On the Decline

Recently, Common Filth stated that white people have a higher IQ than most of the rest of the world (save East Asians and Jews) yet we constantly rationalize our immoral behaviors, mostly in the realm of sexual deviancy.

Such rationalizations are destructive, but not entirely unexpected.  After all, when you remove the source of all morality from the public discourse, you end up with a society that either seeks out a moral code from the government or simply abandons it altogether.

Sure, we could blame the Soviets for their drive to cultural Marxism, which was ramped up in the 1960s and continues to this day.  But that only negates what is ultimately the fault of the individual and society which failed to resist the outright counter-culture movements that went on.

I tend not to blame whole groups of people, but there are many common generalities which we see from time to time.

But at the end of the day, the fault lies in the individual.  Even those who have IQs of 120 or higher tend to engage in prideful collectivism which results in strange god-complexes and the denigration of human life.

There is no solution that man can bring to this though.  Most people are idiots, even the 120+, and as such, they lack real wisdom.

Intelligence has three requirements: IQ, Knowledge, and Wisdom.  And while IQ is inherited and knowledge is gained through study, wisdom only comes from God.

Abandoning God is probably the biggest mistake Christendom has made.  Between the lack of wisdom and the sexual depravity, it is no wonder we are on the decline.

I pray that God will help us to pave the way for a better nation for my children, but I haven’t received a response yet.

Pro-Life Republican Voters Are Suckers

Only suckers vote for Republicans who claim to be pro-life when that is the sole issue on the table.  Pro-life voters, the single issue ones, are essentially the equivalent of black voters to the Democrats.

The fact is, Republicans are really a pro-choice party who pretend to be a pro-life party in order to curry favor from suckers.  This is because Republicans (and Democrats) have overseen the rise of a fascist economy where government and business work together to profit off of the backs of productive taxpayers.

This of course poses a problem for Republicans.  They are supposed to be the party of freedom, but what freedom is there with the collusion of business and government?

And so, they turn to social issues in order to shore up their conservative base.  This is how it has always been going a far back as the 1980s.  Sure Reagan was pro-life (even though he signed the first abortion law as governor of California) but he also grew the size of the government with his drug war and Cold War policies.

In any case, we see that the abortion debate is nothing more than a smokescreen for the average conservative voter.  It is a distraction to allow morons to vote for someone who has no plans on changing the status quo on abortion while at the same time benefiting from pro-choice corporate campaign donations.

I do think abortion should be illegal.  It’s murder and human life is sacred.

But I also think that social issues are solved by cultural, rather than political, shifts.  We have to encourage a culture that holds human life, no matter what stage or how useless, as sacred and something to be protected.

Instead we have a culture that judges human life by the level of usefulness they pose to society.  A baby is worthless and therefore disposable.  Terminally ill people need to die with dignity.

In other words, your value is what you provide for society and tied directly to your right to life.

This is a sick notion and one that I hope is diminished to a few crazies by the time I die.

I’m not optimistic though.

Oklahoma Moves Toward Freedom in Marriage

Recently, the Oklahoma state House passed a law that would effectively eliminate marriage licenses in the entire state.  If the law passes the state Senate and is signed by the governor, then the state of Oklahoma will be the first state to effectively make marriage a private contractual matter and not one that concerns the government.

Already there are a lot of critics against the bill.  It eliminates “gay marriage” or it prevents atheists from getting married.  The truth is, nobody is losing their ability to get married in that state.  What effectively happens is that you can still get married, just that it has to be a religious figure of some kind.  Since atheists and agnostics don’t have a religion, they’d have to settle for someone willing to marry them off.

But I suspect that major opposition to this bill will come from Christian conservatives.  This is because despite the bill effectively eliminating the gay marriage debate, it also removes a major cause from the Christian Right’s own movement.

Christian conservatives are often primarily focused on social issues rather than fiscal issues.  They tend to vote for politicians who support their moral worldview through legislation.  This is why abortion is still a major issue despite many attempts though legislation at both the state and Federal level to eliminate it.  Christian movements need their causes to cling to.

I welcome this kind of legislation and I hope that it spreads to other states.  It is insulting to me that you have to swear an oath to your own state before you swear an oath to God concerning you status as a married person.  I know that isn’t much of a big deal to most Christians, but it is to me.

Social conservatives tend to believe that morality comes from the government you live under.  In theory, this is simply not the case, especially when the people who run the government are the people you directly select via voting.

Instead, government enforces justice, which are moral infractions, but not morality itself.  It is supposed to concern itself with resolving disputes and protecting its citizens from foreign invasion.  Instead, many people have a huge stake in pushing government to enforce their will on others.  This includes people who are supposedly in favor of limited government.  Except for social issues.  Or military spending.  Or food regulation.  Or clown cars.

It is very strange for Oklahoma to have passed this bill though with a 67 person majority.  This is a libertarian approach to marriage, not a conservative one.  But I am happy with them and I hope my state will do this in the future.

Frozen Eggs for Bitter Career Women

There is nothing worse than the effects of feminism on display:

Human egg freezing is going mainstream. The biggest reason: it works. A handful of studies suggest the success rate for women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) is just as high when using frozen eggs as fresh ones. The results increase the flexibility and control women can have in their reproduction and their careers.

Men don’t have this luxury.  We are unable to have any reproductive rights whatsoever.

In fact, if a career woman decides to have a baby, unfreezes some of her eggs, fertilizes them with a sperm donor, will said donor be on the hook for child support?

He probably will be.  Hell, we now have a man being charged with child support for a kid who isn’t his.  So that wouldn’t even be a stretch.

As women get older, their fertility problems go up.  That is a fact.  And no, it isn’t just because of the aging eggs she has.  There are a lot of other factors in pregnancy which makes it dangerous later on in life for both the mother and the child.

This kind of attitude will backfire.  We already are seeing a generation of men raised by women.  Can you imagine a generation of men raised by older, bitter career women?

The New Saints of the Left: Transgendered

The Social Justice Warriors aka Low-Church Leftists aka Left-wing Pawns have lately taken up the cause of transgendered people.  The entertainment industry has followed suit with television shows taking a serious look at the issue to video games who feature such characters to transgender characters in fantasy table top games.

It has gotten worse.  With the Left, it always boils down to insults, death threats, and hatred being thrown at their opponents, even moderates.  I heard a story about a lesbian porn actress who does not do scenes with men at all and how she was asked to a scene with a pre-op transsexual male.  She refused because she likes her women dickless.  In response to this, many people started calling her “transphobic”.

Now, I’m not into porn.  I do watch id occasionally (in Churchianity terms, this is adultery although I consider a slip up of a fallen man), so I don’t know much about the industry itself.  But I would imagine that like any other business, the actors and actresses are offered money on a scaling system where freakier or rarer acts of sex are given more money.  My guess is that this actress would have been paid more to bang a dude with boobs but she outright refused because she doesn’t want to do it.

You know I like my women to come without dicks as well.  Does that make me transphobic?

Apparently it does.  In a video released by a gay movie reviewer on Channel Awesome, he explicitly stated that being shocked that a woman you are about to have sex with was a dude is transphobia.

I thought these social justice warriors believed that getting sex through fraudulent means was rape?  I mean, the state of New Jersey is seriously considering passing a law to this effect.

Oh wait, that only applies to ugly white men when they do it to slightly prettier women (usually white).

Look, I don’t care much for transgendered people.  I personally believe that if you are born a man or born a woman, no amount of mutilation or hormones can change your gender.  Yes there are cases where people are born genetically male but have female organs but those are rare occurrences.  In those specific cases, I would consider them to be female anyway since they usually have XXY instead of either XY or XX chromosome structures (if my high school biology classes were correct).

But people who intentionally destroy their bodies to try and pretend to be another sex are a whole other matter entirely.  I have pity for them.  I hope that they can overcome their insecurities through other means.

But at the same time, I don’t consider them saints.  But the Left does.  They are looked upon as the newly sacred minority class that we cannot criticize and must accept every crazy idea from.

Do not succumb to them in this endeavor.

Gay Hedonism and the Spread of AIDS

When I was a teenager in government high skool, I had to watch the movie And the Band Played On in health class.  At the time, I didn’t really care much for it save for the fact that I was getting a break from the monotony that is school.

The movie itself was decent.  It had an all-star cast of actors throughout and fortunately did not have any gay sex scenes, although there was plenty implied.  I’m sure it would not have been shown if it did.  These days I wonder if people would complain about the lack of gay sex scenes in such a movie.

After we watched the movie, our gym teacher than discussed it with us.  By discussion, she meant stand on a soapbox and announce that the government didn’t do enough to stop the spread of AIDS in the 1980s.  It was pretty much the only time she got self-righteous.

And it was annoying.

The premise of the story behind the movie was that the government did little to nothing to halt the spread of AIDS among the gay community.  While there were moments in the film where scientists got into a dispute over the nature of the HIV virus, it largely focused on tracking down gay men and equating the “outbreak” with the first Ebola outbreak in the 1970s.

On top of that, there was a very huge pro-gay streak in the movie as the beginning showing some old raisin man asking the Democratic party to be acknowledged “as a people”.  It really had nothing to do with the movie itself.

Despite this, it was a good portrayal of the spread of AIDS in the 1980s.  Randy Shilts, the man who wrote the book the movie was based on actually, had a more balanced observation of the whole outbreak, especially considering he was to die from the disease years after his book was published.  He supported the closure of the gay bathhouses in order to slow the spread of the disease.  But he was also critical of the Federal government and their failure to stop the spread of the disease.

The truth is, stopping the spread of AIDS in the gay community requires killing the male libido among gay men.  Not that gay men have a higher libido than straight men, just that gay men have less restrictions when it comes to getting sex from another man.

For a man to have sex with a woman, he is usually beholden to many demands and repercussions (pregnancy, child support, etc.) which make heterosexual sex a much larger risk than gay sex.  The only thing that gay men have to concern themselves with is possible emotional attachments and sexually transmitted diseases.   But straight men have these same issues plus the extra baggage that comes with dealing with the modern women.

So of course gay men are going to have a lot more sex than straight men because men like to have sex.  And with that premise in mind we have to assume that the spread of AIDS among the gay community was largely because gay men had lots of anonymous sex with each other.

No speeches from President Ronald Reagan could have stopped it.  No direct action from the government short of total isolation of gay men into individual cubes could have stopped it.  And we all know that was impossible, even if the United States was a totalitarian state.

The movie never bothered to address the simple fact that the rampant sexual practices of gay men was the primary reason for the spread of the disease.  Instead of addressing this simple fact, the government as portrayed by the movie simply allowed it to continue without criticism because the gay lifestyle in the San Francisco Castro district was portrayed as good.

Now, even if the government officials involved flat out told all the gay community that they needed to engage in much safer sexual practices by using condoms and having monogamous sexual relations, such pleas would have fallen on deaf ears.  Gay men are not known for accepting criticism of their lifestyle gently or with quiet dignity.  As any one has observed in the past few decades, any criticism of the gay lifestyle has been met with harsh counter-criticism and accusations of “homophobia”.

Randy Shilts himself was ostracized from the gay community in San Francisco because of his stance on closing the gay bathhouses.  A man who lived among them and shared their sexual escapades was kicked out for expressing what was essentially a common sense view on the problem.

What I got out of that movie was nothing more than the realization that the true reason for the spread of AIDS among gay men was entirely the fault of gay men.  They were the ones who, by and large, defied the sound advice of government officials and prominent members of their own community in favor of a debauched and damaging sexual lifestyle.  They wanted the party to keep on going in spite of the fact that the party was killing them off.

In short, it was gay hedonism that spread AIDS, not a lack of attention from the government.

Why I Am Not a MRA

I am not a Men’s Rights Advocate or MRA.  Despite my many writings where I have been critical of the role of modern women in Western civilization, I cannot claim that label.

One reason is that I don’t like to take on labels in general, mostly because I am an individualist and I don’t like being pigeonholed.  Once you tell someone that you are a libertarian or a progressive, there are many automatic assumptions placed on you.  Many of these assumptions are usually based on stereotypes, bad information, and sometimes the true nature of your views.

But that’s a more superficial reason.  I don’t mean to be mysterious; I’m just not that much of a joiner.

The other reason is because I don’t believe in equality, at least in the sense that most Americans have been conditioned to believe in it.  Everyone is unique and different.  As a group, women behave much differently than men.  It is an observable scientific fact.

So because women will behave differently than men in almost all aspects of life, we cannot exactly strive for equality, can we?  This is one of the reasons why I believe that women’s suffrage was a mistake.  Women do not vote in a responsible manner, more so than men.  While men can be stupid about voting, it is women who are constantly voting to promote envy of various varieties.

That aside, I think that many in the MRA movement often behave as if equality is a fact.  That everyone should be equal before the law and they often use this rhetoric to fight the feminists, who claim to want equality but rarely ever act like it.  And while I believe that the current leaders of the MRA movement are genuine in their beliefs, it is a misguided belief.

Now, I do believe that justice should not consider age, race, or sex when passing judgment on others.  Remember that woman who drove her van into the ocean a few months back?  I said she should’ve been charged with three counts of attempted murder, much to the chagrin of female acquaintances.  So I do think that when it comes to matters of crime, we should be equal before the law.

I just can’t be a part of an ideology that preaches something I don’t believe in.  I don’t believe that men and women are equal and I do believe that they should be treated differently by our society because they perform different functions biologically.

That being said, I do applaud their efforts to raise awareness on several issues like the true aggressors of child abuse and the sick, messed up system that passes for family courts.  I think it is also important to point out that men are targets of the State more so than women and that they are treated much differently.

But I believe that these issues will be dealt with in time, and not necessarily because of the MRA movement.  I see many of these issues being done away with because of their inherent destructive nature.

Ultimately, though, I just don’t see myself as advocating what they advocate overall because I can’t agree with their premises.

Campus Sex Policing Gets More Complicated

Well this is certainly getting ugly:

College students have heard a similar refrain for years in campaigns to stop sexual assault: No means no.

Now, as universities around the country that are facing pressure over the handling of rape allegations adopt policies to define consensual sex, California is poised to take it a step further. Lawmakers are considering what would be the first-in-the-nation measure requiring all colleges that receive public funds to set a standard for when "yes means yes."

Defining consensual sex is a growing trend by universities in an effort to do more to protect victims. From the University of California system to Yale, schools have been adopting standards to distinguish when consent was given for a sexual activity and when it was not.

Legislation passed by California's state Senate in May and coming before the Assembly this month would require all schools that receive public funds for student financial assistance to set a so-called "affirmative consent standard" that could be used in investigating and adjudicating sexual assault allegations. That would be defined as "an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision" by each party to engage in sexual activity.

This is the fault of progressive feminist polices that were directed at colleges across the United States.  It has been going on for a long time now as I’ve seen so many cases involving the question of rape.

When I went to my college orientation, I was inundated with relentless sketches and statements about sex and alcohol on campus.  The takeaway was that a man accused of rape is guilty, no questions.

This is the ultimate goal of regulating sex on campus.  It is all about the woman’s consent, not the man’s as his preferences don’t count.  Of course, in a college campus where abstract ideas have nothing to do with reality, this leaves about 80% of all men as rapist with the remaining 20% pegged as Alphas.

I still don’t understand why universities feel the need to police the sex lives of their students.  More than that, it is amazing for me to see so many students, who have just obtained newfound freedom, allow a very private part of their lives be managed by an administration who is more interested in their money at the end of the day.

Wasn’t there a time when colleges focused on academics and not sex?  Shouldn’t it be high time that we segregate schools by gender and have them focus on coursework rather than setting up consent policies?

I have a suspicion that our society will head in that direction.  I think that eventually, some politicians are going to get tired of being college campus sex police and instead come up with “barbaric” policies to ensure that students are actually learning something.

Until then, I say we just watch and laugh at the fools as they try to work out their comedy of errors.

Racial Integration is a White Man’s Dream

Racial integration was always a white man’s dream.  Sure, Martin Luther King, Jr. talked about integration to some degree, but his close followers, most especially Jesse Jackson, do not adhere to such principles.  What this tells me is that he was personally not a big fan of integration per se, just tired of the government imposed rules to exclude blacks.

I find those rules to be distasteful as well.  Laws passed to make one class of citizens to drink from a separate water fountain was just stupid really.

In any case, racial integration has always been the goal of old white people, who think themselves to be better than everyone else.  Jim Crow laws were overturned, yes, but because of segregation, most races had their own, tight-knit communities.  It was the Supreme Court who forced integration on the American public.

The goal of the modern civil rights movement for blacks is to steal from the productive citizens, both white and black, as much as possible in order to shore up votes for their anointed leaders.  Anyone who disputes this is either a liar or just plain ignorant.

But was it like that back in the day?  I have my suspicions that while the stated goals of various civil rights groups were to promote and obtain equality under the law, in reality, many of them were probably groups bent on revenge, not justice.  This is just conjecture on my part as I did not grow up during that time and I’ve never had any conservations with any of those leaders.  I could be wrong about this.  I hope I’m wrong about this.

But I suspect that I am not.  I suspect that from the beginning, a large group of envious and prominent local leaders organized and got the rest of the people in their community to get together and fight injustice.  I’ve heard that Rosa Parks may not have been simply a woman tired of giving up her seat on the bus, for example, and may have been a communist activist.

Nowadays, it is quite clear that the “black” community wants nothing to do with white people.  They have no desire to integrate.  Hell, they don’t even want successful businesses in their communities on the off chance it attracts white people.

There is nothing wrong with this.  If a community of like-minded people want to exclude other people, that is their business.  Anyone who lives within that community and disagrees can simply leave.  Not a huge deal in my book.

But there is never the discussion of a white community, except maybe on the more openly racist sites on the Internet.  We cannot deny its existence though as much as we cannot deny the black or Chinese or Mexican or Korean communities exist.  There are large communities of white people, which are just as diverse as black people.

For some reason, given that whites are supposedly becoming a minority, nobody considers the needs of white people.  I think many white people just simply wish to live a peaceful life without having to leech off of others as much as possible.  I think they are also afraid of conflict.

For well over four decades now, black citizens have been given special treatment in an effort to make amends.  As far as I can tell, it hasn’t appeased them.  This is because envy is a virtue among many black communities and envy devours and destroys, it does not build up.  Many black communities (but not all) are dilapidated husks of what was once a great bastion of civilization.

We can blame any number of external causes.  Both sides of the political spectrum do.  But I blame it the individual character of each member of said community.  Our station in life is merely the sum total of our own choices.  Yes, many of us get dealt a bad hand to start with, but it is what you do with it that matters.

Given the final results of the black community and its increasing isolation and acceptance of violence, I have come to the conclusion that racial integration is merely a white man’s dream.  The dreams of the black community are much, much different.

More Feminist Bullshit

Our decadent society is slowly self-destructing.  Here’s the latest example:

Last month, according to a report, prosecutors said Gagnon's former girlfriend received an invitation to join one of his Google+ Circles. She'd recently broken up with Gagnon and had obtained a restraining order against him soon afterward. Upon discovering the unwelcome Google+ invite from her ex-beau online, she went down to the local police station with a print-out of the invitation. Roughly 90 minutes later, police arrested Gagnon for his Google+ activity and was later charged with violating the restraining order barring contact with her.

The only wrinkle? Gagnon's attorney claims his client never sent the request, arguing that he "has no idea how the woman ... got such an invitation" and "suggesting that it might have been sent by a robot," The Salem News reports. It sounds like an almost comical mishap fit for a soap opera, but the interaction is a common one on Google+, where it's often unclear how or when users are actually on the service--and whether they actually count as "users" to begin with.

The article largely focuses on Google+ and how it automatically does things like this in order to expand its user base.

But no where in the entire article is it questioned as to why an invitation in a social media service qualifies as violating a restraining order.  Especially since, last I checked, you can decline the invitation and even block the user from further contact.

The mere fact that this man is in jail tells us just how foolish our society has become.  I don’t know this man personally and he may have deserved the restraining order as there are cases where they are just used by bitches who are merely creeped out and not genuinely in any danger.  I will give her the benefit of the doubt in this case.

Then again, she did sick the police on him 90 minutes following the invite, which means she was probably out for blood against this guy.

And that is the sad state of our society, where woman have the entire legal system to be used to their advantage against men.  And not just here but in Western Europe as well, where women can charge you with rape if they didn’t like the sex they got (see Julian Assange).

This will not end well.  As Helen Smith, and so many others, have pointed out, men are checking out of society as men because there is no incentive to be a man anymore.  All the hardships without the benefits.  This applies to just about every aspect of life, from marriage to partying to education to entertainment.  More and more men are done with putting up with this shit and so they are checking out.

Saving Marriage

Marriage has been a cornerstone of civilization.  Just about everyone who takes it seriously will argue this as modern civilization could not have come about without monogamous, different sex marriage.

This is easily provable as such a setup allows for many more children to be born than would otherwise have been possible.  Children are, after all, the future and the more potential laborers running around, the better off the future will be for a society.

With gay “marriage” and polygamy being rapidly legalized (I personally have no problem with polygyny), many are arguing that this is signifying the downfall of civilization.  Yet for all their hand-wringing, these social conservatives fail to see the inherent problems that has led us to that situation.

I have some solutions to this problem.  They aren’t pretty and they will never, ever be implemented until our civilization has thoroughly collapsed, but here they are:

• Look down upon a married couple who both works while shuffling their children to daycare.  I don’t know if there has been a study done but I suspect that a two career household yields less children, is more likely to divorce, and more likely to be dysfunctional.  I know this is difficult, but perhaps we should all lower our standards of living in order to meet this expectation.
• Reinstate the Biblical command that wives should submit to their husbands.  When women are in charge, they are not happy with their marriage.  It has been scientifically proven.  So in order to increase the happiness of both husband and wife, the wife should respect and submit to her husband.
• Eliminate the 30-year mortgage and only allow a 15-year mortgage.  The problem is that with all these long-term mortgages, it only serves to raise home prices.  Also, require a 20% down payment.  As such, it is nearly impossible for young families to get a home without being a total debt slave for the majority of their life.
• Outlaw all weddings that cost more than 2% of the bride’s parent’s income.  Pastors should take charge on this and make sure that in no uncertain terms will his church be turned into a temple for idolatry (the bride).
• All child custody cases should be based on the income of the spouse.  Whoever makes more money get primary custody of the children.  Child support payments should be outlawed.
• Alimony should only be granted when one spouse does not work and only for a term of no longer than one year, provided the spouse getting the alimony did not initiate the divorce.  This insures that no one sees divorce as a means to making money off of the productivity of their spouse.
• Finally, divorce should be outlawed for women.  What I mean is that women should not be permitted to divorce their husbands, no matter what.  Since wives are the ones who initiate divorce, most of the time, then it is only logical in order to prevent women from nuking their families due to a bad case of feel bad.

All of these things are a fantasy.  Nobody is going to implement them as any kind of policy because they will be labeled misogynist as a result.  This is because, not looking like an asshole is more important than saving the future of your children in this day and age.

The War On Husbands

I read a very frustrating article today entitled “What Do You When A Girl Hits You?”.  It recounted a husband, Joseph Kerr, who went to the police after having been beaten by his wife.  Unfortunately, because he was the man, the police arrested him and now he is unable to even see his daughter.  The State saw fit to deny him the protection his daughter deserves while allowing her to stay with a clearly violent and unstable women.  I shudder to think of what will happen to the girl.

And while that article enraged me, I think the implication is clear: the government is at war with husbands.  Not men.  They are fine with men, so long as they watch football, drink beer, have the occasional barbeque, vote, and pay taxes in some manner.  As long as men are lethargic and stay away from conflict, from engaging people, and from standing up for what is right, the government will be fine with you.

The problem with men is, many of them eventually become husbands.  They marry a woman, settle down, and have children.  More than that, they become the head of the household and as such, become a king in their own little box.  And this is why the government cannot stand husbands: they are competing with them whether either of them realize it or not.

Sure, you can blame feminism and its influence on the massive bureaucracies that serve the government at all levels.  Naturally, many of the policies that involve private matters such as divorce and custody hearings are largely influenced by feminists and their parasitical ideology.  If the tragic end of Tom Ball has taught me anything, it is that the husband is considered the enemy.

I am sure that there are cases where the wife gets the shaft in divorce hearings.  I am sure that happens, but it appears to be rare.  More often than not, the husband is accused of being the aggressor.  And my guess is that most of the time these accusations are baseless.

The Family Court system in the United States is deeply flawed and probably should abolished in favor of a private system of arbitration.  The reason being is that the court system in the United States is heavily influenced by politics and ideologies which many Americans do not actually believe in.  And the judges themselves are either women or Gamma males (women worshippers) who think that women are divine and would never lie.

The legal system is stacked against husbands.  That is not equality, that is not fair, and we are told to not whine about it and to simply man up and pay the exorbitant child support foisted upon ex-husbands.  Even Christian Family groups instruct men in this manner, failing to realize just how unchristian and illogical the very concept of child support is.  These same groups, by the way, do not instruct wives to not divorce in vengeance or spite and to be fair in the process.  In fact, some of them encourage women to get divorces if their husbands don’t make them happy.

There is good reason for all this to be in place.  For one thing, it enriches a whole lot of divorce attorneys who would otherwise be taking modest fees for ensuring a amicable dissolution of marriage.  In many cases, they encourage women to lie in court (see Christopher Titus’ special “Love is Evol” for more information) in order to gain more money out of a divorce proceeding.  There is a special place in Hell for such men and women and if there was any justice left in this country, they’d be there right now.

But there is another far more compelling reason: the elite cannot tolerate a man with responsibilities and obligations.  A husband is a man who has responsibilities.  He has to provide for his family, enforce discipline in both his children and his wife, and be the spiritual leader and guide.  A husband, in the Biblical sense, is the one who gets to decide how his household is run.  Did Abram consult his wife when he packed up and moved his whole family to Canaan?  Did King David allow his first wife to berate him for dancing in the streets?  Did St. Peter allow his wife to get in the way of his ministry?

A husband is supposed to be moral center of his household, the spiritual guide, and the leader of his family.  There is no exceptions to this standard.  While it is a good thing for women to be spiritual, often times they are emotionally fickle and prone to error because of their emotional whims.  This is something that is encouraged these days by our society, especially within Christian churches.

If a husband acts immorally, as we all do from time to time, this does not take away his moral headship.  Unless he directly breaks the covenant with his wife through adultery, he is still the leader, for good or ill.  Now this does not mean that his wife cannot simply pack up and leave should he be violently abusive, but Jesus made it clear that should she divorce and remarry, she is committing adultery.  In fact, Jesus himself said the only legitimate grounds for divorce was adultery.

But this is the one thing that the government cannot abide by.  In an age where the State is considered to be the primary authority in everyone’s lives (from what is murder to how much water flows through your showerhead), it cannot allow husbands to exist as they have in the past.  The elites who run the system want strong-willed, dominant husbands to cease to exist and will only accept sniveling cowards who submit to their wife’s leadership.

The political elite know that men are the ones who shape and change things.  Masculinity has been a trait that marks great ingenuity and independence.  It is one that drives men to become better than their fathers, to be more than just who they were born as.  And because men, especially husbands, have a greater capacity for resistance, independence, and self-determination, the State must destroy them.

And so they have set up and monopolized a legal system that directly targets husbands.  They seek to demoralize and destroy what it means to be the head of the household through legal means.  Their sycophants in the entertainment industry likewise follow suit by portraying husbands as stupid, dull, violent, and childish.  And meanwhile real people are being hurt, especially children who end up having no moral guidance due to the selfish whims of their own mother.

There is a war going on against husbands in the United States.  It is a war that was started decades ago by a combination of man-hating she-demons and power-hungry elites.  And whether you like it or not, you will have to fight it.   So far, husbands have been fighting a defensive war.  But sooner or later, husbands will go on the offensive and when they do, we will see them cower before us all.  From the disrespectful wife to the deranged family court judge, all will be see and know that we will not stand for injustices like Joseph Kerr and so many others have endured anymore.

Germany's Anti-Science Policies

Leave it to the Germans to pioneer anti-science policies:

Germany is set to become the first country in Europe to introduce a third, "indeterminate" gender designation on birth certificates. The European Union, which is attempting to coordinate anti-discrimination efforts across member states, is lagging behind on the issue.

The option of selecting "blank", in addition to the standard choices of "male" or female" on birth certificates will become available in Germany from November 1. The legislative change allows parents to opt out of determining their baby's gender, thereby allowing those born with characteristics of both sexes to choose whether to become male or female in later life. Under the new law, individuals can also opt to remain outside the gender binary altogether.

So let me get this straight: despite the fact that human beings either have a X or a Y chromosome that determines your gender, the German government has decided that people can ignore that. You can ignore the millions upon billions of dollars spent on researching, studying, documenting, and modeling the human genetic code and all the effort gone into middle school biology classes about DNA and simply say that your child is neither male nor female.

As far as I know, most biologists agree that there is a male and a female set of chromosomes that are essential in determining the gender of a person. Unless there has been a new discovery, I don't think there is a third gender person roaming around out there.

Which brings me around to another point: no matter how well you mutilate yourself, you cannot change your DNA. In essence, when you refer to a transgendered man as a "she", you are anti-science. There is no simple way to get around it. DNA trumps self-mutilation.

Another problem I see with this initiative is what if there are parents who are going to abuse their children by making them confused about their gender-identity. It is one thing if a grown adult chooses to wear clothing of the opposite gender, but forcing it on your children should be considered child-abuse. Isn't this how serial killers are made? (No, that's not it, but popular fiction likes to think so.)

The bottom line here is that Germany, and much of the Western world, likes to tout how they are pro-science and pro-rational thinking. Yet at every social policy that is codified by law, mandated by executive decree, or enforce by judicial decision demonstrates that they are anti-science or, at the very least, only in favor of science that benefits their warped agenda.

No wonder Russia wants nothing to do with our society and culture.

Summing Up Anti-Gun Control Arguments

I’d like to take the time to sum up the arguments against gun control, as it is currently being pushed by the Federal and several local and state governments:

1. Gun control doesn’t protect people from violent crime, it increases it.  Every region where gun control is high, there is a higher instance of gun violence and crime in general.  In regions where there are less restrictive gun laws, you’ll see lower instances of crime and gun violence.  Of course, crime has more factors than just the ownership of guns, so the arguments for and against gun control based on crime statistics are fallacious in that regard.  A regions cultural make-up and racial diversity plays a huge factor as well.
2. Gun control is one of the first things that the greatest tyrants in history have done.  Indeed, Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, and so many others have reached for the guns of individuals when they have taken power.  This is because even if you have an army with the most advanced technology, it is no match for the sheer numbers of citizenry with standard rifles.  However, one must understand that when employing this reason, you are saying that you are willing to shoot police officers who are “just following orders.”
3. Gun ownership is a subset of private property rights.  This is largely true and I think it is probably the best way for a libertarian to argue against gun control.  Forget the complexity of safety, law enforcement, and tyranny.  If you simply point out that it is a fundamental or natural right of the individual to not only own property, but to defend it as he or she sees fit, then you have an effective argument against gun control.  If your life is in danger and a gun can save your life, then a government taking that away from you is one that has no interest in your life, liberty, or property.
4. Gun control would push guns into the underground black market, which allow the criminal element to primarily own guns, next to the police.  I am personally pro-black market as I believe that there should be no restrictions on what people buy, use, and sell, provided they do it without the intent of harming others either financially or physically.  The black market is, in essence, a true free market and it is unfortunate that more Americans don’t take advantage of this, besides just organized crime.  Besides that, the War on Guns will end up being more disastrous than the War on Drugs as drugs are for personal use where as guns are for external use.
5. Guns don’t kill people, people do.  This is another effective argument as it highlights what most Utopian visions of society fail to see.  People are not all good.  All of us have evil impulses to destructive things, mostly to ourselves, but sometimes to others as well.  Banning guns won’t stop evil anymore than banning umbrellas will stop the rain.
6. The government doesn’t like competition.  Indeed, citizens who solve their own problems and deal with their problems on their own is what the Statists fear the most.  If individuals can do things without the help of a parasitic government, the parasite withers away.  When individuals own guns, they provide their own security and demonstrate the uselessness of a large-scale police force and the need for a massive national security state, which has been very profitable for a few at the expense of many in the past several decades.

The fact is, most pro-gun control arguments are focused on emotion rather than reason and logic.  Even when they employ reason and logic, they distort it into irrational fallacies which do not prove their point and sometimes prove the opposite is analyzed correctly.

I am not saying that everyone should own a gun.  I think everyone should make a logical decision based on the economics of their situation, the severity of the criminal element in their neighborhood, and any other factors.  In most cases, you probably should own one and carry it with you.

The gun control debate will not be resoled easily as the current President seems Hell-bent on ignoring the will of the people.  There is also a highly regional and cultural difference in the use of guns in our country where New Yorkers don’t quite understand why Texans insist on keeping their guns.  Consider it just one more reason why the United States will probably cease to exist as a country in a few decades.

New Nanny City’s Painkiller Problem

There is no greater figure for the nanny state in action than Mayor for life Michael Bloomberg of New York City.  Most members of Congress probably envy him for the initiatives he passes that fly in the face of freedom and common decency.  From banning sodas greater than 16 oz. at a Donut Day party because of its high sugar content (actually, most sodas have high fructose corn syrup these days) to his latest bitch slap, limiting pain medication for government-run emergency rooms.

Now, if it was about cutting costs, I could understand.  Government-run anything is inefficient and incurs much more costs than the private market does.  And let’s be honest, ever since the Federal government decided to outlaw all cheap, easy drugs except for tobacco and alcohol (which is heavily taxed), pain medication isn’t cheap.  But that is not why:

“The city hospitals we control, so … we’re going to do it and we’re urging all of the other hospitals to do it, voluntary guidelines. Somebody said, oh, somebody wrote, ‘Oh then maybe there won’t be enough painkillers for the poor who use the emergency rooms as their primary care doctor,’” the mayor said on his weekly radio show with John Gambling. “Number one, there’s no evidence of that. Number two, supposing it is really true, so you didn’t get enough painkillers and you did have to suffer a little bit. The other side of the coin is people are dying and there’s nothing perfect … There’s nothing that you can possibly do where somebody isn’t going to suffer, and it’s always the same group [claiming], ‘Everybody is heartless.’ Come on, this is a very big problem.”

I don’t know how rampant prescription pain medications are in New York.  I don’t know how big of a problem it really is.  But let’s be honest here: Mayor Bloomberg didn’t bother to cite any specific studies to back up his claim.  He just made a general statement and assumed that the dumb masses would buy it.  And I’m sure they are.

But let’s be clear here: this is what happens when you allow the government to provide services above and beyond what it really should be doing, which is at most next to nothing.  Mayor Bloomberg is nothing more than a central planner who is managing one of the largest, most diverse cities in the world.  And as much as I despise many of his policies, he has managed to get re-elected while allowing the city council to remove mayoral term limits.

In any case, except more cities and states to adopt this wonderful standard of making the poor and veterans suffer physical pain in government run healthcare facilities as they haven’t done so already.  Most politicians look to people like Bloomberg for inspiration.  It’s a monkey see, monkey do kind of a situation.

As for Mayor Bloomberg, I am almost certain he will get to enjoy all the pain killers he can get if, God forbid, he ever ends up in his own, elite private run hospital while enjoying a 20 oz. bottle of Coke or Pepsi and some donuts in the recovery room.  The rules don’t apply to people like him after all.

Poor and Stupid

When I went through Financial Peace University, a nice 13-lesson series on personal finance taught by Dave Ramsey, he talked about how if you do poor people things, you will be poor and that if you do rich people things, you will be rich.  To highlight his example, he talked about how you don’t see rich people lining up to get lottery tickets.  This is not because they already have lots of money, as most rich people are like the rest of us in that they are never satisfied with the wealth they have, but because they know they are better off investing their money and time in other things.

Seems a bit idealistic, right?  Well, the New York Post just published an article highlighting this simple truth:

Welfare recipients took out cash at bars, liquor stores, X-rated video shops, hookah parlors and even strip clubs — where they presumably spent their taxpayer money on lap dances rather than diapers, a Post investigation found.

A database of 200 million Electronic Benefit Transfer records from January 2011 to July 2012, obtained by The Post through a Freedom of Information request, showed welfare recipients using their EBT cards to make dozens of cash withdrawals at ATMs inside Hank’s Saloon in Brooklyn; the Blue Door Video porn shop in the East Village; The Anchor, a sleek SoHo lounge; the Patriot Saloon in TriBeCa; and Drinks Galore, a liquor distributor in The Bronx.

The state Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA), which oversees the “cash assistance program,” even lists some of these welfare-ready ATMs on its Web site.

One EBT machine is stationed inside Club Eleven, an infamous Hunts Point jiggle joint known as much for its violent history as its girls in pink thongs.

Cops have been cracking down on the Bronx club since 2009 and shut it down temporarily in 2010. In July, five men were stabbed and two others shot outside after bouncers broke up a 4 a.m. brawl with pepper spray. The club appeared to be shuttered when The Post visited Thursday.

It is high time that many Americans force our public officials to acknowledge that being poor is not necessarily a problem of a lack of income, but a lack of character and common sense.  Of course stupid people will take free money and spend it on sleaze.

Meanwhile, the producers of society, the hard-working Americans who pay the taxes, are stuck with seeing the idiots in DC argue about 9 billion is spending cuts and for some reason they can’t seem to find anything in the Federal budget to cut.

Correlating the Contents: Mitt Romney’s Losing Strategy

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. – opening line from “The Call of Cthulhu” by H.P. Lovecraft

It seems to me that in this age of massive information being obtained at light speed rates, few people are really able to properly read the trends and accurately predict the results.  I am no exception, of course, but every once and a while I notice things.  Case in point:

About four in 10 Americans said they support abortion rights in a new Gallup poll — the lowest figure recorded by the organization since it began asking the question in 1995.
Fully half of Americans, meanwhile, told Gallup they were against abortion rights.

Now, correlate that information with the following:

It seems to me that Mitt Romney has never cared all that much for the abortion issue per se, just that he would modify his stances in order to win elections.  This is nothing new, as anyone paying attention to Romney since 2008 should have known it.  However, having a pro-abortion guy heading up a fundraiser for him in 2012 indicates that he is going against the majority as indicated by the Gallup poll.

Personally, I distrust poll data, but politicians generally do not.  They tend to use that data to say the right things in order to get elected.  This is clearly what Mitt Romney does as indicated by his flip-flopping past.  It should be noted for all you Romney-sycophants that never once, by the way, has Romney ever come out and said that his past positions were wrong.

Which is why this curious case means one thing: Mitt Romney wants to lose.  It is clear that he has a lock for the nomination, although Ron Paul is giving him a run for his money, but allowing such endorsements can mean more people will stop voting when the two main people running have little to distinguish between each other.

I’ve said in the past that social issues are losing issues for any politician who brings them up and to be fair, so far Romney has kept things above the belt, so to speak.

In any case, I look forward to this year’s election because the next President will most likely preside over a much bigger economic collapse.  So really, all these pithy issues don’t matter.  Too bad most people don’t realize this.

The Great Gay Marriage Distraction

All over the mainstream news, the political buzz is about President Obama and his support of gay marriage.  And why would he not support it as the State is his god and he is its high priest.  So he comes out in support of gay marriage, which critics point out is a 180 degree reversal of what he said in 2008 during his campaign.  I mean, a politician does a reversal on his own campaign promises, imagine that!

The problem I have with all this is not that President Obama supports gay marriage, because I personally believe that the State cannot redefine what is considered sacred and holy before God no matter what laws it passes, but that this is nothing more than one big giant distraction.  It is a distraction from the real issues that truly matter in our society and culture and they are, namely, the fiscal issues that a plaguing the Federal government these days, the onerous Federal regulations imposed on business and labor (which only benefits big corporations all you liberals), and the horrendous violations of human rights in this nation wrought by the ever increasing police state.

Social issues in the United States these days are nothing more than political football games.  We all like to watch them and route for our favorite side but at the end of the day, nothing really gets resolved and nothing is gained.  Given the fact that most social issues involve non-violent activities such as recreational drug use, prostitution, gambling, and sodomy, any liberty-minded individual worth his grain of salt could easily recognize this.  You can make an argument for abortion being a violent activity, as I do, and I do believe that it is an act of aggression against another individual, albeit one currently engaged in parasitical activity with a host (yes, any mother can tell you that the unborn child is basically a parasite sucking up all the best nutrients but unlike most parasites, has no need to reproduce and whose only goal is to grow enough to be able to survive outside the womb).  Even so, I advocate a more Agorist approach to abortion that involves putting abortion clinics out of business due to lack of demand rather than rely on politicians to make the right decisions.

The fact is, any time politicians take up these issues, it is a clear indication that they are losing.  In President Obama’s case, it is clear that he is not expecting to win this year (a horrifying prospect since Willard Romney is just as bad but will have his agenda rubber-stamped by all Republicans anyway) and so he is taking on this issue head on.  I suspect it is largely due to the fact that he has lost a lot of the youth vote to Ron Paul and he is simply trying to take it back as gay marriage is more favorable among the younger generation.

Regardless, this is a clear indication that President Obama is losing right now and he is merely trying to mitigate the damage.  He was unable to start a new war with Iran and had to settle with continuing aggressions in Afghanistan, he has not had an official budget plan that has been approved by Congress, he has added more debt to the Federal government’s name than George W. Bush managed to do in his eight years (not an endorsement of Bush, who doubled the national debt), and he has started a campaign of terror against the American citizenry through his trollish Homeland Security Secretary Janet “Shoulder Pads” Napolitano.

And let’s be honest: despite his campaign of hope and change, nothing really changed and people have less hope for their future prospects as far as the government is concerned.  He has merely continued and expanded the policies that George W. Bush started, despite his campaign promises to the contrary.  The wars continue, with more and more aggression into more countries who don’t want our help nor have they asked for it.  Moreover, none of these nations posed any real threat to the United States.

In essence, the politician who starts throwing out social issue stances is the one who is losing.  I would encourage Republicans to not fall into this trap and merely state that as President there is nothing he can really do about it as he isn’t the one who passes the laws nor interprets them.  If they are feeling bold, they can even mention that this acknowledgement is merely a distraction from his disastrous policies that are bankrupting the Federal government and destroying the opportunities here in the United States.

Of course, I predict that many of them will use this as an opportunity to talk about how they oppose the President’s stance and will do everything in their power to thwart him.  They will do this because most people are idiots and have been conditioned to view the President as a king or a god (or both).  They will freak out about it and demand that their guy does something about.

Meanwhile, the road to economic and financial ruin draws ever closer and no one is all the wiser.

Stupid Pundit

Andrew Sullivan opens his mouth and shows just how much of a fool he really is:

Columnist and author Andrew Sullivan said Sunday that atheism was growing in the United States because more and more people saw Christianity as an organization intent on gaining political power.

“I think our ability to be reasonable in politics and faithful in religion, and to keep those two things separate, has atrophied to the great disadvantage of religion,” he said during a panel discussion on CBS News’ Face the Nation.

…

“What has happened since 1960 is that organized groups, like the Southern Baptist Council and other religious groups, have in fact become self-consciously political,” Sullivan explained.

“They have become fused with one political party, the Republican Party — a party that is now defined by a particular religious faith, evangelicalism or far-right Catholic hierarchy. And that is making many people feel that faith in Jesus is about politics and power and partisanship, in ways that’s turning off an entire generation. The biggest growth in any belief sector in this country in the last ten years has been atheism.”

Sullivan said those religious organizations were “muddying” the real “radical” message of Jesus, which was anti-political. Jesus was “only on the cross because he refused politics.”

I know that Andrew Sullivan is a devout Catholic and a devout gay man, so I think I can read between the lines here.  What we are seeing is a man who cannot accept non-Catholic versions of Christianity and instead hates the fact that there are people who have more faith than he does.  He doesn’t like it when people in the public eye talk about their faith.  I know this because he was all about attacking Sarah Palin because she was, at the time, representative of the conservative Christian values he is attacking here.

Now, you may think that I am just laying into Andrew Sullivan because he’s a gay Catholic blogger who is more successful at blogging than I’ll probably ever be.  That could well be true.  Except for the fact that what he said carries with it no cited statistics or facts.

In other words, all that he has said is merely opinion and not fact.  And if you are going to go on national television and say something like this, you damn well better have your facts straight.  I don’t know if atheism is on the rise and if it is, I don’t know the reason behind it.  Frankly, I don’t give a flying rat’s butt because for me and my house, we will follow the Lord.

But as for Andrew Sullivan, I cite comedian Louis C.K.:

Guess which line I really mean

A Woman Lectures Men And (Surprise) Gets It Wrong

Yesterday, I read this article about 7 things men can do to prevent abortions.  To be quite honest, I do have my problems with it, largely because it was written by a woman who obviously doesn’t understand men.  But let me first address here 7 points before I get into that:

1. Make a personal commitment today to stop looking at pornography, stop engaging prostitutes and stop visiting strip clubs.  First of all, what do those activities have to do with abortion?  If men were the heartless sex hounds that we supposedly are, would we not just turn to actual women and impregnate them more frequently?  As a Christian man, I do agree that such activities are immoral, but at the same time, I also recognize a fundamental fact: men want sex.  If a husband or long-term boyfriend is caught engaging in any of these activities, I will say that his wife or girlfriend is not satisfying his needs.  This is actually the more likely scenario as sex addiction is rare and often confused for normal male desire by most women.
2. Make a personal commitment today to stand against sexual violence, rape and incest.  No sane man would support sexual violence, rape, or incest.  Even so, abortions performed in relation to rape or incest account for less than 5% of all abortions (I dare say it is probably less than 1% but I don’t have the exact figures).
3. If you are Christian and have strong views, read this Susan B. Anthony essay and make a commitment today to be a better type of Christian husband.  As a Christian husband, being one is actually easy and doesn’t require a lot of commitment.  In any case, men require respect from their wives, not just love.  Love is easy to come by, but we need to be respected.  This means that Christian wives will have to submit to their husbands and trust in their judgments.  A submissive Christian wife, however, is not a human doormat.  None of this matters in relation to the topic of the article, though, as most abortions do not occur between married couples or couples in long-term relationships.
4. Make a personal commitment today not to pressure a woman for sex of any kind when she says, "No," "I don't feel well" or "I'm tired."  Again, nothing to do with abortions as married couples or couples in long-term relationships tend not get abortions.  At the same time, part of being a submissive Christian wife is to fulfill your husband’s sexual needs regardless of how you feel.  If he truly loves you, he will be sensitive to your needs as well.  However, he is more willing to be a better husband provided his needs are fulfilled as well.  The measure of any good marriage is how often the couple have sex.  Women shouldn’t fear this as they can have sex much more often than men since most of the time we do all the work.  Lastly, if a wife has any problems downstairs that would make sex uncomfortable, keep in mind there are other ways to satisfy your husband sexually.  Again though, we find another issue that has nothing to do with abortion or the causes for it.  If you aren’t having sex, then there is no need for abortion, right?
5. Make a personal commitment today to know a woman for at least 6 months to one year before having intercourse with her.  I can agree with this as a Christian man.  However, as an unconventional Christian man, if your intention is to marry this women, then you need not set a time limit.  My mother was a little unnerved when my brother got his long-term girlfriend pregnant two months before their wedding.  I simply told my mother that they were, in fact, married and were just waiting on the ceremony.  This is the real reason why having frequent sex with multiple people is so damaging: it damages your chances of having a healthy relationship with a single person.  You are more likely to get divorced or split up if you have more and more sexual partners in the past.  This reason, however, is a valid one in regards to abortion.  Frequent hook-ups are the primary cause for abortions, coupled with a culture that encourages women to pursue a career over motherhood.
6. Make a personal commitment today not to take advantage of any woman who has been drinking or is impaired.  No sane man would do this either.  This sin is usually the result of loners who are unable to hook-up with women from the get go.  However, I think women, especially young college goers, should be avoiding parties where they will find themselves in that situation.  I don’t cross a busy interstate and blame the car that subsequently hits me, do I?  You have to recognize the dangers of being a women, seeing as how you are the physically weaker sex.  Also, often times when this does happen, the man himself has had as much to drink if not more than the women and his judgment is impaired as well.  It does not excuse his behavior, but getting drunk around drunk men is just a bad idea all around.
7. Make a personal commitment today to stop smooth-talking and lying to women to "get in." True ALPHA men do not need to lie to “get in.”  It is the BETA males who lie about themselves in order to hook-up and the failure of women to see through it.  As for smooth-talking, it works so why should men give it up?  How about women who go to the places where the smooth-talkers are?  They know full well that the point of those places is to get banged by a smooth-talking liar.  They just like the idea of being pursued by a suitable ALPHA male.

So we have three reasons that directly relate to the reasons why abortions occur and we have four that have absolutely nothing to do with it.  There would be less abortions if there was less promiscuity, not necessarily a disrespect for women in general.  As a Christian who is morally opposed to abortion, I have quite frankly given up on the political solution and now view it as a symptom of a corrupt and decadent society, not a root cause.  The root cause is a culture that encourages and celebrates promiscuity.  You want abortions to end?  That’s great but don’t expect Republicans to ban it, the courts to change the laws, or the pro-life groups to make any headway with any Congressional member.  Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the space between a proton and neutron in an Oxygen atom.  A better solution is to drive abortion clinics out of business by creating an environment where it becomes unthinkable.

Laura Trice, the author of the article, means well, but I  don’t think she is seeing this issue from anywhere else but her own solipsistic viewpoint.  While I have many disagreements with what she said, I think we would both agree that being against promiscuity and for healthy long-term relationships is the ultimate solution to abortion.   She just needs some focus, that’s all.

Personal Note:  I thought about blogging about what has been happening to me in the past two weeks, but I don’t think it merits a full blog entry.  Basically, two weeks ago I was laid off at my job.  The next day, I had three interviews and a job offer.  I’ve taken the offer and started working this week.  I am just starting to get back into the flow of things in my life, hence the lack of blog entries for the past couple of weeks from me.