I recently returned from a short trip into the Big Apple, New York City. My self-avowed socialist friend of mine was moving and my wife and I offered to help out. To give some background for those who don’t know me well I’ve lived in central Virginia my whole life, aside from a couple months for birth in Baltimore, and a couple years that the military had me elsewhere. I have visited DC and Baltimore, briefly, and had the privilege of visiting Doha, Qatar, once. Nothing prepared me for NYC. Following are my observations.
Apparently people up north don’t pay taxes for roads. That’s the only explanation I could find, since every road I drove on seemed to have an exorbitant toll. The New Jersey Turnpike even had you pay by the mile, but the mystic code that the payments were based on remains completely beyond me.
Once we got into the city our GPS told us to take a few tunnels and plow through Manhatten. Fortunately it was a Saturday, but it still took us an hour to get over to Queens even starting uptown. Here I made another observation: You can’t see the sky. It’s like it doesn’t exist. You look up and all you see is buildings towering. When pedestrians cross the streets they took up the ENTIRE CROSSWALK. It was like a scene from a zombie movie.
Queens itself looked a lot like smaller cities, except with tons more people. It actually seemed quite pleasant, during the day, as crowds go. The natives, whether from Queens or otherwise, seemed to share a natural aversion to manners. It bordered on the bizarre. I am used to meeting people who are rude themselves. What I am not used to is the corner prophet getting fewer weird looks for shouting “REPENT!” than I do for saying “Good morning” when I, alone, pass another lone walker on the sidewalk.
Public transit in the city was relatively well organized, considering that everything up north is union ran and government funded. The prices were outrageous, but at least everything ran smoothly and on time. I would feel chained with no vehicle of my own, but I can see why people in large cities often opt not to own one.
After the grueling drive and moving all the things inside, and a short trip to the Ikea store, we spent the wee hours of the night walking to Times Square. The only word I can find to describe Times Square at night is: Insane. Utterly and completely insane. The buildings move and light up the night with their billboards. I have never seen so many people in one place. A veritable sea of humanity! After shouting down an imbecile who was too free with his tongue we stopped to eat. Another thing I’ll give NYC: They have good food everywhere. No sooner did we step out of the pizza place than we ran right into a desert shop, and the baklava was fantastic.
The next morning we rose early to go see the one thing I wanted to see more than anything else in the city. We took the subway from Queen’s to Staten Island. From there we purchased our overpriced tickets to board a ferry, bound for Liberty Island. Say what you will, seeing the Statue of Liberty is not a New York experience. It is an American experience. The emotion of it still brings tears to my eyes even as I type this, days later. Words like majestic and beautiful fall terribly short of describing the event. I can’t begin to imagine what it must have felt for the countless of immigrants who saw this as their first piece of America.
As I gazed upon her I wondered, how is it that there are Americans who are unaffected by this? How can there be those who live as citizens in the US, and yet hate her so violently? How do their minds work, that they can see this great nation, symbolized in that statue, as the source of the world’s woes?
From my New York experience, I’ve decided that it is a cool place to visit, but I most certainly am blessed to live south of the Mason-Dixon line.
From my American experience I have never been more certain that this is a country worth defending. We have been, and I hope will continue to be, the beacon of hope and freedom in a desolate world.
Monday, August 17, 2009
New York City
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Lord Specter mingles with the peasants
My source for the following is Hotair.com. Check the article here. There isn’t a whole lot to say about it that Ed Morissey didn’t already say, but as usual, I won’t let that stop me!
Encouraging news from the town square, my friends! It doth seem that the noble Lord Specter of Pennsylvania chose to grace his adoringconstituents subjects with his presence in a “Towne Hall” meeting yesterday. Things went rather smoothly until one of the serfs got uppity. Apparently he was under the impression that he had the “right” to ask questions of Lord Specter! His Grace was kind enough to allow the peasant his question, but fortunately only the one commoner got to speak.
Just in case this might have worried the common folk, Lord Specter reminded them of their position.
To which the crowd replied:
Shocking! With the way they dare question the political autocracy, you’d think these idiots lived in a democratic republic, governed by a Constitution that begins with the word “We the people” or something.
Encouraging news from the town square, my friends! It doth seem that the noble Lord Specter of Pennsylvania chose to grace his adoring
Just in case this might have worried the common folk, Lord Specter reminded them of their position.
SPECTER: I’m encouraging constitutional rights. I’m encouraging
constitutional rights by coming to Lebanon to talk to my constituents. I
could be somewhere else. I don’t get any extra pay — I don’t have any
requirement to be here. But for somebody –
To which the crowd replied:
CROWD: [Angry murmuring] You work for us! You report to us!
SPECTER: Okay, okay, number — well, I am reporting to you …
Shocking! With the way they dare question the political autocracy, you’d think these idiots lived in a democratic republic, governed by a Constitution that begins with the word “We the people” or something.
Corporal Punishment
The set up: I recently sent my wife an interesting article on the Biblical justification for spanking. She posted it on Facebook. A family member of mine responded, saying more than once that all spanking is abuse and ought to be outlawed. The following is my response.
You say that all corporal punishment is abuse, and therefore ought to be outlawed. While you’ve already seen a strong Biblical argument for the practice, here are some completely secular arguments for why you are wrong to make such a broad statement.
If we look at Webster’s definition of abuse (a verb, in this context), the applicable meaning is “to use so as to injure or damage: Maltreat”. It can also mean to “attack with words” (aka verbal abuse), and to use something excessively. Clearly one condition of abuse is the infliction of damage upon the victim, physical or mental. I take it this is your justification for your position. There is more to the story, however.
Another condition presents itself if we look into the connotation of the word. Taking a glance at the thesaurus, words that are listed as “related” include: violate, torture, persecute, torment, and others. The antonyms (or opposites) include: cherish, nurture, coddle, and favor. Something most of these words have in common is intent.
Simply causing damage is not enough. For example, if I am to administer CPR to a person I will most likely break many of their ribs. If we take your condition of abuse, then I am guilty of a crime and ought to be jailed. If the second condition is taken into account, however, we can see that my actions, while they did damage the person physically, were intended to aid them, and therefore do not qualify.
Let’s bring this all back to corporal punishment. The questions are: Does it harm the child (a very different thing from simply hurting them), and what is the intent behind it.
We will start by accepting that anyone who were to beat a child (or anyone else, for that matter) with the intent of causing damage and hurting them is abusing them and deserves to be punished.
For the majority of parents this is not the case. When I spank my daughters, I do so because they have misbehaved. The intent is not to cause pain, per se. The intent is to teach them that what they did was wrong, to prevent wrong actions in the future, and to instill in them discipline and virtue. The pain is merely a tool towards that end.
Secondly, when properly administered, there is no lasting physical harm. Depending on the child bruises may or may not form. Some people bruise more easily than others. Any and all such bruises fade quickly, however, and there is no lasting damage done. There could be more of an argument made for the mental repercussions. Even here, though, the argument falls short. Any and every form of discipline will “damage” the child mentally. Even the tame “time out” method is intended to cause social stigma and isolation.
In conclusion: Abuse requires both physical harm and ill intent. While corporal punishment can satisfy these conditions, it does not necessarily satisfy them. Properly administered, it satisfies neither.
Let’s take our discussion one step further: What of not disciplining a child at all, enough, or consistently? Here we see one of the most insidious and prevalent forms of child abuse. It satisfies both conditions.
Firstly, harm. The purpose of parenting is to train children up to be well adjusted functioning members of society. To do this you must instill certain qualities, among them discipline and integrity. Children do not possess these virtues out of the womb. They are, by nature, unruly, dishonest, and self centered. Show me the child who was well behaved and courteous from birth, and I will show you the baby Jesus. Aside from Him, it has never happened in the history of humankind. Anyone else who possesses these qualities learned them from somewhere. Being self centered, unless corrected, the child will act in a way that pleases itself. They are only convinced to act otherwise when doing so causes an unpleasant event. Whether that event be a spanking, a time out, the loss of privilege, or something else is irrelevant.
By not doing what is necessary to give the child the values it requires to succeed in life, the lazy parent has caused permanent and lasting harm to the child’s potential.
It should be noted that positive reinforcement also plays a role. I challenge you to take a toddler who routinely spits at their mother, or hits other children, and simply wait for him to do the right thing so you can praise him. Then take another toddler, and when he hits his fellow playmate, spank him. Then praise him when he doesn’t do it next time. Anecdotally it is obvious that you need both the carrot and the stick.
What of intent? Surely the parent who doesn’t discipline their child only wants them to be happy. Wrong, wrong, a thousand times wrong! The reason parents do not discipline their children is simple, and takes only three words: They are lazy.
Disciplining is tough. It is tiring. It is unpleasant. It is far easier to simply give them what they want, or carry them all day, or spoil them. It is far easier not to do the tough thing, and to discipline your children. The easy way is often the wrong way, and such is the case here. If a parent loves their child, and wants the best for them, they will put aside their own wants and do what is right for them, even when such actions are not pleasant. The parent who does not love their child will take the easy way out. The results can be seen in the behavior of their children.
In conclusion: A lack of discipline prevents children from growing into productive adults, and harms them permanently. It also displays a supreme laziness on behalf of parents. Discipline is an act of love.
If my words have offended anyone, then I regret the offense, but not the position I take. I will continue to discipline my children the way that I see fit, because I love them. Should the most effective forms of discipline become outlawed, then I suppose I should become criminal, because I love my children too much to stop.
You say that all corporal punishment is abuse, and therefore ought to be outlawed. While you’ve already seen a strong Biblical argument for the practice, here are some completely secular arguments for why you are wrong to make such a broad statement.
If we look at Webster’s definition of abuse (a verb, in this context), the applicable meaning is “to use so as to injure or damage: Maltreat”. It can also mean to “attack with words” (aka verbal abuse), and to use something excessively. Clearly one condition of abuse is the infliction of damage upon the victim, physical or mental. I take it this is your justification for your position. There is more to the story, however.
Another condition presents itself if we look into the connotation of the word. Taking a glance at the thesaurus, words that are listed as “related” include: violate, torture, persecute, torment, and others. The antonyms (or opposites) include: cherish, nurture, coddle, and favor. Something most of these words have in common is intent.
Simply causing damage is not enough. For example, if I am to administer CPR to a person I will most likely break many of their ribs. If we take your condition of abuse, then I am guilty of a crime and ought to be jailed. If the second condition is taken into account, however, we can see that my actions, while they did damage the person physically, were intended to aid them, and therefore do not qualify.
Let’s bring this all back to corporal punishment. The questions are: Does it harm the child (a very different thing from simply hurting them), and what is the intent behind it.
We will start by accepting that anyone who were to beat a child (or anyone else, for that matter) with the intent of causing damage and hurting them is abusing them and deserves to be punished.
For the majority of parents this is not the case. When I spank my daughters, I do so because they have misbehaved. The intent is not to cause pain, per se. The intent is to teach them that what they did was wrong, to prevent wrong actions in the future, and to instill in them discipline and virtue. The pain is merely a tool towards that end.
Secondly, when properly administered, there is no lasting physical harm. Depending on the child bruises may or may not form. Some people bruise more easily than others. Any and all such bruises fade quickly, however, and there is no lasting damage done. There could be more of an argument made for the mental repercussions. Even here, though, the argument falls short. Any and every form of discipline will “damage” the child mentally. Even the tame “time out” method is intended to cause social stigma and isolation.
In conclusion: Abuse requires both physical harm and ill intent. While corporal punishment can satisfy these conditions, it does not necessarily satisfy them. Properly administered, it satisfies neither.
Let’s take our discussion one step further: What of not disciplining a child at all, enough, or consistently? Here we see one of the most insidious and prevalent forms of child abuse. It satisfies both conditions.
Firstly, harm. The purpose of parenting is to train children up to be well adjusted functioning members of society. To do this you must instill certain qualities, among them discipline and integrity. Children do not possess these virtues out of the womb. They are, by nature, unruly, dishonest, and self centered. Show me the child who was well behaved and courteous from birth, and I will show you the baby Jesus. Aside from Him, it has never happened in the history of humankind. Anyone else who possesses these qualities learned them from somewhere. Being self centered, unless corrected, the child will act in a way that pleases itself. They are only convinced to act otherwise when doing so causes an unpleasant event. Whether that event be a spanking, a time out, the loss of privilege, or something else is irrelevant.
By not doing what is necessary to give the child the values it requires to succeed in life, the lazy parent has caused permanent and lasting harm to the child’s potential.
It should be noted that positive reinforcement also plays a role. I challenge you to take a toddler who routinely spits at their mother, or hits other children, and simply wait for him to do the right thing so you can praise him. Then take another toddler, and when he hits his fellow playmate, spank him. Then praise him when he doesn’t do it next time. Anecdotally it is obvious that you need both the carrot and the stick.
What of intent? Surely the parent who doesn’t discipline their child only wants them to be happy. Wrong, wrong, a thousand times wrong! The reason parents do not discipline their children is simple, and takes only three words: They are lazy.
Disciplining is tough. It is tiring. It is unpleasant. It is far easier to simply give them what they want, or carry them all day, or spoil them. It is far easier not to do the tough thing, and to discipline your children. The easy way is often the wrong way, and such is the case here. If a parent loves their child, and wants the best for them, they will put aside their own wants and do what is right for them, even when such actions are not pleasant. The parent who does not love their child will take the easy way out. The results can be seen in the behavior of their children.
In conclusion: A lack of discipline prevents children from growing into productive adults, and harms them permanently. It also displays a supreme laziness on behalf of parents. Discipline is an act of love.
If my words have offended anyone, then I regret the offense, but not the position I take. I will continue to discipline my children the way that I see fit, because I love them. Should the most effective forms of discipline become outlawed, then I suppose I should become criminal, because I love my children too much to stop.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
The Demise of America
September, 2011. In the face of increased economic stress, the government reacts to save a "failing" market. Increasing intervention in the form of bailouts and regulations cause the American market to be dominated by the public sector. Taxes skyrocket as the Federal government desperately attempts to pay for it's massive buyout of private enterprise. Meanwhile, the drug riddled government of Mexico topples, plunging our nearest neighbour into chaos. As refugees swarm over the border China reads the writing on the wall and dumps the US debt it has in exchange for gold. Left with nowhere to turn the Federal government tightens its grip further, prompting many states to secede from the Union. The Second American Revolution has begun, and chaos reigns supreme.
Science fiction, or (future) historical fact? You decide at Slate.com's "How is America going to end" series. Pick your top five disasters and see the results. They can be mundane. China takes over as superpower or overpopulation. They can be slightly less mundane. Russia hits the button, or smallpox. You can even go way out on a limb and go with an alien invasion.
My picks (as I described at the beginning of this blog):
Science fiction, or (future) historical fact? You decide at Slate.com's "How is America going to end" series. Pick your top five disasters and see the results. They can be mundane. China takes over as superpower or overpopulation. They can be slightly less mundane. Russia hits the button, or smallpox. You can even go way out on a limb and go with an alien invasion.
My picks (as I described at the beginning of this blog):
- Nationalized industries
- Tax revolts
- China unloads US treasuries
- Mexico fails
- State sovereignty movements
Once you've picked your fatal five peruse their predictions. They cover four of the "most likely" possibilities and causes, from secession to global warming. It's tough to agree with everything they spout out as fact (The world is going to go up in a ball of fire! We're all doomed!), but keep in my they are predicting the future, which is by nature a little crazy. Personally, of their four, I see the "collapse" and the "global conquest" scenarios as the most likely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
