That the free market even can conceive of such a thing annoys the shi’ite out of me.
Archive for September 30, 2010
Jesus made them equal.
Springfield Armory keeps it that way.
Having a professional athlete does not help you as much as having a gun does. While it’s hard to fault Osgood for fleeing–he wasn’t armed, the assailant was, and trying to fight someone who has a gun can be very risky–I say good on Putnall for being able to get to a firearm and use it.
John Stossel explains one dimension in which political “solutions” fail to realize their forecasted economic potential.
So, part of my newlywed “breaking in” is learning that Recon likes to start his training in the wee hours of the morning, long before I’m ready to deal with the world.
It’s been suggested by some that I
(1) Send him to China
(2) Give him a flushie
To those critics, Recon has a fair warning:
One of the biggest frauds of the last 100 years was Alfred Kinsey. His “research” was merely his own perversions wrapped in scientific veneer. His claim–that ten percent of the country is gay–has been disproven.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute–the research arm of Planned Parenthood and definitely no ally of social conservatives–could not even reproduce that figure. Breitbart is pointing out that in that in Britain, they are not reproducing that figure either.
As for my feelings about homosexuals, Vox sums it up (emphasis mine):
Despite having a) played in a band signed to a gay music label, and b) having a gay fan club, I have never subscribed to the myth that ten percent of the population is gay. First, because I don’t trust round numbers. Second, because of the thousands of people I’ve met over time, far fewer than 10 percent of them were not normally oriented despite the fact that I was acquainted with a lot more gay men and bisexual women than nearly anyone else I knew.
And, of course, no one could ever provide a credible citation. I’ve always assumed the correct number was around 2 percent, which appears to be more in line with the statistical reality. The fact is that gays tend to lead very troubled lives, not because of homophobia or the contempt of the normally-oriented as many would like to believe, but because abnormality of any kind is not easy. Gays do not deserve approval for their inclinations but neither do they merit contempt. I think the correct response to someone announcing they are gay is “I’m sorry”, not because homosexuality is hateful, but because it’s not an easy journey through life.
HUGE GRRRRRRR on public education today!!!!! The goal for MY child is NOT for her to become what YOU want her to be. The goal for MY child is for her to become what SHE is supposed to be. Get it? Got it? Nope … don’t think they do.
Discuss the following. Feel free to add more issues as you see fit.
(1) Given that the current career mantra–go to college, get 4-year degree, get nice job–has failed, are we really seeing a generation of men who are not “rising up”, or are we seeing a transition in which men are in the process of throwing off the old mantra and in fact are re-asserting themselves en masse?
(2) Given the current economic landscape, do you really see the workplace becoming more geared toward women, or do you see a shift in this? Explain how that might play out.
(3) Are men eschewing the roles of husband and father, or are they simply trying to make the best of a very bad situation, where both the risks and the rewards are less certain than ever?
(4) Is manhood possible without being a husband and/or father? (I say yes.) How is manhood expressed in the life of the single? How is it expressed in the role of husband? Father? Single father? How might Mohler be counseled to reword–if not revisit–his articulation of manhood?
(4) In what ways can the Church help men–single and married–on this front?
In the Christian world, I would suggest that men are finding that pastors have no clue what is happening. Of those who are more realistic about the economic landscape, the effective counsel toward men has been scarce at best.
Americans in general–men in particular–are having the rug yanked out from under them.
They grew up thinking they had to do A, B, and C, and the career paths would open up.
After all, for most of the last 40 years, a college education–almost ANY college education–was a guarantor of a nice career: an office job, good pay, good benefits, good health care. If you were savvy with Microsoft Office, the sky was literally the limit. Never mind that the marginal benefit of a college degree has been declining while the marginal cost has been rising faster than inflation for more than 25 years.
Now that the economy has gone bust, and now that the workplace can no longer deliver jobs that men can depend on, the whole game is changing. Those who think they can go to college–without a viable career plan–and rack up loans en masse, and expect to be employable let alone on a financially-sound path, are playing with disaster. But how many parents are counseling their kids in that direction?
As for marriage, men are often counseled not to get married until they are in a position to be good providers. That being the case, the marriage age is expanding out of sheer practicality. Men will not have the nice job opportunities that existed 20 years ago. Many are going to have to create their own opportunities.
Academic asshats–and ministers who have not had to do this–are going to find men looking at them with increasing contempt, because they are devoid of sound counsel. Such men will find it hard to talk civilly to the people they once respected, because the counsel they have received is not working. They will also be increasingly hostile toward a clergy that looks down on them for not fitting their paradigm of what men should be.
How this will end will depend on a number of things. But the landscape is ugly, and it will get worse before it has any chance of getting better.