Obama was demonizing his opponents again today in his speech in Ohio.
It occurred to me that Boehner should have taken a different tack when Obama won the election. He should have pointed out that all spending must originate in the House, so Obama has won the right to approve or disapprove of whatever the House passes.
That would have put the “obstructionist” shoe on the other foot.
Apparently after having abandoned that silly, outdated, old-fashioned notion of “no sex before marriage,” women today are having a hard time defining exactly where to draw the line. Some want to change it to “no sex before monogamy,” but they’re not sure how they can know when that happens.
So the genius advice-giver at the website I link above says women need to “define the relationship” with something along the lines of “I won’t hook up with anyone who’s seeing other people. Are you?”
Well …. It’s an improvement, I suppose, in the way that a three-legged horse is an improvement on a two-legged horse.
This kind of thing makes me suspect that a functional definition of “modernism” is “the tendency to abandon the tried and proven in favor of the untried and novel, and then get frustrated and bitter when it doesn’t work out.”
Anyway, the Georgia Satellites give a clue to a better way. And the song is catchy too.
The modern democratic (lower-case d) myth is that we need more and more voter participation. “Get out the vote” drives are universally good things, they say, and only evil people would question or oppose them.
Where is the evidence that getting more people to vote is a good thing?
My political theory is that we want limited, delegated powers with effective checks and balances. From that perspective we only need as many people voting as would accomplish that goal.
I suspect that more and more voters takes us in the wrong direction — giving too much power to “the people,” and tilting things too much towards the ignorant masses. In practice, that means tilting things too much towards the propaganda organs of our society, which is why it’s no surprise the media are cheerleaders for “get out the vote.”
Voter tests are a bad idea because they give someone the power to suppress a viewpoint, or a group. But “get out the vote” is a bad idea because it moves us towards mob rule.
This is one of the better Ted Talks I’ve seen, despite the fact that the guy gives me some “he’s a bit of a nut” vibes. He makes several points that I’ve been arguing for years — basically that what a lot of people call “science” is really materialistic philosophy.
I want to emphasize that calling these things materialist philosophy doesn’t mean they’re necessarily wrong. It just means that they are philosophy, not science.
I definitely believe we are sheltering kids way too much. They need to skin their knees and, yes, get in fights. They need to be in an environment where they might actually get punched for saying something other people don’t like.
We’ve been postponing responsibility and are then surprised when we have irresponsible teens and adults.
About a month ago Pigweed and I were discussing the remarkably rapid change of public opinion on the question of same-sex marriage — how something that was almost unthinkable when we were kids is now must-thinkable.
Can I coin a new word? “Mustthink.” It’s what the politically correct require you to think — at first on pain of their extreme displeasure, but then enforced by speech codes and “hate” crimes.
We were wondering what the next crusade will be. It’s easy to start making predictions on the slippery slope theory. E.g., same-sex marriage will lead to allowing first cousins to marry, etc.
But Pigweed suggested that the next subject of PC intolerance will be meat eating. Restaurants will be required to have meat-eating and non-meat-eating sections. Eating meat will be portrayed as cruel and uncivilized. Hollywood celebrities will scold people who eat meat. History will be re-interpreted to say that important figures were really vegetarians.
I was reading a blog where the topic of arranged marriages came up, and it occurred to me to wonder how a person’s opinion about arranged marriages changes over time.
I don’t know, but I strongly suspect that young people and the unmarried would be most against it, but the longer a person is married the more they would see some wisdom in it.
The longer you’re married the more you realize two things: (1) a successful marriage has very little to do with the feelings you had when you were first in love; and (2) issues of compatibility are more important than you thought they were when you were first in love. Along with #2 goes this — a third party is far more likely to see how compatible you’re likely to be in the long run.
I’m not advocating arranged marriages, but I would insist that there is a lot of wisdom in getting the advice of your parents, family, and other older people before choosing a spouse, and that arranged marriages are not nearly so bad as the concept is usually made out to be.
Of course “getting the advice of family” presupposes that they have some interaction with the pool of potential mates before you “bring them home to meet the family.”
Anyway, to my point …. I think older married people are far more likely to see some wisdom in arranged marriages than younger, unmarried people.
Now, the real kicker. Which society is more likely to be healthy and stable — one where the culture follows the opinions of the young and unmarried, or one where the culture follows the opinions of older, married people?
Attack of the Tinkers, and Other Hidden Village Stories
This is a collection of short stories based around the concepts in The Hidden Village, an (as-yet) imaginary game for city dwellers to play in their off hours -- at lunch or happy hour, or as they wander the city streets. The participants join a guild and compete with one another for members, points and territory. But there’s a secret purpose to the game that the players don’t know about. Get it now on Smashwords or on the Kindle.
(Yes, that's a new cover.) The hi-tech gamer clan has become the mortal enemy of the elf clan, and the first elf war begins in The Underground Escape -- the exciting sequel to The Hidden Village. Geof Franklin and Jennifer King have become entangled in clan business and find themselves right in the middle of a deadly conflict. Loyalties are tested and alliances are formed as other clans take sides Kindle: $2.99
The Hidden Village
Geof Franklin gets the late-night phone call every parent dreads and discovers that his son has been missing for weeks. As he relentlessly searches for his only son, he gets pulled into the orbit of a cult-like sub-culture of clans that live by their own rules and think nothing of killing anyone who stands in their way. Kindle: $2.99
Jeremy Mitchell is a refugee from a separatist, anti-technology community who is a fish out of water in the high-tech society of the 21st century. He recklessly plunges himself into his new environment and finds himself caught in a confusing web of technology and intrigue. Powerful forces try to make him a pawn in a contest between rival intelligence organizations, but he doesn't play along with their game and makes his own rules. His loyalties are tested by a budding love affair with a young college student, who, along with her computer geek girlfriend, are unintentionally pulled into the conflict. Paperback: $9.99 Kindle: $2.99