was on illegal immigration. I got the grade I wanted.
For the third, we could choose any topic we wanted. I chose a broad, yet specific topic mostly just to make him made. I wasn't sure he was going to pass me, so I figured I'd go out with a bang.

This is that paper. I figured it would be fitting for the day after Election Day. Let's hope those elected keep this in mind...

While the majority of politicians in Washington D.C. might not describe themselves as liberal in thought and philosophy, a good many of them legislate as if they were. This descriptor cuts across party lines, including Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and third-party politicians. The same is true of most news and media reporters and celebrities. While the Constitution grants people the right to their opinions – as well as the right to implement their opinions – there is something about liberalism as a whole that is incredibly disconnected from reality.

It doesn’t work.

Not only does liberalism not work in the real world, it so skews one’s perception of reality that it’s nearly impossible to negotiate with a ‘hard core’ liberal. That is not to say that there are no pointlessly stubborn conservatives, because there most certainly are. Stiff-necked politicians have always existed and will always exist on both sides of the line. However, more conservatives of late have shown more and more efforts to come to a bipartisan agreement and voiced their concern about the partisan politics that are dead locking many initiatives. It is because of the liberal worldview held by many politicians in America today that this country is in the state of disaster it’s in.

Liberalism is a very progressive way of considering the world and how we as humans operate within it, but it is fundamentally flawed in several aspects:

• the liberal concept of human nature and human motivation cannot be shown by any portion of history;
• the liberal conception of how wealth creation and wealth distribution occurs is not only untrue, but is impossible to mandate and maintain;
• the liberal view of what human rights are is misguided and dangerous to everyone.

Simply put, while liberals surely have every good intention, their worldview often leads them to conclusions that are not only unrealistic, but frankly harmful to the country and its citizens as a whole.

The motives of humans and what human nature is truly like is basically the foundation of any philosophy. Liberals believe that human nature is inherently good and that people shouldn’t need much motivation to be charitable and for doing other good deeds that they assume will come naturally. However, in actuality, human nature is primarily guided by self-interest and a desire to rule others. It is because of this difference in philosophy that the Founding Fathers of America crafted in the Constitution limitations – the ‘checks and balances’ – that would prevent people – who are not inherently good and selfless – from becoming the tyrants and dictators they had seen and experienced not only in England, but also throughout history, such as civilizations like Rome and Greece. They did this purposefully to safeguard the rights and the safety of the American people, and because liberals don’t see human nature as self-promoting and greedy, they seek to destroy those checks and balances. Ironically, as they do this, they are manifesting the exact nature that the Founders decidedly tried to guard against. Because world history has proven time and time and time again that human nature is not good and that people will not inherently do the right thing and protect their fellow man, this philosophy ought to be stripped from our way of thinking because it simply does not work.

The liberal concept of wealth and wealth creation is also fatally skewed. Liberals believe that there is a limited amount of money, and that if somebody has more, then – logically – somebody else must have less, and that this situation is neither morally right nor fair. However, this view is simply not correct. Wealth can be created from literally nothing. If someone were to create a product – an iPhone, for example – or write a novel – perhaps Animal Farm or 1984 – then that person has created something of value to other people that did not exist before. Those people would then willingly give that creator some of their wealth in exchange for that product. That process is how wealth is generated and distributed. Contrary to liberal belief, there is not a fixed amount of money in the world; there is no pot of gold that’s just waiting to be distributed. Wealth is ever expanding. Bill Whittle argues that the Los Angeles of the 1800s was vastly different than it is today, and that a large part of that change can be directly attributed to wealth creation. He argues that the wealth of America as a whole has grown nearly seven thousand times over, and that even the poorest people in America now have things – such as televisions, modern healthcare, and automobiles – that the richest people in the 1800s could never dreamed of having. This is all due to individual wealth creation in a capitalist economy.

Liberals also tend to argue that the United States has accumulated all of its wealth by the raiding and ransacking poorer nations and taking their wealth. This is laughably and utterly untrue. Whittle also argues that even if the United States were to take the entire GDP of a smaller, less powerful country – he uses Djibouti as an example – it would not even power the United States economy for an entire day. The wealth of the United States has been created by the creativity, hard work, and perseverance of individuals who have created small businesses that have become massive corporations and enterprises, not by redistributing a fixed amount of wealth such that everyone has a ‘fair’ portion. Equal wealth distribution has actually been tried before in America, and even then, it simply hadn’t worked. When the Pilgrims first came to Plymouth, they all worked in a single common garden where the yield was divided equally amongst the families. Some families with more children weren’t getting enough, some openly protested being forced to labor for yield they weren’t going to receive, and it generally caused a great deal of malcontent and trouble. It was ultimately decided that each family would receive their own garden plot and they could labor for their own yield. There was an immediate rise in productivity, yields increased, and those who had plenty often gave to their neighbors who had come up short. Contrary to liberal belief, working for financial prosperity is good for the economy because it creates wealth for everyone involved in the free market. Distributing wealth ‘equally’ would not only exploit those who labor, but it will take away that incentive for those who generate wealth until the gears of the economy grind to a halt.

Those who identify with liberalism also believe that people are entitled to healthcare, a job that pays reasonable wages, and a decent home that shelters them from inclement weather. These services and / or objects were part of a list that was set forth by Franklin D. Roosevelt as the Second Bill of Rights. While nobody can deny that these are things that would make anyone’s life better and more comfortable, there’s a really glaring problem that liberals do not want to admit, let alone discuss: while these are all perfectly reasonable things to want, they cannot actually be ‘rights’. For someone to have the ‘right’ to something logically demands that somebody else would be required to provide that service and / or object. For example, the Founding Fathers granted the rights of free speech and freedom of assembly in the Constitution. For one to exercise their right to free speech, absolutely nothing is required of anyone else. For one to exercise their right to assemble, absolutely nothing is required of anyone. However, for someone to have the legal right to healthcare, someone is therefore logically – and legally – required to provide that health care. For someone to have the right to a decent home, someone is therefore required to provide that home. For someone to have the right to a decent, well-paying job, someone is therefore required to provide that job regardless of the applicant’s education, experience, or skill set. While this sounds like a perfectly reasonable list of things for people to have, they cannot be mandated as rights because then there would have to be a set of people that would be legally bound to provide those services and products to someone for no compensation. There’s a term for a set of people that provide goods and services for no compensation: that term is slave. While slavery existed in America for nearly two centuries, it is something that was justly abolished, and by making such things as found in FDR’s Second Bill of Rights actual rights, America would be regressing – not progressing – into the ways of the past again.

America has always been a haven for those with differing political and philosophical ideologies. Different ideologies are actually encouraged, and the true test of an idea tends to come in the debates held surrounding government elections. While people cannot honestly be faulted because they’ve elected to try a certain way of accomplishing goals that would be good for everyone, they can indeed by faulted for ignoring history, common sense, and being untruthful about what their ideologies will truly bring about. Liberal legislation has not been ‘progressive’ in the sense that America is being carried forward; instead, America has regressed into partisan politics, become racially divided, and both parties are too proud to truly work together to find a reasonable solution. If a reasonable solution is to be found, politicians on both sides of the aisle must realize that human nature is unchangeable, and that is why safeguards in the Constitution exist. They must realize that wealth is created by individuals, and that by “spreading the wealth”, they will be taking from those who have labored for their wages, and destroying their motivation to work. Finally, they need to realize that commodities and services cannot be made rights, because that will create a class of peoples in slavery in deed, and then America will truly have regressed into the past.

Further Reading:

• "What We Believe" by Bill Whittle (x).
  
• “Dear Liberal, Here’s Why I’m So Hostile” by Jeremy Choate on Sufficient Reason(x).

What I'm Reading: November

Ever see something you really want online and then there's this "People who liked this also liked..." column?
That column is my undoing.
It is why I cannot be trusted on Amazon, in Barnes and Noble, or pretty much anywhere with books with a credit card. I just can't.
And then at the ends of these posts I ask y'all for more suggestions. See, I'm a glutton for punishment.

Well, trailers do the exact same thing. My friend and I recently saw Frankenstein, and there were commercials for upcoming ballets and plays and stuff, and when my friend saw that Of Mice and Men was going to be showing, she ordered me to see it with her.
I was like, "Sure, is it good?" And she just looked betrayed and hurt that I apparently had never read the book. (Sorry, Meredith.)
But I'm fixing the problem now, okay?

I have absolutely no idea what this book is about aside from the 30 second trailer for the play. It looks to be about at least one pretty woman and two... brothers? Friends? One of them is a little slow, but seemed precious, but nobody ever wrote a story with no conflict, and my friend already told me that although Steinbeck is too wordy for his own good, it's about as emotionally traumatic as Frankenstein was.
See, I told you: glutton for punishment, this girl right here.

UDPATE: I read it and it was emotionally traumatic on so many levels I am so glad we did not see the play because I would have cried again this makes three books ever that have made me cry oh my goodness.

What books are you planning to read this month?
I could always use always need suggestions.

Ignorance May Be Bliss

Okay, I've written about motherhood and feminism before, but this really does beat all.
Now, I've sat on this article for a while, partly because I wanted to stew and partly because just like you shouldn't spank your kids in the heat of the moment, writing a response in the heat of the moment isn't the wisest thing to do either. So now that I'm... sorta cooled off, here goes.
And I want to give this disclaimer first: I understand it must be extremely difficult physically, emotionally, spiritually, and financially to raise a child with a disability. I also understand that I am writing this not only as a woman who does not have a disabled child, but as a woman who doesn't have a child period. But I think I have a valid point.
Also, if you are the parent - especially the mother - of a child with a disability, you may want to read this at your own risk. Consider yourself warned.

I saw this... somewhere on Facebook earlier this week: "'I wish I'd aborted the son I've spent 47 years caring for': It's a shocking admission - but read on before you judge". I thought, "Okay, it must be one of those things that sounds awful until you've read the whole thing and then it gets really sweet". Um no. That did not happen. (I suggest you read the entirety of the article before continuing on. It's easier if we're all on the same page.)
I actually will say this in her defense, because I believe in telling the truth: she is concerned about what will happen to her son when she and her husband die. I commend her for that shred of parental and maternal concern. But other than that and wishing he'd been born healthy so he could have a fulfilling, normal life himself, the rest of it is... heartbreaking.
After detailing how she knew something was different about Stephen from the get go, she drops this: "Perhaps you'd expect me to say that, over time, I grew to accept my son's disability. That now, looking back on that day 47 years later, none of us could imagine life without him, and that I'm grateful I was never given the option to abort. However, you'd be wrong. Because, while I do love my son, and am fiercely protective of him, I know our lives would have been happier and far less complicated if he had never been born. I do wish I'd had an abortion. I wish it every day."
Now, forgive me for edging into the satirical and the facetious, but think about what she's saying. She is saying that our lives are supposed to be happy and uncomplicated. That the default setting is happy and simple. I know everyone's life is different. I know everyone walks a different path in different shoes. I. Know. That. But since when were all sources of trouble and all sources of complication supposed to just be stripped away? Oh, no, aborted. Excuse me.
How can you love someone... protect someone... and wish that you had killed him while he was in - presumably - the safest place ever? And I swear, if someone brings up the example of a dog that needs to be put down, so help me, I will rant about the value of all human life.
(And for all those liberals who are them going to point the finger at me for capital punishment: when a human murders a human, there has been value lost. The only way to repay that debt is the forfeit of the murderer's life. End. Of. Story.)
She also recounts a particularly trying time for her as a mother when "exhausted and racked with guilt, I was close to the end of my tether when, shortly after Stephen's third birthday, he became unwell and cried incessantly for three days and nights. Worse still, he could give me no indication of what was wrong with him. My husband was working late shifts as a driver at the time, and by the third night I couldn't stand the noise any longer. In a rage, I picked Stephen up with every intention of throwing him down our flight of stairs. Thankfully, by the time I reached the top step, I thought, 'What on earth am I doing?' and put him back into his cot."
What on earth were you doing? Um, exactly what you keep telling us you wish you could go back and do! The only difference is that he's outside of you now and for some reason, now that he's born, it's illegal. She then closes the interview by saying this: "And so I appeal to every mother-to-be out there, facing the knowledge that they may bring a child like Stephen into this world. Read my story and do what is right for you and your family." In other words, if your child will make your life "complicated" because you'd have to do something over the top like care for them, abort it, because your life won't be complicated at all with a 'normal' child.

I'm not known as a particularly sensitive or emotional person, and on some level I'm not. But reading this article broke my heart. And I read an excellent rebuttal on Chicks on the Right, but even there the thing that broke me most wasn't mentioned.
I remember a few months ago when one of our pastors taught on this passage from 2 Timothy 3:
"But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy,
unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good,
treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God."
(Emphasis mine.)

That specific word for "unloving" -- it means "without natural affection". What kind of affection is more natural than the bond between a mother and her baby? I've always wondered what could drive a woman to have an abortion in the first place. But what on earth drives a woman to retrospectively wish she'd had one? When she's already held her baby, when she's already bonded with her baby?
I am not saying that loving your kids is always easy. If it were easy, why would young women have to be taught to (Titus 2:4-5)? But the fact that we've allowed ourselves to degrade human life to the point where a woman can wish she'd aborted one child and not the other and people who speak out against it are narrow-minded religious fanatics terrifies me. I have a friend with Down's Syndrome, and she is the sweetest thing. I don't think I've ever seen her without a smile. I know there are people with disabilities that aren't easy to work or live with. I get that. There are people with no disabilities that are hard to work and live with, too. So do we abort them because of that? No. I don't know, all of this really smacks of pre-Nazi Germany to me.
All I can say is that I hope her son has no idea what his mother thinks of him. I hope and pray he never finds out. Look at those pictures. He's with his mum. His protector. And his protector wishes she had aborted him. He probably can't understand that. I hope he can't. I sincerely hope he cannot. I hope his ignorance is bliss.

My point is that when we're okay with destroying even the most basic bonds of the family, we shouldn't be shocked or surprised when evil abounds.
Where there is no love, there is hate. I saw no love for her son in this woman. And I hope Stephen is loved by someone. Anyone. Because while she may not have aborted him physically, she's emotionally aborted him. And honestly, I don't know which is worse.

High Five for Friday

1. I have fallen in love with First, Second, and Third John. Johns? I think John. I don't know. My degree in English didn't cover this. They're pretty short, and I almost wonder if they're one letter because the Second one ends sort of... oddly, but the publishers are the experts. They're a short, quick read, but soooo worth the time.
2. Winter fall cooler temperatures are here and my family is already laughing at me because I'm bundling up inside the house and shutting windows and doors. I'm so glad I'm such an abundant source of entertainment for my family. Maybe I should just become a comedienne and get paid for this...
3. I officially have bushier eyebrows than Gandalf. This is bad. Don't worry, this problem will be rectified tomorrow and I will have pretty female eyebrows instead of guybrows. This is good.
4. I'm also going half ginger Sunday. So. EXCITED.
5. My friend and I went out in search of the Land's End Light earlier this week after La Hacienda and Book of Life (aptly paired). I don't think we saw it (of course there'd be a speeding car with ONE headlight behind us), but my brother's coming home for the weekend with a friend, so if they go out, I'll probably go with them. With running shoes. And an empty bladder...

What I'm Reading: October

I'm sure a lot of you know by now that I love politics. Well, I love critiquing it anyway...
But one thing I've written about before is feminism and why I am not a feminist, and it's really refreshing to hear that I am not alone in thinking that while feminism was probably noble at its inception, it is way out in left field now. And can't throw the ball.

Katie pretty much dismantles every argument the Left has about conservatives hating women and wanting to 'beat them down'. She shows that it's actually the Left waging the war, touting Leftist icons like Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton, who have done so much for the women in their lives...
So basically, if you enjoy seeing the Left getting a good shellacking, this book is totally for you.

What books are you planning to read this month?
I could always use suggestions.

Why I am Not a Feminist

I've written about this kind of thing before, but what I'm going to say will still shock and probably offend some people, but hear me out.

I am not a feminist.

Still breathing? No? Well, catch your breath and keep reading.

No, I'm not stupid.
No, I'm not brainwashed.
No, I haven't "succumbed" to the so-called patriarchy.
I have an actual problem with feminism as I have seen it both portrayed and fleshed out.

Let's start with the ideology behind feminism.
In a world view based on evolution, the fittest survive. This could be the strongest, the fastest, or the smartest. In today's politically correct world of über sensitivity, people feel they have to find a way to somehow level what they feel is an uneven playing ground. Now, I want a second to say here that yes, women have not always been treated fairly or as they should have been. But I don't think feminism is the answer, and here's why.
Feminism today does not empower women. Feminism today simply puts down men. In what universe this makes everyone equal, I have no idea. It's sort of like the homosexual and transgender movement, where they say they want the same rules, but then they turn around and ask for different rules. Like, a man who becomes a woman and then demands to use whatever bathroom they want.
Feminists shout and scream for extra pay (they say they only make $0.77 to a man's $1.00) whereas men don't.Now, I've done a fair bit of reading about this, and I've been reliably told that this statistic does not account for the fact that men typically choose to go into higher paying jobs - usually those in the mathematics or computational fields - and women typically choose to go into lower paying jobs - like education. Secondly, the stat doesn't account for the fact that some women choose to leave their careers or work less hours when they have children. Having worked for both a corporation and a small business that employs both men and women, I feel I can safely say that there are few (not no, there are some jerks out there) but few employers who won't pay their employees the same wage for the same job.

Ah, but they'll point to "rape culture". They'll argue that it doesn't matter what they wear, men shouldn't rape them. This is true: men shouldn't rape women. But it is not "victim blaming" to say that they shouldn't have worn clothes that evoked sensuality. Yes, a school girl wearing a modest outfit can be grabbed and raped, and that would be just as wrong. But pretending that you can wear whatever you want - clothing designed to make men look at you lustfully - and it won't have an affect on a man's behavior is insanity, and that's why they're seeing no progress. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The world doesn't work that way, and admitting it doesn't upsets their entire ideology. It demands that women take some personal responsibility for their behavior... which, despite their insistence that they are just as smart and physically capable as a man, they don't want that right... Wonder why...

This leads to another point: women have fought for the right to make their own choices, and that's fine, but when a woman makes a choice that doesn't fit the narrative, suddenly she's an outcast. (You can reference that wonderful openmindedness in the post I linked at the top.) Feminists and liberals (usually one and the same, but not always mutually exclusive) will demonize and harass any woman who decides to vote and live conservatively and, dare I say, normally with men. You can see this when pretty much any woman on any mainstream media network talks about a woman at Fox News.
When this occurred to me, I had to sit there and think this through. They're telling me that I am smart enough to make my own decisions and make my own money... but then they yell at me when I make my own decisions and make my own money because I'm not making the decision they want me to and I'm not earning my money the way they want me to.

Um... no thank you.

If this is feminism, I don't want it, and here's why.

First, I believe that God created man and woman in His image. Boom. That's equality right there. You don't have to argue and conjecture anymore.
Secondly, I do believe in equality. But equality should be achieved by bringing someone up, not tearing someone down. Literally the most non-constructive thing you could do (but then, I don't believe feminists are really interested in being constructive).
Thirdly, I honestly do not care if I make $0.77 to a man's $1. Call me shallow, call me clueless, I don't care. As long as I can pay my bills and live comfortably, I am fine. I don't need anything handed to me. Especially not birth control.
(Do these feminist pro-"choice" activists realize that about 53% of aborted babies are female? And lesbian, according to their scientific "research"? [I say "research" because they say people are born homosexual and you can't change that... but sexuality is fluid and you can change...?]) Sorry not sorry for the rabbit trail.
Fourth, I would love to be able to stay home with my kids and be a housewife. This has always been something I wanted, and I was blessed enough to have professors who respected that choice when they asked about my career aspirations. I'm not shortchanging myself. Not to brag, but I know I'm smart. I choose not to have a career. I want kids. And not the average 2.01 kids, either.
Fifth, I don't expect men to be responsible for my actions and choices. I can take personal responsibility for myself, as I fully expect them to do. I'm not excusing rape, I'm encouraging women to be responsible.
And finally, I will use my own brain and do my own research. I won't accept something I'm told unless I have proof it's true and in the proper context. And if that thinking and research leads to a choice feminists don't like, well, they'll just have to be big girls and grow up.