Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Bedroom + Bible

The usual rhetoric thrown at those who support (real) marriage and abstinence, or even discourage pre-marital sex, is "keep your bible out of my bedroom." Mainly it's employed when people don't support same-sex "marriage" and instead support marriage being between one man and one woman in a monogamous relationship who then produce children. Now initially this accusation makes sense. I understand those who use such statements - they don't want to be held to a sexual standard of the "prudes," they support same-sex "marriage," and they definitely don't want to be reminded that they're sexual appetite is purely hedonistic where the reality of pregnancy is an inconvenience, so enter birth control in its various forms.

Here's what's empty about "keep your bible out of my bedroom": No one is forcing you to not have sex before marriage - if you're going to have sex you're going to have sex; if you're going to use birth control for pregnancy prevention you're going to use birth control; no one is turning to legislation to make pre-marital sex or adultery crimes; no one is calling for the reintroduction of sodomy laws. If we keep it on its literal level and be pedantic there's no law in the history of the USA saying there should be a bible in your nightstand (as if it were a hotel room).

So when people intrinsically say "keep your bible out of my bedroom" tell them the points I've typed up. It's an absolute pathetic mantra, that, when looked at critically, falls apart and shows the reactionary (ironic) reality that is libertine secularism.

In my reality, the only room that I know of that currently holds a bible is my parents room. The room I currently sleep in has the Catechesis, though I'm currently looking for a bible to put right next to it. During my university years I had a roommate who was a non-denominational Christian who had a bible on his bookshelf. I did not have one. I did some questionable things in our dorm room when he was out while the bible sat there. Did I say to him "keep your bible out of our dorm room?" No. Humans are fallen - we'll do things that are considered sins even if there is a bible nearby. Most don't even think "What does the bible say?" They just do whatever act. All this talk about bibles and bedrooms is just the human conscience of the indignant saying, "You perv. Those that you consider prudes are right." It's an outright cry of insecurity.


What's ironic about this is that the hotel room is usually used for affairs and to live out sexual fantasies. It's a place to go in order to be discrete. And there's a bible located in the nightstand drawer.

As one poster on CAF said about the US Navy banning all religious books in its guests rooms -
I have stayed in hotels/motels for many decades. If I choose to look for a Gideon's Bible, I will look in the desk drawer. If I choose to not look for one, then I don't go and look. I have never in my life felt compelled to look or to not look. I have never felt put upon by the existence of a Gideon's Bible or the lack of a Gideon's Bible.




Monday, July 27, 2015

The abortionist speaks.

Again, the flash of credentials. "Intelligent Mr. Toad" speaks to the science illiterate.



I'm smart, you're not. Shut up.

In response to Gavin McGinnis' HuffPo interview.




The "canon" guy is supposedly a doctor and is currently pursuing a J.D. I don't seriously doubt what he says, but how many doctors obtain a J.D.? Yale does have a law program (one can pursue a joint degree in their MD/JD program), but given what he stated it tells me he's getting the J.D. after he completed his M.D. You'd think after obtaining an M.D., about five years of grueling studying then exams, then interning, you'd continue in the practice. Maybe he has a change of heart or just very ambitious/motivated.

And color me not impressed by his posts. I mean, I love that these posters talk a lot  - nothing impressive or anything that would hint towards their "big" degrees - to only flash their diplomas as "Oh, yea well I'm uber smart. You're not."

Given my past encounters with the "canon" types and those who hold degrees from prestigious universities that choose to comment on politics, or even pursue a career in it, I'm leaning that such people are telling the truth about their credentials. They may have the numbers/essays/hook to get in but who cares - they're just intellectual inclined people buying into BS theories and believing whatever their professors tell them. So when these academically inclined people obtain an advance degree - an MBA, a M.D., a J.D, a Phd - they then join the ranks of the intelligentsia. The theories and beliefs they were taught are now being practiced by them in their position of power.

The Angst of Millennials.

Say hello Robert Schrader.


Caught this on the Yahoo! interview conducted by Katie Couric hosting Ted Cruz. As another commenter pointed out, what an odd piece to pick out out of the almost one hour interview which spanned many a topics. Debate the point if you have issues with it but posting such a vacuous comment perked my interest so I clicked on Schrader's handle to see what's his deal.

He got angst. And a lot of it. 

Based in Texas, Schrader runs a travel site (not really surprising) trekking the globe a few months a year. Pretty cool, honestly. But that coolness is cut short once the tone that comes across his bio and website hits you in the face.

The good news is that my intuition has (mostly) taken me down the right road: I quit my last “real job” more than four years ago, and have been traveling several months per year ever since. The better news is that I’ve used all the knowledge and insight I’ve gained to create Leave Your Daily Hell, a one-stop shop for anyone who wants to break free of monotony, see the world and start living.
....
It surprises some readers of this blog to learn that I am a (relatively) ordinary 30-year old, who grew up in a (relatively) ordinary family in the (extremely) ordinary midwestern United States. My success as a traveler and a blogger has been born of hard work, determination and yes, a little bit of luck, but I firmly believe that if I can do this, just about anyone can, and I hope my work inspires you not only to travel, but to begin living the life you want. Continue reading to learn more about how my site is organized.

His site entitled "Leave Your Daily Hell" explains a lot about his thoughts on normality and the average 9-5 job.  Schrader, like many depressed young adults. exudes self-involvement. Let's count the cliches.

(1) "real job": Gotta have that in quotes. Of course a job is a job, eve if it's prostitution or playing pretend for a living, but not all jobs are made equal in numerous aspects hence the "not a real job" jab. Say, if I made money blogging compared to being a physician or being a successful accountant or engineer, I'd understand that my blogging "job" may be seen as inferior or "not a real job." I'm not sure what skills, besides writing and website development, a paid-to-write blogger would give over than of a physician or engineer. Such skills are needed and if technically sound and creatively acute the blogger can be a major asset in public relations.

(2) "break free of monotony," "start living": I presume this a response to whatever life Schrader left behind as noted in his bio. A good majority of those who aren't the travel business or entertainment work 9-5 jobs, and the last time I met with my friends who worked these 9-5 jobs they weren't the miserable sack that Schrader paints them to be. In fact, one of my grade school peers died last April in his sleep. He worked as a roofer - manual stuff. I don't believe he went to college. He was engaged. As I read his online obituary and the condolences written on his page, I learned that he was well-liked by his co-workers and the customers he interacted with approved of his personality. He was a hard worker and his work ethic was partly due to the fact he "wanted a better life for his fiancee" which he thought she deserved. I'm not sure if he ever traveled outside of the US, but that matters little given the words expressed on his obituary page. If he "broke free of monotony" and went the route of Schrader I'm not sure he'd gain the words that were left on the page. 

Sure, I bet may 9-5ers want better hours, a higher pay and the "cool" factor that comes with more glamorous jobs, but they're living - their eyes did not broadcast they were dead inside - and they have dreams to travel as well with the allotted weeks they are given. I bet many would want to travel, to forget deadlines and to ditch the shirt/tie/pencil skirt for sandals, sunglasses and shorts; to ride an elephant in the jungles of Vietnam instead of being in a car on the freeway, but works need to be done and as unappealing a 9-5 job is it pays and forms communities. It's domestic, so I'm not surprised that modernity rejects it the way it does.  But according to people like Schrader these people aren't "really living."

If we all were travel writers then the country would plummet because, let's face it, every other travel blog is practically the same - same vibe, same tone, same "leave your boring life behind!" rhetoric. It offers nothing truly new. Sites like Matador are downright amazing, and are a treasure chest for travel inspiration, but in the end they don't give any real insight to human nature or the world besides pretty pictures with an exotic cocktail in hand, or some HD picture with a stranger looking in the distant atop of a mountain as the sunsets. How not original. It's like people who wanted to be diplomats/translators but skipped all the technical and cultural training. Nomads aren't inspiring to me - they're very childlike in the very worse ways. How many travel channels are there on youtube? A ton. And many are interchangeable. 

I feel that people like Schrader, despite his proclamation of "I crawled from the bottom to get here" talk that is ubiquitous among so-called entrepreneurs of his kind, are riding on the backs of the monotonous jobs and those that take space in those jobs. After all, he is trying to appeal to the 9-5er, at the same time make them feel animosity towards their cubicle or cash register, to hire him as a personal travel guide. 

(3)  "(extremely) ordinary midwestern United States" : As someone who is from the Midwest it's always amusing to see self-loathing Midwesterners. I'm also not really sure what "extremely" clarifies. Is there a spectrum of ordinary I am not aware of? Like ordinary, more ordinary, very ordinary and extremely ordinary? Maybe he means the suburbs or a small town. An American suburb in the Midwest has some similarities to the suburbs of the East and West coast; A suburb located two hours form the coast in California probably has the same vibe as a Midwestern suburb axing out the palm trees and year-round shorts. Granted the Midwest, thanks to the media & entertainment, is depicted as a boring place when compared to the Coasts. There's a grain of truth to this depiction. Topography isn't nearly as appealing to that of California or even Pennsylvania; beaches don't dot the Third Coast unless you're in Michigan, and these beaches are only open just a fourth of the year; Lake Michigan isn't the Atlantic or Pacific - surfing is limited.  As for small towns? I quite like small towns in the Midwest. Some small towns are doing okay economically while some are part of the Rust Belt. It could be my curiosity for history, so when I look at places like Rust Belt cities and its surrounding area I don't look at it with dismal nor does any feelings of superiority comes up through my chest. I feel appreciation if not respect; these places want to survive, but due to various circumstances achieving economical prosperity is hard to come by.

It's clear that Schrader has no fondness of where he came from; there is bitterness his tone. It is as if he disappointed that his family and the Midwest were not "cool" enough. If you ask me, viewing his travel pictures, Schrader seems like the same miserable sack just with more passports stamps than before. As with most "left-my-job-to-live-my-life" aka travel writer/blogger their presentation, while at first intriguing, becomes questionable and their true-selves are revealed by how they describe the place/job they left in order to "live life." If they are indeed "living life" then their philosophy to "live life" is rather narrow, as ironic as that may sound.

Schrader's youtube post, his sexuality (guy's definitely a homosexual by his youtube vids) and his bio - and the way he talks about his past life - tells us a lot about him. More importantly his attitude tells us a lot about people who share similar attitudes.

So, no, Robert Schrader. You do not inspire me to live life "my way." I run on a different type of gas.




Monday, July 20, 2015

Tell me more.

When a non-believer tells you that the divorce rate amongst Catholic Americans has increased to  50K a year since 1925 when compared to Communist Atheistic China, with China creating more stable families, when he quotes your story about your uncle telling you "not to marry an American girl" -


The non-believer somehow managed to interpret "American girls" to "American Catholics."

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Orman, "love" may have won, but you're the ignorant one.

Video published on May 23, 2013.

Ms. Orman is a smart lady and financially savvy, and for this I give her credit. I also give full marks for being another absent-minded, emotion filled idiot who froths at the moth when met with respect from the opposition. And Piers Morgan is Piers Morgan.


The condescension is reeking from Orman's pores. "I feel compassion for you." It seems someone thinks she has the moral higher moral ground; often times those that say such things are either emotional hurt by the dialogue or they're showing  "And I'll tell you why, because I know that you believe very strongly about what you believe, but I also know that you are very very uneducated on how it really really works," says Orman. She goes on -
And I believe from the bottom of my heart that if you really understood why the government does need to get involved, why it does need to be legal on a federal level, if you really understood that there's no way you would sit there and say what you are saying right now.
Anderson goes to speaks about several dates about popular opinion on same-sex "marriage" to which Orman interjects "Look you got your facts down. You're a great recorder ... " The camera settles on Orman's face for a short time and her eyes tell us everything. She's hurt by what Anderson has said. She's vulnerable. The fact that he does not think that same-sex pairings' relationship should called marriage is what digs at her heart.

Let's be honest, this is about societal approval to finally be "fully human" - to be recognized as a person with dignity just like a straight person. Orman's eyes told us this after the "Look, you got all your facts .... " line. To step away from Anderson's points (letting the people vote on the issue, to clarify that the Constitution is silent on the subject, to the connection between mother, father and child), this isn't about facts or about the potential children. This isn't about the effects - good or bad - of the governmental approval of same-sex "marriage." It's all about washing away the pain of not being seen on the same plain as straight relationships.

And we continue ...

Like a deus ex machina, there so happens to be an audience member who brings up the question about the economic positives in allowing same-sex pairings to be legally recognized. How convenient. The economic benefits of same-sex pairings being allowed to "marry" are introduced by Orman. Italicized is emphasis as depicted in video.
There's tremendous economic advantages, and I'll get to that in one second. And Piers there's also tremendous economic disadvantages to not being able to be married which is why I said I don't think this gentlemen really understands it. While it is true that every state, the nine states, can say 'You can legally get married,' it mean nothing on the federal level. That means what? That means we don't get to partake into state tax. We each have to pay a state tax no matter what. It means here I am and I'm married to Katie, and I'm covered under insurance for my corporation and I want to cover her. If it's (the same-sex relationship) not recognized Katie has to pay income tax on that health benefit - that could be $3, 000 to $5, 000 a year.
- pictures of Orman and her partner are shown -
If we were legally married, recognized on the federal level Katie would not have to pay a penny. Then we have all kinds of things such as social security. Let's just say that Katie never worked her entire life, and now we're older and I'm gonna be 62, I am able to collect social security as we get older. As a legally married couple on a federal level Katie would be able to collect half my social security. Upon my death she would get my entire social security, but not now. We don't get to participate at all.
Orman then descends on the kids' benefits. 
For a child ... Let's just say you're in a relationship and you have children, and they are legally your children, and you're staying at home with your children and taking care of them and raising them just they way I'm sure this gentlemen (Anderson) would like you, or thinks children should be raised, you have the privilege to be able to stay at home because not everybody does ... And the money is being brought in by your spouse, who is a woman, and now she dies - you can't social security based on her income. You can't get the widow's benefit. Therefore there's all kinds of things ... "
Morgan steps in telling that Orman's points are "key" issues and that, directed towards Anderson, that his concerns aren't the only ones. This is clear that the argument is geared towards Orman's specialty: personal finance. As said by Morgan, "These are sound economic reasons," to federally recognize same-sex "marriage" and to not be in support would be "just unfair" according to the host. 

Anderson rebuttals about the inheritance tax - that policies can be formed to effectively deal with every economic scenario that Orman brought up without changing the one-man-one-woman definition - saying that the inheritance tax is bad law, that it can be repealed. He paints a scenario where, instead of two women with same-sex attraction being in a relationship together, are two sisters. These sisters care deeply for each other, they are best friends. He goes on to question why would the romantic same-sex pairing get the inheritance tax but not the two sisters who are joined by the hip (figure of speech there). Anderson, to protect both relationships, proposes to reform the inheritance tax leaving the original definition of marriage alone. Orman then steps in.
The problem is, however, right now the state's tax for most people aren't a problem because it's a five million dollar estate tax exemption, so if that (inheritance tax reform) had happened now we wouldn't be in that situation. But how about health benefits ... How about social security ... You're dealing with an economic situation right now where 'Are they really going to re-craft tax policies?' Do you really think that's possible? Is that what you think is going to happen?
[Anderson]
Look, I don't want to obscure ... I think these are secondary issues. The primary function that marriage serves in every society is protecting the rights of children. Everything we've discussed so far is about adult relationships. (woman sitting behind Anderson furrows her brow towards him, smirks and shakes her head) What institution would be left to show -
[Orman]
I don't know, one very two people who get married in the United States of America  - heterosexual marriage - gets divorced ... Why -
[Anderson]
So how do we strengthen the message that they shouldn't get divorced?
[Orman]

The number one reason is the arguments over money ... So marriage isn't keeping people together sweetheart.

[Anderson]

It's not doing a very good job at it because -

[Orman]
 
It's not doing the function that you say it is ...

[Anderson]

Because we redefined it forty years ago (Roe v Wade, 1973) -

 [Orman]

And this isn't about children.

[Anderson]

But it should be though. That's the problem, right?

[Orman]

No.  No.

[Anderson]

Because 40 years ago we redefined marriage -

[Orman] 

What if you don't want a child? What if this love couple (points to unseen audience members) - they never want a child! What if you were sterile and you couldn't have a child?
[Anderson]

Not every marriage will have a child, but every child has a mother and father, and marriage is what connects the mother and the father with each other for the child. 40 years ago we redefined marriage -

- audience grumbles with whispers of  "No, no ... " -

[Orman]

No. Marriage is what connects the husband and the wife together as one.  

[Anderson]

For the sake of connecting the mother and father with the child. Otherwise we can have the government out of the marriage business ...

[Orman]

Really? We got a live audience here. What do you say to him?

[Audience]

No!

[Anderson]

-gestures hands towards audience-
You live in the court with this (audience members) public opinion, but in America there's a lot of people who agree with me. So we should have this conversation and not put it to a mob vote.
[Morgan]

(words I can't make out) -- Ryan, we discovered in this audience that public opinion is moving very very fast (audience members behind Morgan nod their heads) I think mainly it's a generational issue. How old are you?

[Anderson]

I'm 31.

[Morgan]

Right, it seems interesting to me someone of your age still maintains this kind of view.

[Anderson]

That's because I think mothers and fathers are important. And I think that we need to have an institution that holds up the ideal that men and women are different, and that mothering and fathering are different phenomenons.

[Orman]

All right, so here's the thing ... (Anderson tries to interject) All right wait one second ... (turns to Morgan) He can talk all about what he thinks and his beliefs, and he's seriously in the minority, especially at the age of 30. And anybody at the age of 30, if you take polls all throughout the United States right now, are waaay in the majority saying like 'What are you even talking about? What issue is this?' But Piers, more than what he's saying  - 'mother', 'father' -  it's about two people having the ability to say 'I love you. And I want to be with you forever.' It's about sitting at a Thanksgiving dinner, and while the kids are the table asking the other people, 'Well when did you meet? How was your wedding? How did you get married? And there's Katie and I are sitting and nobodies is asking us -

[Morgan]

Well I saw Elton John and his, uh, partner David Furnish the other day with the second baby they now got (slowly turns to Anderson and stares at him), and I never seen two more loving parents in my life (audience members behind Morgan nods). And the idea that you run, the best one in the world, the idea that you want to stop people, like Elton and Dave or Susie and Katie, from getting married -

[Anderson]

I don't want to stop anyone from living and loving.

[Morgan]
From getting married in America in the modern era, I just find it a bit offensive these days. It's not fair. It's not tolerant. It's not America.
-audience claps with few a 'Whoos!'-

Orman admitted in frustration that it wasn't about children. It's about public recognition - because without government recognition it's not "official." Once they get the thumbs up from SCOTUS it's off the civil court! Now Orman and her partner has the blessing of the government - now the people (kids?) at Thanksgiving have to ask "When did you two meet? How was your wedding? How did you get married?" I feel compassion for Orman. She and Katie just wants to be included that day. But they are. No one excluded them from the Thanksgiving dinner. The people (kids?) asking the hetero couples how they met  could've asked the same question towards Orman and Katie. But they didn't.

If you are emotionally hurt enough, feel that you've been wronged and have the Left Machine on your side you can win almost any case - you can redefine marriage from its original meaning and forever change the institution, all because you're butt hurt that people at Thanksgiving don't ask where you met your partner.

I'm an independent voter but I loath comments like the following.


I won't comment the relishing of Republicans being stigmatized to the corner of society. I will comment on Trump's illegal alien comment. Yes, Trump's statements were controversial but it doesn't erase the very real possibility that unchecked immigration and amnesty would allow rapists into the country.

Let's us turn to the black rights and same-sex "marriage comparison that is common amongst "equality" true believers.



I could tell they took AP U.S. History during high school and received a five on the test.

These are the supporters of same-sex "marriage."


Some reasonable minds were present, but that sanity quickly dissipated.