That's Not Fair!

From early in our childhood we seem to be innately incensed when our ideas of what is fair are violated. "He got four cookies and I only got one. That's not fair"! "Hey! He broke in line. That's not fair"! Interestingly, as I have aged I have become aware that the child that was me who yelled those very sorts of protests hasn't really changed that much; only his perspective.

The changed perspective grew out of the grappling with the root of the protest and its implications. Such a root necessarily involves a reference point and an ought. The reference point is normally always self while the ought is an appeal to objective truth in the pursuit of justice. The perceived unfairness of someone else getting more cookies is not what is being challenged. It is the unfairness of someone getting four cookies in reference to the fact that I only got one. Such an injustice ought not be. While, generally speaking, accrued years does not remedy this problem for us, especially as it pertains to our base emotions, they should at least cause us to gain a little perspective. The extent to which this happens would seem to depend on one's worldview. This truth can be demonstrated by the basis upon which one attempts to answer questions like these:

• Can a person at once proclaim that there is no objective truth and a thing isn't fair?
• What is the base [nominal?] amount of cookies a child receives that qualifies as universally "fair"? Should they both get four cookies? or one? Perhaps, after justly dividing their cookies evenly, they proceed to enjoy them while blissfully ignorant of the great injustice they are incurring because someone somewhere is eating a whole bag.
• What about the child to whom a bowl of flour and oil would bring tears of joy. Should he instead feel cheated?
• Ought not it also be an ought, in light of an appeal to objective truth in the name of fairness, that the child suffering the social injustice take his appeals for justice to the next level and refuse to enjoy his cookies until everyone has partaken in the just amount of cookies?
• What will any of it matter five generations hence or when the sun burns out?

The secular humanist worldview, which is the predominate Western worldview of Christian and non Christian alike, when it makes appeals for justice--and it most definitely does--necessarily must root itself in cognitive dissonance to address these questions. He must, on the one hand, claim that there is no such thing as objective truth; that right and wrong are mere social constructs; that the concept of sin is an artifact of the past; that our very existence is the result of spontaneous and random events, while on the other hand assert that we ought to help the poor; that stealing is not always right; that killing is never right (if the person is born); that we oughtn't lie; that we oughtn't pollute the planet; that we oughtn't torture animals; and so on.

The Christian worldview, on the other hand, can answer these questions without contradictions. It proclaims that, not only is the world not fair, but that there is nothing that man can ever do to change that fact due to his condition brought about by an innate denial of a universal reference point. It also proclaims that, not only is there a source of objective truth that sovereignly decrees and judges what is fair and what is not, the greatest injustice happened when man was redeemed from his injustices. This truth thereby precludes man from making the charge of unfairness based on man's point of reference. It is not obvious in this current age, but there was a time in Western culture that these truths were somewhat universally understood and accepted. They were articulated with words like providence, lot, contentment, and His will; and in a negative sense, covetousness.

It is not my intended point here that the necessity for a logical and consistent worldview proves the existence of God, but rather that the claims for the nonexistence of God renders any cries for fairness and justice as ex nihilo and absurd. It IS my point however that the answer to protests of unfairness, such as those lodged by the current "social justice" horde, is the same as the one I give my seven year old. "You're right... It isn't.... be glad."

On Generalizaitions

"Those dirty rotten conservatives are always generalizing!"

I am always amazed when I am accused of generalizing; Oh..., not that the accusations are not warranted, for they surely are, but rather that anyone has such a high opinion of me that they think that I can avoid it. In defense against such accusations, and for easy cut and paste purposes, I am posting below another man's analysis on the matter.

The following quote is found in the classic Democracy In America written by the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville and published in the 1830's as a contemporary expose of a young United States.

"God is able to see the differences between all individuals so it follows therefore that God has no need of general ideas, that is to say, He never feels the necessity of giving the same label to a considerable number of analogous objects in order to think about them more conveniently. Not so with man who in our impressive limitations need all the help we can get from such general ideas lest we get lost in the dazzling plethora of details that passes in a hazy hurry before us all. General ideas have excellent quality, that they permit human minds to pass judgment quickly on a great number of things, but the conceptions they convey are always incomplete, and what is gained in extent is always lost in exactitude."

Religions Rule

How can it be that so many who are ardent enemies of religion are now siding with those who want to build a Mosque near Ground Zero? Considering also that those who are the most outspoken defenders of this Mosque are also ardent defenders of abortion and homosexuality. And also considering that the religion of the future inhabitants of this Mosque would call for the stoning of homosexuals; and whose anti-choice stance for women go well beyond the womb, makes it all the more strange. Further, why would Muslims, who look forward to the implementation of Sharia Law, a law that reduces women to chattel, kills homosexuals, and outlaws abortion, ever find itself so allied, both concerning this Mosque and elsewhere, with a political party built upon these three pillows? And in reverse, why would that same political party ally itself conversely?

Most conservatives can kind of see that serious Muslims want to implement Sharia law world wide and that liberals provide quite a useful idiot toward such an end. That part is not confusing. Most everyone also knows that American Christendom is now irrelevant. One only need look at the institutionalized decadence and debauchery to get that. But why the liberal ideologue, riding on the crest of his half-century wave of triumph would side with a culture with which it is so vehemently opposed in every way may present more of a challenge to ones understanding.

With a little thought however, the liberal is not really all that difficult to grasp. Understanding his motives is just a matter of understanding his worldview. In his world one religion is just as good or bad as another and ultimately should be subjected to the liberal's idea of what a religion should be and do. Imagine a flow chart of sorts with one large box on top with lines drawn vertically to a row of smaller boxes underneath. The liberal sees himself in that top box with the lower boxes populated with what ever religion the "bitter clinger" (1) decides to believe in order to better deal with his miserable reality, or in his attempts to achieve some sort of inner peace. Also, with this in mind there should be no wonder why so many "Christians" can sit in churches and listen to a preacher say over and over there is only one way to heaven and not be offended, even though he"knows" it isn't true. That is exactly what he expects to hear from the preacher who holds to that particular truth. The "Christian" simply sees his religion as subject to the liberal's higher interpretation from the upper box. Incidentally, missing from that flow chart is a box for God. This is because there is no difference in the liberal's mind between God and Government when they are in control.

As the American Church, having been co-opted by this kind of thinking in the upper levels of its denominations and seminaries, has increasingly submitted itself to the upper box, there resulted a Christian retreat of sorts in the public square. Liberals soon found themselves, first in control of educating the children of an unsuspecting Church, then in control of executive offices, both private and public as those children matured. But they are still hindered by Christians. And many Christians and non-Christians alike, still see America as a Christian nation. This will not do; enter Muslims. By helping Islam better establish itself in America liberalism hopes to achieve two goals. One, it hopes to show Islam it means it no harm, that it hates Christianity just as much as they do thereby earning Islam's alliance and favor. Two, place Islam in a lower box next to the other religions and subject it to the rich liberal elite and in so doing further marginalize Christianity as just one of many religions. The New York city Mosque is but one high profile example of many that shows this to be true.

It is my take that civilizations have to ultimately be ruled first in the hearts of its populations by a religion. It is in man's DNA to be so ruled. But the liberal cannot fathom this. Having ridden into power basically unopposed with visions of a Utopian materialistically equal society-except for themselves of coarse-propelled by free hand outs that are bankrupting their Utopia before it even comes close to relegating God to subject, they are completely incapable of grasping the Islamic mind. Instead they project their own ideas of material injustice onto what they see as a people oppressed by their enemy, Christianity. They are completely unable to see themselves as a temporary fill in a vacuum created by the collapse of Christianity as the viable coalescing force required for the existence of a nation. Liberalism itself offers no coalescing values for a nation of people, only for itself in the hearts of the rich, atheistic and self proclaimed intellectuals in the pursuit of their green-hilled Utopia. As cultures go, liberals are no match for a culture glommed onto a violent religion whose adherents are born and bread into a hatred for them so deep that not even the liberal can plumb it. And they will not subject that hatred to a meaningless-floating-in-the-cosmos-I'm-OK-you're-OK worldview. If you do not convert, you are most definitely not OK, and they are most definitely OK with that position, political correctness be damned.

With this understanding of liberalism's worldview, along with the evaporation of any national vision beyond that of a post-nation-and-boundaryless -warless world populated by various belief systems subjected to the Utopian visionaries, every current event from free-for-all immigration to the defense of a murderous and threatening religion, makes perfect sense. But a nation cannot survive off a vision of its own annihilation with hopes that others will follow for altruistic reasons; especially when the very ones calling for it deny altruism's existence. And it is for this reason that the next half century, if it takes that long, will be a war of religions in the hearts and minds of the West. Will it turn again to the gentle religion that it now so hates, or will it be ruled by a murderous and totalitarian religion that will return the meaning of tolerance from its current morphed definition of total acceptance back to its original meaning as those who invited a religion in under the false notion that they would rule over it find out that they instead are being ruled by it? In the end one thing is certain, religion will rule.

(1)President Obama revealed his view of serious religious adherents by using these words to describe them in a speech to like minded rich San Francisco political donors.

Runaway Slave Trailer

In keeping with the slave theme lately, here is a trailer from the Timothy Matters Blog. A couple of quotes I particularly liked:

"We don't get our freedoms from Republicans! We don't ger our freedoms from Democrats!"

This flies in the face of the seemingly impossible to penetrate binary world of those who love and trust their Democrat party only because of their fear and hatred of what they have been programed to think is their enemy: Republicans. The idea of mistrusting ALL politicians simply because of their proximity to power appears to be wholly alien to them. No... only Conservatives should be mistrusted, compassionate liberals can be trusted with total power. And when total power is obtained, it is never enough. The constant belly aching and blame game currently playing out before us by a group of people who hold wide margins in the halls of power as the nation continues its slide into chaos and poverty is but a foretaste of things to come.

"Tyranny is color blind, white or black, it will control you... Run America!"

Not "run black man" but run America! from socialism. Love it!

Unions And Slavery

So what is the picture of slavery most widely held by most? Mine is the plantation owner living his life of ease off the sweat from the brows of his slaves toiling in the fields.

Unionized government workers present a case for a softer kind of slavery. For one thing, the unionized beneficiaries of the sweat of the tax payer's brow do not usually live in plantation houses, and they are not allowed to flog their chattel. Also, the slaves normally live in the same neighborhoods and shop in the same stores as their masters. The real disparity, as always with slavery, concerns work.

The master must put in his time of work, short though it may be, before he can achieve his "slave owner" status of sitting on the front porch sipping tea. But to be sure, the master has already achieved an elite-ish status even while accomplishing his "time in service" as can be seen by the fact that he doesn't have to worry about about the same things his slave counterparts worry about; like loosing customers due to bad performance. This helps to take the edge off of putting in the work years required before porch sitting, fishing and tea sipping.

Secondly, as with the old slave-master, this master doesn't have to concern himself wtih pesky little annoyances like the risk of being fired, or recessionions. His boss, the government, can simply take, borrow or print what it needs to ensure that the union worker never has to suffer along side his slave neighbors. His high level bosses remain secure as well in knowing that a sizable portion of the plunder handed out will end up right back in their campaign coffers.

The slave on the other hand deals with a completely different reality. He is under the pressure of performance. And even if his performance is top notch, he is continually confronted with the weaknesses of the rest of his team. Recessions are really difficult because he must continue to perform now, not only for himself but also to make up for the losses of his master's lost revenues .  (less tax revenues) This can clearly be seen in this New York Post article where it states that:

"Taxpayers' share of [the New York City] pension costs has skyrocketed more than 900 percent in the last decade from $703.1 million in 2000 to $6.5 billion in 2009, according to the city comptroller's annual reports. The cost is expected to hit $7.6 billion this fiscal year and $8.7 billion next year. 'Its a double-whammy for taxpayers, ' said E.J. McMahon, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. 'If they're privately employed, they shoulder the risks of saving for their own retirement. At the same time, they have to pay a steadily mounting cost of guaranteed pensions for government workers.'"

So the next time you see a government union member at a tea-party rally keeping an eye on their "boys", hearken back to the old south and remember this: some things never change, especially with Democrats. more here

Nancy Pelosi Eats Her "Words"

I loved this "split screen" of sorts for two reasons:

1. No one with any sense on either side of the political isle actually believed her when she uttered these words about her favorite "Word" evidenced by the lack of outrage that normally accompanies a politician saying this sort of thing. It does make me wonder... who was she speaking to?
2. I can just imagine a twenty-year-old Nancy Pelosi calling some person of authority, over thirty I would presume, to account on some words they had spoken earlier; Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals tucked snugly under her arm.

I love the way she moves right along by quickly calling on another reporter. Just a quick note: she was not in a church in either of the clips.

Taxes And Slavery

The Volt was introduced today with a price tag of around 40K. But that's OK for the person rich enough to afford one you will be helping to pay for it through deductions from your paycheck.  The wealthy person enjoys the car.  You help pay for it with taxes.

To be sure, conservatives are not against taxes. They know that roads, bridges, law enforcement, and all the other things part and parcel to a civil society are not free. But then again, all the things that are part and partial to a civil society are worth the price.  It's when you find your check getting smaller because of grand ideas and political schemes, like paying for a car you don't get to drive, that raises the conservative's ire.  

The fact is that such things are tantamount to slavery.  It's simple.  The slave works, but the plantation owner enjoys the fruit of his labor.  The slave doesn't participate in that fruit, nor does he have a say in how it is used.  Of course it's not quite as simple as the old plantation days wherein  a man's  entire being and life was enslaved.  This slavery is much easier to swallow because it happens a little at a time.

Consider that a man works for fifty years of his life.  Now consider that every year a percentage of income was confiscated; not for things that he needs and uses, but things he doesn't need, want or use... like say Chevy Volts.  In other words, someone else enjoys the fruit of his labor and he has no say in it is used.  Let's say that twenty percent of his time on the job is actually stolen from him for, say, political whims or vote buying.  That would mean that ten years of his life he was a virtual slave.  Ten years of his life has been stolen.

Someone might say that such things are democracy in action; that the majority decides how tax dollars are spent and it doesn't equate to slavery.  There's one problem with this argument.  The  actual people being enslaved by our current out of control spending can't vote.  They can't vote because they haven't been born yet. 

Appeasing Islam

I'm not the smartest turnip that ever fell off the truck but even I realize the truth about appeasing the Radical Islamist; a truth that seems to have eluded some of the smartest amongst us.

There are exactly two ways to appease them; no less, no more.

1. Convert
2. Die

Voters would serve their own self interest to learn this.

On Godwin's Law

Godwin's Law states that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1. Remaining true to this law, in a comment string I was involved in at 4Simpsons recently I brought up the name of Hitler to which I received the reply: "as a general rule once someone brings up the name of Hitler you've won the argument".

While this was a clever way to avoid the point I was making (it didn't work) it did give me reason to do a little research on and contemplation of this matter. I discovered this "Law". Upon examining my thinking and asking the question as to why we bring up the name of Hitler often enough to warrant a "law" I came to a couple of conclusions:

1. The prevailing worldview of the West is one of relativism. The very nature of relativism renders words like "good" and "evil" meaningless. Communication, as a result, are now devoid of a means of articulating these concepts without some widely known universally accepted objective means such as an example. Hitler fills that bill for "evil".
2. Concepts like Godwin's Law either intentionally or unintentionally poison the well. Anytime I find myself increasingly reluctant to do, or especially to say, something, like mentioning Hitler's name in discussions, I am immediately suspicious of this tactic. It is amazing how effective these things are on us.

There is some truth however to the point the blogger made about the use of Hitler's name signifying that you have conceded the argument. The only problem is that he used the wrong name. The correct name that makes this assertion true is George Bush.

The World V Marriage, a comment

Stan at Winging It did a post on Marriage today that is well worth reading. Following is A well written comment left on his post The World V Marriage that is just as important by Stacey from Scotland.

I live in Scotland. Scotland is a bastion of liberality, total-control politics, and the "nanny state." In fact, the nanny state, while telling us we cannot help our neighbours due to the possibility of a lawsuit, is also the forerunner for government support of all things aberrant (e.g., your tax money paying for the unwed teenage mother to have her baby, get paid for it, and be given a house, to boot). Marriage is completely mocked over here. I live in a village of 1800 people. Most of the adults are "co-habitating." The favourite word here is "partner." Everyone has a partner, but no one has a spouse. People are seriously opposed to marriage here because chances are, they will lose their state benefits. Anyway, in a village this small, everyone is related to everyone else, usually because of sleeping around. They all share mothers and fathers. The school system is a nightmare, trying to keep up with who is related to whom. So, if your commenters think marriage is not under attack -- think again. Europe is usually a bit ahead of America when it comes to all things liberal and bad. The UK, and Scotland in particular, has completely marginalized the Christian faith; churches are empty or up for sale; marriage is a relic of the past; and it is no big deal if a kid has no clue who his father is. Commonplace. And very scary.

My husband and I are Christians. We are mocked all the time. The people in this village are angry at us constantly, and all we are doing is living a quiet life, doing our best to keep marriage sacred. The sad thing is, if we slept around and hung out at the pub "religiously" every weekend, we would be completely welcomed and no one would say a word against us.

Your blog is right on about the ills of society, and my husband and I are living in a society that has long since thrown in the towel. Whatever view of the UK it is that Americans hold, I can tell you, it is antiquated and inaccurate. The UK is a mess. And UK culture is swimming in sin.

One final example: a radio ad for a product called IRN BRU. It is a high calorie, high sugar canned drink. The ad features a young man singing and whistling about his wonderful girlfriend, until she drinks his IRN BRU. Then, he tells us gleefully that she is a "numpty," (American equivalent: moron), but he's okay because now he's "shagging my girlfriend's mother." We complained to the appropriate authority here about this ad, and the response: it is totally in line with British culture and they see no reason to pursue our complaint.

Americans: if you want to see what could become of the country, look to the UK. It's a modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah.

Who is it who wants to undermine marriage? Practically everybody these days.