Wednesday, April 28, 2010

I want to cry.

I hope this mother comes to feel the weight of what she did and the suffering she caused her own flesh and blood. The vindictive part of me hopes she wakes up in a sweat every night from dreaming about her lost son. Another part of me hopes she'll repent and come to Father for forgiveness.

It is reading of depravity like that that makes me wish for fire to consume the world, even if it consumes me with it. If you're ever inclined to doubt the love and mercy of God, the fact that humanity still exists says it all.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

INB: So... Wondering if you have any plans for entering the political arena is a waste of time?

It's a shame that our smartest and brightest seem to prefer sniping from a distance instead of stepping up to the plate and actually doing something constructive about all this mess these incompetents in Washington have gotten us into.

If our best thinkers and smartest people will not help, who will?

There will always be sheep. There will always be wolves. But when the shepard [sic] walks away, what then?


MK:
There is no hope. The constructive thing is to help the society collapse faster, so that the politicians have less time to construct a totalitarian system before it does.


So, take your money away from the bank.


Me: (to INB) Give him a blonde wig, this whiny bitch deserves a spot on The View.


Me: Okay. My first comment was perhaps a little harsh. Let me try this again.

It is that spineless mentality that got us into this mess in the first place. People wanting to be "saved" from their problems by people that were smarter, stronger and better than they were. But it's laziness and shirking personal responsibility to expect other people to initiate change for you just because you think they're smarter than you are, and therefore better equipped for the responsibility.

The 'best and brightest' do not bring about change - only the bold can do that.


CC: (to MK) It sounds like you don't have children.


Arielle: Two things.

1. INB wished that the best were bold. Not sure you have a different argument there.
2. As commenters here are so fond of status references--and since your name is feminine--nice unnecessary beta-bashing there! It's clear to me from INB's complaint that he identifies himself as one of the sheep, and based on your of-the-cuff beta-sniffing smackdown, so are you.

His question has merit. For as long as I've read VD's blog, he's identified himself as a solitary entity--he constantly writes (and I believe lives) as if he's beyond the people. He portrays himself as trans-human; though not in the bionic/sexual way. Perhaps trans-society would be better. INB is looking in the wrong place for a Founding Father type. This is a modern Sherlock Holmes' internet mystery site.


INB: LOL... So you want the people with that "spineless mentality" to demonstrate their "personal responsibility" and go run Washington? Leave the smart ones out of the picture? You think it's OK for them to shirk their responsibibity just because they are smart?


Being "better equipped" than most of us to do the job is not a desirable qualification to you?

Or have the "bold" run things? Yeah... that'll work out real well... ROFL

Keep your blonde wig... It's best and highest use is where it is right now.


Me: Vox IS demonstrating personal responsibility. He has zero responsibility to help "save" Americans, or the American government, or YOU. He has a responsibility to be a husband to his wife and a father to his children, and if God ever wants him to be responsible for more than that, it is between him and God.

I don't want people with a spineless mentality to go run Washington - I simply want them - in this case, you, specifically, to stop whining about what Vox is or is not doing when it seems clear you're not doing anything yourself.

Remember, God chooses the weak and foolish things of the world to confound the strong and the wise. He used a jackass to deliver a message, a woman to bring low the captain of an army, a farm boy and 300 men to defeat thousands, a stone and a sling in the hands of a shepherd boy to defeat an armored giant so fearsome no one would answer his challenge. God used a cowardly, poorly-spoken man to be the deliverer of nearly one million Hebrews out of slavery to the Egyptians. He sent his own son into our world not as a king or nobleman but as the humble son of a carpenter.


Me: (to CC) I have children, who are dearer to me than anything else on God's green earth, and I would rather they were raised in the chaos following the collapse of a government than in a totalitarian regime. Surprisingly enough, it is actually possible for a family to defend themselves and care for themselves without the strong arm of a government interceding on their behalf. Is it risky? Sure, but I'd rather my children grow strong in a risky environment than to become hollow, stifled denizens of a totalitarian state, kept in a perpetual state of childhood through lack of personal responsibility.


Feel free to chalk my unnecessary gamma-bashing (take a look at Vox's heirarchy again, I'm not reacting to a beta) as support for his theory.

If a man is going to post comments that make him sound like a whiny child, then it shouldn't be a surprise when he gets lectured by a woman.

edit: re: point number one - I do indeed have a different argument. INB wished the best were bold, while I wish the average Joe was bold and would stop relying on the best to be bold for him.


CC: For a minute there I was with you, but I thought you said
razed in the chaos..."

" I'd rather my children grow strong in a risky environment than to become hollow, stifled denizens of a totalitarian state, kept in a perpetual state of childhood through lack of personal responsibility."


I reject that dichotomy of choices. Lots of strong people here today; I'm sure there were lots of individualistic people in the former USSR. Want I'm interested in is the maximum potential to keep their bodies at 98.6. Because if I can do that then I can help them become this nebulous strong quality we keep referring to...provided they wish to be so. Some people just aren't born that way.


"I do indeed have a different argument. INB wished the best were bold, while I wish the average Joe was bold and would stop relying on the best to be bold for him."


It's probably that I gave you too much credit: that
should have been your argument. The average joe has never done much good except at average things. George Washington was ridiculously principled. Without him, there was no American Revolution. Benjamin Franklin was a mental freak of nature: if he tripped into a mudhole, he'd to an experiment while he was down there, and sell the results for a profit. He, too, was necessary for he AR. Elitism is where it's at.

(BTW, all that gamma delta stuff just clutters the status topic. Alpha is alpha; beta is everything that is not.)


"Remember, God chooses the weak and foolish things of the world to confound the strong and the wise. He used a jackass to deliver a message, a woman to bring low the captain of an army, a farm boy and 300 men to defeat thousands, a stone and a sling in the hands of a shepherd boy to defeat an armored giant so fearsome no one would answer his challenge. God used a cowardly, poorly-spoken man to be the deliverer of nearly one million Hebrews out of slavery to the Egyptians. He sent his own son into our world not as a king or nobleman but as the humble son of a carpenter."


Sorry, I just read this now. Are you seriously suggesting that God is going to take a hand in freeing the West, or are you stating that when God decides to do something in the world, he often uses the weakest so that everyone knows it's Him? If the first, I think you'd better take a good look around the world and then realize that He isn't doing anything about all sorts of things. If the second, then refer to number one and see if it's likely He'll get involved.


Also, Moses isn't the best pick for this goup. He was raised as a son of the pharoah. That's some clout! David also used a ranged weapon, which was very smart, and I think that hits upon something. (Rimshot!) God seems to like smart people... and trickster/con-men types. Abraham routinely passed off his wife as his sister in attempts to gain favor. Jacob stole his birthright AND his father-in-laws flock, with a little eugenic genius. Sampson used his riddles and tricks as much as his brawn. Taken together, the Patriarchs were a bunch of shifty scoundrels...but they were smart.


Me: You need to sit down and read John Taylor Gatto's "The Underground History of American Education." It might alter your beliefs in regard to elitism.

No, I am not suggesting that God will take a hand in freeing the West. Personally, I believe it's far more likely he would take a hand in destroying it, as we're about full to the brim of every vice he finds abhorrent. My point was simply that if God wants something to happen, it will happen, and he doesn't need Vox Day to do it.

INB seems to be suggesting that someone that is smart and capable, but that chooses to refrain from taking part in shaping America's political landscape, is shirking their "duty." The tone of his posts suggests that he thinks it is lazy, or cowardly, at best - perhaps even immoral - for someone that is capable not to act on that capability. I'd like to know where he, and apparently you, get the idea that just because someone happens to be smart, it means they have a duty to lead... to use INB's vernacular, to be a shepherd.


I reject that dichotomy of choices. Lots of strong people here today; I'm sure there were lots of individualistic people in the former USSR. Want I'm interested in is the maximum potential to keep their bodies at 98.6. Because if I can do that then I can help them become this nebulous strong quality we keep referring to...provided they wish to be so. Some people just aren't born that way.

From the way you speak, I can only assume that you believe most people are not born that way. This may be true, but as it happens, I believe that there are worse things than death, or even physical suffering, that can be visited on the human soul.


Let me tell you a little anecdote. My grandfather raised four children. Two of them, his only son and my mother, his firstborn, left their home, got married, had children - lived a life of their own. Two, my aunts, are middle-aged. They still live with my grandparents. They are unmarried. Virgins. Grossly obese. They are surrounded by cats that they treat like the children they never had. Once, my mother asked her father why he didn't just make them leave the house and get jobs and learn to take care of themselves. His response was that you don't kick them out of the nest if you know they're going to fall.


Let me share something else. Many years ago, it was believed that because babies' backs were so weak, they would benefit by wearing braces. A generation of children were raised this way, before it was revealed that the braces were actually preventing the child's back from growing stronger. The children raised this way went on to have weak backs as adults because their bodies had not been allowed to develop properly. The same thing turned out to be true of walkers, which if used extensively negatively impacted a child's ability to learn to walk. Because the child wasn't putting their full weight on their legs, their legs were not strengthening properly.


People don't get stronger, smarter and more capable by having things made easy. They get that way through struggle, through adversity, through hard work, time and effort.


Personally, to me it sounds as though you simply want the easy way out. Women and children are not nearly as weak as you make us out to be. We're pretty resilient. We can handle living a life of hardship without the safety net of a large, authoritarian government. It is the man, the person responsible for the safety, security and provision of his family, that will have to work harder to fulfill his duties in a place where the government has collapsed, whereas in a totalitarian regime, he can assume his duties will be reasonably easy so long as he toes the line and doesn't stick his nose where it doesn't belong.


CC: The story of your aunts seems to reinforce my argument. I'm glad they're not dead. Even though I'm an elitist, I'm not a eugenicist. I'm not sure I see a problem with them; except for the obese bit. The nuclear family is a new idea, and like most new ideas it doesn't work.


On most topics I imagine we agree, and I'm with you on your principles. I simply think you, like a lot of us with a classical liberal bent, are romanticizing the fall of the West.

As for spiritual matters and more important things than living: you're right. Jesus made a big deal about that truth. It's also true that when he heard Lazarus was dead he wept, and raised him back to life.


Me:
I should have seen it sooner but clearly you're from the mindset that it is okay to trade personal freedom (and not coincidentally, personal responsibility) in exchange for security.

You're being a weasel and using hyperbole. The choice is, quite obviously, not "security or death." My aunts were in no danger of dying had my grandfather forced them to fend for themselves. They were both reasonably attractive, personable and smart. They were in no way handicapped from being able to take care of themselves. Now, however, they are middle-aged, fat and unhealthy and will most certainly have problems taking care of themselves when my aging grandfather passes away. They're both bitter, selfish shrews that will never know the joy of marriage or motherhood or a life lived whose goals are not the endless consumption of food, television and romance novels. You're glad they are alive - I'm saddened that they've wasted the one life they have and missed out on some of the most fundamental, enriching experiences of the human existence.


What if Abraham had chosen security and remained in Ur?


More importantly, what if Jesus had chosen security and refused to be crucified?


You claim that the risk to your family is less within the shelter of a totalitarian government - this might be true, if the only risk you're concerned with is the risk to their bodies. But the body is hardly the most important part of a human being. Obtaining safety for the bodies of your children means little when you place them into the hands of an authority that wishes to control their hearts, mind and spirits - to turn them into vassals of the state and to make subservience to the state the focus of their existence, rather than God. Your children are in more danger of losing their souls to a totalitarian government than they are of losing their bodies to thugs.


CC: I've tried to appeal to you on Biblical grounds because you seemed prone to it, but I can't go on with this. Your attribution of your personal political bent to be God-willed in the same manner as when God talked to Abraham--and even the mystery of Christ and his crucifixion!--reveals that I'm not dealing with a rational woman...which is a redundancy. It's been a silliness on my part to have engaged you. My apologies


~The Weasel


Me: So to sum up:


I'm a man and you're a woman and therefor I'm right and you're wrong. Nice.

I find that my personal stance is, indeed, supported by the Bible, by nature, and by history. I can support this stance through many more examples than the ones I gave. But feel free to throw up your smoke screen and run the other direction.

(I love my husband. When I told him about this conversation, and the choice between the 'safety' of a totalitarian government vs the aftermath of a collapsed government, he unhesitatingly picked the latter. In response to it being more dangerous he sniffed and said "Blam, blam." There was no doubt in his mind that he'd be capable of looking out for his family. In response to the safety of the body vs the safety of the soul, he said CC should read Acts.)

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

You know what would make me happy? Nancy Pelosi being eaten by bears. That would make me happy. Pelosi and all those lying, self-righteous, power-crazed, smug, greedy, evil scum in positions of governmental power that cannot be content to let people live their lives and be responsible for their own decisions and their own actions.

What has left me feeling so bloodthirsty? Reading the news and seeing that a report has been issued that 'global warming exists and is primarily man-made' followed by another report about how the FDA plans to initiate legal limits to how much salt is allowed to be in food products.

Really?

Is there even ONE aspect of our lives that the government agencies do not feel the need to stick their grubby little noses into?

Oh... it would seem I have my answer in this gem:

President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency is encouraging the public to create video advertisements that explain why federal regulations are "important to everyone."

“The contest will highlight the significance of federal regulations and help the public understand the rulemaking process. Federal agencies develop and issue hundreds of rules and regulations every year to implement statutes written by Congress. Almost every aspect of an individual’s life is touched by federal regulations, but many do not understand how rules are made or how they can get involved in the process.”


It is at times like these that I greatly sympathize with David, instructing his son Solomon to insure that certain wrongdoers were punished - "do not let his gray hair go down to Sheol in peace."

Thursday, April 15, 2010

I feel like writing, so I'm just going to pick something and ramble about it.

And the winner is... contentment.

This is something I think everyone struggles with from time to time, some more than others. I'm what is generally described as 'laid-back' though 'lazy procrastinator' is probably far more accurate. I'm not prone to dramatic or frequent mood swings. Being content is probably an easier state for me to reach than some of the other personality types out there. As long as I am not being asked to do anything very difficult, that is.

Even so, there are specific areas in which contentment is not an easy state to achieve. One of these is the location in which I live. When my husband decided he wanted to purchase a home instead of continuing to rent, I was not pleased. I seem to have been something of an oddity - I actually liked moving every year or two. A new location meant new vistas and new neighborhoods to explore, which helped in a small way to alleviate the pain of living in urban and suburban areas in a state and a climate of which I am not terribly fond. Plus, there was very little responsibility required for renting.

Despite my dislike for the idea, I went along with it. As long as it came together financially this was a decision I did not feel that I should make a point of contention. I did not, after all, give my husband authority in my life only when his decisions reflected my own desires.

I was the one in charge of the search and it did not take too long for me to realize that I would be unlikely to find a house I could love - instead, I would have to settle for something merely acceptable and in our price range, which turned out to be a cement block house built in the 70's and painted an ugly brown. All throughout the process I comforted myself by thinking of it as a 'starter' home - somewhere we would live for perhaps five years, before selling it and moving somewhere nicer - maybe even somewhere other than Florida! The year after we purchased, the housing market collapsed and squashed that dream, though I held onto the corpse and pretended there was still life present.

Fast forward to this year, a month or two before my husband's 29th birthday. He had finished obtaining his bachelor's degree and was keeping a constant eye out for employment opportunities that would allow him to escape his current job, which pays well but that he has grown to hate. He would like to continue working in the same general field, but in a position with more interesting duties and less stressful surroundings, without significantly reducing his income in the process. I observed his search and started worrying that he was being too hopeful - I proceeded to drape my wet blanket around his shoulders by pointing out that in today's job market, unless he was prepared to do some brown nosing in order to cultivate contacts (a route he is unwilling to take, thankfully), it would be unlikely that he would get what he wanted.

I was not trying to be cruel, I just didn't want to see him pin all his hope on reaching the moon and being in a constant state of discontented disappointment. And then it hit me - that was EXACTLY what I had been doing! I don't want to live in suburban Florida, I want to live in the country in some other state, preferably somewhere closer to my family in Tennessee. But I was pinning my hopes on reaching the moon and ending up in a constant state of discontented disappointment. I'd been shamefully neglecting the state of my home because I had dismissed it as a temporary dwelling, and therefore unworthy of an investment of my time and energy. Why make my house a nice place to live when I did not want to live here in the first place?

Conviction settled in. I may get lucky and a wonderful job in Tennessee that my husband cannot possibly refuse might fall in his lap and lead to our relocation and that home in some quiet, beautiful part of the country within reasonable driving distance of my family... but I need to be content where I am right now, today. I need to invest time and effort into my current home because I may be here for years.

So there it is. I've installed a shelf in my laundry room (I did it all on my own - well, mostly, I had to have my husband show me how to work the drill) and am working on putting up a small fenced enclosure for a compost heap. I took a broom and swept away two years of dust and cobwebs that had accumulated on the walls and ceiling of my living room. (I know, I'm a shameful slacker when it comes to housekeeping.) Now I'm trying to find the focus and determination to wade in and tackle the large, thoroughly disorganized mess around me.

I'm sighing a little bit seeing a cherished dream receding in the distance, but at the same time drawing strength from acknowledging how blessed I really am. I have a husband who truly desires to do what is best for his family and that will sacrifice personal comfort on our behalf. I have three beautiful, healthy children and am likely to be blessed with more. I have a home, which may be extremely messy and filled with half-finished do-it-yourself projects, an ancient air conditioning system on the verge of collapse and apparently faulty electrical wiring - but it's within our means to get the latter problems corrected and it only requires some hard work to take care of the mess.

So... time to stop procrastinating and get on with some of that work!

Monday, April 12, 2010

I am jubilant (and scared). My husband has agreed that I may home school our oldest son this year and he'll see how it goes. If God puts it on your heart to do so, please pray that I will do a good job and that my husband will decide to extend it beyond a year!

Wednesday, April 07, 2010

Yesterday marked the 6th anniversary of the first day I held my firstborn son in my arms. Whatever the future brings, I am so incredibly grateful for the precious gift of motherhood. I pray that I will be a help rather than a hindrance in his journey to manhood.

Thank you, Father, for your many blessings.