I remember during the early 70s the conversation surrounding abortion. The argument by pro-abortionists was about the victims of incestuous rape being forced to have babies. That was the argument that pro-abortionists used. It was garbage then and it is garbage now.
Based upon the argument, abortion was un-Constitutionally imposed by the Supreme Court. If one bothers to actually read Roe vs. Wade, the court case that legalized abortion, the justices used the logic that the babies could be aborted if they were not viable. In other words, abortion was not a crime because the babies would be unable to live if born before X number of months.
This type of logic, using extremes to justify all abortion is deceitful. What percentage of abortions are done by the victims of incestuous rape, it is very few. The millions of abortions done every year in America are usually the result of people who did not have the sense to use protection.
The deceit at the heart of the Supreme Court case was that they knew they were misusing logic. The proof is in what they did later. If they had stuck to the logic of viability of the baby then we would preventing more and more abortions because we can now remove babies from the womb at 4 months and they can be kept alive outside of the mother.
This is not about abortion, it is an example. It is about intellectual integrity and the truth. Not to attack my commenter; but, lets consider Aids. I was told that I didn't understand the issues because non-homosexuals can get Aids. Let us consider how this argument came to be popular.
When Aids first appeared in the United States it was the result of a gay flight attendant who contracted it in Africa. The man in question knew he was sick and knew he was contagious, he kept sleeping around with other gays and did not tell them that he would make them sick. He didn't care.
He slept with a lot of people and they then passed it on to others. The other group that quickly spread it was Haitians who were intravenous drug users, needles were hard to get in Haiti and the sharing of needles was very common. There is a good book on the history and spread of Aids called, "And the Band Played On". The result, in the early years, was that Aids was almost exclusively a disease that was in the gay, Haitian and drug using community.
Many people who claimed to be Christians began saying that the disease was the result of God's wrath and that the gays deserved it. For me this exposed those claiming to be Christians as not really Christian. Aids is horrible disease and we should not wish ill of that type on anyone. I have lived through seeing too many people die from degenerative diseases, I could never wish such a thing on anyone.
Because there appeared to be little sympathy for gays and drug users, the gay community sought an example of an innocent. They chose Ryan White, a young boy who got Aids from a blood transfusion. They used an innocent little boy to achieve a goal. They used a sympathetic outlier to justify spending millions to find a cure. Their argument was insincere. I understand their reasoning; but, I think they should have hit the real issue and stuck to it before dealing with outliers.
The real issue behind legalizing abortion was whether or not anyone should be prevented from having an abortion. You can take any side you like; but, the real issue and the real consequence was to legalize it for everyone. The same is true with funding of Aids cures. The real issue is whether or not we should seek a cure for diseases that are primarily spread by consensual acts by groups that are not generally accepted. Because some people will say no others attempt to look at side issues, the infinite what ifs.
I personally believe that Marijuana should be legal for those over 18. I see the medicinal marijuana argument as another lie. Yes, marijuana has medicinal uses; however, the millions of people with medical cards for its use have no such diseases. Because the real purpose behind the law is to legalize marijuana, underage people can buy it. The lie lead to consequences.
Let us tell the truth about these things. The truth is that in the United States the greatest number of people with Aids are gay people who engaged in unprotected sex. Because of their actions it spread to people like Ryan White. The vast majority of people who have abortions have likewise had unprotected sex, this is just the truth. Finally, the vast majority of people with medical marijuana have no disease. They just want to smoke pot.
I wish to return to discussing Ryan White for the moment. I referred to him as innocent, that does not mean I consider the gays guilty. Let us not be simplistic or naive. As I said the man who brought Aids to the United States knew he was sick and he did not warn those he spread it to. He was complete jerk. The people he gave it to were also innocent; however, they engaged in unprotected sex knowing that they could get venereal diseases, they knew they were taking a risk. Ryan White did not have a choice, he needed blood transfusions.
Sorry, I don't time to finish this post. I have just been given my move out day. January 24th. Free at last.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
I Am Chatty Today
I keep across articles that seem relevant to thing that I have posted on. Apparently one of the issues is homosexuality. I have discussed before how I don't care what others do in the bedroom, nor do I wish to know. I find the side issues much more intriguing.
I read two articles that showed how polarizing the issue of homosexuality is for many. The first article is on the Salvation Army. The author believes that the Salvation Army should not get donations because they will not provide benefits for same sex unmarried couples. It then chastises the Salvation Army for believing homosexuality is wrong.
Some will have a knee jerk reaction to the article and to the Salvation Army while missing the freedom issue. Firstly, the author fails to point out that Salvation Army will provide food and shelter to gays, they don't ask the people they feed if they are gay or not. Apparently this is insufficient. I am not a proponent of the Salvation Army or their beliefs, in fact, I think are very cult like. Having said that, I give them money on occasion because they feed people that the government does not.
If we take the position that we should not support religious organization charitable work because we disagree with some of what they believe then we must consider the opposite. I give money to groups that are not Christian if how they use the money is to do good works. Should Christians refuse to give to the United Way because it is not a Christian organization. This is dangerous ground.
Before taking a position against people we disagree with, we should consider the other side doing the same. Should we tell Christians to only give money to Christian organizations, it is the same thing; but, you better look and see how many are helped by Christian organizations and how many are helped by non-Christian organizations.
Millions and millions of dollars are given by Christians each year to help cure Aids. Asking them to stop giving because they may believe homosexuality is wrong is tyrannical. Requiring others to believe as you do is tyranny and oppression. Requiring it of a religious organization is even worse.
The author attacks the Salvation Army as being cruel for saying that they would shut down their soup kitchens if they were forced to exist in a manner that violates their beliefs. The Salvation Army said they would rather stop then be forced to live against their beliefs. The author assumes the highest purpose of the Salvation Army is to take up the slack that is left by society, it is not, they are primarily a religious organization. There is no requirement that they feed the needy, they choose to do it because they see the need.
I help others because I see needs. I allow people who would otherwise be homeless to live in my house and I buy them food and other items. It is not a requirement that I do so, one of them I did not even know except through a friend of my daughters. I ask very little of the people who live with me and I don't ask for money. I ask for respect of my privacy and to not create problems. Their beliefs vary greatly from mine, if they do not like my beliefs they can simply leave or choose to discuss them or choose not to. I don't push my beliefs on them, I don't require them to be Christians to live with me.
I could rightfully tell the people who live with me that if they do not accept Jesus then they cannot live in my home. That would be a shame and not be loving. It would be using undue pressure because of my position. I would rather not take people in my house at all then require them to believe like me and that is why I don't ask them to.
It is no different for the Salvation Army. To require them to change their beliefs or do things that they find offensive in order for them to help others is wrong. It is worse than wrong, it is a form of moral slavery. Freedom of association and freedom of speech is more important than agreement.
It is timely that I was taken to task for not understanding Aids or gays. It is timely because of the article about the Salvation Army and this one about Harvey Milk's old store. Mr. Milk was a gay politician in San Francisco. He was killed in San Francisco City Hall. A gay rights group is now renting Mr. Milk's old store and the complaints are not coming from Christians or conservatives, the complaints are coming from more radical gays. They argue that the group that is renting the space is not aggressive enough on gay issues. Rather than working together on the parts they agree on, they seek to separate on the areas where they do not.
Mans greatest urge is to make others to conform to their beliefs. One of my daughters has told me that she will not speak to me unless I live by her rules. Guess what, I don't work that way and it is criminal and despicable to ask me to.
This post is not about homosexuality, it is merely an example that was timely. This post is about allowing others to live the way they see fit. Unfortunately, sheep seek to force others to be like them. It is what makes them unfit as leaders. Good leaders do not seek conformity, they deal with variety.
I was taken to task for not understanding the issues surrounding Aids. I am often told that I don't understand issues. Usually by people who do not understand how "their" issues impact other equally important issues. Hyper-focus by others does not mean that I must do the same and limit myself to only looking at one issue. That is not going to happen.
To the person who posted the comment, my responses may appear to be responses, I seek more than to respond. I seek further conversation. I do not seek agreement, I clarify my position and attempt to give further room for discussion. Be well all.
I read two articles that showed how polarizing the issue of homosexuality is for many. The first article is on the Salvation Army. The author believes that the Salvation Army should not get donations because they will not provide benefits for same sex unmarried couples. It then chastises the Salvation Army for believing homosexuality is wrong.
Some will have a knee jerk reaction to the article and to the Salvation Army while missing the freedom issue. Firstly, the author fails to point out that Salvation Army will provide food and shelter to gays, they don't ask the people they feed if they are gay or not. Apparently this is insufficient. I am not a proponent of the Salvation Army or their beliefs, in fact, I think are very cult like. Having said that, I give them money on occasion because they feed people that the government does not.
If we take the position that we should not support religious organization charitable work because we disagree with some of what they believe then we must consider the opposite. I give money to groups that are not Christian if how they use the money is to do good works. Should Christians refuse to give to the United Way because it is not a Christian organization. This is dangerous ground.
Before taking a position against people we disagree with, we should consider the other side doing the same. Should we tell Christians to only give money to Christian organizations, it is the same thing; but, you better look and see how many are helped by Christian organizations and how many are helped by non-Christian organizations.
Millions and millions of dollars are given by Christians each year to help cure Aids. Asking them to stop giving because they may believe homosexuality is wrong is tyrannical. Requiring others to believe as you do is tyranny and oppression. Requiring it of a religious organization is even worse.
The author attacks the Salvation Army as being cruel for saying that they would shut down their soup kitchens if they were forced to exist in a manner that violates their beliefs. The Salvation Army said they would rather stop then be forced to live against their beliefs. The author assumes the highest purpose of the Salvation Army is to take up the slack that is left by society, it is not, they are primarily a religious organization. There is no requirement that they feed the needy, they choose to do it because they see the need.
I help others because I see needs. I allow people who would otherwise be homeless to live in my house and I buy them food and other items. It is not a requirement that I do so, one of them I did not even know except through a friend of my daughters. I ask very little of the people who live with me and I don't ask for money. I ask for respect of my privacy and to not create problems. Their beliefs vary greatly from mine, if they do not like my beliefs they can simply leave or choose to discuss them or choose not to. I don't push my beliefs on them, I don't require them to be Christians to live with me.
I could rightfully tell the people who live with me that if they do not accept Jesus then they cannot live in my home. That would be a shame and not be loving. It would be using undue pressure because of my position. I would rather not take people in my house at all then require them to believe like me and that is why I don't ask them to.
It is no different for the Salvation Army. To require them to change their beliefs or do things that they find offensive in order for them to help others is wrong. It is worse than wrong, it is a form of moral slavery. Freedom of association and freedom of speech is more important than agreement.
It is timely that I was taken to task for not understanding Aids or gays. It is timely because of the article about the Salvation Army and this one about Harvey Milk's old store. Mr. Milk was a gay politician in San Francisco. He was killed in San Francisco City Hall. A gay rights group is now renting Mr. Milk's old store and the complaints are not coming from Christians or conservatives, the complaints are coming from more radical gays. They argue that the group that is renting the space is not aggressive enough on gay issues. Rather than working together on the parts they agree on, they seek to separate on the areas where they do not.
Mans greatest urge is to make others to conform to their beliefs. One of my daughters has told me that she will not speak to me unless I live by her rules. Guess what, I don't work that way and it is criminal and despicable to ask me to.
This post is not about homosexuality, it is merely an example that was timely. This post is about allowing others to live the way they see fit. Unfortunately, sheep seek to force others to be like them. It is what makes them unfit as leaders. Good leaders do not seek conformity, they deal with variety.
I was taken to task for not understanding the issues surrounding Aids. I am often told that I don't understand issues. Usually by people who do not understand how "their" issues impact other equally important issues. Hyper-focus by others does not mean that I must do the same and limit myself to only looking at one issue. That is not going to happen.
To the person who posted the comment, my responses may appear to be responses, I seek more than to respond. I seek further conversation. I do not seek agreement, I clarify my position and attempt to give further room for discussion. Be well all.
Sheep as Lions
I read an interesting post from "Above Top Secret" which had an accompanying video. Here is the link. It talks about how most people are sheeple and should wake up and take action. I disagree.
Most people are like sheep, how is that for offensive. Jesus referred to us as sheep, he referred to himself as the good shepherd. Was he wrong? He told us to be good slaves, the book was not written for the people in charge, it was for the vast majority of us, the sheep.
What is the nature of sheep? They are herd animals, they are usually gentle and only concerned with comfort. It is their nature. Are sheep wrong for being sheep? Should sheep attempt to be lions? Would they be happy as lions? I doubt it very much. We are limited by our nature, what we do with it is the key. How far we can go given our confines.
The world is run by a very few number of individuals. It only takes one shepherd to manage a large flock of sheep. Some flocks get bad shepherds and the flock suffers because of it, that does not mean the sheep are capable of shepherding themselves. Everyone wants to believe that they should be the manager or owner, they are mistaken. Replacing one bad shepherd with another doesn't work any better. In order to lead well one must put in the effort. The best leaders don't want to be leaders.
A good leader rarely gets rattled. They do not act from fear, that takes some time to learn. A good leader ignores how they are personally impacted by their decisions and instead does what is best for their organization or family. Few sheep can look beyond how things impact them. A good leader understands their industry and is constantly looking to know more. A good leader promotes those who are learning to be the same rather than family and friends. This is why I am not a proponent of direct democracy.
If you watch the video link about sheep it proposes that the sheep who can wake up should unite and leave the others behind. I have been asked to do that before. The concept is written about in a book by Ayn Rand called "Atlas Shrugged". I disagree, that only creates a new sheeple society and shows a distinct lack of concern for those who are still growing.
We are all in process. I do not allow four year olds to drive cars, they are not ready. It is not about taking back our freedoms, it is about growing enough to handle freedom and then being given it. It is about having the opportunity to learn, if we decline to take advantage of these opportunities then we should not have the freedoms.
I may seem to contradict some earlier writings but it is not a contradiction. I believe citizenship is a birth right; but, I don't believe citizenship means you should be able to fly a plane if you have not bothered learning how. Some rights have to be earned because they put other people at risk. With every earned right comes a responsibility, you cannot separate the two nor should you try to. My observation is that people want what they have not earned, they want to take the short cut, they only want the advantages of being in charge and not the responsibility, they want to blame those below them. That is backwards.
Why don't I want the sheep to lead? Here is a good example of how sheep lead. Sheep get frustrated because they don't know how to change things so they become violent.
On a separate note, there has been a rash of earthquakes in an area not known for them. The geologists are stumped. The article. Now I must return to talking to my mortgage processor. Have a great day.
Most people are like sheep, how is that for offensive. Jesus referred to us as sheep, he referred to himself as the good shepherd. Was he wrong? He told us to be good slaves, the book was not written for the people in charge, it was for the vast majority of us, the sheep.
What is the nature of sheep? They are herd animals, they are usually gentle and only concerned with comfort. It is their nature. Are sheep wrong for being sheep? Should sheep attempt to be lions? Would they be happy as lions? I doubt it very much. We are limited by our nature, what we do with it is the key. How far we can go given our confines.
The world is run by a very few number of individuals. It only takes one shepherd to manage a large flock of sheep. Some flocks get bad shepherds and the flock suffers because of it, that does not mean the sheep are capable of shepherding themselves. Everyone wants to believe that they should be the manager or owner, they are mistaken. Replacing one bad shepherd with another doesn't work any better. In order to lead well one must put in the effort. The best leaders don't want to be leaders.
A good leader rarely gets rattled. They do not act from fear, that takes some time to learn. A good leader ignores how they are personally impacted by their decisions and instead does what is best for their organization or family. Few sheep can look beyond how things impact them. A good leader understands their industry and is constantly looking to know more. A good leader promotes those who are learning to be the same rather than family and friends. This is why I am not a proponent of direct democracy.
If you watch the video link about sheep it proposes that the sheep who can wake up should unite and leave the others behind. I have been asked to do that before. The concept is written about in a book by Ayn Rand called "Atlas Shrugged". I disagree, that only creates a new sheeple society and shows a distinct lack of concern for those who are still growing.
We are all in process. I do not allow four year olds to drive cars, they are not ready. It is not about taking back our freedoms, it is about growing enough to handle freedom and then being given it. It is about having the opportunity to learn, if we decline to take advantage of these opportunities then we should not have the freedoms.
I may seem to contradict some earlier writings but it is not a contradiction. I believe citizenship is a birth right; but, I don't believe citizenship means you should be able to fly a plane if you have not bothered learning how. Some rights have to be earned because they put other people at risk. With every earned right comes a responsibility, you cannot separate the two nor should you try to. My observation is that people want what they have not earned, they want to take the short cut, they only want the advantages of being in charge and not the responsibility, they want to blame those below them. That is backwards.
Why don't I want the sheep to lead? Here is a good example of how sheep lead. Sheep get frustrated because they don't know how to change things so they become violent.
On a separate note, there has been a rash of earthquakes in an area not known for them. The geologists are stumped. The article. Now I must return to talking to my mortgage processor. Have a great day.
Comment to the last post
One of my readers took offense to my last post. I posted their comment and responded. This post is not about the issue they raised although that will be the example used. The issue will be about the blog and about conversation in general.
This blog is not meant to be the final word on anything, it is not meant to be a learned treatise. It is my way of looking at issues that I see around me. Sometimes I am looking at one aspect of an issue. When that occurs it often because of a more personal perspective rather than attempting to see all aspects of an issue.
While it surprises me, there are people who read this blog that don't know me at all and others who are close friends and know quite a lot about me. It is hard to write to all audiences and be understood. Each reader will take from my posts what they will. In the end it is still just things I am thinking from my experience and my research. Thoughts not conclusions, works in progress.
Communication, be it through a blog or in person, is often difficult. I had a friend who used to say that communication is impossible. I disagree, it is a process and our words should continually be refined during that process so that we can have a clearer understanding of what we are attempting to convey to each other.
I intentionally request people to comment. It allows me to consider things that I might not have. The problem with blogging is that there is a long time delay between I write something and when people read it, it can be months later. Lost in that time can be context, lost in all my posts is the readers ability to see my context at the time I write it, what drives me to raise an issue, why it is on my mind and why.
I attempt to have a relationship with my readers. Like all relationships there is a give and take, there is imperfect communication. If a reader finds something I have written is insufficient then I welcome their comments and questions. If someone finds what I write to be offensive, I still welcome their comments. I have refused one comment because it used names. I refused another comment because I do not allow cuss words on my blog.
I do not know most of the readers and many have never left comments. I do not know who reads this blog in South Korea, I do not know who reads it in the Ukraine. I can only imagine that they must find some of what I write to be difficult to understand where I am coming from, I am still glad that they read it. They can take from it what they wish and they can question me on anything. I reserve the right to respond as I see fit.
Now I will return to the example of my last post. I used an example of people I knew, I have done that before. My point of reference is my life and my examples are often of people I know. In my last post I mentioned gays, I know gay men, heck, I know gay women; but, I don't know any gay women with Aids. They are out there, I just don't know any.
I have talked about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I have talked out against what we are doing. I had family in those war zones while I wrote about them. While my discussions were on aspects of the war, it has a very personal meaning to me that I do not discuss. I would hope that my readers understand that this is not just words, this blog is an expression of my feelings and my experience and my life. It is personal.
I do not generally like to discuss what I have done for others. I certainly do not wish to hold anything I have done for others over them. For this reason it is difficult to defend who I am to people who are unaware of things I have done. In this instance I will mention something I did. The person I helped was a young gay man who reads this blog. He needed money to get in an apartment and I gave it to him, not loaned, gave. He moved into West Hollywood. If I mention that West Hollywood is a gay community I will not be completely correct, there are straight people that live there also; but, the majority are gay. Is that being stereotypical?
Some of the questions I ask or some things I write about may make people uncomfortable. Learning and thinking require some discomfort, it means we must consider things that we have not thought about before, we must move out of our comfort zone.
Let us consider a hypothetical. What if I hated homosexuals and chose to post about it. What would be the best way to get me to reconsider my position? I read a lot of blogs and news stories and the comments. I see way too much attacking rather than engaging in conversation. We take offense and attack rather than attempting to get people to consider alternatives.
We rush everything anymore. I rarely see people ask for clarification, instead I see conditioned responses as they attempt to respond. I have opinions and I have attitudes and I cannot possibly see things the same as all of my readers. If people wish to understand what I am saying please ask for clarification, I will do my best to respond in a clearer way. Please give me the courtesy of being wrong sometimes; but, still willing to take a second look.
To the person who commented that they thought I knew better, stick around, comment more, lets get to know each other better. Understand that I write as I am thinking, I plan out nothing on this blog. I write casually, it may appear otherwise because I write a lot, I do it at work much more formally. I will not question everything I write here because it is meant to be casual in format. I will attempt to provide some context to my last post.
Yesterday I finally got someone assigned to work with me on my foreclosure. My mind was focused on the million things I have to do to move out of my house. I had just finished talking to a cousin about moving all of my furniture and possessions to another state until I can find a place to keep them. I wanted to make my post for the night quickly so that I could return to thinking about what I need to do to move and where I would get the money from. I read the article about the stem cells being used to cure Aids. That was the linked article, I know stem cells are being used for other things such as Parkinsons; but, what immediately came to my mind was the people I know who are HIV positive and they are gay. I wondered what I would say to them if they asked me if they should take the stem cell cure. Rather than give my answer, which is no, I asked the questions.
To all of my readers I will give these comments. I will write about whatever is on my mind that I wish to and in any manner that I choose. This is not a public forum although the public may read it. I do not make one penny off of this blog and do not intend to. I do make an effort to find articles that not everyone may be aware of. Sometimes I do research before I post; but, that is rare and usually limited to things like the pension scandal. Articles that are not about opinions but are about events that require more investigation.
I do not have time to discuss every aspect of everything I write about. Often I am looking at one or two aspects of a thing. This is not an encyclopedia, it is where I discuss things that are on my mind. Please do not assume that my thoughts are limited to the issues I raise, I do know that there are other issues remaining and after I write I continue to think about them. This blog represents only a small part of my beliefs and thoughts, I exist beyond this blog and have thoughts beyond what I post. Be well.
I found this article that sort of discusses the issue raised above.
This blog is not meant to be the final word on anything, it is not meant to be a learned treatise. It is my way of looking at issues that I see around me. Sometimes I am looking at one aspect of an issue. When that occurs it often because of a more personal perspective rather than attempting to see all aspects of an issue.
While it surprises me, there are people who read this blog that don't know me at all and others who are close friends and know quite a lot about me. It is hard to write to all audiences and be understood. Each reader will take from my posts what they will. In the end it is still just things I am thinking from my experience and my research. Thoughts not conclusions, works in progress.
Communication, be it through a blog or in person, is often difficult. I had a friend who used to say that communication is impossible. I disagree, it is a process and our words should continually be refined during that process so that we can have a clearer understanding of what we are attempting to convey to each other.
I intentionally request people to comment. It allows me to consider things that I might not have. The problem with blogging is that there is a long time delay between I write something and when people read it, it can be months later. Lost in that time can be context, lost in all my posts is the readers ability to see my context at the time I write it, what drives me to raise an issue, why it is on my mind and why.
I attempt to have a relationship with my readers. Like all relationships there is a give and take, there is imperfect communication. If a reader finds something I have written is insufficient then I welcome their comments and questions. If someone finds what I write to be offensive, I still welcome their comments. I have refused one comment because it used names. I refused another comment because I do not allow cuss words on my blog.
I do not know most of the readers and many have never left comments. I do not know who reads this blog in South Korea, I do not know who reads it in the Ukraine. I can only imagine that they must find some of what I write to be difficult to understand where I am coming from, I am still glad that they read it. They can take from it what they wish and they can question me on anything. I reserve the right to respond as I see fit.
Now I will return to the example of my last post. I used an example of people I knew, I have done that before. My point of reference is my life and my examples are often of people I know. In my last post I mentioned gays, I know gay men, heck, I know gay women; but, I don't know any gay women with Aids. They are out there, I just don't know any.
I have talked about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I have talked out against what we are doing. I had family in those war zones while I wrote about them. While my discussions were on aspects of the war, it has a very personal meaning to me that I do not discuss. I would hope that my readers understand that this is not just words, this blog is an expression of my feelings and my experience and my life. It is personal.
I do not generally like to discuss what I have done for others. I certainly do not wish to hold anything I have done for others over them. For this reason it is difficult to defend who I am to people who are unaware of things I have done. In this instance I will mention something I did. The person I helped was a young gay man who reads this blog. He needed money to get in an apartment and I gave it to him, not loaned, gave. He moved into West Hollywood. If I mention that West Hollywood is a gay community I will not be completely correct, there are straight people that live there also; but, the majority are gay. Is that being stereotypical?
Some of the questions I ask or some things I write about may make people uncomfortable. Learning and thinking require some discomfort, it means we must consider things that we have not thought about before, we must move out of our comfort zone.
Let us consider a hypothetical. What if I hated homosexuals and chose to post about it. What would be the best way to get me to reconsider my position? I read a lot of blogs and news stories and the comments. I see way too much attacking rather than engaging in conversation. We take offense and attack rather than attempting to get people to consider alternatives.
We rush everything anymore. I rarely see people ask for clarification, instead I see conditioned responses as they attempt to respond. I have opinions and I have attitudes and I cannot possibly see things the same as all of my readers. If people wish to understand what I am saying please ask for clarification, I will do my best to respond in a clearer way. Please give me the courtesy of being wrong sometimes; but, still willing to take a second look.
To the person who commented that they thought I knew better, stick around, comment more, lets get to know each other better. Understand that I write as I am thinking, I plan out nothing on this blog. I write casually, it may appear otherwise because I write a lot, I do it at work much more formally. I will not question everything I write here because it is meant to be casual in format. I will attempt to provide some context to my last post.
Yesterday I finally got someone assigned to work with me on my foreclosure. My mind was focused on the million things I have to do to move out of my house. I had just finished talking to a cousin about moving all of my furniture and possessions to another state until I can find a place to keep them. I wanted to make my post for the night quickly so that I could return to thinking about what I need to do to move and where I would get the money from. I read the article about the stem cells being used to cure Aids. That was the linked article, I know stem cells are being used for other things such as Parkinsons; but, what immediately came to my mind was the people I know who are HIV positive and they are gay. I wondered what I would say to them if they asked me if they should take the stem cell cure. Rather than give my answer, which is no, I asked the questions.
To all of my readers I will give these comments. I will write about whatever is on my mind that I wish to and in any manner that I choose. This is not a public forum although the public may read it. I do not make one penny off of this blog and do not intend to. I do make an effort to find articles that not everyone may be aware of. Sometimes I do research before I post; but, that is rare and usually limited to things like the pension scandal. Articles that are not about opinions but are about events that require more investigation.
I do not have time to discuss every aspect of everything I write about. Often I am looking at one or two aspects of a thing. This is not an encyclopedia, it is where I discuss things that are on my mind. Please do not assume that my thoughts are limited to the issues I raise, I do know that there are other issues remaining and after I write I continue to think about them. This blog represents only a small part of my beliefs and thoughts, I exist beyond this blog and have thoughts beyond what I post. Be well.
I found this article that sort of discusses the issue raised above.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Soon My Pretties
I finally got someone assigned to my mortgage case. I had to give up the day to do it so I didn't have much time to read the news. I did find this one article interesting.
HIV cured by babies stem cells. I am not going to discuss the merits of homosexuality or stem cell use, I want to ask something else. The dilemma.
Lets say you are a gay man with AIDS who is a Christian, would you take the stem cells knowing that a baby was killed so that you could have them? Now, lets say you are a gay man with AIDS who is an atheist; but, you don't believe in abortion of killing anything, a total vegan. Would you take the stem cells?
We define ourselves by our choices.
HIV cured by babies stem cells. I am not going to discuss the merits of homosexuality or stem cell use, I want to ask something else. The dilemma.
Lets say you are a gay man with AIDS who is a Christian, would you take the stem cells knowing that a baby was killed so that you could have them? Now, lets say you are a gay man with AIDS who is an atheist; but, you don't believe in abortion of killing anything, a total vegan. Would you take the stem cells?
We define ourselves by our choices.
Monday, December 13, 2010
He's Talking About God Again - Sort of
I read this post on "Above Top Secret" where someone asked why the Mormons had all of this intricate information, the most of anyone, on genealogies. Great question. I don't have any idea what the answer is. It does seem odd.
The Mormons have built a vault inside a mountain to protect the information. Why do they need a vault? Do they think God does not know everyone of us? I am pretty sure that he does. It says he wove us in our mother's wombs. God never really liked census' anyways. He commanded the Israelites to NOT count the priests when they did the census. The original census that he commanded was for the purpose of evenly dividing up all the land based on the number of people. The Levites were apportioned theirs differently.
The other census in the bible that I recall resulted in Mary and Joseph going to Bethlehem. In the Bible, other than when God had the people count the Israelites, that a census was done it tended to be for bad reasons. In fact the Bible says that the Israelites would be too big to be counted, so why are the Mormons trying to count them?
Why do we need a census today? Why does the government care who lives in which house? Why does Bill Gates want to register every child in the WORLD via cell phone. What is it with this counting thing? I ask this question to Christians and non-Christians. Why do people want a listing of everybody in the world. It is only good for one second and then there are more people being born and dying. It will never be an accurate count. So why count?
Let me show how silly this is. If you knew the exact number of people on earth today and tomorrow you were off by a million, what difference would it make? Do you have any idea of how much time and money and effort is wasted counting people? The Mormon church alone has 25,000 people tracing genealogies. Sure sounds like someone believes counting us is worthwhile and they want to be exact.
On a side note. I read this article where it talked about the fact that scientists can now bar code embryos. The explanation is that they want to make sure that test tube babies have the correct embryo. Sounds like a big lie to me. Sounds like more counting. I like math and have been asked to write a book on accounting (I am not an accountant) but I HATE algebra. I only like parts of mathematics. I am not into registering babies like they were products.
In law there are two types of property, real property and chattel. Real property stays in place, chattel moves. We are chattel. To own something you must be able to register it so that other people know you own it. The reason you count people is to show who owns who.
Let me ask a question. When have you ever benefited from being registered with the government? Don't misunderstand, I did not ask about being tested, I asked about being numbered. When has the government done that to help you rather than control you?
I heard a brilliant man once, he said "look at how you appear on a map, it determines what you get". More or less that is what he said. Why are you being counted? It determines what you get. Be well.
The Mormons have built a vault inside a mountain to protect the information. Why do they need a vault? Do they think God does not know everyone of us? I am pretty sure that he does. It says he wove us in our mother's wombs. God never really liked census' anyways. He commanded the Israelites to NOT count the priests when they did the census. The original census that he commanded was for the purpose of evenly dividing up all the land based on the number of people. The Levites were apportioned theirs differently.
The other census in the bible that I recall resulted in Mary and Joseph going to Bethlehem. In the Bible, other than when God had the people count the Israelites, that a census was done it tended to be for bad reasons. In fact the Bible says that the Israelites would be too big to be counted, so why are the Mormons trying to count them?
Why do we need a census today? Why does the government care who lives in which house? Why does Bill Gates want to register every child in the WORLD via cell phone. What is it with this counting thing? I ask this question to Christians and non-Christians. Why do people want a listing of everybody in the world. It is only good for one second and then there are more people being born and dying. It will never be an accurate count. So why count?
Let me show how silly this is. If you knew the exact number of people on earth today and tomorrow you were off by a million, what difference would it make? Do you have any idea of how much time and money and effort is wasted counting people? The Mormon church alone has 25,000 people tracing genealogies. Sure sounds like someone believes counting us is worthwhile and they want to be exact.
On a side note. I read this article where it talked about the fact that scientists can now bar code embryos. The explanation is that they want to make sure that test tube babies have the correct embryo. Sounds like a big lie to me. Sounds like more counting. I like math and have been asked to write a book on accounting (I am not an accountant) but I HATE algebra. I only like parts of mathematics. I am not into registering babies like they were products.
In law there are two types of property, real property and chattel. Real property stays in place, chattel moves. We are chattel. To own something you must be able to register it so that other people know you own it. The reason you count people is to show who owns who.
Let me ask a question. When have you ever benefited from being registered with the government? Don't misunderstand, I did not ask about being tested, I asked about being numbered. When has the government done that to help you rather than control you?
I heard a brilliant man once, he said "look at how you appear on a map, it determines what you get". More or less that is what he said. Why are you being counted? It determines what you get. Be well.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Prince Charles
Protesting students in London apparently attacked a Rolls Royce that was carrying Prince Charles and Camille, his wife. The protesters were shouting "Off with their heads". We know that was said in France about 200 years ago.
The look on the face of Prince Charles and Camille was not fear, it was shock. They could not comprehend seeing such a thing in England. I don't have any use for kings and queens as a rule. Having said that, I am absolutely opposed to this type of violence.
This little event must be a real wake up call for the royals. In fact, it is a wake up call for all people of power. Beyond the event is a bigger question, is that the face of anarchy and or direct democracy. The austerity measures going on in England are oppressive; but, how would those protesters manage government or anything else?
A veil has been pierced and people are aware of how they are being herded and controlled. There are calls for a return to freedom; but, we have never been free. People need leaders. Odd thing for me to say but it is true. How we choose our leaders determines the outcome.
The world has changed, it has become more global and that is okay as long as democracy and government remain local. Because the world has changed, people are agitated. Most people do not understand what the consequences of the world changes are. Even the leaders do not understand what is coming. World leadership is afraid, they are afraid of their own people not accepting the changes.
People have lost faith in their leaders who are corrupt and more concerned with their personal rewards than in improving conditions of the people they are supposed to lead. The leaders have lost faith in the people who are corrupt also. The problem is that we accept corruption anywhere.
We have now arrived at a place where things cannot improve unless we reject corruption in all it's sources. The problem is that nobody is presenting a plan for improving everyone's life. Our morals no longer exist, we have replaced morals with a belief that people should do as they wish (always with the caveat "as long as they don't hurt anyone else"). We do not ask if it is right, we ask if it is allowable.
Europe is a lost cause. Here is a good video on population rates and Europe's Islamization. I am not calling the Muslims corrupt, I am talking about European cultures demise.
The Europeans, the west, has been telling their people that they are overpopulating; but, then they turn around and let in millions and millions of people from other countries, primarily Muslims because they need a larger workforce. Think about that. The Europeans are being told to not have children and are replacing themselves with foreigners who want to change their laws to Islamic law.
Now I want you to ask yourself this question. If Europe had allowed their population size to decrease and had not let in millions of immigrants then their countries would not be overpopulating and they would not have the problems that the Muslims are causing them, so why did they let the immigrants in?
People are trained NOT to think but instead to have emotional reactions. I often find myself telling people about some news event and the first response people give is to say how they "feel" about the situation. They think about how they feel about the event rather than investigating the event and coming to an opinion AFTER they have investigated and have a deeper understanding.
A change occurred in our educational systems. 40 years ago we were taught to THINK, not to feel. We were taught to understand before coming to an opinion. The education system changed and teachers began asking children how they felt about history or current events. All opinions were considered equally valuable, they are not. There are no dumb questions but there are plenty of dumb answers.
We no longer believe anything, not even the truth because we do not seek it. People seek out answers that allow them to do what they want. We want simple answers and complain that the laws are too complicated. They are; but, the answer is found in learning more, not learning less.
When you heard about rioters attacking Prince Charles, what was your first response. Was it related to your opinion about there still being Kings and Queens looking down on the rest of us? As an alternate was your first thought about how these kids were out of control? In either case your opinion was based upon feelings rather than an investigation into the effect and the cause.
There is a lot of chatter about whether or not 9/11 was an inside job. It may or may not be an important question; but, what is a more important question is whether or not we should be at war. Juliane Assange has been arrested (the guy from Wikileaks) on some bogus charge of rape for not wearing a condom. Politicians world wide have called for his death and arrest because he released secret and confidential documents. We just released 5 known spies and England is releasing one it just caught. Why are we releasing spies and going after Assange? The spies gave the information to foreign governments, Assange gave the information to the people. Governments hide information from their own people not from other governments. They trust their own people less than they trust other governments, even enemies.
The United States government refused to admit in court that Area 51 existed, they were not hiding the fact from the Russians or Chinese, they have their own satellites and can see Area 51, the truth was being hid from Americans. Does this not seem strange to you?
What is all of this leading to, I have no idea. I have to get started on making meatballs for dinner tonight. Meatball sandwiches sounded good, I hope you enjoy your dinner. Be well.
The look on the face of Prince Charles and Camille was not fear, it was shock. They could not comprehend seeing such a thing in England. I don't have any use for kings and queens as a rule. Having said that, I am absolutely opposed to this type of violence.
This little event must be a real wake up call for the royals. In fact, it is a wake up call for all people of power. Beyond the event is a bigger question, is that the face of anarchy and or direct democracy. The austerity measures going on in England are oppressive; but, how would those protesters manage government or anything else?
A veil has been pierced and people are aware of how they are being herded and controlled. There are calls for a return to freedom; but, we have never been free. People need leaders. Odd thing for me to say but it is true. How we choose our leaders determines the outcome.
The world has changed, it has become more global and that is okay as long as democracy and government remain local. Because the world has changed, people are agitated. Most people do not understand what the consequences of the world changes are. Even the leaders do not understand what is coming. World leadership is afraid, they are afraid of their own people not accepting the changes.
People have lost faith in their leaders who are corrupt and more concerned with their personal rewards than in improving conditions of the people they are supposed to lead. The leaders have lost faith in the people who are corrupt also. The problem is that we accept corruption anywhere.
We have now arrived at a place where things cannot improve unless we reject corruption in all it's sources. The problem is that nobody is presenting a plan for improving everyone's life. Our morals no longer exist, we have replaced morals with a belief that people should do as they wish (always with the caveat "as long as they don't hurt anyone else"). We do not ask if it is right, we ask if it is allowable.
Europe is a lost cause. Here is a good video on population rates and Europe's Islamization. I am not calling the Muslims corrupt, I am talking about European cultures demise.
The Europeans, the west, has been telling their people that they are overpopulating; but, then they turn around and let in millions and millions of people from other countries, primarily Muslims because they need a larger workforce. Think about that. The Europeans are being told to not have children and are replacing themselves with foreigners who want to change their laws to Islamic law.
Now I want you to ask yourself this question. If Europe had allowed their population size to decrease and had not let in millions of immigrants then their countries would not be overpopulating and they would not have the problems that the Muslims are causing them, so why did they let the immigrants in?
People are trained NOT to think but instead to have emotional reactions. I often find myself telling people about some news event and the first response people give is to say how they "feel" about the situation. They think about how they feel about the event rather than investigating the event and coming to an opinion AFTER they have investigated and have a deeper understanding.
A change occurred in our educational systems. 40 years ago we were taught to THINK, not to feel. We were taught to understand before coming to an opinion. The education system changed and teachers began asking children how they felt about history or current events. All opinions were considered equally valuable, they are not. There are no dumb questions but there are plenty of dumb answers.
We no longer believe anything, not even the truth because we do not seek it. People seek out answers that allow them to do what they want. We want simple answers and complain that the laws are too complicated. They are; but, the answer is found in learning more, not learning less.
When you heard about rioters attacking Prince Charles, what was your first response. Was it related to your opinion about there still being Kings and Queens looking down on the rest of us? As an alternate was your first thought about how these kids were out of control? In either case your opinion was based upon feelings rather than an investigation into the effect and the cause.
There is a lot of chatter about whether or not 9/11 was an inside job. It may or may not be an important question; but, what is a more important question is whether or not we should be at war. Juliane Assange has been arrested (the guy from Wikileaks) on some bogus charge of rape for not wearing a condom. Politicians world wide have called for his death and arrest because he released secret and confidential documents. We just released 5 known spies and England is releasing one it just caught. Why are we releasing spies and going after Assange? The spies gave the information to foreign governments, Assange gave the information to the people. Governments hide information from their own people not from other governments. They trust their own people less than they trust other governments, even enemies.
The United States government refused to admit in court that Area 51 existed, they were not hiding the fact from the Russians or Chinese, they have their own satellites and can see Area 51, the truth was being hid from Americans. Does this not seem strange to you?
What is all of this leading to, I have no idea. I have to get started on making meatballs for dinner tonight. Meatball sandwiches sounded good, I hope you enjoy your dinner. Be well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)