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).

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.

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.

What I'm Reading: August

I've never really decided which is a better motivator for reading a book: a quiz, exam, or essay due, or the movie hitting theaters.
I vote for the movie.
That being said, a friend told me eons ago to read this book, and I've just now gotten around to it.

I loved this book mostly because it was so well-written, but also because it raises a lot of - what I considered - political questions about control and choice. Very interesting.
There was this one huge, gaping hole of information, though, and I'm not sure if it ends up being answered in the other three books (which I don't plan on reading because they don't seem to tie in), but if someone has read them and could drop some hints, I'd be eternally grateful.

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

Progressive Personal Responsibility

Let me ask a quick question before we begin: when you do something, who receives the consequences - good or bad - of that action?
Probably you, right? Likely there are others that will also be affected by said action, but mostly you.

Well, if the Progressives get their way, that may change.
To illustrate this point, enter Exhibit A:

This was posted by Question Everything on Tumblr. I do not follow this person, I just wanted the image from the OP.

Now, I will say that I agree with Justice Ginsburg on one aspect: the government should have no control over a woman on this issue.
But what is she implying? She's totally insinuating - in the light of the Hobby Lobby case - that the government is now forcing women to get pregnant and have children and that is treating women as "less than [full adults]". Nowhere did Hobby Lobby or anyone pro-life and against abortive forms of birth control insist that women be forced to give birth, so that's an invalid argument.
She's also saying that women should be "responsible for [their] own choices". I couldn't agree more. However, since when does having your employer or your fellow taxpayer pay for your birth control making you responsible for your own choice?
I can wait.

I understand that today's culture is saturated with sex. You'd have to literally live in a cave or under a rock not to see that. And - as I believe it was Joshua Harris who said this - they say sex isn't a big deal and we shouldn't be making so big of a deal out of it. They're wrong. Sex is a huge deal, and we're not making a big enough deal out of it.

As far as I can see, sex has two purposes: to join a husband and wife physically, and to create life.
We've effectively stripped it of the first meaning, and liberals, progressives, and feminazis everywhere are racing to strip it of the second.

Now, don't get me wrong. I understand that there are positive medical uses for birth control. I know there are horrible, painful, life-altering conditions that are made much more bearable with birth control.
What I and people who think like me are against is killing a baby in the womb, the safest place on earth it could possibly be.
And I think we'd all be kidding ourselves if we decided to assume that these people shouting outside the courthouse during the Hobby Lobby case were fighting for birth control so that they could have easier menstrual cycles. Ibuprofen can be bought over the counter, y'all.
And for the record, Hobby Lobby did not have objections to sixteen out of the twenty types of birth control covered by the ACA. The four in question? Abortives that would terminate any personal responsibility a woman may have otherwise need to face if she was giving herself away.

Justice Ginsburg is right about one thing: people need to be personally responsible for their actions. That's always the best policy. It leads to sensible, modest, and honorable behavior in every realm. But as soon as that's stripped away, people will do whatever they please, and we're seeing the fruits of that now.

The Right Questions

I know my blog's been pretty political lately.
Sorry, not sorry.
I'll stop writing about politics when it becomes a non-issue. (So don't hold your breath.)
I've written about Israel before, but things are much hotter in the Middle East now.

Israel has started to invade the Gaza Strip, and obviously there are many questions to be asked about this issue. But nobody I've heard has asked the one question that should - but probably won't - be asked:

Why does the entire Middle East want to utterly annihilate the state of Israel?

It's not like they want to invade for political gain or natural resources, they want Israelis dead.
Why is nobody asking why?
Israel's this little strip of sand and water, yet the world is watching it.

I have a wild guess.
I think the children of Ishmael are trying to exterminate the children of Isaac.
The moment God made it clear they were His people, other nations have sought to shatter them and wipe them off the face of the earth.

And I've got just one question for those who think the Bible is fiction: what other reason is there?

I can wait.

DIY Nation

We're a nation of do-it-yourselfers.
Seriously.
We've got Lowe's, Home Depot, A. C. Moore, Michael's, Hobby Lobby, more auto part stores than I care to count, and - probably the #1 addiction of women everywhere, yet a Godsend - Pinterest: if it's makable, somebody can show you how to do it.
Like, I will never buy a can of dry shampoo because I can make a jar of it for the same price that will last me 10 times as long.

This country is a DIY project, and I think the problem today is that people think it was a DIY project.
What's the difference?
If America was a DIY project, then we as Americans now have no responsibility to maintain it.
That's totally mistaken.
America is a DIY project that we're all responsible for.
WE THE PEOPLE are responsible for keeping government in its place.
WE THE PEOPLE are responsible for taking care of ourselves and our neighbors to the best of our ability. (Government was never supposed to be in charge of welfare. That was an immense failure on the part of the people and the church as a whole.)
WE THE PEOPLE have the responsibility to make an educated vote for the candidate we believe will best fill the position and carry out the duties of that said position.

I believe it was Jefferson who said that America ought to have a revolution every 40 years. I seriously doubt he meant a violent revolution; he probably more of a redrawing of lines, and a fresh declaration of values.

And y'all, we're about 200 years overdue.

I strongly suggest watching Dinesh D'Souza's "America" documentary, as well as Bill Whittle's "What We Believe" series.

Why I Don't Consider Myself a Feminist

Please understand that this is my opinion. I would say it's a well-informed opinion, but I am open to respectful debate.

I see a lot about feminism on Tumblr and in adverts before YouTube videos.
I understand that, no, women weren't made to be tread upon, but nobody was, and I think that's the point that gets lost somewhere.
I see modern feminism as gender-based affirmative action, which - in my opinion - is reverse discrimination: if someone has the grades, let them in the school. If someone has the credentials, hire them.

The feminists I've seen asked about attacks on manhood and boys in general usually evade the issue and argue that all of society is built by the patriarchy, so it just looks like an attack on boys and men.
Speaking as a woman with two open eyes and a head on my shoulders, I think it is an attack on manhood. From my point of view, they're trying to supplant men so they can feel empowered. Feeling empowered is fine because, no, you shouldn't be stuck at home all day. That doesn't mean that you should be the only ones in the workplace with all of the men at home doing nothing. Maybe I'm just naive, but all of this seems pretty clear to me.
Let boys be restless and loud and play with toy guns. Don't sedate them and hand them dolls, because they'll just rip the heads off and then fall asleep, and "that's bound up misogyny!"

Feminists seem to delight in taking any negative thing said about a woman as a "sexist comment", obsess over "rape culture" that they themselves seem to perpetuate by refusing to hold men (and women) to any standard of commitment for sex, and confuse disliking them personally as misogyny.
Yes, there are misogynists out there. And they are wrong.
There are also misandrists out there, and they are wrong. And most of them seem to be feminists.

Sometimes I wonder when "equal" came to mean the start of preferential treatment for one group of people instead of ending discrimination.
Now. Apparently now that's what "equal" means.

And if that's feminism, I don't want it.

Victims

There's one thing I've noticed about our country lately that's made me just . . . sad is this whole victimization thing.
And before somebody gets their nose out of joint: no, I'm not saying that nobody is a victim.
But assigning an entire demographic as "victims" really is a bit much.

America used to be a place where there were no victims of ideologies, of history. America used to be a place where you could start clean, where you could defy the odds, where you achieved things based on your own merit. No, we've never been perfect, but we've tried to right our wrongs.

It just makes me so sad to see people who could do so much succumb to the label of "victim" when nothing's been done to them personally.
We're being conditioned to accept the okay thing being handed out when we could have that really awesome thing if we put down our own ego and take a chance.

Yes, some people are legitimately victims. But we live in a country of second chances.

And we're losing that.

That's what makes me sad.

Shche ne vmerla Ukraina

Listen to the Ukrainian National Anthem here.

I have said this before, but here I am saying it again: I actually don't like posting about politics on this blog.
I may have to start a separate one just for that after I graduate, so at least then it would all have a home.

But my family and I were talking about the whole situation with Ukraine and Russia last night, and my sister brought up some points that were nearly verbatim what I had discussed with a friend.
Now let me just say this: my family and our church family have very close ties to Ukraine. Our church sponsors an orphanage there, and my mom, my sister, my brother, and a lot of my friends have gone there on mission trips.
I say this to let you know that, yes, I am biased.
But I still think my sister and I are right about this.

The one really huge thing that doesn't seem to bother people is that Russia outright invaded Ukraine, forced a "vote", and annexed part of what is legally Ukraine.
Um, this is a big freaking deal.

"Oh, but Crimea voted on it. They want to be part of Russia."
Oh really? The voting was not done via secret ballot. Russian troops were literally occupying Ukraine and Crimea. Civilians had already been killed. Do you really think they were going to vote "no" with a ballot that had their name on it while Russian soldiers were marching up and down their street?
To be honest, I know I wouldn't.
And I know that nobody would want Russia to cut off their gas supply again, which resulted in the slow deaths of thousands not even a decade ago.

"But they speak Russian. It just makes sense that they be part of Russia."
No, it actually doesn't.
Yes, they do speak Russian because in the 50's when Crimea was given to Ukraine (not saying that was totally on the up-and-up, by the way) a lot of people were displaced.
Also, John Green makes the point that it's much easier to administer an area that's actually, you know, attached to you.
When Russia legally gave Crimea to Ukraine, that was that. Until Russia decided it wanted the warm water port back, and illegally occupied and annexed it.
No, that doesn't make sense.

"Well, it's over now, so there's nothing we can do about it."
Don't get me - or my sister, who's got a pretty darn solid view of the whole thing - started on what this administration could have and should have done.
Don't even.
But who said this was over?
Am I the only one who's reminded of Hitler's invasion of basically all of Europe?
In my humble opinion, anyone who trusts Vladmir Putin at this point is either completely uneducated about his background as a KGB agent or an utter fool.
Or both, which honestly is much more frightening.

All I can say is that our prayers are with the people of Ukraine, because clearly our support as a country won't be.

The Moon's Lookin' Good . . . But Atlantis Looks Better

Personally, I try to stay away from politics online.
I feel that there's too many non-verbal aspects of what should really (and ideally) be a discussion on the issue, and that even the most well-written and thought out point tends to come off like a tirade.
But, I'm gonna do this anyway, because this is my blog, and because I'm going to approach this from a slightly different perspective.

So a few weeks ago, my dad and I went to a luncheon for Lee Bright, who's running against Sen. Graham for a US Senate seat. People at the luncheon were encouraged to ask questions - which we did - and a lot of people were concerned about taxes (mostly Obamacare taxes) that would affect not just small businesses and start ups, but also established corporations. I - as a near college graduate and a writer of fiction - began to think about that: if America, one of the last strongholds of economic freedom, falls . . . where do we go? When other countries go through crises, their people come here.
But where do we go should things go guano crazy?

At first, I thought the moon.
I mean, aside from a few rocks and empty landing gear from lunar modules, it's not that scary, it'd be pretty cool to bounce around for about a week, and then we could start working on something to regulate the gravity. It'd have to be a small population of colonists, so really probably just the factories and the workers -- the taxable things, really.
Shipping would literally be through the roof, expedited shipping would be out of this world expensive, and the returns would be arduously long. Not to mention that if people didn't want the moon colony to work, well, it's really not a quiet or invisible thing when a rocket launches in someone's backyard.
Then I realized that I was working from the assumption that only Americans would want a moon colony, which is surely not true. The English love their oriental teas; who's to say they wouldn't want moon tea? And there are plenty of other countries - specifically those who share the ISS - who would probably claim a legal right to the moon.
The moon's not that big, y'all, so this option wasn't looking so good after all.
Okay, but not good.

But then it smacked me upside the face: this whole scenario has basically been imagined before.
Imagined in 1957, when things were nowhere near this bad.
Atlas Shrugged.
Now y'all are probably thinking, "Oh, well Alyse, you're an English major; surely you love to read impossibly long books, right?"
Um . . . no.
I'm not gonna sugarcoat this, but I really have little desire to read that tome. I'd say the movies are pretty well made (with the exception of a new cast every go 'round), and it gets the point across well.
I'd like to skim through it at some point, maybe next week during Spring Break, but if I never get around to it, I won't die a crushed soul.

But really, those who are familiar with the plot, think about it.
Atlantis really seems like the best option. And because I haven't read it, I don't know what's going to happen in the third installment (this year, yes!), but my guess is that (highlight to see potential spoilers) John Galt's engine wasn't just an engine -- it opens doorways into a parallel universe, and that's how everyone disappeared without a trace, and that's also how they're able to keep Atlantis from discovery.
That's just my guess.

Either way, America is in deep trouble.
The whole world is in deep trouble.

Now, I may be an English major, but I still remember bits of math. I know people who know math and physics.
Just sayin'.

All I know is that when I graduate, I want a job.
I want a job where I can be a useful contributor to society, where I can earn a living, where I am taxed at a reasonable percentage (or better yet, Fair Taxed), where I am not required to have health insurance that my boss and I pay for because somebody decided it was best that everyone pay for health insurance, even those who don't want or need it.

I want to work when I graduate.

And if I've gotta build an Atlantis to do it, I will.

I just hope it doesn't come to that.