The Straw Man...Fallacy

This is in response to Amy Bingham's article at ABC News: Romney's 47%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This seems to be a classic straw man fallacy, wherein a person’s position is altered or maligned to cause misinterpretation. Straw men are very popular in political circles. Even though the above quote is not from an opponent, as is commonly the case with straw men, it is generally known that the national media favors President Obama. If heard in passing, one could easily interpret Romney’s “telling” remarks as condescending. However, an alternative interpretation of Romney’s remarks – in the context of this very close election is that is Romney describing the 50% that almost certainly will vote for President Obama no matter what.

            Moreover, other commentators have indicated that a key challenge for Romney, if elected, would be to lift many of those in the “entitlement community” to believe that it actually is feasible to earn a decent living without reliance on government assistance. I do not think Romney was saying (or at least meant to say) that he totally disregards 50% of America's vote, as some in the media portray. No fool in his or her right mind would run for office and meaningfully say something of that nature and expect to win. If I'm wrong, however, and Romney did mean what he said, then he is simply wrong for saying it. Nevertheless, we'll never know for sure what he meant; it's open to interpretation.

            President Obama also had a slip up this week, but how quickly the media has forgotten it. (Obama: 'I actually believe in redistribution') My question is, if Obamacare Tax is such a wonderful thing, why is there a convenient exclusion written into it so that the President's family and Congress don't have to pay or abide by it? Also, how can we have a free market system when we have a president who openly "believes" in wealth redistribution?
           The bottom line is, it is not our job (or the media’s job) to defend Mitt Romney, but it is our job as free citizens to educate ourselves and vet both candidates. Both men have said things they regret. Let us not forget, however, that only one of them has had a four year opportunity to fix things and has failed. Personally, I think it's time to hire someone else for the job. Like I said, though, Romney is probably not going to be able to fix things overnight (nobody is), but at least he will start changing things into a better direction by practicing fiscal responsibility as opposed to raising taxes and redistributing wealth using Marxist policies.

Illegal Aliens

In response to Seyla Benhabib's NYT article:
The Morality of Migration
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, nobody is advocating for a permanent freeze in immigration. This country is comprised of immigrants (with the exception of the indigenous). However, in our young nations history, we have ever used immigrations quotas to help balance out the population and the economy. For example, there was a big quota on Chinese immigrants at the turn of the [20th?] century.

Anyway, this is a very slanted article. The author continually expresses sympathy for illegal immigrants while completely ignoring many of the major effects if has on people who are native to or migrated legally here. Regardless of how these children ended up here, the U.S. government is not obligated to provide anything to the children of illegal immigrants. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Consider the following:

1) A family of 4 comes across 10 orphans. The family lives on a tight budget. They know they can't possibly take in 10 orphans without themselves becoming indigent, so they do their best to support the orphans from afar- working with non-profits and other organizations.

2) A family of 4 comes across 10 orphans. The family lives on a tight budget. They know they can't possibly take in 10 orphans without themselves becoming indigent, but they take them in anyway. Months later the whole family is receiving welfare from the government.

The "liberal democratic society" the author refers to would choose option 2. History has proven over and over again that politicians cannot legislate the impoverished into wealth. It just doesn't happen. In fact, when this is attempted, it simply goes the other way leading to an expansion of the population living in poverty. Money cannot be pulled out of thin air, and the more money the government prints, the less valuable the American dollar becomes.

What about other problems caused by illegal immigration? To name a few:
Pollution: Many illegal aliens crossing the Mexican/American border have absolutely trashed our beautiful country. (Illegals Trash AZ Border) America is quickly becoming the laughing stock of the globe. We can protect the borders of South Korea, but somehow we can't protect our own?

Violence: Drug violence is exacerbated by illegal immigrants. A larger portion of our youngsters are getting involved in drugs. The higher the demand is for the drugs, the more violence is committed. It's relative. Also, over the last year or two there has been a series of vehicle incidents involving illegals who were drunk driving who ended up killing our own citizens.

Economics: There aren't enough jobs for Americans at this time. Why should we allow amnesty for illegal aliens? They have not paid into social security -or any social programs for that matter. How many illegals aliens are we paying for in our prison system? It's true they have worked on farms, but why not replace them with our own teenage youth and keep our currency in our country?

Of course we should not disregard the circumstances these people are living in within their home countries. After all, there is no reason to migrate unless one is living in an uncomfortable situation. As a nation, however, we should be condemning these oppressive/violent governments (Pakistan?)- not rewarding them by lining their pockets with money borrowed from China. Instead, we should have compassion from afar as there are already plenty of Americans who either cannot or will not support themselves and their families.

Educating Young America

In response to Gary Gutting's NYT article:

Who Should Teach Our Children?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally, I don't think the article does justice to the argument the author is [seemingly] trying to present. Simply put, when laying forth and arguing complex issues each issue deserves an in-depth analysis.

There are many variables overlooked when addressing progress in our secondary and elementary education system. Good teachers know that not all kids learn the same way and plan accordingly- but only if they’re allowed to. Though there are certainly many qualified teachers in the public sector, they are often limited in the classroom by curriculum mandates chosen by Washington bureaucrats and state officials.

Among other requirements, the absence of the above stipulations in private schools generally attracts new teachers and promotes a positive attitude and creativity in and outside of the classroom. Similarly, the lack of these stipulations allows for better, meaningful discipline, as the teacher does not need to fear a lawsuit for doing what is right.  In conjunction with these favorable considerations, charter schools (in New Orleans, for example) are proving they are capable of allocating funds much more efficiently.

From what I understand, the New Orleans charter school system mentioned above employs teachers who have completed doctorate level educations. I suspect this is because individuals with PhD level educations have a desire to learn, rather than regurgitate rigid, mandated lesson plans.

It may sound like I’m pushing hard for privatized education, but in actuality, I’m simply advocating for reduced government involvement when it comes to educating our children. It’s no secret that it is very difficult for many teachers to separate their personal ideologies and the curricula they teach from. Highly politicized public sector unions don’t help.

In conclusion, there is no "degree" that magically turns an individual into a good teacher or mentor. I do believe there does need to be some [minimum] government involvement. However, the way our public education system works now is very convoluted and restrictive. We can’t demote or let go of the teachers performing poorly without lawsuits or other frivolous processes being filed, and because of this, we don’t have the funding to hire better teachers.

Discipline? ...What's that?

In response to the comments posted by readers of a certain Boundless.org post [Saying Yes to Sex (as God Intended)], I decided I would try to smooth things out between the seemingly oppressive church and the indignant. The below post was also written in the comments section of the article:

All sins are viewed equally in the eyes of God, however, not all sin has the same consequence. I opine that the church propagates sexual abstinence outside of marriage simply because intercourse a) involves two individuals, henceforth tainting two individuals and b) is an action that cannot be physically rectified. Though lying certainly can (and often times does) lead to an unintended action, once you have had sex, you cannot 'unsex' yourself or anyone else.) The trouble with this perspective is it implies that, even after we have become renewed in the spirit, our souls and bodies are separate. Essentially it implies that we can repent and be forgiven spiritually, but not physically. As we know, however, the Bible states that once we accept the atonement we wholly belong to God and, in fact, our bodies are to be treated as temples of the Lord.

I agree the church has inflated the consequences of sexual sin, but (I believe) with good intentions in mind. However, it should be universally understood that scare tactics do not keep people from having or thinking about sex. That being said, let us not be so naive to think that sexual transgression is confined to out of wedlock intercourse.

I conclude from my life experiences and individuals I have spoken with that, from a physical standpoint, one can only combat the temptations of sexual desire with one thing this society perspicuously lacks: DISCIPLINE.

Aurora Incident

The Aurora attack that captivated the nation Friday morning was nothing short of domestic terrorism. Sadly thus far it is confirmed that 12 have been killed in the shooting while 70 more were injured, echoing the destruction of the nearby Columbine shooting in 1999. My heart goes out to the families and individuals who will be forever scarred by this heinous act. Thankfully we live in a compassionate and empathetic nation and I anticipate future support in many different forms surrounding the Aurora community in the months ahead.

It is inevitable that this shooting, the worse since the Ft. Hood incident in 2009, will further expand the rift between proponents of anti-gun legislation and constitutionalists. However, it is very important that we, as a nation, examine this attack through an unbiased lens. Due to the suspects obvious premeditation, I surmise in the upcoming weeks a gloomy, nefarious portrait will be painted of his life leading to the shooting. Also peculiar is the lack of astonishment from the suspects mother, who allegedly told officials "You have the right person..." when contacted.

Nevertheless, the crimes this perpetrator has committed are reprehensible and must not be tolerated in our society. From what is known thus far, this tragedy is to be blamed solely on a corrupt individual, James Holmes, not corrupt legislation or lack of legislation. Therefore, until the scales of justice tip against this mans favor, he will continue to be scrutinized and tried in the court of public opinion.

In the meantime, we shall continue to embrace the denizens of Aurora with our thoughts and prayers.

Marrying Well: The Broken Man Syndrome

DISCLAIMER: After much consideration and deliberation, I have decided to proceed in writing out yet another grievance in regards to singles within the confines of the church body. Though I cannot promise this will be the last, I can promise that the purpose is not to point fingers in complaint. Rather, it is to promote bridging the gap between genders and promote communication and brainstorming as to why such trends have occurred and how, together, we can encourage each other in getting back on course. That being said, this has nothing to do with any particular situation I'm in, but everything to do with the trend itself and how it effects inter-relational bonds among singles in the church. It is not my intention to begin nor will I partake in any political argument. The Subconscious Pull It's no secret that people tend to gravitate toward other people with the same interests. I still remember a sobering seminar I went to when I was younger. The speaker was dying from a terminal disease (Hepatitis) that he had contracted over the years of his rampant drug use and sexual escapades. There was a keynote in his speech that I considered especially thought provoking: If you have a room filled with random people who have never done drugs before, and place in it two people (regardless of gender) who were users but don't know each other, they will undoubtedly slowly gravitate toward one another. Seemingly bypassing the 'clean' people in the room. Though the above is clearly just a theory, there are some truths to it. You see the same phenomena in every day life: women (plural) generally flock to the nearest MACYS, while their male counterparts (en masse) high tail it to the nearest Best Buy tentatively planning to rendezvous at the Food Court (another guy thing). (Pardon the French. :) ) Keep this in mind though, you will need it to understand the rest of the article. The "Good" Husband The 1950's in America was the Golden Age. Everything flourished in the post-war economy. The marriage rate was at it's highest and divorce rate at it's lowest. Families were growing so fast that there was a housing shortage. Sears & Roebuck were selling houses faster than they could be built. The G.I. Bill made sure that colleges saw an influx of young men entering the realm of higher education. In any given group of people, if you weren't a protestant, you were probably in the minority. Likewise, if you were an idle young man, you were held in contempt by your peers and female counterparts. These young men, part of the "greatest generation", had arrived home as war heroes. They had defeated Nazism, Fascism, and Imperialism and restored security in a free world. These men had humble beginnings, though. Many suffered starvation and poverty during a great world depression and epic drought in the American mid-west (which provided bread and other foodstuffs to countries throughout the world). Now, they had seen countless atrocities and what one human was capable of doing to another. As I overhead my uncle say to someone: "I've seen more blood than you will see in your entire life". Nevertheless, many men came home and traded in their uniforms for their Sunday morning shirt and tie hoping for a life of peace and prosperity. They knew what it was like to live without. They knew what it was like to experience death and inescapable fear. They knew they needed to count their blessings. Of course, some cheated and did other terrible things, generally they knew they had to sacrifice for their committed marriage and make good husbands. (That being said, many also had socio-psychological issues later in life, but that's a different topic). They didn't dare embarrass their family in front of their church or community. Fast forward to contemporary America and consider the young men in our broken society. Very few choose to take responsibility for their actions. This is usually because their parents failed to hold them accountable when they were younger. Indeed even their parents failed to hold them accountable for their actions. This laziness has been degrading the protestant work ethic and promoted entitlement for generations. (Obviously the same applies to young woman, but for the sake of the article we're focusing on men). Yes, in this recession there is a lot of poverty and suffering going on. However, one way or another some men still tend to get what they want without working very hard (or living in government housing on government checks and food stamps). Whether it's a pack of cigarettes, lotto tickets, alcohol, voyeurism (strip club) or any other vice. It's much easier to support yourself and your desires than to sacrifice for others. How sad and selfish! Ladies it is imperative to understand that until a man can grasp what it means to live "without", continually honors his commitments and takes responsibility for himself and his actions while simultaneously maintaining his relationship with Christ, he will not graduate to manhood. Taking responsibility is not easy, and usually it happens forcefully, not willingly. It usually requires one to rise to the occasion and sacrifice in order to provide for [whoever it may be] regardless of age. However, this is no reason for leniency. It is merely the making of a man. In fact, leniency can be debilitating and emasculating in some cases. Broken Man Syndrome It is important, however, that we not confused leniency with kindness and courtesy. After all, there is a stark difference between saying 'no' to someone and simply walking away leaving them wondering. Kindness and respect should be a goal all Christians strive for, regardless of gender. I (and other men in the church) have witnessed an increasingly popular trend. It goes something like this: young boys get raised up in a church. They make it through elementary school and maybe middle school. Then by high school young men are seemingly gone from the equation. If these boys do return to church, it usually isn't until they are in their mid-late 20's, and they bring a lot baggage with them. Nevertheless, they have returned and proclaimed their life has been miraculously restored by God. Then it begins, regardless of what they've done or where they have been, the young single woman (who openly complain about the lack of viable men in their congregation) seemingly swoon. Then soon after he arrives, he begins dating the nicest girl in the church. This, of course, leaves the men who remained in the church when they were younger scratching their heads. There are obviously countless variables for this. However, I have some theories: The Excitement Factor- Women like meeting new people and hearing stories. I think this is especially true in smaller congregations. I'm sure it's very exciting to meet a new man and hear of his experiences. Maybe this is some sort of Christian version of Bad Boy Syndrome? ...Or will many simply claim that women are simply attracted to the testosterone and confidence of that particular man. The Brokenness Factor- This goes back to the first segment of the article. I think it is possible some women gravitate toward men who share a mutual past. (Similar to the poor father/poor husband theory). Just because a man has not walked away from his faith at some point does not mean his faith has not been tested. Living as the world lives for a few years should not be a requirement for marriage. The Competition Factor- Many woman vs. one new guy. This is self explanatory. The Fix-it-Up Factor- OK, this one is widely speculated amongst Christian men. Basically, women like ,no, love a man they feel they can change. Especially if it has to do with changing mannerisms, etiquette or a general change of heart. Again, Bad Boy Syndrome? The Appearance Factor- Ever notice how men who live in the world tend to physically look strapping, well built and well groomed? Of course you have! It's no secret men in the church aren't as appealing, whether it's because they are not a quarter-back or it's because they are balding. By the way, in ancient Greece it was said that bald men were the wisest. (An adage I still believe is true!) At any rate, ladies, the Homer (minus the blindness) that greets you at the door as you walk in every Sunday is probably just as much of a man than the new guy (a basketball player) who sits behind you during the service. In summation, I think it is very important that whoever reads this takes into consideration that this is not a rant against woman in the church, but a caution and advisement. That is to say, these are words of love- not spitefulness. Ladies, the next time you are feeling irritated about singleness and the thinning crowd of young men in your congregation, think twice about the men that are in your congregation. Sure, they may need some maturing (maybe even a light slam across the face to wake them up). Regardless, I implore you to think deeply about what it takes to be a man and what you can do you encourage them. If the men in your church are still not doing the asking, call on the church matrons and ask them what you can do to drop hints. Hints are OK, but don't do any asking. After all, you don't want to be too lenient!  Nevertheless, it is important to recall that we have a just God and His mercy extends as far as the East is from the West. He is able to do anything He pleases. It is He who walks and teaches among the "lowly" in society and picks them up and it is only He who has the ability to change and mold the hearts of men. That being said, He is able to save even the most vile, evil and lost of mankind, and when He does, no matter the circumstances, it is most certainly cause for celebration and thanksgiving. Peace be with you all.