The new platform of the Democrats running for president includes the great "reparations" con. For the first 140 years, the vast majority of slaves in America were WHITE. Blacks were not imported until the mid-1700's. These white slaves consisted of:
* The Redemptioners, Germans whose family members were frequently sold to different masters
* Indentured Servants, promised a better life in the New World - which never
*
Poor people of London, Bristol and Liverpool (Men, Women, Children,
kidnapped and sent to the colonies under the Royal policy of "POOR
RELIEF". These were the poor and vagrants (Men, Women, Children) of the
United Kingdom
* Loose or lewd women (prostitutes) that wealthy, moralist Europeans & the UK wanted gone
* Convicts and criminals. Maryland and Virginia were convicts’ states
*
War prisoners, mostly Irish & Scottish-Irish and Scottish (
Monmouth Rebels , Covenanters etc). This was known as the “Irish slave
trade” that history books seem to overlook
It was not
until there was a shortage of white slaves in the mid-1700's to meet demand that the black
slave trade began, and blacks were kidnapped in large numbers from
Africa. Blacks were the predominant slaves for just 120 years.
I am white. I want reparation for the slavery of my race...
But there is an even greater issue - if reparations are warranted because of past mistreatment, what about Native Americans? And the Chinese that were imported after we ended slavery, and who were treated as slaves by the railroad builders and mine owners (not to mention digging our canals)? And the Irish were also mistreated, as well as the Japanese in the interment camps.
In fact, there is no group of people in the world who have not at some point been sorely mistreated and abused by other groups. The reason liberals want reparations is simply because of the race to socialism - Saul Alinsky, in his book, "Rules for Radicals" includes this first rule for destroying a government so you can get the people willing to accept the "help" offered by socialism: you must first BANKRUPT the country. That is the reason Democrats are all-in for wasting as much money as possible - giving $150 billion to Iran; mega-millions to solar companies that took the money and went bust. I can list at least 200 examples. And "reparations" are just the newest way to drain the treasury.
Actually, no one deserves reparation for slavery. There is not a black living that experienced slavery in America, nor a white American who ever owned a black slave. More to the point, the black community who are descendants of slaves should be thankful for slavery - if not for the slave trade, they would most likely still be living in a 3rd world county in abject poverty instead of opportunity laden, free America.
Thursday, February 21, 2019
Friday, February 15, 2019
The Real Reason Average Tax Refunds Are Smaller In 2019
Certain Democrats, especially among the presidential candidates, are using the IRS report that the average refund is smaller this year to con the uninformed into thinking - and they say this - that Trump's tax cuts are obviously a tax HIKE.
Those Democrats are either uneducated and simply can't add one and one, or they are intentionally trying to deceive the masses who do not understand simple economics.
When taxes are cut, employers deduct less withholding from paychecks. Instead of sending the IRS $100 a week out of your check, they only send $85 a week, because taxes were cut. And when they SEND less, you get less BACK. The refund is nothing more than the amount you OVERPAID, and is actually proof of the tax cuts. As an extreme example, if taxes were eliminated, your employer would withhold nothing, so you would get nothing back.
But Democrats prefer to use trickery and deceit to con people into believing something that simply is not true. They use this tactic constantly - like, "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor", and "your health care costs will go down $2500/year".
/
Those Democrats are either uneducated and simply can't add one and one, or they are intentionally trying to deceive the masses who do not understand simple economics.
When taxes are cut, employers deduct less withholding from paychecks. Instead of sending the IRS $100 a week out of your check, they only send $85 a week, because taxes were cut. And when they SEND less, you get less BACK. The refund is nothing more than the amount you OVERPAID, and is actually proof of the tax cuts. As an extreme example, if taxes were eliminated, your employer would withhold nothing, so you would get nothing back.
But Democrats prefer to use trickery and deceit to con people into believing something that simply is not true. They use this tactic constantly - like, "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor", and "your health care costs will go down $2500/year".
/
Friday, February 8, 2019
A Virginian Speaks Out On "Blackface"
Disclosure: I am a Virginian, and a conservative with libertarian leanings in some things. And given my "druthers", I would rather have Republicans running things. That said, I feel the need to take a stand on the political debacle now transpiring in my state. I don't expect everyone to agree with my "take", but I do hope everyone would at least think about it.
As to the "black-face" controversy, I do not believe it should even be a controversy, except by those who LOOK for controversy and victimization. When I see that picture of two young men dressed as a black dude and a Klansman, and the "black-face" dude is obviously smiling, I do not see racism - I see two people who are MOCKING racism. And when I see a picture of someone wearing blackface to "dress-up" as a rapper, again I see no racism - I see someone who, in his own inept way, is honoring rap
.
My point here - wearing blackface is not a crime, and more to the point needs to be viewed in context. As I see it, it's like "Taco Night" at the college. The kids dress up in Mexican garb and pig out on Mexican food. Now, there are two ways to view that. If you are a whiner (and this actually happened) who feeds on victimization, you might view it as "appropriating someone else's culture" and get it shut it down. Setting aside for the moment that there is nothing wrong with "appropriating culture", a clear-headed thinking person who doesn't waste time looking for things to complain about would see Taco Night as a CELEBRATION of another culture. America, the "melting pot", has ALWAYS "appropriated" worthwhile pieces of other cultures - tacos, pizza, even some of their words, like "Adios", or "sayanara". That is how we come together as one. And that's a GOOD thing.
So, as to those who have worn blackface, I say, "So what". Who has not done questionable things in their past? I know I have done my share. It does not by any stretch of the imagination make a person racist. But if you are the type who believes in finding racism wherever you can, then maybe you should take a chill pill and think about how millions of white people spend mega-hours each year trying to get a great tan. Is THAT racist, too? I say to people who look for trouble that they will find it, and I hope it bites them in the butt!
As for the other guy, who has had two women allege sexual assault, make no mistake - if true, he should be in prison. Which begs the question - the statute of limitations is not up, so exactly WHY are they not bringing criminal charges? Frankly, I believe he did it. But what anyone "believes" actually has nothing to do with anything. People can be wrong. And that is why the Constitution requires due process, and a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Oust him if you wish - but only after the evidence is in and proves him guilty. In America, we don't punish people until we know they are guilty. So, prove him guilty, or leave him be.
And as for impeaching the Lt Governor, though I would like to see that, forget it. Under the Virginia Constitution (which the delegate trying to impeach him should have at least read), impeachment can only be for crimes committed while in office. These crimes, if they occurred at all, happened long before he was in office.
That brings me to the one, serious issue I DO have that I believe should cost the governor his job - his readiness to allow infanticide, and support it. Under all current laws, that is murder. Anyone who supports the murder of ANY individual is a person I do not want governing my state. And in this case, the proof is already in sight - he stated on camera that even AFTER birth, a mother and her doctor can decide if they want to kill the newborn or let it live. Once a baby leaves the womb, it is a citizen, endowed with and protected by the rights under the constitution.
Northam needs to go because of that, alone. Blackface means nothing to sane people who are not looking for some way to hurt other people.
And that's my take, for what it's worth.
As to the "black-face" controversy, I do not believe it should even be a controversy, except by those who LOOK for controversy and victimization. When I see that picture of two young men dressed as a black dude and a Klansman, and the "black-face" dude is obviously smiling, I do not see racism - I see two people who are MOCKING racism. And when I see a picture of someone wearing blackface to "dress-up" as a rapper, again I see no racism - I see someone who, in his own inept way, is honoring rap
.
My point here - wearing blackface is not a crime, and more to the point needs to be viewed in context. As I see it, it's like "Taco Night" at the college. The kids dress up in Mexican garb and pig out on Mexican food. Now, there are two ways to view that. If you are a whiner (and this actually happened) who feeds on victimization, you might view it as "appropriating someone else's culture" and get it shut it down. Setting aside for the moment that there is nothing wrong with "appropriating culture", a clear-headed thinking person who doesn't waste time looking for things to complain about would see Taco Night as a CELEBRATION of another culture. America, the "melting pot", has ALWAYS "appropriated" worthwhile pieces of other cultures - tacos, pizza, even some of their words, like "Adios", or "sayanara". That is how we come together as one. And that's a GOOD thing.
So, as to those who have worn blackface, I say, "So what". Who has not done questionable things in their past? I know I have done my share. It does not by any stretch of the imagination make a person racist. But if you are the type who believes in finding racism wherever you can, then maybe you should take a chill pill and think about how millions of white people spend mega-hours each year trying to get a great tan. Is THAT racist, too? I say to people who look for trouble that they will find it, and I hope it bites them in the butt!
As for the other guy, who has had two women allege sexual assault, make no mistake - if true, he should be in prison. Which begs the question - the statute of limitations is not up, so exactly WHY are they not bringing criminal charges? Frankly, I believe he did it. But what anyone "believes" actually has nothing to do with anything. People can be wrong. And that is why the Constitution requires due process, and a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Oust him if you wish - but only after the evidence is in and proves him guilty. In America, we don't punish people until we know they are guilty. So, prove him guilty, or leave him be.
And as for impeaching the Lt Governor, though I would like to see that, forget it. Under the Virginia Constitution (which the delegate trying to impeach him should have at least read), impeachment can only be for crimes committed while in office. These crimes, if they occurred at all, happened long before he was in office.
That brings me to the one, serious issue I DO have that I believe should cost the governor his job - his readiness to allow infanticide, and support it. Under all current laws, that is murder. Anyone who supports the murder of ANY individual is a person I do not want governing my state. And in this case, the proof is already in sight - he stated on camera that even AFTER birth, a mother and her doctor can decide if they want to kill the newborn or let it live. Once a baby leaves the womb, it is a citizen, endowed with and protected by the rights under the constitution.
Northam needs to go because of that, alone. Blackface means nothing to sane people who are not looking for some way to hurt other people.
And that's my take, for what it's worth.
Tuesday, February 5, 2019
Afghanistan - Why We Must Withdraw
Over the last two centuries powerful nations have tried to civilize and rule Afghanistan, to bring it under control.
In the 1830's it was the powerful British Empire, in their quest to protect their interests in India. This resulted in the First Anglo-Afghan War which then resulted in the British being driven out and the British Army massacred, leaving but one survivor.
The Second Anglo-Afghan debacle began in 1878 when the British again invaded Afghanistan. By 1880, they were again driven out in shame.
In 1919 the British once again declared war on Afghanistan in what is known as the Third Anglo-Afghan War. And three months later they again lost.
In 1979 the Soviets (Russians) invaded Afghanistan, joining in the Afghan War (1978-1992). They remained until 1989. After suffering unheard of losses in blood and treasure, and with 15,000 dead in the quagmire, the Russians withdrew from the tiny country that has been the nemisis of powerful natiuons since time immemorial. This was Russia's Viet-Nam.
And now America, in 2001, invaded Afghanistan. Eighteen years later we are still losing blood and treasure, having made little real difference - the Afghans are still tribal, uncivilized and with a deep hatred of what civilized nations hold dear - democracy.
It would not be far-fetched to call our efforts in Afghanistan America's Second Viet-Nam.
And through it all, the powerful nations have learned nothing. You may get a wild lion to capitulate to the whip in a circus, but he will still kill and eat you if he gets the chance. That can never change.
And now, under Trump, we are withdrawing most of our troops, leaving only enough to hopefully prevent the resurgence of those who want to do harm to us in our homeland.
And to the thinking mind, the Washington Post's assertion that Trump's policy to withdraw is somehow "bizarre" and wrong is simply dumb. Unlike the reporters at the Post, living in luxury in the states and not in fear of being maimed or killed for naught, Trump learns from history. He understands that no matter how many lives are lost, and now matter how many trillions it costs, there is no taming Afghanistan. Hence, we should not be investing so unwisely.
/
In the 1830's it was the powerful British Empire, in their quest to protect their interests in India. This resulted in the First Anglo-Afghan War which then resulted in the British being driven out and the British Army massacred, leaving but one survivor.
The Second Anglo-Afghan debacle began in 1878 when the British again invaded Afghanistan. By 1880, they were again driven out in shame.
In 1919 the British once again declared war on Afghanistan in what is known as the Third Anglo-Afghan War. And three months later they again lost.
In 1979 the Soviets (Russians) invaded Afghanistan, joining in the Afghan War (1978-1992). They remained until 1989. After suffering unheard of losses in blood and treasure, and with 15,000 dead in the quagmire, the Russians withdrew from the tiny country that has been the nemisis of powerful natiuons since time immemorial. This was Russia's Viet-Nam.
And now America, in 2001, invaded Afghanistan. Eighteen years later we are still losing blood and treasure, having made little real difference - the Afghans are still tribal, uncivilized and with a deep hatred of what civilized nations hold dear - democracy.
It would not be far-fetched to call our efforts in Afghanistan America's Second Viet-Nam.
And through it all, the powerful nations have learned nothing. You may get a wild lion to capitulate to the whip in a circus, but he will still kill and eat you if he gets the chance. That can never change.
And now, under Trump, we are withdrawing most of our troops, leaving only enough to hopefully prevent the resurgence of those who want to do harm to us in our homeland.
And to the thinking mind, the Washington Post's assertion that Trump's policy to withdraw is somehow "bizarre" and wrong is simply dumb. Unlike the reporters at the Post, living in luxury in the states and not in fear of being maimed or killed for naught, Trump learns from history. He understands that no matter how many lives are lost, and now matter how many trillions it costs, there is no taming Afghanistan. Hence, we should not be investing so unwisely.
/
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
"Medicare For All" - The REAL Issues
It sounds great - the government will pay for one of the most costly expenses we have. No more worries!
The main problem is simple - no matter how you slice it, we cannot afford it. Here are some reasons it simply cannot work and how it would devastate the health care system:
1) Even if we taxed billionaires AND millionaires at a full 100% it would not even come close to paying the $3 trillion plus tab each year, and growing yearly
2) Medicare only pays about 1/3 of actual costs - hospitals, doctors, clinincs etc. count on the private insurance policies to pick up the difference, which is what drives up the cost of insurance. Under Medicare For All, the insurance companies will be gone. This results in either hospitals and doctors going bust, leaving us without care, or the government would have to up the minimums they pay, resulting in higher taxes for us all
3) Medicare For All would result in much heavier burdens on the health care services. If you think it's bad to wait weeks for an appointment, or 8 hours waiting in the waiting room, just wait until tens of millions more people are trying to cut in for every little hangnail or wart.
I am truly amazed that our lawmakers are ignoring the REAL ways we can make health care not only better and more efficient, but less costly, as well. I have posted those things several times, and it does not take a brain surgeon (pardon the pun) to figure it out. For those who missed it...
1) INSURANCE. Insurance always increases the cost of things, because medical providers can charge more to insurance companies. They have to, in order to make up the difference for the discounting of costs by Medicare and self-payers (uninsured). Since the insured does not have to pay much of the bill, he has no cause to complain. This is precisely why medical providers charge much less to those without insurance.
Solution: the caps that Medicare and Medicaid put on medical services should be across the board, regardless of insurance. Doctors would not lose money as long as the following solutions are also included in the health plan.
2) EXCESSIVE TESTING. Doctors order many more tests than are necessary in order to protect themselves from expensive malpractice suits. All those unnecessary tests get expensive. Which brings us to...
3) MALPRACTICE LAWSUITS. Believe it or not there are people who sue just to try and wrangle money out of doctors and hospitals. In many cases the medical providers simply settle out of court - it's cheaper. And when they don't, awards can be in the millions, so malpractice insurance is very expensive - a cost that providers must pass on to their patients.
Solution: Put reasonable caps on awards. And only proven gross negligence should be allowable as "cause". Medicine is not cut-and-dried.science. That's why they call it the PRACTICE of medicine. Nothing is guaranteed, and doctors - just like you and me - can make honest mistakes.
4) REFERRALS. The medical community thrives on the "patient revolving door". No matter what you see the doc for, chances are he will try to automatically set you up with a "follow up" visit - costing you more money. In most cases it is not necessary. In some cases any "follow up" could be done by phone without cost.
And then there is the "referral merry-go-round". You may know that you need to see a "gut" specialist - a gastroenterologist. But you can't just make an appointment with one, because your personal care physician can't tap your wallet that way. Nope. You gotta go see him, first, and pay for that office call just to have HIM set up an appointment for you with the gut guy.
Solution: Patients should be able to make appointments directly, without a PCP go-between, if they already know who they need to see. We don't need a go-between to speak with God, so we should not need one to see a specialist.
5) PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. These are a license to steal, especially when they keep changing the use of the drug. Drug manufacturers have 7 years to profit as much as possible from their drug before the patent lapses and others can make cheaper generic versions. It's called the "exclusivity period". Designed to help them profit after investing so much into the R&D. But they often profit TOO much. They can often find another use for the drug when the 7 years is up, and can keep their monopoly on it for another 7, and so on.
Solution: First, exclusivity periods should not be permitted more than once per new drug, regardless of what is is used for. And if generics can be made so much more cheaply, then so could the original product IF the research and development costs were offset. This can be accomplished by having the government subsidize the R&D, reducing the cost to the drug maker. And by subsidizing the R & D, those costs are divided among all taxpayers, and not just the sick. If taxpayers can foot the bill for treadmills for shrimp, or tunnels for turtles, I think the health of the people should be getting first dibs on that money.
6) UNHEALTHY LIFESTYLES. This is the BIG one. If people were to choose healthier lifestyles, there would be far less need of health care to repair the damage. From the foods we choose to consume, to the amount of exercise we participate in, and to other choices such as smoking, alcoholism and drug addiction, poor lifestyle choices are responsible for more than 80% of all health issues.
Solution: Poor lifestyle choices should be taxed - those whose poor choices drive up the cost of health care should be responsible for those extra costs. Increased taxes on products such as tobacco and alcohol should be put into a fund specifically designed to subsidize health care, or cover new tax deductions on the purchase of any exercise equipment or athletic gear, to encourage exercise. Unhealthy foods and drinks should be taxed and the money collected would be used specifically to reduce the cost of healthier choices. In this way, those responsible for higher health care costs would be paying for it, keeping costs down.
The actual health CARE, and not health INSURANCE is what the government should be subsidizing.
So why don't those in the Democrat leadership want to make these simple changes to improve health care and reduce its cost? Because that is not what they want - they want government to CONTROL health care. They understand that if they control your health care, they control YOU.
The main problem is simple - no matter how you slice it, we cannot afford it. Here are some reasons it simply cannot work and how it would devastate the health care system:
1) Even if we taxed billionaires AND millionaires at a full 100% it would not even come close to paying the $3 trillion plus tab each year, and growing yearly
2) Medicare only pays about 1/3 of actual costs - hospitals, doctors, clinincs etc. count on the private insurance policies to pick up the difference, which is what drives up the cost of insurance. Under Medicare For All, the insurance companies will be gone. This results in either hospitals and doctors going bust, leaving us without care, or the government would have to up the minimums they pay, resulting in higher taxes for us all
3) Medicare For All would result in much heavier burdens on the health care services. If you think it's bad to wait weeks for an appointment, or 8 hours waiting in the waiting room, just wait until tens of millions more people are trying to cut in for every little hangnail or wart.
I am truly amazed that our lawmakers are ignoring the REAL ways we can make health care not only better and more efficient, but less costly, as well. I have posted those things several times, and it does not take a brain surgeon (pardon the pun) to figure it out. For those who missed it...
1) INSURANCE. Insurance always increases the cost of things, because medical providers can charge more to insurance companies. They have to, in order to make up the difference for the discounting of costs by Medicare and self-payers (uninsured). Since the insured does not have to pay much of the bill, he has no cause to complain. This is precisely why medical providers charge much less to those without insurance.
Solution: the caps that Medicare and Medicaid put on medical services should be across the board, regardless of insurance. Doctors would not lose money as long as the following solutions are also included in the health plan.
2) EXCESSIVE TESTING. Doctors order many more tests than are necessary in order to protect themselves from expensive malpractice suits. All those unnecessary tests get expensive. Which brings us to...
3) MALPRACTICE LAWSUITS. Believe it or not there are people who sue just to try and wrangle money out of doctors and hospitals. In many cases the medical providers simply settle out of court - it's cheaper. And when they don't, awards can be in the millions, so malpractice insurance is very expensive - a cost that providers must pass on to their patients.
Solution: Put reasonable caps on awards. And only proven gross negligence should be allowable as "cause". Medicine is not cut-and-dried.science. That's why they call it the PRACTICE of medicine. Nothing is guaranteed, and doctors - just like you and me - can make honest mistakes.
4) REFERRALS. The medical community thrives on the "patient revolving door". No matter what you see the doc for, chances are he will try to automatically set you up with a "follow up" visit - costing you more money. In most cases it is not necessary. In some cases any "follow up" could be done by phone without cost.
And then there is the "referral merry-go-round". You may know that you need to see a "gut" specialist - a gastroenterologist. But you can't just make an appointment with one, because your personal care physician can't tap your wallet that way. Nope. You gotta go see him, first, and pay for that office call just to have HIM set up an appointment for you with the gut guy.
Solution: Patients should be able to make appointments directly, without a PCP go-between, if they already know who they need to see. We don't need a go-between to speak with God, so we should not need one to see a specialist.
5) PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. These are a license to steal, especially when they keep changing the use of the drug. Drug manufacturers have 7 years to profit as much as possible from their drug before the patent lapses and others can make cheaper generic versions. It's called the "exclusivity period". Designed to help them profit after investing so much into the R&D. But they often profit TOO much. They can often find another use for the drug when the 7 years is up, and can keep their monopoly on it for another 7, and so on.
Solution: First, exclusivity periods should not be permitted more than once per new drug, regardless of what is is used for. And if generics can be made so much more cheaply, then so could the original product IF the research and development costs were offset. This can be accomplished by having the government subsidize the R&D, reducing the cost to the drug maker. And by subsidizing the R & D, those costs are divided among all taxpayers, and not just the sick. If taxpayers can foot the bill for treadmills for shrimp, or tunnels for turtles, I think the health of the people should be getting first dibs on that money.
6) UNHEALTHY LIFESTYLES. This is the BIG one. If people were to choose healthier lifestyles, there would be far less need of health care to repair the damage. From the foods we choose to consume, to the amount of exercise we participate in, and to other choices such as smoking, alcoholism and drug addiction, poor lifestyle choices are responsible for more than 80% of all health issues.
Solution: Poor lifestyle choices should be taxed - those whose poor choices drive up the cost of health care should be responsible for those extra costs. Increased taxes on products such as tobacco and alcohol should be put into a fund specifically designed to subsidize health care, or cover new tax deductions on the purchase of any exercise equipment or athletic gear, to encourage exercise. Unhealthy foods and drinks should be taxed and the money collected would be used specifically to reduce the cost of healthier choices. In this way, those responsible for higher health care costs would be paying for it, keeping costs down.
The actual health CARE, and not health INSURANCE is what the government should be subsidizing.
So why don't those in the Democrat leadership want to make these simple changes to improve health care and reduce its cost? Because that is not what they want - they want government to CONTROL health care. They understand that if they control your health care, they control YOU.
Thursday, January 24, 2019
Entire Populations of 2 Large Nations Aborted
Since Roe vs Wade in '73 there have been almost as many abortions as the entire combined populations of Canada and Australia. Over 58 million. And of those, the average pair of adults would have spawned at least 2.3 children (another 60 million never to be born), and many grand-children. I wonder how many of those would object if only they could.
It is estimated that 4% of a population would, in their lifetimes, make substantial contributions to society, such as Jonas Salk, MLK Jr, Thomas Edison. This means we have lost over 4 million important contributions since 1973. Perhaps even a cure for Alzheimer's or cancer.
And I wonder how many pro-choice people would volunteer to go back into the womb and take their chances at not being born. It is so easy to stand for something like war or abortion when your own life is not the one at risk. But what if it were?
What if the shoe were on the other foot? If SCOTUS determines that ANY inconvenient life could be ended at the behest of another? Too old? Too disabled? To Republican? Too white?
Don't laugh - it has already started. Some insurance companies in some states are already refusing to pay for expensive long-term care, but tell relatives they WILL pay for assisted suicide, saving both the family and the insurer a lot of money. The alternative is bankruptcy for the family saddled with the cost of care.
When Roe was passed, the court stated that abortion should be decriminalized, but should be safe, legal and rare. Frankly, 58 million is not "rare"...
It is estimated that 4% of a population would, in their lifetimes, make substantial contributions to society, such as Jonas Salk, MLK Jr, Thomas Edison. This means we have lost over 4 million important contributions since 1973. Perhaps even a cure for Alzheimer's or cancer.
And I wonder how many pro-choice people would volunteer to go back into the womb and take their chances at not being born. It is so easy to stand for something like war or abortion when your own life is not the one at risk. But what if it were?
What if the shoe were on the other foot? If SCOTUS determines that ANY inconvenient life could be ended at the behest of another? Too old? Too disabled? To Republican? Too white?
Don't laugh - it has already started. Some insurance companies in some states are already refusing to pay for expensive long-term care, but tell relatives they WILL pay for assisted suicide, saving both the family and the insurer a lot of money. The alternative is bankruptcy for the family saddled with the cost of care.
When Roe was passed, the court stated that abortion should be decriminalized, but should be safe, legal and rare. Frankly, 58 million is not "rare"...
Saturday, January 19, 2019
The Myth of "Toxic Masculinity"
I must say I was surprised when Gillette put out their "Toxic Masculinity" ad. I guess they just wanted to jump on the bandwagon that's going around now. Some people - and businesses - will sell their souls in search of profit. And if the people behind this foolishness actually believe in it, I pity them.
Here is the truth, for those with enough sanity left to want to understand it. First, let's look at what masculinity is, and why it even exists:
In nature, there are two genders, and each has specific functions. Females are the only ones who can give birth, and they obviously are tasked by nature to be the nurturers - after all, it would be tough for a man to breast feed. To insure the survival of the race, the male is made physically stronger (usually) and is tasked with protecting the birth-givers and the defenseless children. People of lesser intellect and understanding might object to that, but the simple truth is that it is the way of nature.
For purposes of nurturing, women tend to be more "feminine" - more tuned to the emotions, and men tend to be more "masculine" - strong enough to be protectors.
Certainly, social norms are being usurped and twisted lately by people who live to be offended, or see everyone as victims. Such people see masculinity as the reason behind bullying, fighting, wars and bad behavior in general. They seem to overlook, conveniently, that many women are also progenitors of bad behavior. Bad behavior knows no sexual orientation. Masculinity is not the cause of bad behavior any more than food is the cause of obesity. The cause is the misuse and abuse of them.
It is not masculinity that is toxic - the toxicity is a product of bad behavior, whether from men or women. Masculinity gets blamed simply because men ARE the protectors, which often requires violence, as there will always be evil in the world. The problem arises when boys are not properly raised to understand the role of masculinity, and are not taught how to use it properly. Children need to be guided, to insure they become the kind of adults that will insure our survival. Boys need to be taught from a very young age that their strength is to be used to protect women, children, the disabled and the mentally challenged, and only use their strength accordingly. They need to be taught the truth of the words of the great Khalil Gibran - Only the strong can afford to be kind, gentle.
Masculinity is no more toxic than femininity. It is the misuse of it that causes the problems. The "feminist movement" is just as toxic, turning the battle of the sexes into a take-no-prisoners war that is causing men to avoid the interactions that are necessary for the human race to survive. Intelligent people understand that children, like anything else that grows, grow best when properly cultivated. If we want better behavior from anyone, we need to teach them, and raise them well. Civilization does not come naturally - it takes diligence in raising the next generation to know their role, and to be good at it.
In nature - whether a human, a wolf or a bumblebee - males and females all have specific roles, and no role is more important than any other. But they are different. If we allow "social bullies" to bully us into making men more feminine, or women more masculine, we are dooming our own existence.
/
Here is the truth, for those with enough sanity left to want to understand it. First, let's look at what masculinity is, and why it even exists:
In nature, there are two genders, and each has specific functions. Females are the only ones who can give birth, and they obviously are tasked by nature to be the nurturers - after all, it would be tough for a man to breast feed. To insure the survival of the race, the male is made physically stronger (usually) and is tasked with protecting the birth-givers and the defenseless children. People of lesser intellect and understanding might object to that, but the simple truth is that it is the way of nature.
For purposes of nurturing, women tend to be more "feminine" - more tuned to the emotions, and men tend to be more "masculine" - strong enough to be protectors.
Certainly, social norms are being usurped and twisted lately by people who live to be offended, or see everyone as victims. Such people see masculinity as the reason behind bullying, fighting, wars and bad behavior in general. They seem to overlook, conveniently, that many women are also progenitors of bad behavior. Bad behavior knows no sexual orientation. Masculinity is not the cause of bad behavior any more than food is the cause of obesity. The cause is the misuse and abuse of them.
It is not masculinity that is toxic - the toxicity is a product of bad behavior, whether from men or women. Masculinity gets blamed simply because men ARE the protectors, which often requires violence, as there will always be evil in the world. The problem arises when boys are not properly raised to understand the role of masculinity, and are not taught how to use it properly. Children need to be guided, to insure they become the kind of adults that will insure our survival. Boys need to be taught from a very young age that their strength is to be used to protect women, children, the disabled and the mentally challenged, and only use their strength accordingly. They need to be taught the truth of the words of the great Khalil Gibran - Only the strong can afford to be kind, gentle.
Masculinity is no more toxic than femininity. It is the misuse of it that causes the problems. The "feminist movement" is just as toxic, turning the battle of the sexes into a take-no-prisoners war that is causing men to avoid the interactions that are necessary for the human race to survive. Intelligent people understand that children, like anything else that grows, grow best when properly cultivated. If we want better behavior from anyone, we need to teach them, and raise them well. Civilization does not come naturally - it takes diligence in raising the next generation to know their role, and to be good at it.
In nature - whether a human, a wolf or a bumblebee - males and females all have specific roles, and no role is more important than any other. But they are different. If we allow "social bullies" to bully us into making men more feminine, or women more masculine, we are dooming our own existence.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)