San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, January 8, 2016

YMCA Designates A Bathroom For Hermaphrodites

Do you remember the YMCA?  Those letters stand for the Young Men's Christian Association.  Although most branches of the YMCA have their own by-laws most of them also have something in those by-laws like this:  "Section 3.1    The Springfield Family YMCA is a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) charitable organization that strengthens community through its focus on youth development, healthy living, and social responsibility. We promote the spiritual, mental, social and physical growth of its members and constituency by conducting activities which are consistent with the spirit and teachings of Jesus Christ."  Yes, it is true, the YMCA was at one time a Christian organization.  As is the case with most organizations, the by-laws have never been updated to reflect present reality.
The main webpage for the YMCA across the country has this statement under a section entitled "Diversity & Inclusion:"  "The Y is made up of people of all ages and from every walk of life working side by side to  strengthen communities. Together we work to ensure everyone -- regardless of gender, income, faith, sexual orientation or cultural background -- has the opportunity to live life to its fullest."
Jesus said that women are to be functionally subordinate to men. I wonder how that compares to the gender equality practiced and taught at the Y?  Jesus also said that there is only one way to God.  In other words, there is only one true religion and that is Bible believing Christianity.  I wonder how that compares to the religious beliefs of those who are active at the Y?  Jesus said that homosexuals, transvestites and other sexual perverts are doomed to hell if they don't repent of their behavior.  I wonder how often that is taught at the Y as "consistent with the spirit and teachings of Jesus Christ?"
A hermaphrodite is someone or something that has the physical characteristics of both sexes.  If I understand the position of those who call themselves either bi-sexual or trans-sexual these days they would best be classified as hermaphrodites.  In every case that I have ever read about the person in question claims that he is either a man trapped in a woman's body or a woman trapped in a man's body.  Either way the situation remains the same....that person is claiming to be both male and female, with one of the two sexes vying for the dominant position in its life.  It is for that reason I believe these people can best be described as hermaphrodites.
Last year the roughly 1% of the population of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika who are heterophobic won a significant battle in the Supreme Court of Jokers.  They achieved the religious and spiritual goal of "most preferred status" which was conferred upon them by the government of the SDA.  Shortly after their victory the hermaphrodites among us, a considerably smaller group I would suppose, decided it was their turn.  Since that pseudo-judicial decision by the Court there has been a non-stop stream of propaganda from the liberal media advancing the cause of these poor people who claim to be trapped within a body with two sexual identities desperately seeking unity as a single sexual being.  Also since that time various organizations around the country have decided to try and increase their popularity and income streams by promoting the perversion of hermaphroditism and recruiting these sinners into their organizations.  Sadly, the YMCA is one of those groups.
According to this website, "Locker room policy at the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) in Seattle, Washington, now allows self-identified 'transgender' males to shower with 15-year-old girls. Controversy surrounding this decision has led many to question the organization and even cancel their memberships.  According to an inside source at the YMCA, the decision had been brewing ever since March of this year, when a 'open door' policy for trans individuals was being discussed. In April 2015, the YMCA of Pierce and Kitsap Counties established a 'no questions asked' policy, allowing open access to locker rooms without stating genders....The YMCA called an emergency meeting aimed at convincing members who opposed the policy that they were legally required to accept it in order to be more inclusive."
There is a great deal of ambiguity as to whether or not the law requires the YMCA to open the Women's bathrooms to men who claim to be hermaphrodites.  Regardless, it is not difficult to see how the new policy at the Y would be very popular with perverts, child molesters, pedophiles and anyone who wants to be able to legally take a shower with teenage girls.  Talk about inclusive, this new policy is downright progressive!  As is to be expected, the few remaining Christians associated with the Y are protesting this action.  As is also to be expected, the few remaining Christians have no idea why it is wrong for the Y to even have public showers in the first place.  Let me explain.
Largely as a result of the destructive behavioral propaganda dispensed by the physical education teachers in the government schools within the SDA throughout the generations, the biblical doctrine of nakedness has been utterly lost.  Evangelical Christians have no clue what the doctrine  is since they rarely read anything other than books about children who have died and gone to heaven, later coming back to tell us all how wonderful it all is.  The orthodox Christian Church (read "Reformed") has long held and understood that public nakedness is a sin, regardless of the context.  Contrary to what the nudists, naturalists, naturists, or whatever those perverts are calling themselves these days believe, God is not pleased with public nudity.  The shame that we all felt when we were first required to strip naked in front of our peers in the locker room after gym class has been suppressed and dropped down the memory hole, never to return.  We need to revitalize that shame and reclaim this ancient Christian truth if we have any hope of defending ourselves from the immoral onslaught of the government of the SDA.
The fall of man is recorded in the book of Genesis.  It describes how our federal head, Adam, disobeyed God and plunged all of his natural progeny into original sin.  The very first thing that both Adam and Eve did after they became aware of their sin was to fashion clothing and cover their genitalia.  There is a reason for their behavior.  God has decreed that human genitalia shall be the physical symbol of our sin, thus making their public display shameful and sinful.  All men whose consciences are not seared beyond any ability to still have moral comprehension are naturally aware of this fact and will make an attempt to cover up when exposed in public.  It therefore necessarily follows that all public nudity, whether it be on a beach, in a shower, in a bathhouse, or any other public venue, is sinful.  It does not matter if only one sex is present.  It does not matter if no sexual perverts are present.  All that matters is that the part of our bodies that conveys the shame of our sin is being exposed for others to see and that is a sin.
It is not a coincidence that government schools throw children together into physical education classes and force them to disrobe in front of each other on a regular basis.  This systematic desensitization is designed to overwhelm the guilt associated with public nudity and make it a normal state of being.  It is designed to convince children that their natural shame for sin is not real.  It is designed to dehumanize them and prepare them to be good servants of the state.  That practice is carried over into the military where each individual solider learns that he is nothing more than an cog in the military machine, with no inherent worth, value or human dignity.  That makes it easy to brainwash soldiers into being willing cannon fodder.
All of this is to make a simple point.  The world and the Beast (government of the SDA) are hell-bent upon destroying all biblical truth.  One of the best means of accomplishing that goal is to convince Christians that it is possible to meet the world on some common, morally neutral, ground.  A public shower with only one sex using it is a good example of this practice.  Once the initial shame associated with nakedness in this forum has been removed the next step is initiated and co-ed showers are installed.  The irony in this situation is that the harbinger of this sort of moral progress is an apostate Christian organization.   As offensive as this practice is, Christians lost this battle long ago when they capitulated to public nudity in the government schools.  What we are seeing today is the fruit of that capitulation.

Thursday, January 7, 2016

"The Big Short" Falls Short

"The Big Short" is a movie currently playing in theaters around the country.  According to Internet Movie Database the movie is about "four denizens of the world of high-finance (who) predict the credit and housing bubble collapse of the mid-2000s, and decide to take on the big banks for their greed and lack of foresight."  The movie is rated 8.1 out of 10.0 and described as "a true story."  A lot of people are watching this movie and a lot of people are getting a very inaccurate impression of what actually happened back in 2008.  I find myself compelled to revisit the issue of the Great Recession today because people who should know better continue to blame the wrong characters for what happened while, at the same time, they give the true culprits for the collapse a free pass.
I have not and will not go to see The Big Short.  I have several reasons for not wanting to see it.  Its graphic depictions of sexual immorality on the part of the stars of the movie is just Hollywood doing what Hollywood always does, glamorizing profligacy.  I have no need to see how immoral men can be.  Sexual immorality aside, my primary reason for not going to see the movie is the fact that it is nothing more than another anti-business propaganda film.  How can I say this when I have not seen it?  I dedicated some time to reading reviews of the movie that went into great detail about its content.  After reading reviews from various sources I think I have a pretty good idea what is being portrayed and I think I have a pretty good idea about how to criticize the garbage that is put up on the screen in this disgusting film.
The movie centers around four characters, all of whom have decided that the housing market in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika is headed for a crash.  For those of you who do not recall the heady days in the housing market in 2007, I will remind you that an investment vehicle known as a "mortgage backed" security was all the rage.  Mortgage backed securities were investments made up of pools of mortgages that were independently sold as separate investments.  They were divided into various tranches, depending upon the amount of risk associated with each pool.  Over time so many of these investments were created and repacked it got to the point where nobody really knew what was in them.  Then, when the housing market collapsed, the housing investments behind the mortgage backed securities no longer had sufficient value to support the value of the securities and everything collapsed almost overnight.
"Shorting" is a technique whereby an investor borrows a security from someone else and immediately sells it.  The expectation of an investor who shorts is that the investment will decrease in value.  If the investor is correct he will repurchase the investment after its decrease in value and pocket the difference as his profit.  Those who short are often blamed when the stock market goes down since their selling of stocks during times of market collapse is incorrectly deemed to be causal of the collapse itself.  Never mentioned is how often those who short end up being wrong and have to "cover their shorts" by buying securities back at higher prices, thus losing their money. Shorting is neither good nor bad.  It is simply an investment technique.
"The Big Short" shows how four investors used shorting to allegedly punish greedy and immoral bankers who were creating and selling mortgage backed securities to an unsuspecting public.  The villains in the movie are investment bankers, as they always are.  The villains in the movie are operating in a market free of government regulation, as they always do.  The villains in the movie are making enormous profits, as they always realize as a result of their immoral capitalistic ways.  The villains in the movie get their comeuppance when these four virtuous investors come in and short the mortgage backed securities they have for sale. The shorters then gleefully watch the mortgage backed securities fall to nothing in value as the mortgage market collapses.  Meanwhile the investment bankers either go bankrupt, run to the government for bailouts, or attempt to deal with their losses the best they can.
In this previous blog post I quote the author of Financial Fiasco as he describes what really took place during the start of the Great Recession.  The title of that post is "Government Caused the Great Recession" and it would be worth reviewing if you don't recall what I argued there.  I wrote other posts to this blog that described what really happened in 2008.  They can be found here, here and here. As I wrote in this blog post, "The Great Recession was caused by government policies encouraging home ownership and the extension of mortgages to people who would never be able to pay them back.  Those sub-prime mortgages were packaged together into securities that were then sold as high quality mortgage backed securities.  Government approved ratings agencies told potential investors they were high grade investments because they were backed by other government agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  A real estate bubble was created by the policies of the federal government.  When the bubble burst it was inevitable that somebody would be forced to take the blame.  Government deftly shifted blame from itself to the evil bankers who allegedly created the entire mess because of their inherent greed and avarice.  The mortgage market collapsed, the housing market collapsed and the stock market dropped by 45% from 9-1-08 to 3-9-09, the low point for the market. To illustrate how absurd conditions had become, at the low point of the stock market it was the case that dozens of S & P 500 companies had market valuations that were less than their cash on hand.   Most of the drop in the stock market can be attributed to the fact that politicians (Bush, Obama, Pelosi, Boehner) worked together with bureaucrats (Geithner, Bernanke, Paulson) to convince the citizens of the SDA that without hundreds of billions of dollars of new money injected into the economy there would be a total cessation of all economic activity in a matter of days.  Of course they were wrong.  I also suspect they were lying.  At the very best there were some who were lying and others who were so brazenly ignorant of economics that they were incapable of perceiving the lies they were being told.  Nevertheless, we were all played for fools as the feds created $1.2 trillion in new money in a matter of months.  That money was spread around to favorite groups, in exchange for future votes.  We, of course, have been stuck with the bill.  We are now being told we need to make sacrifices in order to pick up the bill our leaders created for us.  Throughout the entire time period politicians were the center of attention, and they loved it."
The trigger that sent the economy into a tailspin was the application of the accounting principle known as "mark to market."  Investment bankers had protested that the application of that simple accounting principle could bring great harm upon the economy but government accountants and career bureaucrats refused to hear their arguments.  Mark to market requires holders of various investment securities to value their investments at the current market price rather than the book price.  Sometimes this principle makes sense but other times it does not.  When holders of mortgage backed securities were forced to mark the value of their securities to the market price and when the market price was incalculable (as it was in 2008), it brought about the state of affairs in which the entire mortgage backed securities market was valued at zero and deemed insolvent.  That, of course, was not true.  There were plenty of performing mortgages in the economy and all that was needed was a little time to sort things out.  Rather than giving the free market time to value the investments properly, the Fed swept in, on the authorization of Congress, and basically stole all of the allegedly worthless mortgage backed securities that were in the market.   The investment banks were paid pennies on the dollar for the investments they were forced to sell to the Fed.
Fast forward several years and we discover something that was totally ignored by the media.  As I wrote in this blog post, "An article from the Dow Jones Newswires published on August 25th told the largely ignored tale of the Fed's sale of the last of its shares of mortgage backed securities acquired from American International Group (AIG).  The headline stated, 'N.Y. Fed Had $6.6 Billion Profit on AIG Maiden Lane Sales.'  'Maiden Lane' is the Fed's name for its purchase of mortgage backed securities.  According to the article, 'The Federal Reserve Bank of New York on Thursday profitably closed the book on its crisis-era seizure of American International Group Inc.'s (AIG) most toxic assets, selling the last of the complex securities that have evolved from being Exhibit A of the financial crisis into one of the hottest buys around....the New York Fed announced a profit of about $6.6 billion...The New York Fed since April has been selling off about $47 billion in face value of complex mortgage assets from Maiden Lane III, which in late 2008 paid about 47 cents on the dollar...'  Several of the phrases in the above paragraph are very interesting.  Note that the purchase of the mortgage backed securities from AIG is described as a 'seizure.'  AIG was not permitted to sell their mortgage backed securities to anyone other than the government.  Hence, the best word to describe the Fed's purchase of the securities is 'seizure.'  Also note that those 'toxic' assets have turned into 'one of the hottest buys around.'  Now, how can it be that investment securities considered so dangerous by the US government and the Federal reserve that they had to be described as 'toxic' can actually end up being one of the best investments of the past several years?  Could it be that the mortgage backed securities were never toxic in the first place?  Could it be that the Fed, Treasury and other ministers of propaganda in the federal government had a vested interest in lying about the nature of the securities so they could ride to the rescue and effectively nationalize an entire company?  Could it be that the various branches of government were being less than totally honest with the American people on this one?  May it never be!  The Federal Reserve Bank of New York was able to purchase mortgage backed securities for less than half of their original value.  We were told at the time that the Fed's purchase was bound to result in taxpayer losses because the securities were essentially worthless and that the Fed was doing this simply to keep AIG from going bankrupt.  All trading in the securities was halted and there was no free market mechanism that could properly value the shares.  We were basically left at the whim of the federal government and asked to trust them.  I specifically remember hearing that AIG was 'dead in the water' and would soon go out of existence.  Now it turns out that the Fed essentially robbed AIG of its mortgage backed securities.  A couple of years later and the Fed is magnanimously agreeing to sell those securities at an extreme profit.  A couple of years later and those 'toxic' assets look pretty good to a lot of people.  So we have to ask, was the Fed just stupid or were Fed officials lying to us?  Either way, all of those associated with the Fed who were involved in the purchase of the mortgage backed securities should be indicted for securities fraud."
That is the story that Hollywood should be telling.  It is a tale of government greed, corruption, theft, lying and abuse.  It is tale that tells the truth about the Fed.  It is a tale that shows how profit seeking investment banks were seriously abused by career politicians and bureaucrats and then forced to take the blame for the economic collapse created by their government tormentors.  But that is a tale that will never be told in this free-market despising country.  We are all worshipers of government and no movie will ever be made that shows our hatred for profit seeking corporations to be misplaced and worship of government to be idolatrous. 

Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Teaching Your Children To Lie And Steal At An Early Age

There are only two ways that any person can ever make money.  You can either trade a good or a service you provide with someone else for cash or you can steal money from someone else.  I am assuming that individual citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika will not engage in the practice of counterfeiting money as the Federal Reserve does, although I do recognize that some folks try to get away with that illegal and immoral activity.  So if you want money you need to come up with some sort of plan.  You can figure out what you do well and use your personal abilities to serve others for fun and profit or you can concoct a plan to rob, steal and plunder your neighbors.  The first activity is called "business" and it is what people do when they love one another.  The second activity is called "theft" and it is what career politicians and those who vote for them do because they hate one another.
I have written many times about the moral and economic advantages of the free market.  In a sinful world there is no better institution to create wealth and incentivize men to live in harmony with each other than the free market.  It is also true that in a sinful world there is no better institution to destroy wealth and incentivize immoral activity than government.  That is what I would like to write about briefly today.
Government schools, you might call them public schools but that is a misnomer, are schools that exist for the purpose of dispensing propaganda that will brainwash children into the belief that the state is the source of all that is good, right and proper in the world. To accomplish that goal it is necessary to also indoctrinate children in the belief that the free market is evil and that Christianity is responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people throughout history, as well as a multitude of theological errors.  For reasons that I have never been able to understand, adults voluntarily send their children to these centers of state-worship indoctrination.  To the surprise of no one, after twelve years of powerful brainwashing the human products of that indoctrination walk out the door at graduation universally believing in global warming, the primacy of the state over all institutions, the immoral and greedy nature of free enterprise and the downright silliness of Christianity.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.  Everything has to be paid for, even government indoctrination camps.  Do you know who pays for government schools?  I suspect you do, if you are a property owner.  The majority of the funds that are used to pay government school teachers to teach your children to hate the God of the Bible and love the god of the State come from your real property taxes.  A smaller portion of that funding comes from allocations of state income taxes and an even smaller portion comes from an allocation of federal income taxes to the local school districts.  So government schools are paid for by those who own real property and the top 49% of the income population in the SDA who pay all the income taxes.  I would guess that the majority of those who own real property are also in the top 49% of the income population so once again we see that the politically unprotected minority is forced to pay for what is essentially the entire bill for government schooling.
A reader of this blog sent me an article about a town in New Mexico by the name of Los Alamos.  I have written about Los Alamos before.  It is a government town obsessed with fears of terrorist attack.  When you enter Los Alamos you give up your 4th Amendment right to privacy.  To enter the town you need to submit to an unconstitutional search of your person and possessions.  Los Alamos also has a school district.  Since Los Alamos is the wealthiest county in all of New Mexico, or at least it was when I lived there as a child,  the funding for the government schools there is abundant.  So it might surprise you to discover that the highly moral and personally upstanding members of the government school cartel in Los Alamos believes it is important for all of the students under their control to be instructed to lie.  Let me tell you the story as I received it in the following news report.
"In the state of New Mexico school funds are distributed by a process which depends on counting the number of students three times a school year. These are called the 40 day count, the 80 day count, and the 120 day count.  These one day counts of students determines the amount of money per student enrolled that comes from the state to the schools. It is a straightforward count which is hard to cheat on. On the same three days the school is to count the number of school bus riders which also determines the state allocated money.  This is meant to defray the costs of transporting students to and from school.  In Los Alamos we have an excellent public bus system which is preferred by a lot of students over the school buses.  So, for the past two years or more the school administration has embarked on a campaign to encourage the students to ride the school buses on the three counting days, 40, 80 and 120.  A year ago in the fall the school talked one of the local merchants into giving a free ice cream coupon to any student who would ride the school bus on the counting day.  This was fairly successful and resulted in an additional amount from the state of over one hundred thousand dollars."
There you have it.  Not content to merely steal from the citizens of Los Alamos who own property to pay for their efforts, the teaching cartel in town recruited the students under their authority to lie to the state government in order to steal an additional $100k from it, and they were successful in doing so.  I guess government school teachers are very good at teaching children to lie and steal.  These students are being well schooled in the art of legal plunder and will graduate with advanced degrees in how to use democracy to make yourself a winner at the expense of the rich, whoever they are.  Good for them.  It all makes me wonder.....the writer of the above paragraph makes reference to the "excellent public bus system" that exists in Los Alamos.  That is a misnomer.  It is a government bus system.  I wonder who pays for it?  My guess is that it would be paid for exclusively by the property owners in Los Alamos but given the tight connection to the federal government that exists in town it would not surprise me if federal taxpayers were on the hook for a portion of the bill.  But for purposes of illustration I will assume that only Los Alamos citizens are being forced to pay for the government's bus system.  That would mean that money is being stolen from people to pay for something the majority of them do not use.  How, Mr. Letter Writer, is that any different than what you complain about?

Tuesday, January 5, 2016

What Passes For A Rational Argument These Days

I was reading my Denver Post this morning when I came across a letter to the editor from Mark Harvey of Arvada.  Mark felt compelled to write the editor to prove his point that abortion is not murder.  Under normal circumstances I would have passed over the letter, dismissing Mark as simply another God-hating person who wants to be able to have sex without consequences.  Instead I am compelled to tell you about Mark's letter in today's post.  I believe that Mark and his fellow abortionists would consider his argument to be a sterling example of a logically necessary argument that proves that abortion is not murder.  Allow me to present his argument, skipping over the extraneous parts, here:
"Given that three times Coloradans have overwhelmingly defeated personhood amendments, I would state that Lynn Grandon is categorically wrong when she says 'everyone' accepts that abortion kills nascent human life.  I accept that the unborn have existence.  However, they have no characteristics in common with a person outside of biological existence and DNA.  It denigrates humanity, and certainly goes against my religious beliefs, to lower personhood to this level.  There is a distinct difference between life and existence...I am pro-life.  I respect and honor a person's choices."
Let me begin with a couple of definitions.  'Nascent' is defined as, "just beginning, budding, developing, growing, embryonic, incipient, or young."   'Incipient' is defined as, "in an initial stage; beginning to happen or develop."  'Biological' has the following synonyms:  biotic, biologic, organic, and living.  'Existence' is defined as, "the fact or state of living or having objective reality."  'Personhood' is precisely the point at issue in this debate and it is defined in such a way as to beg the question by both camps in the abortion conflict.  Abortionists say an unborn baby is not a person.  Abortion opponents say that an unborn baby is a person.  The definition chosen determines the outcome so I will leave it undefined.   With these definitions in mind, let's consider Mark's argument.
I find it most interesting that Mark, whatever his "religious beliefs" might be, immediately appeals to his real and true god.  He begins by saying that the majority of the citizens of the geo-political entity known as Colorado who vote have declared that an unborn baby is not a person.  It therefore necessarily follows that an unborn baby is not a person and subject to being destroyed for any reason whatsoever.  Mark's god is democracy and the career politicians who populate the power structure created to house it.  Whatever the majority declares to be true is true.  Whatever the majority declares to be moral is moral.  Praised be the majority!
Mark begins by denying that abortion kills human life that is just beginning, budding, developing, growing, incipient or young.  He denies that abortion kills human life that is in an initial state, beginning to happen or develop.  He makes these denials based upon his assertion that abortion does not kill "nascent" human life.  But nascent human life is still human life, by anyone's definition of nascent.  So Mark denies that abortion kills human life, even though it kills human life in an early developmental form.  Do you believe I have put words into Mark's mouth?  I have not.  Let's continue with what he asserts to be true.
Mark asserts that he accepts the unborn life has existence.  Indeed, he goes so far as to say the unborn has biological existence and human DNA but is still not a person.  So Mark asserts that the unborn  baby is an organic, living being with human DNA that can properly be described as having objective reality.  At the same time Mark denies that the unborn baby is a person.  What additional characteristics does a human person have beyond being a living being with human DNA that can properly be described as having objective reality?   Mark does not say.  I suspect his answer to my question would be the self-referential assertion that the additional characteristic found in human life is personhood, whatever that is.
I find it fascinating that Mark believes that positing that an unborn baby is a human being "denigrates humanity."  'Denigrate' is defined as, "to criticize unfairly or disparage."  'Disparage' is defined as, "to regard or represent as being of little worth."  So Mark believes that those who oppose abortion believe that human life is of little worth because they believe the unborn baby is human.  How odd.  I wonder if he sees the contradiction in his position on this point?  How can the desire to protect a living being with human DNA bring about a state of affairs in which the person doing so can legitimately be described as considering human beings to be of little worth?  Mark does not say.
Mark concludes his argument with the profound assertion that there is "a distinct difference between life and existence."  His premise is true but, unfortunately for him, Mark has now changed the terms in his argument.  It is true that a rock exists in a different fashion than a dog does.  A dog has life and a rock does not.  But Mark has already given away the farm.  He has already asserted that an unborn baby not only exists like a rock does but it also has a "biological," or living, existence with constituent human DNA.   So although his premise that existence and life can be two different things is true, that is not the case in this scenario where both parties to the argument agree that the unborn baby not only exists but also is biologically alive and endowed with human DNA.  I wonder if Mark realizes that his powerful conclusion proves nothing?
Mark concludes his letter by informing me that he is "pro-life."  He makes this assertion despite the fact that he has already admitted that killing unborn biological beings that have existence, life and human DNA is a jolly good thing to do.   That, of course, is not logically possible.  
Mark's final statement is his rather blatant attempt to cast himself as morally superior to all abortion opponents.  He says, "I respect and honor a person's choices."  The obvious intimation is that those who oppose abortion do not respect and honor the decision of a pregnant woman to kill the nascent human life within her, thus making them morally inferior to Mark the Great.  Not only does Mark suffer from delusions of his moral grandeur, he is also a massive hypocrite.  Make no mistake, Mark does not honor the opinions of those who call abortion murder.  He hates those opinions and those who propound them.  So much for behavioral consistency as well.
I have ignored the issue of personhood up to this point.  I think the concept of personhood gets to the heart of the debate.  How does a person, by definition someone who has personhood, differ from the human being Mark has already conceded is living within a pregnant woman?  (You may object to my assertion that Mark has conceded that the unborn baby is a "human being."  You shouldn't.  Mark admits the unborn baby exists, that it is ontologically present within the woman.  That makes it a "being."  He also admits that it has human DNA. That makes it a human being.  That is an example of a logically necessary argument, unlike the tripe we are reading from Mark.)  The biblical answer to that question is that there is no difference.  A human being and a person are the same thing because God creates each person/human being and endows each with a soul made in His image.  The God-hating answer to that question is that there is a difference between a person and a human being but they don't want to talk about or define what it is because asking that question exposes the weakness of their entire position.  And that, my friends, is what passes for rigorous logical necessity these days. 

Monday, January 4, 2016

Your Disability Does Not Give You A Right To My Money

One of the things stupid arm-chair theologians like to ask is, "Why do bad things happen to good people?"  That question is usually asked as a type of concealed complaint against the God of the Bible.  The hidden expectation is that God exists to make people happy and whenever someone is not happy, especially as a result of some "bad thing" happening to him, God is somehow negligent in His duty towards mankind.   There is a hidden presupposition in the question as well.  Have you figured it out?  The question assumes that men are basically good.  That is a fatal assumption.
From the perspective of the God of the Bible the above question is incorrect.  A proper way to frame the question would be more like this, "Why do good things happen to bad people?"  The Bible teaches, and evangelical Christians generally ignore or deny, that men are guilty of sin, both actual and original.  As a result, no one is morally good, not even one.  None seek after God, not even one.  Everything every person does is tainted with sin and displeasing to the holy and morally perfect God of the Bible.  The amazing thing about life is not that bad things happen to good people.  The amazing thing about life is that any good things ever happen to anyone.  If God decided to deal with mankind exclusively according to our sin, everything that happens to us would be bad, all the time.  We deserve nothing but judgment and yet God graciously brings good things into our lives.  That is what is truly amazing.
I mention all of this as an introduction to today's topic.  Mental and physical disabilities are generally considered to be bad things.  When a couple gives birth to a mentally or physically retarded child I believe it is fair to say most people consider that to be a bad thing.  For many people the potential for a mentally or physically retarded child is considered to be so bad they will take the extreme position that it is better to murder that child via an abortive procedure than allow it to see the light of day.  I don't think that would be the position of the child, if his or her position could be ascertained, but it is certainly the position of many parents.
There was an article in the Denver Post a week or so ago that, according to another article in the same newspaper yesterday, said, "A recent Denver audit found Rocky Mountain Human Services, a nonprofit that manages therapy and respite care for Denver children with intellectual and developmental disabilities, misused millions of dollars.  The agency spent $48,000 ordering food for staff meetings, reimbursed its 250 member staff for home Internet services, provided workers Costco memberships and overcharged the city $650,000 for administrative expenses.  Former chief executive Stephen Block received $478,974 in pay and benefits in 2014...Meanwhile, families say their children are left on wait lists for years or told their benefits capped out."
Now that is a shocking news story. How is it possible that a government agency, staffed with people who have committed themselves to never making a profit and always behaving altruistically, could be guilty of such blatant theft of taxpayer funds?  I thought all government employees were moral?  How could they have become corrupt if they were not seeking a profit?  Despite my utter inability to conceive how government employees could ever behave immorally the fact remains that they have.
What caught my attention today was not the immoral behavior of government employees, it was the response to that news by people on the receiving end of taxpayer funds because they happen to have children that are mentally or physically retarded.  The article in the paper began by telling me that, "Parents of children with disabilities, empowered by a recent city audit that uncovered shameful misspending of taxpayer money, demanded new laws Thursday and a state investigation into the community boards that manage their children's services."  Well that sounds like a wonderful idea. A branch of government is rife with corruption so let's create a new branch of government and charge it with oversight of the corrupt branch.  Then, let's give that branch all sorts of new powers and plenty of taxpayer dollars.  I can't see how anything bad could ever be the result of that plan, can you?
What bothers me the most about this entire situation is the response of the parents with disabled children.  The article said, "...parents held signs and pushed their young or adult children in wheelchairs as they vowed to fight for action ahead of the legislature's return in January."  One parent was quoted as saying, "We are absolutely determined not to stop until there is reform in the system.  Our concerns are real.  They are legitimate.  They are documented."  Well there you have it.  Because parents with retarded children have "real, legitimate and documented concerns" it necessarily follows that they have a moral claim on some of my money.  Now how did that happen?
All of this got me to thinking....what criteria is used to determine who qualifies to receive taxpayer funds and who does not?  If there is a continuum of one to one hundred along the scale of physical or mental retardation, at what number along that continuum does a person become allowed to steal some of my money and use it to pay for his kid's medical care?  I think it is only fair to determine what that number is and then announce it to all people who live in the geo-political zone where these funds are being taken from taxpayers and given to a politically preferred class of people.  Indeed, once I know what that number is I am sure I can get above or below it, depending upon  how it is measured, and get myself qualified to receive taxpayer support.  After all, as a Welshman I have dozens of real, legitimate and documented concerns!
I want to start 2016 off right.  I want to make it clear to the three or four people who read this blog that theft is always theft, even if it is conducted by majority vote.  No person has a right to my money because he has a retarded child.  I have no moral responsibility whatsoever to pay for the care of the retarded child of any other person but my own.  Any attempt to force one person, or a group of people like the amorphous "rich,"  to pay the expenses associated with a retarded child of another person is immoral.  Since the great majority of what goes on in this envy-filled country comes down to forcing one group of people to pay the freight for another group that has political power I conclude that the great majority of what takes place in this country is immoral.  God will not be mocked and immorality will not be tolerated forever.
I have a question for those who call evil good.   Why is your physical or mental disability the only reason to take my money?  How about your home size or number of cars?  Certainly every person is entitled to a home of a certain minimum square feet.  And it is most certainly true that everyone should have access to a functional automobile.  Those who do not have these necessities should be permitted to use the taxes paid by the "rich," whoever they are, to finance their needs.  After all, you already take my money to pay for your kids school, your daughter's abortion, your health insurance and the imperialistic expansion of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika you love so much.  What is a little more to a rich guy who cannot defend himself from the majority?